Posts Tagged: politics

Text

deadbeatrice:

pravacouture:

campaignsick:

image

this was actually the first fight i had with my ex…….giant red flag

Biggest pet peeve (if you can even call it that) ever! Like congratulations on having such a cushy life that you falsely believe politics don’t affect you, how nice it must be to have all your fundamental rights how convenient it must be to not give a shit about others

(via kantpunch)

Source: campaignsick
Link

In Two Days Archie Will Be Shot To Death Saving His Best Friend – Who Is Gay

thelunaticyouarelookingfor:

thepoliticalfreakshow:

Gone are the days when comic books were somewhat mindless and wholly removed from the realities of the day. Archie Andrews first came to life in 1941 at Riverdale High School. On Wednesday, he will die a hero, saving his best friend, Kevin Keller, from an assassin’s bullet.

In the final installment of “Life with Archie,” the grown up Archie will make a profound statement about gun control, likely one conservatives will despise.

Kevin Keller, Archie Comics first gay character, “is a married military veteran and newly elected senator who’s pushing for more gun control in Riverdale after his husband was involved in a shooting,” Mashable reports.

"The way in which Archie dies is everything that you would expect of Archie," said Jon Goldwater, Archie Comics publisher and co-CEO. "He dies heroically. He dies selflessly. He dies in the manner that epitomizes not only the best of Riverdale but the best of all of us. It’s what Archie has come to represent over the past almost 75 years.”

"We wanted to do something that was impactful that would really resonate with the world and bring home just how important Archie is to everyone," said Goldwater. "That’s how we came up with the storyline of saving Kevin. He could have saved Betty. He could have saved Veronica. We get that, but metaphorically, by saving Kevin, a new Riverdale is born."

Holy shit.

Source: thepoliticalfreakshow
Photo Set

thinksquad:

Just a couple weeks ago, we had written about a federal lawsuit concerning whether or not the Justice Department needs a warrant to put a tracking device on cars. In a very prescient manner, a bunch of our commenters started discussing what would happen if they found such a device on their car, and whether or not it would be legal to remove it. Well, now we have a case of exactly that happening.

Apparently a guy named Yasir Afifi, who lives in Silicon Valley, discovered a strange device on his car, when he took it in for an oil change. The friend he was with took some photos and posted them to Reddit, asking if it meant the FBI was after them… or if it was a bomb:

Lots of people in the thread quickly confirmed that it was a tracking device, made by a company who only sold to law enforcement. Then, to confirm things, a couple of days later, the FBI showed up to demand he return the device.

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101008/03035211331/guy-finds-fbi-tracking-device-on-car-posts-pics-online-fbi-shows-up-demanding-it-back.shtml

http://www.wired.com/2010/10/fbi-tracking-device/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%253A%2520wired27b%2520%2528Blog%2520-%252027B%2520Stroke%25206%2520%2528Threat%2520Level%2529%2529

(via thelunaticyouarelookingfor)

Source: thinksquad
Photo Set

politico:

Google is a Washington powerhouse that shapes federal law, rewards congressional allies and boasts a new 54,000-square-foot office, just down the road from the U.S. Capitol. But the Internet giant quietly has planted its political roots in places far beyond the Beltway — in state legislatures and city councils that have become hotbeds for tech policy fights.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2014/06/google-lobbying-108167.html#ixzz35SYb5nTf

(via thelunaticyouarelookingfor)

Source: politico
Photo Set

thinksquad:

The murky world of lobby groups bankrolling politicians is garnering more attention, but is there a way to find out which representatives are in the pocket without a lot of tedious research? A 16-year-old programmer has developed a browser plugin that, when you mouse-over the name of a US lawmaker, will serve up a list of which parties have donated to their campaign funds, and the quantities. Greenhouse (geddit?) is currently available for Chrome, Firefox and Safari — although our lawyers have (probably) asked us to point out that the data is from the 2012 elections, so they may not be entirely up to date.

http://www.engadget.com/2014/06/19/greenhouse-nicholas-rubin/

Source: thinksquad
Text

velartrill:

pervocracy:

I just realized one of the things that’s really bothering me about the Hobby Lobby/Wheaton College decisions:

They imply that employees’ compensation is a favor.  Like a company paying you for your work isn’t compensating you for the productivity you added, it’s Dad giving you some pocket change and a pat on the head if you promise to only spend it on healthy snacks.

When… no.  A company’s employees aren’t its children.  They’re people trading labor for compensation.  That compensation shouldn’t come with idealogical strings, not unless I’m allowed to shop at Hobby Lobby and say “here’s my money for your goods, but I’ll take it back (and keep the goods) if you spend on anything that violates my moral principles.”

…Actually, I’d like to do that, but that’s not my point.

this is kind of a trend in the U.S, isn’t it? it feels like corporations are actively trying redefine their social role to be the only thing we organize our lives around. I mean, obviously the social contract between large employers and employees was never particularly even-handed, but now it’s like it’s not even a trade at all, like they should just be entitled to our labor *cough*unpaid internships*cough* as a fact of life, c.f. how universities have gone from being a thing for some people going into certain lines of work to something that’s increasingly required for everyone for any job outside the service sector. maybe this was just a facet of my experience being raised by paranoid upper-middle-class parents, but growing up I was certainly bombarded with the idea that the thing to do in life was having A Career (and the most important thing imaginable in life was deciding on that Career), and the first time I learned there were people who didn’t have a single continuous Job™ or would go periods living off savings without working or, god forbid, CHANGED CAREERS, I was completely shocked and had a hard time contextualizing it.

Source: pervocracy
Link

Target Asks Customers Not To Bring Guns Into Stores Anymore

thepoliticalfreakshow:

Gun rights activists Open Carry Texas showed up at Target in January with assault rifles. Facebook / Moms Demand Action

After recent incidents involving guns in its Texas and South Carolina stores, Target is now asking that its customers refrain from bringing firearms into its stores “even in communities where it is permitted by law.”

Today, Interim CEO John Mulligan, shared the following note with Target employees on the company website A Bullseye View:

The leadership team has been weighing a complex issue, and I want to be sure everyone understands our thoughts and ultimate decision.

As you’ve likely seen in the media, there has been a debate about whether guests in communities that permit “open carry” should be allowed to bring firearms into Target stores. Our approach has always been to follow local laws, and of course, we will continue to do so. But starting today we will also respectfully request that guests not bring firearms to Target — even in communities where it is permitted by law.

We’ve listened carefully to the nuances of this debate and respect the protected rights of everyone involved. In return, we are asking for help in fulfilling our goal to create an atmosphere that is safe and inviting for our guests and team members.

This is a complicated issue, but it boils down to a simple belief: Bringing firearms to Target creates an environment that is at odds with the family-friendly shopping and work experience we strive to create.

The pressure on Target to make the policy change increased last month after the organization Moms Demand Action surfaced photos of gun activists from the group Open Carry Texas carrying assault weapons while shopping in the baby clothes section of Target.

The next day, a loaded handgun was found in the toy section of the Myrtle Beach, S.C., Target. Following the reports, Open Carry Texas accused gun control activists of planting the gun in the store to further their agenda.

The incidents spurred a petition signed by hundreds of thousands of Americans asking Target to stop permitting guns in stores.

Target joins national food chains Sonic, Wendy’s, Starbucks, Jack in the Box, Applebee’s, and Chipotle, which have all changed their open-carry policies in the past year.

“Moms are thankful that Target responded quickly to the call of nearly 400,000 Americans and asked customers to keep their firearms at home,” said Shannon Watts, founder of Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America.

“Such positive safety changes made by some of our country’s leading retailers are proof of the influence of women and mothers,” continued Watts. “As we look toward election season, we hope our legislators are taking notice that when woman and mothers collectively raise our voices — and soon cast our votes — we are determined to leave an impact.”

John Pierce, OpenCarry.org co-founder and spokesperson, told BuzzFeed Wednesday that its disappointing that Target gave into the pressure but said that he doesn’t think its a victory for the gun control groups, calling the change a “non-policy.”

Pierce, who pointed out that OpenCarry.org only advocates for carrying properly holstered handguns, said he would tell members of the movement, “If you don’t want to conceal your firearm, I would suggest you not spend your money at Target.”

Pierce, who is a practicing attorney residing in the southwestern part of Virginia, said he believes that the country’s divide on gun rights issues is very much a cultural split.

“We very much have two Americas. If you live in New York, Boston, Chicago or Baltimore — most of the Northeast and parts of California — you have no idea how prevalent law-abiding gun ownership is. It’s almost as if you live in Europe or the former Soviet Union where gun rights are concerned.”

Open Carry Texas sent BuzzFeed the following statement and also posted it on Facebook:

“Open Carry Texas regrets Target’s decision to “respectfully request that guests not bring firearms to Target.” While this is not a ban on legally possessed firearms in its stores, we will continue to honor our months long policy of not taking long arms into Target stores or any otherbusiness. Time and time again, businesses that have asked guests not to bring legally possessed, self defense firearms into their establishments have seen their employees and customers victimized by criminals preying on the openly defenseless. Open Carry Texas is laser focused on our statewide goals of making Texas the 45th state to recognize the right to openly carry firearms and the 32nd to do so without a licensing requirement. Engaging in the businesses of interfering with or making a scene at private corporations is something to which Open Carry Texas has never lowered itself, a practice we will maintain.”

Source: Mike Hayes for Buzzfeed

(via thelunaticyouarelookingfor)

Source: thepoliticalfreakshow
Link

Facebook's psychological experiments were connected to DoD research on civil unrest.

(via thisisevenharderthannamingablog)

Source: hellotailor
Link

Netflix Could Be Classified As a 'Cybersecurity Threat' Under New CISPA Rules

thepoliticalfreakshow:

The cybersecurity bill making its way through the Senate right now is so broad that it could allow ISPs to classify Netflix as a “cyber threat,” which would allow them to throttle the streaming service’s delivery to customers. 

It would be a backdoor way for ISPs to undermine net neutrality, and it’s one of the reasons why the Cybersecurity Information Protection Act of 2014—modeled on the CISPA bill that the internet has rallied against twice already—is so terrible for consumers (the other is the unfettered ferry of information between companies and the federal government, but that’s another story). 

RELATED: The Senate’s Cybersecurity Bill Threatens Net Neutrality

Given how ISPs have fought to destroy the open internet, they’d likely jump at the chance to sidestep existing net neutrality rules without the Federal Communications Commission needing to do much of anything at all. The bill, as it’s written, allows companies to employ “countermeasures” against “cybersecurity threats,” but both terms are extremely broadly defined, and video streaming could easily fall within the purview of the latter. 

"A ‘threat,’ according to the bill, is anything that makes information unavailable or less available. So, high-bandwidth uses of some types of information make other types of information that go along the same pipe less available," Greg Nojeim, a lawyer with the Center for Democracy and Technology, told me. "A company could, as a cybersecurity countermeasure, slow down Netflix in order to make other data going across its pipes more available to users."

That’s a quick and easy way of setting up a two-tiered internet, with built-in Congressional approval, no FCC rules required. Nojeim was one of the authors of a strongly-worded statement of opposition sent to Dianne Feinstein, the bill’s sponsor. In the letter, the CDT, Electronic Frontier Foundation, American Civil Liberties Union, and more than a dozen other civil liberties groups said that the bill “arbitrarily harms average internet users.”

"Net neutrality is a complex topic and policy on this matter should not be set by cybersecurity legislation," they wrote. 

RELATED: Hundreds of Cities Are Wired With Fiber—But Telecom Lobbying Keeps It Unused

The group notes that previous cybersecurity legislation considered by the Senate (pre-CISPA—the Senate didn’t take up that bill last year, letting it die instead) specifically included net neutrality protections. This one doesn’t.

"I think they know it’s a problem," Nojeim said. 

Nojeim says the general uproar surrounding the bill could have led to the postponement of its markup—it was originally set to be discussed by Feinstein’s Intelligence Committee last week, but was pushed back. No word on when it’ll be taken up by the committee, but considering that the bill has been in the works behind closed doors for several months now, don’t expect it to die without first getting some very serious consideration on Capitol Hill.

Source: Jason Koebler for Motherboard on VICE News

awesome. just wonderful. fuck our representatives.

(via thelunaticyouarelookingfor)

Source: thepoliticalfreakshow
Photo

darsyn:

retromantique:

sinidentidades:

Massachusetts SWAT teams claim they’re private companies and don’t have to tell you anything

After the ACLU sent open records requests as part of its investigative report on police militarization, SWAT teams in Massachusetts claimed they were exempt because they were private corporations.

Some SWAT teams in the state operate as law enforcement councils (LECs) which are funded by several police departments and overseen by an executive board largely made up of local police chiefs.

Member police departments pay annual membership dues to the LECs which share technology and oversee crime scene investigators or other specialists.

Some of these LECs have also incorporated 501(c)(3) organizations, which they say exempts them from open records requests.

“Let’s be clear,” wrote Radley Balko for The Washington Post. “These agencies oversee police activities. They employ cops who carry guns, wear badges, collect paychecks provided by taxpayers and have the power to detain, arrest, injure, and kill. They operate SWAT teams, which conduct raids on private residences. And yet they say that because they’ve incorporated, they’re immune to Massachusetts open records laws. The state’s residents aren’t permitted to know how often the SWAT teams are used, what they’re used for, what sort of training they get or who they’re primarily used against.”

The ACLU reported earlier this week that about 240 of the 351 police departments in Massachusetts belong to an LEC, which are set up as corporations but are funded by local and federal taxpayer funds.

“Police departments and regional SWAT teams are public institutions, working with public money, meant to protect and serve the public’s interest,” the ACLU said in its report. “If these institutions do not maintain and make public comprehensive and comprehensible documents pertaining to their operations and tactics, the people cannot judge whether officials are acting appropriately or make needed policy changes when problems arise.”

The ACLU sued the North Eastern Massachusetts Law Enforcement Council, which has about 50 member agencies, saying the LEC used government grants and taxpayer funds to purchase its equipment.

“NEMLEC can’t have it both ways,” said ACLU attorney Jessie Rossman. “Either it is a public entity subject to public records laws, or what it is doing is illegal.”

The ACLU survey found that only 7% of SWAT missions involved incidents they were originally designed to handle – such as hostage situations or shootings – while 62% of their mission involved drug searches.

This is fucked.

beyond fucked. s/o to all my home boys in the us, welcome to Nazi Germany

(via thelunaticyouarelookingfor)

Source: sinidentidades