Browse By

Why Do Bloggers Care So Little About The Freedoms They Depend Upon?

By and large, bloggers’ coverage of today’s vital Senate hearing has been pathetic. Oh, there have been a few bright spots. There were articles from Everyone is a Sith, Constitutional Blog, and well, not a lot more than that.

blog stories on durbin amendment and arkham asylumAccording to Google, today’s top blog post is Miley Cyrus Deletes Twitter Account! from The Hollywood Gossip (no, no link juice for that article – find it yourself).

There are a million things that bloggers were writing about today, but the totalitarian Patriot Act reauthorization was not one of them. As the chart above shows, there were many more times more blog posts about Arkham Asylum, the newest Batman video game, than there were for the Durbin Amendment, which either last week or this week would have represented a last ditch attempt to preserve a scrap of Americans’ constitutional protections from unreasonable search and seizure.

Why do bloggers care so little about the freedoms that they depend upon? I have a depressing theory: Republicans don’t want to blog about the issue because they like having a big government with immense, Constitution-crushing powers. Democrats don’t want to blog about the issue because they like having Democratic politicians in power more than they appreciate the Constitution. They’re embarassed at what their leaders are doing, but don’t want to seem disloyal. And political independents? 95 percent of political independents just don’t care about any political ideals. They admire cotton candy with more depth than they admire the Constitution.

That leaves, well, barely enough people to populate a village with one traffic light. If you’re one of them, congratulations for making it this far.

Now despair.

13 thoughts on “Why Do Bloggers Care So Little About The Freedoms They Depend Upon?”

  1. Jim says:

    I agree with your ideas about why this is happening. Republicans love crushing freedoms and the same partisan Democrats who jumped all over the Bush administration for this are covering their ears and going “NANANANANANA” now that the Democratic Party is in charge and doing the very same thing.

  2. ReMarker says:

    It must escape some people there is a real threat from terrorist willing to detonate a nuclear bomb in our country. 9/11 is a good example of the lengths crazies are willing to go to cause America harm.

    Please consider this; A sovereign country (America) must have smart, informed, and strong leadership to be effective here and in the world at large. The objective is to have good leaders, not leaders with no power. The adjustments to the Patriot Act being proposed, are regulations that reduce the potential for abuse. Even with a reduction of abuse potential, abuse is always still possible (another reason for good leadership). The same dynamic exists in all levels of government, including the police on the street. GOOD LEADERSHIP REQUIRED!!! Our Constitution is a guide and no more inerrant than the Bible. More often than not, a position of absolutism doesn’t allow for the anomalies (terrorists).

    It is our (citizens) responsibility to be reasonable in supporting good leaders. In the thinking process of pursuing reason, it is important to avoid being naive.

    I expect many/most blogs embrace the propositions of my comment and those propositions contribute to the reason, “the totalitarian Patriot Act reauthorization” isn’t a high priority article today.

    Is your perfect being the enemy of good? (Rhetorical)

    1. Peregrin Wood says:

      Who, ReMarker? Who? Have you been listening to Juval Aviv again? Who is the terrorist with the nuclear weapon waiting in the United States? Name names. Tell me where the nuclear weapon is. Show me the evidence.

      You are wallowing in the politics of fear, ReMarker.

      ReMarker has not been drinking the Kool Aid. ReMarker has been swimming in the Kool Aid Sea.

      Will you follow the Democratic leadership anywhere, ReMarker?

      “Is your perfect being the enemy of good? (Rhetorical)”

      Look, ReMarker, having a series of laws that enable the maintenance of a gigantic electronic and physical surveillance network by the American government against its own citizens is not, not, not, not, good. It is bad.

      The Constitution gives leaders power with very clear rules. You, following your Democratic Party leadership, now seem to believe that those rules don’t apply when Democrats are in power.

      We’re not following you down that path, ReMarker. It’s the path of a totalitarian nightmare.

      The Democrats have become what they campaigned against. We’re not going to watch it happen and pretend not to notice.

      Defend the policies of Bush and Cheney all you like, ReMarker. We’re here to engage in open debate, and we’ll meet your cynicism with idealism blow for blow.

  3. Jim says:

    The Constitution not being a “guide” but a legally constraining document must escape some people.

    Warrants must escape some people.

    Democratic hypocrisy must escape some people.

    1. ReMarker says:

      Parse the words Jim, (I say sarcastically). As a “guiding document” for our democracy is my meaning, as ALL the laws and bylaws are not included.

      I won’t be surprised if you “edit” your comment (as you have done before), changing the logic of my reply to you.

      Re: Warrents
      The warrent requirements are addressed in the legislation. Regardless, the truth remains, IF THE GOVERNMENT WANTS TO GET YOU, YOU ARE GOT, warrents or not.

      1. Jim says:

        I’m not at all surprised that you, who have splashed us with this particular cocktail of conspiracy that someone’s out to getcha online and that we all need to follow our leaders in order to be good sheep citizens, are splashing us with it again. The only thing I’m surprised about is that after your last dramatic “good bye, cruel world, i depart, weep not for me” scene you came back to start all over again.

        The Constitution is the supreme, binding law of the land.

        Finally, warrants are not “addressed in the legislation.” The legislation does not provide for warrants. The legislation regards warrantless surveillance. You don’t know what you’re talking about. Why pretend that you have read the legislation when it’s clear that you haven’t?

        1. ReMarker says:

          Interpret my words to your meaning if you must. Again, it is interesting talking to you guys (this is a good-bye cruel world departure?) (Rhetorical) If you don’t want me here then ban my IP. Otherwise,,,

          Patriot Act Warrents link;

          FYI: To alter posts is to be corrupt.

          1. Peregrin Wood says:

            ReMarker, have you even read the legislation, or are you like Senator Amy Klobuchar, and you’re just repeating what someone has told you is true?

            You threatened: “IF THE GOVERNMENT WANTS TO GET YOU, YOU ARE GOT, warrents or not.”

            Is that the new Democratic Party slogan, ReMarker? How very Republican of them.

          2. Jim says:

            Regarding other provisions for surveillance, “warrants” nominal or otherwise are not obtained.

          3. Jim says:

            I’m altering your posts? That’s just paranoid. Look up the word “corrupt.”

            Regarding sneak-and-peek, particularly, you’re right, I’m wrong. They are called “warrants.” They’re not constitutional warrants.

          4. ReMarker says:

            You altered your post and that affected the sense of my reply.

            Corrupt; to degrade with unsound principles.

            A principle employed on reputable blogs is “NEVER ALTER” posts by blog staff or commenters without an explaination. That “degrades” understanding and interferes with a causal information exchange. Another principle employed by reputable blogs is avoid twisting a commenters meaning by misrepresenting their intent in a reply.

            But, do as you wish, ofc. I don’t care if I.T. is corrupt. I’m just happy to know.

          5. Peregrin Wood says:

            I’m loving it, ReMarker Orwell. You’re so turned around that you’re defending Democrats as they embrace the worst policies of Bush and Cheney, but accuse us here at Irregular Times of being corrupt because we dare to criticize Democrats from a progressive perspective.

            I hope that you can get up in the morning, look at yourself in the mirror, and shake off this new right wing costume you’re wearing.

          6. Jim says:

            Oh, gimme a break. It’s not my post and I didn’t alter your comment. The week before last you were accusing hackers of plotting against you by using your name, when it was really just a wordpress software bug that I exercised more than due diligence to try to address. It’s an interesting pattern.

            And call us disreputable, but we reserve the right as what we do to edit our own blog posts for clarity, for grammar, for content, and for the little itty bitty birds outside our window. I hear one of the birds now. She’s speaking to me right now, but I can’t tell you what she’s saying. It’s a conspiracy, and you’re not in on it.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Psst... what kind of person doesn't support pacifism?

Fight the Republican beast!