I just need to get this off my chest. From the New York Times Opinion page we have a tedious hack job from a so called 'Card-Carrying Civil Libertarian' who says amongst many enlightened things the following pandering nonsense. (This was written some months ago, so the tedious ratfucking political side of it does stand out a bit more than it might have at the time.)
I blocked out the names as much as possible since the content of the discussion is the relevant part.But BBBBBB’s approach to the subject is that of a top-down progressive. BBBB speeches about privacy suggest that BBBB has boundless faith in the power of experts, judges and ultimately herself to strike the correct balance between privacy and security.
Moreover, the core constituency that cares intensely about civil liberties is a distinct minority — some polls estimate it as around 20 percent of the electorate. A polarizing president, who played primarily to the Democratic base and refused to reach out to conservative libertarians, would have no hope of striking a sensible balance between privacy and security.
AAAAAAAA, by contrast, is not a knee-jerk believer in the old-fashioned liberal view that courts should unilaterally impose civil liberties protections on unwilling majorities.
Hmm. How about "We hold these truths to be self evident" or perhaps the entire framework built into the constitution and related documents which help avoid the tyranny of the majority. So who the fuck cares about these civil liberties being imposed on us by experts and judges besides some deranged minority? Better reach out to the untold masses of conservative libertarians and their sensible balances. Sounds like the usual republican "Father knows best" bullshit.
I really hope that this was just a particularly cynical Modest Proposal.
Either was I really need a drink.
3 comments:
By all means have a drink, but disregard the ratfuck bastard who wrote the drivel adduced above; just because he (I'm guessing he...women are generally more sensible) doesn't want any Civil Liberties imposed upon him doesn't mean the rest of us have to go without.
I (he said, smuggly) just forwarded $100 of the Federal Blood Money Bribe, oops, that is to say, Economic Stimulus Payment, to the ACLU. I know, pissing into the wind, but what the hey-it's my piss, and my (metaphorical) clothes getting (metaphorically) wet.
In case you are wondering, the comment deleted was mine. Mysteriously, it was the same as the comment which I had just posted, which I didn't feel was pithy enough to be posted twice.
Carry on, don't mind the interruption.
Post a Comment