Well, I am now the Black Sheep of my family. Okay, not really, I know they still love me– but, like many other non-Obamaniacs, I’m the only one of my clan who is not voting for Obama today, and I know my parents are very concerned about it. Like many others I have met, they have had some trouble accepting that my position might actually be valid and well-reasoned. Even my grandmother, a lifetime Republican, has switched teams this time around. She wrote to me about it:
Believe me it was not an easy decision. Most of my friends were having the same difficulty as I since we weren’t really sold on either one. It came down to this. McCain can possibly die in office as his health hasn’t been the greatest and Obama could very well be assasinated and the thought of Palin being president was a scarier thought than Biden. When Colin Powell supported Obama that helped me decide also. I’ve been a Republican all of my life so believe me it was not as easy decision. Richard, Brian and Jane and Bob [my uncles and parents] also are Democrats. Well, the deed is done and I hope things will improve for all of us. Feel free to use me on your blog.
Okay, Grandma, I will! 
Or, in an even more extreme case that Michael J. Smith observed of two leathery old boater gents on a dock in Massachussets:
Finally one of the old boys came right out and asked: “So — who yah gonna vote fooah?
His friend paused a moment, sighed, then replied, “Ah hell, the niggah, I guess.”
I find this all very fascinating. Evidently I am the one who has missed the boat here by not boarding the U.S.S. Audacity Of Hope when I had the chance.
A couple of weeks back, Dennis Perrin wrote something that really resonated with me:
You see this with numerous Obama followers as the election appears to be nearly over. Most reactionaries have given up and are lighting cigarettes in their crumbling bunkers, awaiting occupation. This emboldens online libs, finally given the chance to bellow victoriously, and baby, are they making the most of it. What the hell. It’s not as if they have any real political say in the process, so why not mimic their right wing cousins from the early Bush era and yell about their unique love of country, and how they’re gonna retake and remake America. There’s no point in directly confronting this emotional tide. It’s gathering a frenzied speed, and nothing, no matter how accurate or fact-based, will slow it. So, losers like me will spend these final days watching this wave rise and crest, noting its velocity, awaiting its crash. For once Obama’s sworn in, the wave will become a cesspool of shattered fantasies, feeding resentment not of Obama and his inner-circle, but of those who said all along that “change” was a sham.
Now, I admit I can’t really come up with concrete evidence to prove that what Perrin predicts will come to pass– that Obama supporters will take out their frustrations on naysayers like myself. But it just feels right to me. I guess it could just be my own oversensitivity due to the way that Nader supporters have being served up as hash over the last eight years for the sins of our ruling elites (both Republican and Democrat). Yes, the situation will (presumably) be different this time, in that the Democrats won’t actually lose it this time around. And so it may very well be an irrational fear, and I understand this. But I still feel it.
I think that, for now, I will not fight to sway Democratic partisans to my viewpoint. My goal is simply to try to get them to understand that my viewpoint can, in fact be considered a valid one– it’s just that we hold different starting axioms from which we draw our conclusions.
Well, maybe there’s some hope of drawing a little bit of rhetorical magnanimity from Dems for a while, as they’ll be in a good mood from all the win win win they’re about to experience. The real test comes in a year or so, when even after (if all follows my expectations) they’ve been in control of House, Senate, and Presidency for long enough to effect all that hopey change they say they want, Obama and his team have still managed to keep the evil status quo completely upheld. Will they then still be in a mood to listen to arguments that, in fact, it is NOT the fault of any Republican noise machine– but just their own? We shall see.
In the meantime, I’m going to go over to Punkass Marc’s latest thread now and join in on what I hope will be a very fruitful dialogue.
I think for some of us it isn’t a question of big, dramatic change with a capital “C”, at least not status-quo shattering political revolutionary change. It’s more about incremental changes in the direction you’d prefer, and minimizing the influence that the nutbags in American life have. I’ve had my irritations about Obama (the FISA vote outraged me), but he’d be a vast improvement over what we’ve had over the last 8 years.
If you have this much restraint, I’ll be both happy and surprised. For every time some Democrat blamed Nader for Bush 2000, there’s at least three instances of some Naderite bellowing loudly to all who can hear about the total lack of difference between the two parties. I have yet to see any Green spend half as much effort promoting their own stance as attacking others’, but if you can pull it off, more power to you.
MH, I think this may be selection bias on your part. We all feel criticism more keenly, and remember it longer, when it is directed at ourselves– especially when it comes from those that we feel should be our allies. Greens certainly do spend a lot of time deconstructing mainstream liberal arguments, but then again, so do Democrats spend a lot of time deconstructing mainstream conservative arguments. One person’s bellowing is another’s spirited oratory (cf: the “Dean Scream”).
Quin, you are neither a black sheep nor do I believe that your position is not well reasoned (but valid —that’s another story) I think your perspective is quite different by not actually being in the states most of the last few years. Unless you subscribe to total anarchy, which I doubt that you do, we need to reverse course and do it quickly. We really can’t go too much further in the direction we have gone and have much left to salvage. I like many others disagree with some of Obama’s policies and often wish he took more progressive stands, and yet I view those concerns as minor in the big picture. Policies are really just intentions that need to be negotiated to become realiity.
Obama has shown vision and competence in his campaign and I expect this will translate into effectiveness. I am enthusiatic of the basic tone that I believe an Obama administration will inject into society. I see thoughtfulness and competence coming back into style. And that in my mind trumps a principled non-vote.
I also have the perspective of living through the 60s and 70s and remembering those election well. Then we truly had no good choice, Humphrey v Nixon? Humphrey was not bad in many ways, but never backed away from LBJ until it was way too late and had the added baggage of the ugly Chicago convention. In 72, not sure if I voted for McGovern or not, I’m getting my years confused, but I may have done a protest vote for the “Peace and Freedom” party.
This year I voted for Obama without reservation. Maybe it has something to do with reading his biography describing his community organizing days. His stories bring back memories and I can very much relate to many of them.
Uh oh, I’m in trouble now! This is great, actually. I never see parental units engaging in blog discussions anywhere. The family that blogs together… uh… frogs together? Hmm, I’ll try to come up with something catchier.
Anyway– Hmm. Well, I’m kind of hoping for “valid” someday too. Guess I’ll take what I can get, though. I do think that my living abroad has shaped my political views, but that doesn’t mean it’s shaped them into something false. If anything, I am not exposed to the daily propaganda which you lot are, and I could just as easily argue that you should thus take my opinion over yours. I don’t actually feel this way either, but I’m just sayin’. I do wish that I could share the perspective you’ve gained from your longer life, but I suppose if I’m lucky enough I’ll get to do just that myself in not too many years.
Absolutely, Obama is competent– given the wrongness of many of his views, this is no virtue for me. I’m still waiting to see the vision– all I’ve seen so far is triangulation. However, I am planning on reading Obama’s books when I come home to visit over Christmas, so perhaps this may have some effect on my views of him. I do hope that his heart really is as pure as his more positive supporters, like yourself, contend, but he’s done a masterful job of fighting for the status quo (FISA, the bailout bill) while still preserving the love of people who he isn’t actually helping.
Anyway, though I’m not down with Obama, the way I’m currently thinking, NO presidential candidate who is a “realistic” choice (as anointed so by the MSM) could possibly satisfy me. And I’m thinking that paying attention to these national races at all is a distraction from taking part in fights that eventually the powers-that-be might actually feel compelled to listen to… regardless whether those powers call themselves “Republican” or “Democrat” or “Kang and Kodos”.
As for the ruin our country is headed toward now, compared to the supposed not-ruin it would have if Bush hadn’t won/stole either election, that’s a debate I don’t have the time to properly get into right now. I will say that, yes, things would probably be slightly better right now– but not necessarily by enough to merit believing that we’d be living in a vastly different world. Long story there, though, and probably fodder for a different post. (One which I’ve promised to write before…)
Not me. If Obama doesn’t win (ha! yeah, right) I won’t care how anybody voted. It’s a democracy; that’s the whole point; people vote their conscience, period. If anybody in said democracy doesn’t like the way that sometimes turns out, there are several other countries with different governmental models that they can choose to live under.
Hey Lisa, I’m guessing you meant for this comment to appear in Marc’s thread…?
Nope, I was responding to you where you said, “Now, I admit I can’t really come up with concrete evidence to prove that what Perrin predicts will come to pass– that Obama supporters will take out their frustrations on naysayers like myself.”
Oops, I forgot to put in the second sentence: “Same goes for if Obama does win and turns out to be nothing more of a continuation of the current regime.” That might clarify a little better what I was responding to. Sorry bout that!
Ah. Gotcha. Well, I appreciate the sentiment, and I’m happy that my irrational fears are misplaced with at least one Democrat out there.
You’re also physically located in Japan. Even if every single other one of ‘em decides it’s all your fault, that’s gotta give you some sense of security.
I’m passing familiar with the sentiment…….
I tend to share your misgivings about this guy. There are quite a few legitimate reasons why, but since I am not American, it’s really a moot point anyway. I mean, it’s not like the U.S. matters or anything….
I ran across a page that lists a couple things that I have concerns about…
Since plagiarism…er, citation is easier than typing…
1. CAMPAIGN FINANCING
2. His past / current relationships with Pretty Scary Dudes(tm)
3. Ideology
From: http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=OGFhOWY3YTZkMzliYjFjYTlkMjNjMGNhMTc3ZjYyMWM=&w=MA==
I don’t personally have an issue with Obama per se….I do take issue with some of the policies he advocates, but that’s simply political opposition. (For the record, I support some of his policies, like Universal Health Care).
No, what worries me is the obvious shilling for (and manipulation of information about) political candidates. The American news media has widely been regarded as among the worst in the world for decades, barely pulling themselves above tabloid journalism on rare occasions, but typically more “entertainment” than news…
But the LA Times holds on to a copy of a videotape of the Presidential Candidate ostensibly celebrating the work of an important terrorist figure?
The NY Times calls anyone not voting for Obama “Stupid” “uninformed” and “racist”?
Nobody in the media is even SLIGHTLY interested in who the guy is, or what his past is like? This information is not relevant to voters? Isn’t informing the voters of that kinda stuff, like, the media’s JOB?
There were a lot of dirty tricks, and nasty things said and done in this election (as usual), but never before has the American populace been so blatantly misled.
And all the secrecy, lies, and partisanship on the part of the MEDIA worries me, far more than one guy in an expensive suit.
So, while I will enjoy watching Democrats thoroughly screw things up without the benefit of Republican scapegoats, the politics don’t really matter. In the end, they’re all the same.
If you were to ask me what the most damaging aspect of this election has been, I’d have to strongly consider calling the “switcheroo” on public campaign financing to be the most troubling… I firmly believe that money should not have a strangle hold on ideas, nor should the popularity of a viewpoint determine it’s validity. And the writer of this NRO article is indeed correct….Obama did effectively ensure that no Republican would ever agree to public financing, or indeed ANY campaign finance reform, after this action.
One positive though?
The “Race Card” is gone forever……..
Factory, in response to part of your post:
1. CAMPAIGN FINANCING
This actually doesn’t bother me as much as it should on paper. Public financing of campaigns is not, in and of itself, an objective good – the point is to reduce or eliminate the phenomenon of the rich being able to buy a candidate. Now, certainly, public financing would accomplish that, but what I hadn’t stopped to consider was that it wasn’t the only way. By expanding the donor base to millions of small donors, the importance of any single large donor is dramatically lessened; what favors could some CEO that contributed $30,000 demand from Obama? He can raise that much while tying his shoes. Obama found another way around corporate control of candidacy; the real question is whether this will ever work again, for someone who isn’t as well-liked and charismatic.
2. Pretty Scary Dudes: like who? I’m not afraid of Wright, or Ayers (with whom Obama didn’t even have a relationship worth the name). Rezko is kind of a scary dude (although more just unpleasant than actually frightening) but again fails the relationship test. So I don’t know what you’re on about, here.
You know who I AM afraid of? Hagee. Liddy. North. Falwell. Pat Roberts. Yuck.
And after that you lose me, going off the deep wingnut end with NRO and phony ‘tape’ stories and phony media bias (regardless of what the media personally believe, on camera they were if anything biased in ways that favored McCain greatly).
The whole public campaign financing thing is something I haven’t read up on enough to have a worthwhile opinion. But more generally, Factory, I agree that the media is really being worthless now, but it’s nothing to do with how they report on Obama’s personal life. I really don’t care about that. I care about his record as a politician and his record of statements regarding public policy. And the media isn’t partisan. It’s just pro-corporate.
Not sure the “Race Card” really is gone forever. We need to see whether and how often charges of racism get thrown at honest critics of Obama’s policies first.
Honestly, I didn’t see a lot of evidence of this occurring during the campaign.
Violet, do we take this to mean that the ones leveled were “justified”? By whose measure?
MH, it is far easier to move money through a ton of small cash transactions than it is in large ones (ask the Mob, they’ll tell you). I’m not stupid enough to believe that a ton of those donations didn’t come from a single, or very few, sources. I’m also not stupid enough to believe the Republicans won’t do the same damn thing (or something similar) next time.
Public financing of elections is (ostensibly) to allow the public to vote based on the merits of a position, rather than who has a better “marketing” budget. It is this spirit that Obama betrayed in my eyes, and given his destruction of the very concept of regulated campaign finances as a viable political option…..big money will win. Always.
Because big money can mask itself as little money pretty easily….they don’t actually have to hire a bunch of people to write checks anymore…
As for the media, my personal observations fall pretty squarely in line with the media studies that claim Obama was covered favourably more than McCain was covered at all…
Pretty striking.
Oh, and the LA Times admitted they had the tape. If it’s so innocuous, how come it STILL hasn’t been released to the public? Don’t you think it’d be a good idea to be sure before you make this man privy to the highest of Top Secret information?
Cause I’d sure think so… And if the “vetting” process is so good and there’s nothing to worry about….why “hide the evidence” until after the election (at least)?
But, like I said, my issue with the guy is purely one of academic interest. There’s no way you guys will ever get as socialist as we already are…so no “worries” there, and really, it IS going to be fun watching the Democrats and “intelligentsia” search for a reason other than “Ooops, I fucked up” when stuff goes wrong.
Cause seriously, blaming Republicans (and GW Bush) for everything under the Sun is a Democrat’s most annoying behaviour. From where I stand, there’s pretty much NO difference between your “two” parties. But then, we have 5 major ones here….and several “issues” parties.
As for the security implications of this election? Frankly, I think your nation is going to “appease” itself into utter destruction. Neville Chamberlain would be proud.
I hope to move to the Pacific Rim before that happens though…
Quin:
I agree, the personal life of the candidate is not “fair game” to the media, unless the candidate campaigns using their family as a prop. However, friendships with, say, mob bosses…would you call that “personal life” or is it germaine to whether or not you feel he should be given the keys to the country? I’m not even talking about Obama specifically (or Sarah Palin for that matter, but I’m not accusing anyone of anything)…any politician, even a fictional one, will do for this example.
Consider what a media that controls the information the public is allowed to see can do to a populace. I’m sure there’s more than one Marxist here, who truly believes the government needs a “channel” to “communicate directly with the people”. There’ve been a few papers (news sources) created for this purpose, Pravda being one of them.
Now, if you guys want to go all Communist/Totalitarian and stuff, be my guest.
But all this financial shadiness, media support (which I believe actually greatly influenced the election, if only through keeping certain pieces of information from the public, and “promoting” others). WHO the media supports is 100% irrelevant.
The thing that should scare the shit out of you is that the media has as much power to shape elections as it does.
The creation of a “citizen’s army” is frighteningly familiar as well. About 50 odd years old…but familiar.
Violet:
Here and there, it does pop up. Although in fairness, all of the examples I’ve seen so far were about white people who were either criticizing Obama for adopting stances of entitled white people (the folks at Black Agenda Report can obviously get away with that argument a lot more easily) or, in this week’s example, unwisely using racially charged language in regards to our new black president-elect (even if it was, strictly speaking, in the proper context).
Factory:
Re: media: oh, it does. And I’m pretty sure I’m not the only one besides you to feel that way here.
Re: citizen’s army: unless Obama starts training his various civilian “corps” in weapons use, or even just having them sing patriotic songs about their fair leader every morning, I’m not going to be too worried about that aspect of an Obama presidency. It’s true there are a lot of Obama cultists, but my hope is that with a little bit of therapy, they can be reintegrated into society.
I love the Onion.
Er, but they aren’t saying calling critiques of Obama’s policies racist. They are, in fact, doing the exact opposite. They’re saying—and I agree—that in taking control of a white-supremacist capitalist patriarchy, Obama has to embody, well, a white-supremacist capitalist patriarch. They’re saying that Obama is racist, or at least, must embody racist ideals.
Critiques of Nader’s “Uncle Tom” comment are more in line with what you were talking about, but let’s be fair—Nader didn’t just pluck that particular phrase out of the ether. He very carefully picked the phrase most likely to sour a symbolic victory and anger everyone for whom Obama’s election held real meaning and the hope for racial justice. And he did so at a time when that anger was guaranteed to do nothing but make people pissed at him, and thus keep him in the news for a little longer. And, hey, it worked! Seriously. What possible good could that comment do, when he made it? Did he expect everyone celebrating in the streets to gasp collectively and say, “My god, you’re right! Despite providing no new evidence, nor even a substantial argument, merely by slinging a racially-charged slur, you have convinced us to reject the first black president! NOBama, NOBama, …!”
Has there been any election in the past, say, 40 years that hasn’t been effectively controlled by mainstream media? Is there any evidence that it’s becoming more of a problem—because my suspicion (and it’s only a suspicion) is that corporate media is becoming less pervasive, less hegemonic, and altogether less powerful, at least in the developed world. And if this trend exists, I strongly suspect that it’s going to continue for the forseeable future.
Er, but they aren’t saying calling critiques of Obama’s policies racist.
I think maybe I wasn’t clear enough there. I didn’t say they did– I was pointing to Silber because he has claimed to have been called racist for his views, and linking BAR mainly to reinforce that Silber’s views could reasonably be considered legitimate. But, Silber refused to link his own chargers of racism at the time he later wrote of it, and I didn’t feel like trawling anti-Silber comment threads for charges of racism– I was kind of taking his word for it. Who knows, he could just be playing the victim. I doubt it though.
On Nader, I disagree strongly with your view (which you’ve expressed before) that he’s just a glory hound seeking to impose his own selfish ego in another news cycle. That’s the mainstream media’s preferred narrative at work, yet again. However, if you don’t mind, the issue over Nader’s general worthiness to the human race is one I’d prefer to take up another time. As for this particular non-issue, I suppose you could be right that Nader was trying to harsh the mellow of all the people believing in Obama right now; but that’s his job. He, and any other third-party candidate worth their salt, really truly believes that both Democrats and Republicans won’t work in the peoples’ interests. And if he really believes that Obama is likely to sell out black peoples’ interests in particular, it’s perfectly valid to make that criticism, even at a time when large numbers of black Americans are celebrating their first black president.
But it was extremely dumb to use language which will antagonize folks who might otherwise be swayed if he just used terminology which didn’t start people’s “racism” alarms ringing whenever a white guy is the one to use it. Whether it was an intentional cynical ploy (as you suspect) or just him trying to find a novel way to make the same point he’s made about a zillion times before in other smalltime radio appearances over the past year.
On media, I think you’re more or less right, except that there’s never been the same kinds of worldwide media monopolising that’s been going on now. And this has a huge effect. The MSM, once again, chose the candidate– it’s just that this time around (or at least, this is what I’ve been arguing), the corporate elites found Obama a much more palatable spokesman than McCain. And rightly so! Obama’s way more comforting to listen to.
As for the liberating power of the internet (that is the direction you were hinting at, right?) it’s a very real thing. But for it to continue, it requires our internets to remain free– a future which is not assured.
“But for it to continue, it requires our internets to remain free– a future which is not assured.”
Then I guess we all have to cut off the voices of Political Correctness whenever we hear them.
Not quite the same “freedom” I was talking about.
Damn, that link wasn’t the one I thought it was. Anyway, it still demonstrates the point, a little. Our ability to hop around on a worldwide internet requires the countries/companies which the actual, ehrm, “series of tubes” runs through to agree to keep it free. (That is the correct technical terminology, right? Hell, I don’t know. Google doesn’t seem to work too well for me any more.) (Another way it could become not-free, by the way. If Google turned out to be an Illuminati plan for world domination.)
Quin! Never speak of Those Who Must Not Be Named!
Now I have to go to the nearest Patriarchy(tm) chapterhouse and flog myself with Victoria’s Secret thongs dipped in Laquer thinner until I am purified once more.
Thanks for nothing.
Feminist.
As to the internet thing, the restrictions placed on free speech and diversity of thought is easily as big of a threat.
Ah, okay, I misunderstood. It wouldn’t surprise me if someone called Silber a racist—but then, someone will call someone racist for just about anything. I was thinking of hypothetical situations where critiques of racism overwhelm critiques of Obama’s policies, which I haven’t seen.
(Silber’s parody of gospel call and response at the start of that post did strike me a bit off, but I’m not extremely familiar with his writing and the past posts he’s referencing, so I’m not sure what to make of it.)
(Also, if having Obama in the white house does nothing but expose racism in our culture, from within Fox News to within progressive movements, it may still be worth it.)
I don’t think he’s a glory hound. I don’t think he’s acting selfishly, per se. I think he actually believes that the message he’s carrying is very, very important, and that nobody else has the will or the means to say it loudly enough, on enough channels, to make it heard.
Which shows how out of touch he is.
Look, I’m probably harder on Nader than I ought to be. He’s done more to help actual people than I probably ever will, and that deserves some credit. But he and his supporters—particularly the ones following him around after 2000—so thoroughly embody the electoral-activism-as-radical-activism confusion that it frustrates me to no end. If nothing else, it’s just sad watching thousands upon thousands of hours of activist energy get poured into this utter black hole.
I don’t think he pulled “Uncle Tom” out of thin air because he was at a loss for words. “Uncle Sam… or Uncle Tom” was obviously practiced, it was obviously intentional, and the intention, I think, was to garner attention for his message. I don’t know whether he expected the backlash, but that shouldn’t have come as a great and terrible shock, either.
Nader said something very specific. He said, “The thing we have to ask is, will Obama be a race traitor?” A white man saying that very, very different meaning than a person of color saying that, because it’s a very, very different thing for a white man to police the boundaries of race than it is for a person of color to do it. Particularly a white man who isn’t an anti-racist activist, and hasn’t worked in the movement—but it would be problematic even then.
You know, I don’t think that’s entirely true. I really do believe that most people in charge of the Democratic party and most media outlets expected Clinton to take the nomination, and eventually the presidency.
I know that’s not exactly a major point—all the front-runners for both parties nominations had been judged, effectively, “relatively harmless” by the political machine. And, honestly, I think that’s far and away the most substantial part of the media’s influence—certainly, it’s the most intentional part. And sure, beyond that, the news machines clamp onto and amplify compelling stories, but I think the way in which they do so is on the whole pretty random. If you want your stories to get heard, you just need to have a potent and widely-distributed narrative, increasing the chance it’ll get pulled in by the echo chamber. McCain’s problem, rather like Gore’s, is that he didn’t have a narrative at all.
I know I should be all excited over net neutrality. It’s a classic geek issue, and I do think it’s important—certainly, it’s been instrumental in the Internet’s growth thus far. But seriously? The most repressive governments in the world are waging a constant, expensive, and ultimately losing battle against the Internet. Hell, they’re waging a constant, expensive, and ultimately losing battle against cell phones and post. I’m just not all that worried.
Actually, stated like that, your general criticism of Nader sounds valid to me. Although if I go along with your point of view– that electoral-activism-as-radical-activism is a lost cause– you’ll bring me right back where I was a couple of months ago, when I was arguing against voting at all. Marc brought me back a bit from that stance by throwing Kant’s Categorical Imperative (you should act in the way that, if everyone else in the world did the same thing, the result would be good) at me. But if, as I believe you’re arguing, it’s true that to support “impossible-to-win” third parties just takes resources away from more important forms of activism– I may just have to revert back to my previous point of view on the matter. Because, you know, that sounds pretty reasonable to me. That’s pretty much the same as one of my arguments for why one shouldn’t bother to support Democrats on a national level– if it’s true from third parties, too, then it’s hurting our ability to make change, not helping it.
Well, I’m splitting hairs here, but what he said was, “The thing Obama needs to ask himself is, does he want to be a race traitor?” So if you want to parse language in a legalistic way, he was telling Obama to do the policing– while using words sure to get a blindly negative reaction if a white guy uses them. I dunno, maybe you’re right and it was all very intentional. The kind of careful distinction I just made lends itself to your argument– it says Nader knew just what he was doing when he said that. In the end, it doesn’t matter that much to me, though– not only the context was one where Nader was arguing for bettering conditions in the black community, but Nader has proven himself on Civil Rights many times over (even if he’s not someone whose central issue is anti-racism). But you’re right, it is annoying when a message gets overshadowed by this kind of shit.
On net neutrality, hey, don’t blame ME when you wake up tomorrow to discover that it’s become a felony to blog across state lines!