Separately and ironically, after bitching about "single-issue voters" and "litmus tests" involving abortion, it seems I'm now exhibiting the same traits with respect to the intarwebs.
If I favor the first, I'm more beholden to my corporate overlords.
If I favor the second, the country's spiral towards bankruptcy will speed up.
If I find an independent who feels as I do, my vote will be effectively wasted.
Nothing quite like feeling completely disenfranchised.
If I favor the second, the country's spiral towards bankruptcy will speed up."
Didn't the "spiral towards bankruptcy" really put the pedal to the metal when Reagan doubled-down on nukes, pushed lower top-line tax rates, and doubled the national debt and deficit at once?
And, for the record, both parties are beholden to corporate overlords. Just a matter of degree. I fall in the "commerce with regulations and literally promote the general welfare" side of the fence, and so I fall in the democratic camp.
When it actually comes time to vote, those holistic views are chucked in favor of what the candidates are actually saying. In that context, there has rarely been a group not in the second category.
It also explains why my voting for the last few elections has tended to lean more towards Democrats, even though I have so many philosophical issues with the party.
Same here. The more I understand about our government, political, and financial/economic system, the fewer issues I think are really crucial. Most are wedge/noise/dog-whistle type stuff by comparison.
Contact form: http://wyden.senate.gov/contact/
For all their flaws, politicians are much more likely to pay attention to issues when they know an engaged audience is watching.
Just traveling with "an unusual amount of cash" can get your money taken from you on a traffic stop even if they don't find any evidence of you selling narcotics.
But property -- cars, domain names, cash, etc. -- is not human, and therefore is not protected by our Bill of Rights. Your domain name does not have the right to a trial, and so, when it is accused of being an accessory in a crime (e.g., the domain name was a person who set up the meeting between the customer and the purveyor of stolen IP), the government is within its authority to detain it and keep it locked up for as long as is deemed necessary.
(Not that I buy this bizarre logic, but that's the rationale for asset forfeiture.)
The 5th amendment says citizens shall not be "deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." In the US, police can currently take your car, money, or other possessions without even placing you under arrest. This seems to me to violate the spirit of this amendment as well as the 4th.
For example, if my wife were to commit a crime, they'd take her away from me without giving me any kind of hearing to protect my interests in her. And believe me, my interest in her is much stronger than in any domain name, or a car.
The only difference in this hypothetical is that she, being human, gets to have her own hearing. But with inanimate objects (or intangibles), there's not even an obligation to give the object a hearing.
Disclaimer once again: I disagree with my own logic here, I'm just trying to play devil's advocate, illustrating the course that an argument might take.
(I challenge anyone to prove otherwise. I hope I lose.)
 This logic is often used by police departments to rob people of cash/cars on the theory they are somehow involved in drugs.
The more I think about it, the more I think that we need to extend the Bill of Rights.
(the links posted by mschwar99 below displayed as 'visited' in my browser, so I had to check it out on searchyc.com!)