Last night I had a discussion with a close friend after he posted this political cartoon on his Facebook wall:
The caption accompanying the cartoon read: “Government is public. You can control and vote on what you do not like. Corporations are private, you have almost no control.”
The cartoon is self-explanatory to anyone who has been following the recent revelations that the National Security Administration (NSA) has been collecting phone and internet
The cartoon is an excellent example of what many, especially those whose views tend to fall on the left end of the political spectrum, have been struggling with as this security saga unfolds – is our elected government really the bigger enemy to true liberty, or is it the corporations that run – and in many cases, ruin – the lives of Americans every day?
The federal government bailed out the powerful and “too big to fail” banking and automotive industries during the nationwide economic collapse that we are still reeling from, but it failed to help millions of Americans who were struggling with payments on sub-prime mortgages that they were encouraged, by government, to take on in the name of increased home ownership, resulting in nationwide foreclosures by private mortgage companies on individual homeowners, many of whom were trying desperately to make payment arrangements to hold on to their homes.
In its 2010 Citizens United decision, the Supreme Court of the United States held that corporations could spend their own money to support or oppose political candidates through independent communications such as television ads, effectively establishing them as “people” whose First Amendment right to “free speech” in the political arena could not be violated. The ruling was significant because it removed the previous ban on corporations and organizations from using their funds for direct advocacy, freeing them to expressly endorse or call to vote for or against specific candidates – actions that were previously prohibited.
Thus, corporations hold huge sway over our government, in addition to our every day personal lives. Corporations decide who gets hired and fired, who gets foreclosed upon, who may get elected, whether you get the medical treatment you need, and which targeted ads you see on your computer screen through keyword tracking algorithms. And while we may have no real recourse against a private corporation, as citizens in a representative democracy, we do have recourse against our elected officials – we can vote them out.
As so many Facebook arguments related to politics go, things got really heated really fast. My friend – if I understood his argument correctly – insisted that corporations’ unchecked power over people and the government is more insidious than what is happening to Americans’ privacy in the name of national security. He said that pitting the government’s abuses against corporations’ abuses and deciding that the government was worse was a false dichotomy, for all of the reasons I gave above.
I insisted that when our government is doing the things it tells us it’s not doing (see NSA Director James Clapper’s less than truthful Congressional testimony about data collection on Americans from March of this year), then we actually don’t have the accountability from government we should have because we don’t know what’s happening to us and can’t act to correct it with our votes. In fact, in many cases, the representatives who approved the laws under which these top secret surveillance programs operate weren’t fully briefed on what they were voting on and also contend that the executive is going beyond the letter of the law. When that happens, how do we obtain accountability for what I believe is a gross violation of our Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable searches and seizures without probable cause?
Additionally, the government has a tool at its disposal that corporations, for all of their admittedly bad acts, do not – the legal use of force and detention against its citizens. People like Senator Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Representative Peter King (R-N.Y.) have called for the arrest and prosecution of NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden in the name of national security. Even more frightening, yesterday King called for the arrest of Glenn Greenwald, the reporter for the UK-based Guardian newspaper who interviewed Snowden and first revealed the NSA’s internet surveillance program, PRISM. This, on the heels of the Justice Department spying on the Associated Press and Fox News reporter James Rosen, should be terribly disconcerting to anyone concerned with civil liberties, regardless of political affiliation.
My friend and I have agreed to disagree on this issue, and he has since removed the entire post and argument from his Facebook wall. Politics does not happen in a vacuum separate from relationships, but we are not willing to sacrifice a friendship over this difference of opinion. It remains, however, a huge difference.
As I have said before, those who were critical of the Bush administration’s intelligence-gathering policies should be just as critical of those adopted by the Obama administration. Both presidents were re-elected while these programs were ongoing. Had Americans known what was really going on, I don’t know if the outcomes of those elections would have been any different. A new Washington Post/ Pew Research Center poll suggests that Americans are willing to accept some encroachment on their constitutional rights in an effort to continue this “war on terror” we’ve been fighting for over a decade. But if we had known then what we know now, at least the electorate would have been more informed. And to me, true accountability of our government to the people it governs can only happen when those people actually know what’s going on – and do something about it.
Amy Lazenby is the associate opinion editor at FITSNews. She is a wife, mother of three and small business owner with her husband who splits her time between South Carolina and Georgia. Follow her on Twitter @Mrs_Laz or email her at amy@fitsnews.com.
***
43 comments
“There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to
govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters”
?
Daniel Webster
I learned to debate in the Daniel Webster Debate Room.
Why is the letter S likely to prove dangerous in argument? Because it turns words into s-words.
“There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to
govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters”
?
Daniel Webster
I learned to debate in the Daniel Webster Debate Room.
Why is the letter S likely to prove dangerous in argument? Because it turns words into s-words.
So much for the,’liberal’ designation.You’re a fraud,and a pawn in Will’s game..(if you can call it that)
You watched any Rachel Maddow lately? Pretty sure she’s bitching about the same thing, and I’m pretty sure she’s a liberal. You can’t be serious.
Go take your dick out for a walk…
So much for the,’liberal’ designation.You’re a fraud,and a pawn in Will’s game..(if you can call it that)
You watched any Rachel Maddow lately? Pretty sure she’s bitching about the same thing, and I’m pretty sure she’s a liberal. You can’t be serious.
Go take your dick out for a walk…
For the most part, I can pick and choose which corporations I chose to do business with. I can’t do so with the government, under our social contract theory of government, I only have one. And the intelligence budget is a closely guarded secret. Target may want to sell me things, but I have no idea what the government’s agenda is. Moreover, Target, Verizon et cetera are limited by the law – THEY NEVER get to go to “secret” courts to ask for warrants to get more information about me when what they have is not “enough.” The government has the power to “enforce” the law. The also clearly have the power to act outside of it with no consquence as well.
This should be alarming to all freedom loving citizens – since 2000 to present we have had a cadre of USAG’s who have said – in essence that if the President does it, it’s constituional(?!?!)
And we’ve had “gasp” both a Democrat and a Republican since tha time. Who knew that if gave the government cart blanche with the “PATRIOT ACT” they would take a mile? (Note: Sarcasm). The PATRIOT ACT is, was, and remains a horrible idea. Am I the only one who thought, “hmmm, secret courts, what’s your redress to a ‘secret court?'”
Meanwhile, Lindsey “let’s do away with habeus corpus” Grahm is rushing to a call for prosecution of the whistle blower. Interestingly, the whistle blower in this situation did not say, “hey, the government is investigating per x, or corp. y, without real probable cause” et cetera, and therefore ‘ruin’ some otherwise beneficial ongoing investgiation. What he said was “the government is in the midst of essentially investigating everyone.” Government replies:
GWB “If you’re not doing anything wrong, who cares if I invade your privacy?”
BHO “Seriously, it’s no big that I am invading your privacy.”
Next President “I have all your e-mails, phone call, voice mails, exact whereabouts and financial transactions for the last 25 years, you sure you want to question me about anything? Seriously, a third term, and extended term, quadripling my salary? Disbanding Congress? Seroiusly, bring it, I have your whole life in a microscope – and in effct your ability to have a job, healthcare, loans, issues you back due speeding tickets and do just about anything I want so I thinks it’s best if you don’t question me, capiche?”
For the most part, I can pick and choose which corporations I chose to do business with. I can’t do so with the government, under our social contract theory of government, I only have one. And the intelligence budget is a closely guarded secret. Target may want to sell me things, but I have no idea what the government’s agenda is. Moreover, Target, Verizon et cetera are limited by the law – THEY NEVER get to go to “secret” courts to ask for warrants to get more information about me when what they have is not “enough.” The government has the power to “enforce” the law. The also clearly have the power to act outside of it with no consquence as well.
This should be alarming to all freedom loving citizens – since 2000 to present we have had a cadre of USAG’s who have said – in essence that if the President does it, it’s constituional(?!?!)
And we’ve had “gasp” both a Democrat and a Republican since tha time. Who knew that if gave the government cart blanche with the “PATRIOT ACT” they would take a mile? (Note: Sarcasm). The PATRIOT ACT is, was, and remains a horrible idea. Am I the only one who thought, “hmmm, secret courts, what’s your redress to a ‘secret court?'”
Meanwhile, Lindsey “let’s do away with habeus corpus” Grahm is rushing to a call for prosecution of the whistle blower. Interestingly, the whistle blower in this situation did not say, “hey, the government is investigating per x, or corp. y, without real probable cause” et cetera, and therefore ‘ruin’ some otherwise beneficial ongoing investgiation. What he said was “the government is in the midst of essentially investigating everyone.” Government replies:
GWB “If you’re not doing anything wrong, who cares if I invade your privacy?”
BHO “Seriously, it’s no big that I am invading your privacy.”
Next President “I have all your e-mails, phone call, voice mails, exact whereabouts and financial transactions for the last 25 years, you sure you want to question me about anything? Seriously, a third term, and extended term, quadripling my salary? Disbanding Congress? Seroiusly, bring it, I have your whole life in a microscope – and in effct your ability to have a job, healthcare, loans, issues you back due speeding tickets and do just about anything I want so I thinks it’s best if you don’t question me, capiche?”
While there is room for abuse, and there needs to be accountability, how do we eliminate surveilence and yet still be able to detect terrorist activity? What is the alternative?
Surveilence may not prevent every episode of terrorist activity, but no doubt it has thwarted at least a few. Would they have occurred without surveilence? If they had, would we be willing to let them occur as the ‘price of privacy’?
Does Israel do this type if thing? Would we even know if they did? If they don’t, what do they do instead?
“Because it might save lives” is not a good reason to strip people of their constitutional rights.
Surveillance could also be used on every highway and interstate to catch speeders, aggressive drivers, jaywalkers, etc., which obviously results in more deaths than terrorist acts in the US do year-by-year. We could make mandatory fat camps, diet programs, and medicine regimens for overweight people, people with diabetes/high cholesterol/high BP, or generally anyone who is sick with anything, against their will under the guise that it will let them live longer. We could drug test every person in the country every month and jail anyone who fails the test to keep drug users off the street and REALLY have a War on Drugs.
Where do we stop? If we are so willing to throw away our right to privacy just to stop a small handful of attacks at best, what else can we fight without those rights? If we are going to prosecute whistleblowers for making horrid things public, just how horrible should things get? Do events like the Boston bombing prove this shit doesn’t work, or does it prove we haven’t been stripped of enough rights yet?
Government’s job is to represent the people, not oppress them and strip them of their rights under a false pretense of “protecting” them. Government should be bound by law and work within the confines of those laws, the ultimate bounds being the Constitution itself. It shouldn’t be stripping away everyone’s freedoms “to protect everyone’s freedom.”
And yes, people are going to have to accept that limitations on the government’s power may very well result in a few terrorists not being stopped. However, when you grant such powers to government, how long will it take for the government to become the actual terrorists? And what can you do against a surveillance-state government that oppresses, censor, or silence the people? Complain? Protest? Revolt? How well does this work for China?
We should be fighting our known enemies, not potentially arming a future one.
Obama just became as shitty as Bush.
The thing I’ve been wondering about is why Snowden chose China. Going to China to protect your rights is like going to McDonalds for nutrition.
It doesn’t make much sense to me.
While there is room for abuse, and there needs to be accountability, how do we eliminate surveilence and yet still be able to detect terrorist activity? What is the alternative?
Surveilence may not prevent every episode of terrorist activity, but no doubt it has thwarted at least a few. Would they have occurred without surveilence? If they had, would we be willing to let them occur as the ‘price of privacy’?
Does Israel do this type if thing? Would we even know if they did? If they don’t, what do they do instead?
“Because it might save lives” is not a good reason to strip people of their constitutional rights.
Surveillance could also be used on every highway and interstate to catch speeders, aggressive drivers, jaywalkers, etc., which obviously results in more deaths than terrorist acts in the US do year-by-year. We could make mandatory fat camps, diet programs, and medicine regimens for overweight people, people with diabetes/high cholesterol/high BP, or generally anyone who is sick with anything, against their will under the guise that it will let them live longer. We could drug test every person in the country every month and jail anyone who fails the test to keep drug users off the street and REALLY have a War on Drugs.
Where do we stop? If we are so willing to throw away our right to privacy just to stop a small handful of attacks at best, what else can we fight without those rights? If we are going to prosecute whistleblowers for making horrid things public, just how horrible should things get? Do events like the Boston bombing prove this shit doesn’t work, or does it prove we haven’t been stripped of enough rights yet?
Government’s job is to represent the people, not oppress them and strip them of their rights under a false pretense of “protecting” them. Government should be bound by law and work within the confines of those laws, the ultimate bounds being the Constitution itself. It shouldn’t be stripping away everyone’s freedoms “to protect everyone’s freedom.”
And yes, people are going to have to accept that limitations on the government’s power may very well result in a few terrorists not being stopped. However, when you grant such powers to government, how long will it take for the government to become the actual terrorist? And what can you do against a surveillance-state government that oppresses, censors, or silences the people? Complain? Protest? Revolt? How well does this work in China?
We should be fighting our known enemies, not potentially arming a future one.
Obama just became as shitty as Bush.
The thing I’ve been wondering about is why Snowden chose China. Going to China to protect your rights is like going to McDonalds for nutrition.
It doesn’t make much sense to me.
One of these days I will have to find and frame the cartoon Pett did of me.
One of these days I will have to find and frame the cartoon Pett did of me.
Dear Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury, this piece of evidence submitted for your review is a classic example of a Jane Fonda “Wanna-be”…. problem is for Amy ….she has no clue of where Hanoi is…!!!? Just like Jane Fonda made coy mistakes with her march through “CNN” in the late sixties; Mrs Lazenby has made critical mistakes in her march through FITSNEWS today..!!!
First of all jury members, this fine skirt wearing woman has the guts to illustrate the corporate influence on privacy but yet FAILS to actually get a detailed account of how the corporation of the perfume she wears while typing this piece of work is getting our troops killed for OIL…!!? Jury members, this is a clear example of “dereliction of femi-nazi duty”..!!! How dare Amy make the connection to corporations on Privacy but yet FAIL to tell the readers just how much OIL is used to produce and ship her SKIRT to the store she bought it from…??
Secondly, jury members…..this piece underscores the problem with the women we have in NEWS today..!! Amy can scream about Trayvon Martin all she wants too..! But does she have a clue of how many fine minorities (and majorities) that serve in uniform are getting killed for the OIL that is used everyday in police cruisers across our country….?
Thirdly, jury members…….we wonder if AMY has any clue how her “privacy” can be used against the corporations doing business in Syria ….TODAY..??
In closing…..we want this fine jury to ask themselves..”Does FITSNEWS want to be better than the Post and Courier…or NOT..?
You and Grand Tango sound a lot alike.
“This piece underscores the problem with the women we have in NEWS today..!!”
WTF? And then you go on to talk about how oil production affects her skirt? That’s pretty damn sexist. And the comparison to Jane Fonda is… I don’t even know what you’re talking about. Calm down with the exclamation points and question marks, dude, and work on being less of a sexist and making some sense.
Oh, and she was right on the mark with her article.
Dear Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury, this piece of evidence submitted for your review is a classic example of a Jane Fonda “Wanna-be”…. problem is for Amy ….she has no clue of where Hanoi is…!!!? Just like Jane Fonda made coy mistakes with her march through “CNN” in the late sixties; Mrs Lazenby has made critical mistakes in her march through FITSNEWS today..!!!
First of all jury members, this fine skirt wearing woman has the guts to illustrate the corporate influence on privacy but yet FAILS to actually get a detailed account of how the corporation of the perfume she wears while typing this piece of work is getting our troops killed for OIL…!!? Jury members, this is a clear example of “dereliction of femi-nazi duty”..!!! How dare Amy make the connection to corporations on Privacy but yet FAIL to tell the readers just how much OIL is used to produce and ship her SKIRT to the store she bought it from…??
Secondly, jury members…..this piece underscores the problem with the women we have in NEWS today..!! Amy can scream about Trayvon Martin all she wants too..! But does she have a clue of how many fine minorities (and majorities) that serve in uniform are getting killed for the OIL that is used everyday in police cruisers across our country….?
Thirdly, jury members…….we wonder if AMY has any clue how her “privacy” can be used against the corporations doing business in Syria ….TODAY..??
In closing…..we want this fine jury to ask themselves..”Does FITSNEWS want to be better than the Post and Courier…or NOT..?
You and Grand Tango sound a lot alike.
“This piece underscores the problem with the women we have in NEWS today..!!”
WTF? And then you go on to talk about how oil production affects her skirt? That’s pretty damn sexist. And the comparison to Jane Fonda is… I don’t even know what you’re talking about. Calm down with the exclamation points and question marks, dude, and work on being less of a sexist and making some sense.
Oh, and she was right on the mark with her article.
Dear Fred Story (WTMA),
Yes, we see you snickering behind your microphone at Amy. Bucko, we highly suggest you ask Tara “Ser-Vacious” if she would stand to be associated with such an article as this..?? Think of how “Tara” was a corporation in the movie “Gone with the WIND”..?? Fred Story….your no idiot, so stop smiling in the morning and start acting like your on a C-17 over Syria..!!! You may find yourself out of a job and begging Wil Folks to shine his shoes…!!!
Ah, what’s the matter Fred Story…..don’t read FITSNEWS..?? …..we highly suggest you start because Mayor Riley does every day at LUNCH..!!
Fred….let me ask you a question, “What game is WTMA playing?…do you know? ”
Fred…..let your fingers do the walking and ask yourself who has better personnel in the comment section?
FITSNEWS…..or WTMA..??
FITSNEWS….or Military TIMES..??
FITSNEWS ,…..or SKIRT Magazine….??
Fred……your a very smart man, the question is, how fast can Amy and Tara figure out where advertisers are GOING…??
Fred Story…..you might want to pick up the phone and give Brian Hicks a call…or a chat next Wednesday………your PENSION is personal isn’t it…??
Do you realize it is under attack..??
Dear Fred Story (WTMA),
Yes, we see you snickering behind your microphone at Amy. Bucko, we highly suggest you ask Tara “Ser-Vacious” if she would stand to be associated with such an article as this..?? Think of how “Tara” was a corporation in the movie “Gone with the WIND”..?? Fred Story….your no idiot, so stop smiling in the morning and start acting like your on a C-17 over Syria..!!! You may find yourself out of a job and begging Wil Folks to shine his shoes…!!!
Ah, what’s the matter Fred Story…..don’t read FITSNEWS..?? …..we highly suggest you start because Mayor Riley does every day at LUNCH..!!
Fred….let me ask you a question, “What game is WTMA playing?…do you know? ”
Fred…..let your fingers do the walking and ask yourself who has better personnel in the comment section?
FITSNEWS…..or WTMA..??
FITSNEWS….or Military TIMES..??
FITSNEWS ,…..or SKIRT Magazine….??
Fred……your a very smart man, the question is, how fast can Amy and Tara figure out where advertisers are GOING…??
Fred Story…..you might want to pick up the phone and give Brian Hicks a call…or a chat next Wednesday………your PENSION is personal isn’t it…??
Do you realize it is under attack..??
Dear Bobby Harrell,
WOW, are you shocked that Amy failed to mention your “input” to privacy in the state of South Carolina..?? We are not because we know Amy Lazenby like the back of Rush Limbaugh’s hand…!!
Bobby, considering Amy’s stance on “privacy” …who do you think she will support in the Senate campaign? Nancy Mace or Lindsey Graham..? Who are most of YOUR campaign donors going to support..?? How would that matter to the fine “personnel” here in the FITSNEWS comment section..??
Bobby, on a lighter note, did you happen to catch that article about the “Mural” competition that the City of North Charleston is having for the BIG OIL TANK at the end of Montague Ave.??? The first thing that came to my mind was a big head picture of YOU, Pierre Manigault, and Mayor Riley with the oil shipping company logo etched on the foreheads…!!!
Bobby, you need to put down that SKIRT Magazine you read at the Sea Biscuit and start reviewing the tactics that Amy Lazenby is using to interest her readers here on FITSNEWS……your advertising donors will want to know..!!
Bobby…….if you asked anyone that reads FITSNEWS or the Post and Courier if they knew where you were leading them…would they KNOW..??
Bobby….you have a problem…
Care to tell us what you’re blabbering on about using regular sentences? You do go off-topic as much as BigT.
Dear Curious “George”……..
If Amy Lazenby is so concerned about corporate “privacy” then how come mothers who buy your nursery books to read to her child get flyers and discount coupons in the mail for diapers and baby food from GERBER..?? How does Gerber help support the US Aide effort today in Syria…or NOT.?
Mr. Curious, are you not curious to know if Amy understands how Gerber food is delivered..?? Do you wonder if Wil Folks would love to have Gerber as an ADVERTISER to this website..??
Mr. Curious are you not “curious” as to why Amy did not tie “privacy” and Gerber, and Google to Oil pipelines in Syria..??
The only one “off-topic” is ….Amy..!!
We are “curious” if Amy wants to “win” anything..?
You are clearly insane.
I’m “curious” to know if he is the “split” in BigT’s personality ,,,
Dear Bobby Harrell,
WOW, are you shocked that Amy failed to mention your “input” to privacy in the state of South Carolina..?? We are not because we know Amy Lazenby like the back of Rush Limbaugh’s hand…!!
Bobby, considering Amy’s stance on “privacy” …who do you think she will support in the Senate campaign? Nancy Mace or Lindsey Graham..? Who are most of YOUR campaign donors going to support..?? How would that matter to the fine “personnel” here in the FITSNEWS comment section..??
Bobby, on a lighter note, did you happen to catch that article about the “Mural” competition that the City of North Charleston is having for the BIG OIL TANK at the end of Montague Ave.??? The first thing that came to my mind was a big head picture of YOU, Pierre Manigault, and Mayor Riley with the oil shipping company logo etched on the foreheads…!!!
Bobby, you need to put down that SKIRT Magazine you read at the Sea Biscuit and start reviewing the tactics that Amy Lazenby is using to interest her readers here on FITSNEWS……your advertising donors will want to know..!!
Bobby…….if you asked anyone that reads FITSNEWS or the Post and Courier if they knew where you were leading them…would they KNOW..??
Bobby….you have a problem…
Care to tell us what you’re blabbering on about using regular sentences? You do go off-topic as much as BigT.
Dear Curious “George”……..
If Amy Lazenby is so concerned about corporate “privacy” then how come mothers who buy your nursery books to read to her child get flyers and discount coupons in the mail for diapers and baby food from GERBER..?? How does Gerber help support the US Aide effort today in Syria…or NOT.?
Mr. Curious, are you not curious to know if Amy understands how Gerber food is delivered..?? Do you wonder if Wil Folks would love to have Gerber as an ADVERTISER to this website..??
Mr. Curious are you not “curious” as to why Amy did not tie “privacy” and Gerber, and Google to Oil pipelines in Syria..??
The only one “off-topic” is ….Amy..!!
We are “curious” if Amy wants to “win” anything..?
You are clearly insane.
I’m “curious” to know if he is the “split” in BigT’s personality ,,,
The Obama Administration is CORRUPT. Quit blaming everybody else, to muddy the water.
The reason liberals and attorneys are so keen on “DIALOGUE”..if they can talk, they can talk you out of the TRUTH…even when they are CAUGHT red-handed…
The only way liberals can avoid being accountable for their massive and repeated failure, is if they can talk the stupid out of seeing reality….That’s what Lizenby is trying to do…
I give this one to you ………