Google is endeavoring to fight a government subpoena of its records. They are to be commended for their determination to resist yet more government fishing expeditions into the private lives of American citizens.
Nowadays whenever the government strives to intrude into everyday life, two reasons are cited: It’s to fight terrorists, or it’s to protect the children. In this instance, it’s the latter, as the government is endeavoring to crack down on child pørņ. As always happens in these cases, if one defends a privacy right or a right of free expression, those in opposition try to paint you as immoral: “Don’t you care about keeping America safe?” “Don’t you care about protecting innocent children?” The answer of course is, Sure I do. I just don’t believe that the government should be able to do any dámņëd thing it wants in that pursuit, especially when it sets precedents for being more trampling on rights of the individual.
You know what’s interesting? This administration automatically believes that desiring a right to privacy is tantamount to masking wrong-doing (“If you’re having conversations with Al Quaeda, we want to know about it,” said Bush in his loopy disconnected way of justifying his impeachable action of illegal wiretaps). This is also one of the most secretive administrations around. Do they assume wrong-doing on the parts of others who want their privacy…because they themselves are up to no good, and thus assume that anyone who wants to maintain their privacy likewise is?
In any event, kudos to google for taking a stand. Google has done nothing illegal. If one is throwing about subpoenas, one should at least have SOME shred of proof that the person being subpoenaed deserves it.
PAD
• 
Google has done nothing illegal. If one is throwing about subpoenas, one should at least have SOME shred of proof that the person being subpoenaed deserves it.
Not that I ever quibble with anything, but usually the person you’re subpoenaing in a criminal case hasn’t done anything criminal himself. The criminal is usually the person the information is about, not the person who has the information. When I subpoena bank records it isn’t beacuse I think the bank did anything wrong, it’s because the owner of the account is charged with writing bad checks and I need to prove that he knew it was fraudulent at the time. Your basic point is still right though– there should still be some individualized suspicion of the target before issuing a subpoena for an individual person’s information.
The Feds, though, weren’t asking for individual people’s information. According to the news reports they were asking for general statistical information about things that are frequently searched. If a researcher asked for the same information to write a journal article, nobody would care. I remember that some search engines used to post lists of “what people are searching now” and “today’s top search terms.” So what’s the big deal about the Feds getting that information?
Here was my idea for flipping the bird at the Bush administration when they sort through the Google data (and i have no doubt they will be, legally or not…they take want they want no matter what….it’s what they do): this would need to spread far and wide as an internet meme, but basically, if thousands of people start searching daily or multiple times a day on Google for “George W. Bush Gáÿ Sëx Video” or something of this nature, they’d get a nice little prize as they sort through the data.
Dumb idea, yeah, but just the idea of this beating out Brittney Spears or whoever for top Google search just kinda makes me smile.
Hmmm…news comes out that Google is fighting a government subpeona, and then it suffers a large drop in it’s stock price. Coincidence?
If anyone needs me, I’ll be making tin foil hats.
Um, make that a “subpoena.” That’s what I get for trying to type fancy words late at night.
“The government wants a list of all requests entered into Google’s search engine during an unspecified single week – a breakdown that could conceivably span tens of millions of queries. In addition, it seeks 1 million randomly selected Web addresses from various Google databases.”
Nope. Like I said, statistics. They want the search words over a given week (unspecified, so Google can pick) so they can see the percentage of searches for pørņ, and they want 1 million random web addresses (I’m assuming for percentage of pørņ sites vs. non pørņ sites). I’m guessing they are wanting to have numbers for pørņ searches vs non pørņ searches compared to pørņ sites vs non pørņ sites. They could just ask for the numbers, but I’m not sure if that would hold up in court without the research.
This is in line with requesting what books are searched for at a library, and a random listing of book titles in the libraries catalog.
Nothing is being requested which ties to specific user behavior, and user information.
Now, all this being said, Kudos for Google. But I expect any objection they have stems more from protecting their business systems from competitors, than it does any sort of public justice or privacy concerns.
BSH SCKS!
BûllSHìŧ StinCKS?
Well no kidding. AND you spelled stinks wrong you moron!
Den:
“I’ve heard that same statistic, Mitch. Pørņ is still very much an underground entertainment activity with most people who indulge in it unwilling to admit so in public. I wouldn’t be surprised if many in the Bush administration who are pushing this subpoena are also secret users of it.”
Hëll, I admit it. I also believe that the internet is as big as it is because of pørņ. But that might just be my own perception of humanity infringing on real space-time 😉
Of course those trying to ban pørņ indulge themselves in pørņ. How many politicians get caught in sex related scandals? How many priests can be found in the alter boy locker room? How many evangelists have høøkërš in their closets? How many Ted Kennedys leave a woman to die after driving a car off a bridge?
Ok, that last one was a bit much. I should probably apologize.
Bill Mulligan:
“What I don’t get is that Google is easily the BEST tool we could have to catch child pørņ buyers. By setting up dummy sites they can easily snare any pervs dumb enough to order illegal pørņ with a credit card.
I’d rather they go trolling for the actual pedophiles in chatrooms. Seems a better use of time and these guys are doing a lot more than just reading about molesting kids.”
NBC’s Dateline has done 2 shows, with a third coming up shortly, wherein they execute a sting operation like you describe. In the third installment they will have law enforcement on hand to take into custody the people they catch in their trap.
I’ll be watching because it’s so much fun watching these (expletive deleted) try to talk their way out of it.
Now if you will all excuse me, I’m gonna go Google some pørņ!!
Happy Hunting!
Mitch
I have nothing to hide. If it keeps me safe–PLEASE look at my phone records. PLEASE look at what web sites I visit. PLEASE read my emails. PLEASE tap my phone.
“B) They’re not wanting specific user information. They want statistics. Information on how ofter pørņ is searched for, and what the common search terms are.”
They also said that they’d get Osama dead or alive, that there was “slam-dunk” intelligence proving Saddam had massive stockpiles of WMDs, that they’d only go to war with Iraq as a last result, and that they’d never even heard of this Jack Abramoff guy.
Excuse me if my skepticism is a-ringin’.
–R.J.
Now, I’m not one to throw out quotes, willy nilly, but there’s one from Ben Franklin I’ve always loved and feel is particularly apt in light of the current administrations policies.
“They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
-Rex Hondo-
This may have already been said, but wouldn’t it be easier for the government to just hire 100 or so people to google some randome words/phrases for a month, and then study what results? After all, Google is still free to use, and this solution doesn’t open up any legal issues.
MarvelFan, you’ve just described my dream job.
One question–people keep saying that pørņ is a multi-bazillion dollar industry and I’m inclined to believe them…but I wonder why, since so much of it is free. Hëll, it’s so free it’s almost unavoidable, you end up with pørņø pop-ups whether you want them or not. You have to go to tremendous lengths NOT to view pørņ if you spend any time at all on the web. So how can anyone be making much money on it? How profitable would McDonald s be if there were people constantly running up to you and shoving hamburgers into your mouth (Wouldn’t that be GREAT?)
dave w.
I have nothing to hide. If it keeps me safe–PLEASE look at my phone records. PLEASE look at what web sites I visit. PLEASE read my emails. PLEASE tap my phone.
Then live in a country where that happens all the time.
1I think it’s funny that Osama Bin Laudin just releases a new tape and instead of doing somehting about him, Bush targets Americans because we my be watching pørņ.
OWWW!
You know, maybe Bush is right about something: No, no go with me: If the goverment has so much money and time to check out what kind of pørņ America is watching, maybe we do need to slash the federal budget.
If you really want to stop child pørņ I have a great idea: Have the goverment sit down with adult stars and producers and get them to advertise on their web sites and videos to stop child pørņ, then have the goverment offer a ten thousand dollar reward to anyone who rats out a child pørņ site. (Jeena Jameson should be the spokes person for that one.)
Josh
P.S. Love X-Factor. Will you be at Farpoint this year? J.
Check this out for a laugh – FBI tracking your every click.
http://users.chartertn.net/tonytemplin/FBI_eyes/
Then live in a country where that happens all the time.
No kidding.
If you want that kind of bûllšhìŧ in America, well, you must’ve voted for Bush.
Most of us don’t want to live in a country that works and acts like Fascist Germany or Communist Russia.
I have nothing to hide. If it keeps me safe–PLEASE look at my phone records. PLEASE look at what web sites I visit. PLEASE read my emails. PLEASE tap my phone.
And that, ladies and gentlemen, is the sound of the American experiment coming to a close.
Freedoms only stick around when they’re defended — and when people are flat-out rejecting that they even need them, well, s’long.
I do not want a country like the one you describe. I don’t want my phones tapped, my mail read, my records checked. If that makes me marginally less “safe”, then so be it. I could also be kept “safe” by being confined to a 4-by-6 cell for my entire life, and fed and clothed by others — but that’s not a safety I am prepared to accept.
This “we’re making you safe, so shut up and take it” line of reasoning has gone entirely too far. If things get pushed too much further, one of two things is likely to happen as a result: either open revolt is going to break out (which is itself a pretty serious threat to safety, by the way), or we’ll just go whole hog and become the very type of banana republic we claim to oppose.
TWL
Yeah, what Tim said.
Tim Lynch:
“This “we’re making you safe, so shut up and take it” line of reasoning has gone entirely too far. If things get pushed too much further, one of two things is likely to happen as a result: either open revolt is going to break out (which is itself a pretty serious threat to safety, by the way), or we’ll just go whole hog and become the very type of banana republic we claim to oppose.”
Can you imagine, based on how most of us American behave these days, a second Civil War? I believe that would be the result of open revolt. The number of factions involved would be staggering to say the least. Just consider all the political, religious, economic and social divides that keep us from working together for the greater good. For an example look at how satifactory healthcare is a privelidge for those who are well off while the people who need it the most, the poor, get second and third rate services. “Culture of Life” indeed.
Actually can see how it wouldn’t last too long, since we really cannot cooperate all that much. Or what is now America would be broken up into city-states where if you don’t believe in our Tribal God Image you will be shot on sight because we believe in peace and the only valid way to promote peace is for everyone to believe as we do under penalty of death. America would be not one Bananna Republic but hundreds of them.
UPDATE:
RE: Me Googling pørņ
I wasn’t impressed. Nothing I haven’t seen before. Much of it in real life.
Salutations,
Mitch
Man!! I sure am glad that I don’t have a Social Security Number so Da Gubmint can track how much money I make and how much I pay in taxes. And I am really glad I don’t have a drivers license so Da Gubmint can track what kind of car I actually drive. And how about that debit card? If I had one of those, someone somewhere might be able to tell I bought lunch at a certain restaurant today and how much gas I bought on the way to the restaurant. I sure am glad that my privacy is well protected.
First, What to put in the search engines for protest.
Searching for “Bush daughter sex” and things of that ilk will give them what they want. They want as many sex queries as possible, so don’t give it to them. Vague phrases like “we the people” wont get the point across. Especially if the search queries are released to the press or are use in open court. I think we should use a phrase that is direct, speak directly to the point, and make a good sound bite for the media.
PAD, I request that you do a survey on what people think should be the protest phrase. Then pick the one that you think is the best and then we can all go out and start grass roots campaigns. Even just emailing our friends and asking them to pass it on. But we have to do this fast to get a cohesive single search inquiry that every one can cut and past.
I nominate “Stop Spying On US Citizens”
Second, what to put in the search engines that gave up the info.
I think we should all go to the search engine that gave up the info without a fight and search the phrase “I’m using Google from now on” And then do so. If enough people stop using the other search engine, they may think twice about not protecting our freedoms.
Third, for the people that don’t have a problem with Bush administration’s power grabs. Ask you self this question. If the Democrats ever get control of the government again, can you trust them with the same power?
This is not about kittyporn! They can already can and do request info on people searching for that kind of thing. They want to reenact a law (that was shot down) that boils down to this. If a web sight that is hosted any where in the US host some thing that any community in the US finds offensive and does not use age verification, law enforcement from that community can bring the web host up on criminal charges.
“Social Security Number so Da Gubmint can track how much money I make and how much I pay in taxes”
That revels nothing about your personal life. If you were required to check a “I watch pørņ” box on your tax form, that would be different.
“And I am really glad I don’t have a drivers license so Da Gubmint can track what kind of car I actually drive.”
If you are that worried about “Da Gubmint” getting that info, you can CHOOSE not to own/drive a car. The Google Subpoena gives you no choice.
“And how about that debit card? If I had one of those, someone somewhere might be able to tell I bought lunch at a certain restaurant today and how much gas I bought on the way to the restaurant.”
Actually, businesses get in deep šhìŧ when they revel any of that info, and any attempt by the government to obtain it should be met with the same refusal that google gave.
Thanks, Bill. I’ve shared that link with my fellow visitors at Nitcentral on the Educational Issues subtopic under Political Musings. (http://64.33.77.146/discus/messages/2310/19769.html?SaturdayJuly1320020114am#POST312233)
This is not about kittyporn!
Well it dámņ well ought to be! It’s bad enough when they use children!
Bill
Cat-Lover, but not in THAT way
You gotta love that response/logic/reasoning. “If you don’t believe/think/feel just like me then go live in a different country”.
And cue persecution complex! No political discussion is complete without one.
I’m going to make one (likely futile) effort to explain to you why what I’m generously going to call your interpretation of responses to your previous comment is just flat wrong.
See, as opposed to the common, “love it or leave it,” response you’ll get from your average slack-yawed yokel in any number of sociopolitical discussions, it was a relatively reasonable comment given your, shall we say, “position.”
Assuming that you were speaking in earnest, you would be willing to give up your essential freedoms in the name of “safety.” Well, those essential Constitutional freedoms are the very basis of this nation. At the risk of sounding all patriotic, they’re what make the USA the USA.
You don’t care about your rights, fine. Most of the rest of us DO. If you think a totalitarian regime is your cup of tea, there are places you can go, because that’s not what America is, and there are plenty of people who aren’t going to let people like YOU make it happen here.
-Rex Hondo-
Dave w. said
You gotta love that response/logic/reasoning. “If you don’t believe/think/feel just like me then go live in a different country
Thats exactly my point I want the freedom to choose/think do whatever I want.
If I am not hurting myself or another person its all good.
Take away my choice you take away me.
I simply meant that if you do not mind having everything you do scrutinized you should live in a country that does that all the time. Get a feel for what we have here. Then make a choice about which you prefer.
I am aware of how easy it is to keep track of everything I do. It has taken me many years to fight through blinding paranoia. I have serverd in this countrys military. I have been a bum and traveled to about 30+ of our states. I love our country as much as anyone. I will always fight for the freedoms I grew up reading believing we have.
I am going to spend most of the morning searching for things like:
“George Bush Naked”
“Ðìçk Cheney Anal Sex”
“Osama bin Laden sex with animals”
“Saddam Hussein Pørņ”
And variations on those themes. In the event that my search records are known, we’ll see what the reaction is.
Who’s with me?
// “And I am really glad I don’t have a drivers license so Da Gubmint can track what kind of car I actually drive.”
If you are that worried about “Da Gubmint” getting that info, you can CHOOSE not to own/drive a car. The Google Subpoena gives you no choice. //
Well by that logic you could agrue that one could choose not to use Google, or not have a computer or not use the internet. Mind you, I agree with, I think the goverment asking for such info is just wrong, and hopefully will be struck down by a saner court. But there is a flaw in you logic there.
Well by that logic you could agrue that one could choose not to use Google, or not have a computer or not use the internet.
Not so much a logical fallicy. When you get a car registered, you KNOW that the government has that information. When you get a Credit Card, use Google, or shop on Ebay, the assumption is that those companies are going to keep your information safe, and most especially, that the government will NOT be allowed to look at it without probable cause.
// Well by that logic you could agrue that one could choose not to use Google, or not have a computer or not use the internet.
Not so much a logical fallicy. //
As originally worded, yes it was.
// When you get a car registered, you KNOW that the government has that information. When you get a Credit Card, use Google, or shop on Ebay, the assumption is that those companies are going to keep your information safe, //
Key word being “Assumption”, (any need to invoke the Felix Unger rule here), lots of these companies regularly sell information to other vendors and only recently have we begun to pass laws requiring companies to tell us they are doing that and giving us to option to opt out, (And am I the only one who believes that companies should require us to opt in not the other way around, but I digress).
// and most especially, that the government will NOT be allowed to look at it without probable cause. //
True, but considering how many companies regularly sell consumer info to others I wonder if Google would just give the government the info it wants, quitly and behind the scenes, if Uncle Sam just wrote them a big enough check. (Not that I’m suggesting that mind you).
You gotta love that response/logic/reasoning. “If you don’t believe/think/feel just like me then go live in a different country”.
Which is the response many liberals received over Bush winning election in 2004 (since he didn’t really win it the first time around) from conservatives.
But then, what’s that little acronym again?
Well, I think I can predict an upcoming post by PAD–they just cancelled West Wing.
http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/01/22/D8F9TAU07.html
Yeah, but isn’t that the same argument that companies that worked with the pro apartheid government of South Africa?
With the caveat that South Africa was never the economic power that China is today, yes. Eventually, though, change was effected in SA, whether this proves the boycotters or the engagers were right, I have no idea.
And even if it has merit, it’s one thing to engage the people, it’s another to be one of the very elements of their oppression.
True, basically, it’s a lose-lose proposition for any company. If you don’t do business with China, you’ll be crushed by your competition, but if you do, you have to agree to their censorship rules.
Wow, what a vocal, paranoid, frightened crowd you have posting here. Here’s something that will really get your panties in a bunch. Google employs several people who used to have high level intelligence positions in the US government.
And for all of you with the foil hats… this is probably nothing more than a smokescreen to encourage you to use Google, since their fighting “the man”.
Peter, I was a big fan of your work and followed a lot of what you created. After reading your blog for a while now, I have to say I’m disappointed with your politics. It’s so bad it’s tainted everything I read that’s been created by you. I’m not buying anything else you do until I’ve had some time to get this sour taste out of my mind. You’re an entertaining fiction writer but your “real world” views leave a lot to be desired. I’ll catch up with your work again in a couple of years. Take care…
Here’s something that will really get your panties in a bunch. Google employs several people who used to have high level intelligence positions in the US government.
So what? We’re discussing the limits that the government can go to collect personal information about people. Some people might not want everything that they’ve ever searched the internet for to be made public.
I’m not buying anything else you do until I’ve had some time to get this sour taste out of my mind.
And thus we see why freedom of speech and thought need protection in this country. God forbid we allow writers who don’t have the “correct” thoughts to be read.
“Wow, what a vocal, paranoid, frightened crowd you have posting here. Here’s something that will really get your panties in a bunch. Google employs several people who used to have high level intelligence positions in the US government.”
Yeah? So?
“Peter, I was a big fan of your work and followed a lot of what you created. After reading your blog for a while now, I have to say I’m disappointed with your politics.”
Yeah? So?
“It’s so bad it’s tainted everything I read that’s been created by you.”
Certainly that’s your problem, not mine.
“I’m not buying anything else you do until I’ve had some time to get this sour taste out of my mind.”
Ahhh, and now you endeavor to make your problem my problem.
“You’re an entertaining fiction writer but your “real world” views leave a lot to be desired.”
As does your belief in free expression in the United States of America–or I should say, lack of belief–and your intolerance of those who have differing opinions from you.
“I’ll catch up with your work again in a couple of years.”
Don’t hurry on my account. I wouldn’t want you to waste your money simply because your intolerance limits your ability to enjoy my work.
PAD
“Peter, I was a big fan of your work and followed a lot of what you created. After reading your blog for a while now, I have to say I’m disappointed with your politics. It’s so bad it’s tainted everything I read that’s been created by you. I’m not buying anything else you do until I’ve had some time to get this sour taste out of my mind. You’re an entertaining fiction writer but your “real world” views leave a lot to be desired. I’ll catch up with your work again in a couple of years. Take care…”
Ah, Intolerance, how I’ve missed thee…
Wow. Peter does a great job of keeping his works from being mere political diatribes…so it never ceases to amaze me when people can’t seperate his opinions from his works. I don’t agree with everything Peter says, but I never found that as an impediment towards enjoying good fiction.
Sadly, it doesn’t amaze me anymore. It used to. It used to amaze me that people would be that opposed to the spirit of free expression. It used to amaze me that people would feel the need to take punitive action against those with whom they disagreed. It used to amaze me that people would cut off their noses to spite their face; that they would cease supporting a writer or artist whose work they liked solely because they’d taken offense at that writer or artist’s personal opinions, even when those opinions aren’t reflected in the work.
It doesn’t amaze me anymore. Now I just shake my head and sigh.
PAD
I laughed when I read grunged’s post, because it reminded me of that episode of Growing Pains where Ben learns about the difference between liking a singer’s music and liking the singer as a person because Ben doesn’t agree with the singer’s personal life. I mean, I doubt any of you who’ve read some of my political comments before would put me in the same camp as PAD, but I thoroughly enjoy his work and have never noticed obtrusive political statements in it.
Ok, this is getting scary. I actually think you have a point. I find this substantially different than the phone surveillance (which the Clinton admin was eqully quilty of doing). This is, pure and simple, a fishing expedition.
At first I thought they were looking for the actual child pornography (the pictures themselves). I don’t believe the possession or distribution of child pørņ is protected by free speech and anyone having it or knowingly hosting it should be in trouble. But this search at least appears to be too broad with no plausible purpose. So until I get a better explanation, I actually am siding with PAD against Bush.
Maybe hëll really is freezing over.
Iowa Jim
If I didn’t read every author I didn’t politically or morally agree with I would have missed a lot of good books. I don’t like what Orson Scott Card had to say about gays but I still read his work.
i agree – i think that basing your enjoyment of someone’s work on your opinion of their political views is, quite frankly, dumb. i think that of anyone who chooses not to read peter david, just as i thought that of people who chose not to read comics drawn by mike s. miller based upon some postings he made on a message board.
that being said, i think some of the attacks on ‘grunged’ are unwarranted. he is not proposing that peter’s work should be banned, or restricted, or that he shouldn’t be hired or his work shouldn’t be sold. he, for reasons of his own, is choosing not to read peter david, and telling people of his decision. isn’t that EXACTLY the way a person who supports free expression SHOULD react?
i’ve often heard “if you don’t like the show, change the channel!” – essentially, that’s what he’s doing, he’s “changing the channel”. and if he wants to tell everyone he meets that he’s no longer reading peter’s work, and why, that’s his right. in fact, he even has a right to encourage others not to read him, but he doesn’t even seem to be doing that.
it’s sad that he would base his reading enjoyment on the lively political debate on an online forum, but i think that’s all it is…sad. but not an threat to freedom of speech…
I have to say I know whereof grunged comes from.
Kathleen David brings up a great counter-example. I read several Orson Scott Card novels many years ago, particularly his Alvin Maker series, and really enjoyed them. But some of his political columns have sickened me. Not to the point of not being able to read his novels…but I’m more likely to look for them in used bookstores so he doesn’t benefit from my money.
That’s the kicker. I have no problem with others buying his books, but I don’t really want any of my money going to someone who I look at as a spreader of hate. Other conservative views would be completely irrelevant to me. The world needs different perspectives. But I am intolerant of intolerance.
Though I will now add and completely contradict myself that Wiki’s detailing of Card’s political views make me more willing to buy his books again. He’s better than what I had gleaned from the few columns of his I’d read.
Posted by Joe Nazzaro at January 20, 2006 10:25 AM
I don’t know what the fuss is all about; I’m sure the government is just interested in stopping all those Internet predators and would never dream of misusing that wealth of personal information for any other reason than the one they told us about.
*I say:
maybe if kids just didn’t know how to read and write internet predators wouldn’t be able to get our kids…
you can’t stop “internet predators” just like you can’t stop murders and child kidnappings,
BUSH SUCKS!!!
Where do we go from here, PAD?
How do we defend our country from these constant power grabs? A chance of a Third party opposition has been all but crushed. The only time a you see a Democrat on the news is when they say some thing stupid. Talk Radio drums the administrations talking points into peoples heads until the listeners will believe any thing. What can we the people do?
I guess this sort of thing is in the eye of the beholder but I find PAD’s work to be refreshingly devoid of outright political posturing, especially given his strong opinions. He’s way too smart a guy to deliberately make his stories dated by doing that–this is one reason you can go back and reread virtually all of his work and still enjoy it. I’m not against any and all attempts to make stories topical but odds are they will have the same re-readability as a dusty issue of Newsweek (ie not much).
And yes, while he has every right to not read what he wants to not read and he has every right to tell the writer why…there seems to be an element of implied bullying in this, intended or not. What, exactly, is PAD supposed to do? Change his opinions? Keep them to himself? My advice–if you’re the type who can’t enjoy the work of a writer if their politics does not mesh with your own it’s really up to you to avoid finding out anything about those politics. For starters, don’t read their blog.
The only time a you see a Democrat on the news is when they say some thing stupid.
Avoiding the obvious joke that even if they were in the news more often it wouldn’t change the saying something stupid part, I don’t think that’s entirely or even partly accurate. For one thing, many Democrats have no problem at all with what Hillary said. Frankly, they should be glad that some of the REALLY dumb statements get swept under the rug.
At any rate, there is no reason to despair–it will be almost impossible for the Democrats not to pick up seats in 2006.
Personally, I wouldn’t even care if PAD’s writing had an overt political message. If the writing is intelligent and compelling, I’ll read it.
Case in point: I really like Orson Scott Card’s writing and he does sometimes insert political messages in his work.
The only time a you see a Democrat on the news is when they say some thing stupid.
Unfortunately, these days, they seem to be almost pathological about it.
The good news is that the GOP say something stupid just as often.