Google = "Big Brother" = Really Bad Idea For Google (are you listening, Big Bro?)

So likely you have heard about the latest brouhaha over Google changing its tracking policies.  It now will combine all your data and you have no ability to opt out.  Rather than opine on the menacing feeling I get from this Big-Brother-esque maneuver, I'll leave that to others.  You can check out these two articles on the WashingtonPost.com about the backlash and about the specific changes.

I'll reserve my comments to the following three (Listen up, Googie!):

First, the issue for me is not that Google is making their own rules as they go along.  These are THEIR products and I believe THEY have the right to do with them as they see fit.  If I don’t want to use them, I can cancel them (or never sign up in the first place.  I read the "fine print" and it bothered me, but I signed up anyway.  How much did YOU read before you clicked the "I have READ and AGREE TO..." button?)  To bellyache about the freebie someone gives me and I have agreed to use on THEIR terms is ridiculous.

Second, having said that, the issue I have with this is it exposes Google’s complete hypocrisy.  Do not tell me your mantra is "DON’T BE EVIL" and then expect me to swallow terms that increasingly echo something out of Orwell’s “1984.”  Do not tell me you are "helping" when I have no freedom to say "No thank you."  Do not try to convince me you are my "friend" when I cannot tell you, "Leave me alone right now." or "I do not want to talk to you about that." or "I don't want to share that secret with you."  It is the height of hypocrisy.  I would be much more satisfied with a simple, "We are Google.  Resistance is futile!" then all of the phony baloney platitudes and blatant lies.

Third, I believe ultimately this is a foolish business decision for a brand that has tried to portray itself as the “Don’t Be Evil” anti-Microsoft.  Most people who are flaming Google right now are just blowing off steam and will go right back to using the products they are addicted to.  And Google knows this.  It is not going away anytime soon--it has integrated itself into modern life too deeply (though the Netflix/Quiksterfiasco should be a warning to any modern corporation: Upend the rules of the game at your own peril).  Yet I believe ultimately these kinds of decisions will hurt Google, because they erode the "benevolent superpower" image that it has meticulously tried to craft and even more importantly, these kinds of decisions leave openings for other competitors who market to (as Google once did) the "leave me alone and let me do my own thing" crowd.

Don’t think it’s possible?  Remember, just 12 short years ago Google was that new website nobody had heard of.

Here's hoping the "next great thing" learns these lessons.  And here's hoping it comes along very, very soo[**blurk** Blog terminated for "technical" reasons.  Please read Blogger.com-aka-another-tentacle-of-collective's  "We owns your privacy and security policy" section MXLII, subsection QQQ, paragraph 176, Sentence cxciii, sub-sentence .76984g for more information.  We are confident it's in there somewhere.  Thank you. Signed, Your Benevolent Overlord, GOOGLE]

Feelings are important unless they aren't mine, right?

I don't agree with Rick Santorum on everything.  I don't know if I will vote for him or not.  But the flak he is catching over how he chose to deal with the death of a child is despicable.  Mark Stein rips into the hypocrisy underlying such attacks like a hot knife through melted butter. I highly recommend it.

The power-grab and the silent power-hungry--and we had better get serious!

I ran across an article today by a guy named Andrew McCarthy (I have no idea if he is related to Joe) that really got me thinking about the responsibility of both parties for our current mess.  I highly recommend it.

You may or may not know that on Wednesday President Obama preempted the Senate to appoint the head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and 3 members of the National Labor Relations Board.  What made this extraordinary was two factors.

#1, the Senate was in Pro-Forma session, not in recess.  Article 2, section 2 of the the Constitution states that "The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate."  However, if the Senate is NOT in recess, "he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law."

The White House, to justify its move, argued that the Pro-Forma session does not actually qualify as "in session."  Though no real meaningful business is conducted during a Pro-Forma session, the Senate is considered "open for business" and thus NOT in recess.  In fact, on December 23, the the Senate passed the payroll tax extension during a Pro-Forma session.  Add to this the fact that this use of Pro-Forma was begun by Harry Reid in 2007 to prevent then President Bush from making recess appointments AND was supported by the Obama administration as recently as 2010. 

#2, A larger issue is that the appointment of the head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (Richard Cordray) seems to run afoul of the written law of the CFPB itself.  Title X, Subtitle A, SEC. 1011, sub Sec (b), sub-sub sec. (2) of the ‘‘Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act’’ (if you'd like to "follow along" at home, turn to page 589 of 848) states the Director of the CFPB "shall be appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate."  Additionally, Title X, Subtitle F, SEC. 1066, sub Sec (b) (page 680, please!) states: "The Secretary is authorized to perform the functions of the Bureau under this subtitle until the Director of the Bureau is confirmed by the Senate in accordance with section 1011."  Thus, unlike the concise and elegant wording of the Constitution, the bloated verbiage of "Frank-Dodd" conspicuously (and ironically?) leaves out a recess appointment option for the the CFPB head.  Thus it seems the legislation leaves only the option of being confirmed by the Senate, and thus would bar appointment during a recess, bypassing altogether any debate about what does and does not qualify as "recess."  (For another take on this, check out this Daily Caller article).

But it's just the law.  What does it matter anyway, right?

As an added bonus, you might be interested to know that Richard Cordray (the newly minted CFPB head) believes anything that "has incidental effects on the economy" can be regulated by Congress under the Commerce Clause.  If that be the standard, what action or inaction that you or I or any citizen of these United States might take would NOT have "incidental effects on the economy?"  This standard opens the gates for Government regulation of every single aspect of our lives on an economic basis.  Just for grins and giggles, you might remind yourself once again of what the all-powerful Commerce Clause (found in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution), actually says:  "The Congress shall have Power...To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes."  I am no Constitutional scholar, but this simple statement seems light-years away from the all-pervasive power claimed by those of Cordray's ilk today.

But, all of this misses a much larger and more important issue, namely that the usurpation of power is NOT simply a Democratic phenomenon that needs a Republican solution.  It is a drug to which BOTH parties have become addicted and from which BOTH parties must be weaned.  Until we (you and I and every American) learn this lesson, we will continue to be disappointed by those on "our" side--whatever side that may be!  Not until we demand of BOTH parties that power be returned to "the People" from whence it originates and to whom it rightly belongs, we will continue to slide ever further into the abyss we find ourselves in today.

I'd encourage you to take a few minutes and read the article I mentioned earlier. It is a great overview of the the consequences of these recent events as well as the broader and more fundamental question of why they are allowed to continue--by BOTH parties.

The President signs indefinite detention into law

When you find Alex Jones (often hyperbolicly hyperventilating radical-right radio commentator), Rand Paul (Libertarianly rooted Republican son of Ron Paul), Diane Feinstein (uber-liberal Democrat), and the ACLU (aka the Anti-Conservativism Legal Union) all agreeing, it probably ought to get your attention.  It got mine.

The bill has been signed into law.  I will not claim to be able to wrap my head around all the mumbo-jumbo.  However, reading the important parts of the text do bring up alarming concepts, including:

Subtitle D, SEC. 1021, (a) "IN GENERAL.—Congress affirms that the authority of the President to use all necessary and appropriate force pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force ... includes the authority for the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons  ... pending disposition under the law of war."

Subtitle D, SEC. 1021, (c) "DISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF WAR.—The disposition of a person under the law of war as described in subsection (a) may include the following: (1) Detention under the law of war without trial until the end of the hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force."

Under SEC 1022. MILITARY CUSTODY FOR FOREIGN AL-QAEDA TERRORISTS, we also find an interesting wavier:

(a)(4) WAIVER FOR NATIONAL SECURITY.—The President may waive the requirement of paragraph (1) if the President submits to Congress a certification in writing that such a waiver is in the national security interests of the United States.

And one more for good measure:

(b) APPLICABILITY TO UNITED STATES CITIZENS AND LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS.—(1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS.—The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.

I am not a lawyer.  I will not hyperventilate.  Nor will I venture into the realm of second guessing how a war should be prosecuted.  But I do know we are currently detaining individuals indefinitely as we speak.  All I know is that the rights enshrined in the the Fifth, Sixth, and Seventh Amendments of the Constitution are to be jealously guarded at all cost.

May liberty and freedom forever reign in these United States and grow to spread throughout our world!

Resources:

The Bill (scroll to pages 264 & 265):  <www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112hr1540enr/pdf/BILLS-112hr1540enr.pdf>

The Bill (of Rights): http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Amends

Some Articles:
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/americas/2011/12/2011121475544131362.html
http://www.infowars.com/indefinite-detention-bill-heads-to-obamas-desk/
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57343287/wh-oks-military-detention-of-terrorism-suspects/
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/dec/15/americans-face-guantanamo-detention-obama

The President and First Lady of the United States on lies and honesty

SOURCE: Barbara Walters interview on ABC News; <http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/president-obama-michelle-obama-answer-10-personal-questions/story?id=15190535#.TvSGlfKCaeU>; 12/22/2011; accessed 12/22/2011.

Keeping in mind the wisdom of Luke 16:10 ("He that is faithful in a very little is faithful also in much: and he that is unrighteous in a very little is unrighteous also in much"), what does the following reveal about the leader of United States of America?

On what occasion do you lie?

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Usually, the only time I lie is very personal interactions with family members, who you say, "You look great," and they don't. "Wonderful dress..." Uh, not so much.

MICHELLE OBAMA: Things where the truth would hurt other people.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Right, the things where truth would hurt other people. Not too many big things. I said during the campaign that I'll always tell you what I think, and I will, always tell you where I stand. I'm not perfect, but you'll know what I believe.

MICHELLE OBAMA: I think the same thing. When it would hurt somebody else's feelings. When the truth isn't helpful.