I’m just a teenage girl, who is more privileged than at least 1/3 of the country, I acknowledge that. I am straight, white, and my family is middle class. But I am also scared for the future that these election results may bring. I know, I know, “What do you know about politics?” I admit that I don’t know half as much as I should, but it doesn’t mean that I’m ignorant to what party now practically controls the government. 

I am a high schooler, in a country where school shooting drills now have to happen just as often as fire drills. And Republicans don’t care for any gun laws, in fact, they fully support the NRA. 

I am a girl, in a country where our new leaders say that ‘God plans rape’ and that a fetus is more important than the welfare of women. Where certain Republicans have said that if women are allowed to the rights to their own body, then men should be allowed to rape them. 

I am almost a college student, and I can guarantee there won’t be any breaks for college loans, as they’ve voted against it before. 

My best friend is a lesbian, and my uncles are gay, in a country where our new lawmakers say that gay marriage is a sin. Where they might have their barely gained (not even in all 50 states) marriage rights taken away. 

But it isn’t just about me. It’s about my entire generation, and that includes people of every religion, ethnicity, color, size, shape, sexual orientation, and gender (or lack thereof). Many people are going to be negatively affected by this power switch in the government. Much more than I will be. 

I know I’m just a teenage girl and I must know nothing about all of this, but I myself fear for what comes next. It might be overdramatic, I might be overreacting, but I am afraid. 

To anyone who thinks their vote does not matter, I give you the Congressional race of Arizona’s second district.

With three quarters of the vote in, Martha McSally is leading incumbent Ron Barber by only 36 votes. The last time McSally challenged Barber for the seat, the difference in the vote was less than one percent, and this year’s selection could easily be decided by only a few dozen individuals. This race is so close that we will likely not know the final decision for several days.

36 votes. Your opinion matters.

D.C. police decide in advance how much money to seize from citizens

Civil asset forfeiture has become just another part of the budget for Washington, D.C. police. The police chief claims that seizing cash, cars, and other assets from citizens without charging them with any crime is about “removing the profit gained from facilitating a crime” — not raising revenue. But the department budget’s advance plans for use of seizure profits suggest otherwise.

A previously little-known practice in which police or other government agencies confiscate people’s money or stuff without advancing criminal charges, civil asset forfeiture has become increasingly controversial in recent months. For many police departments, it’s a convenient way to get “little goodies" — and millions in their coffers.

In the District, police make thousands of seizures per year with a median dollar amount of $141. The city council is set to vote on a bill on Tuesday that would make seizure more difficult and give individuals whose property is taken more legal recourse. —Bonnie Kristian

"Boy, these pro-life conservatives are really something, aren’t they? They’re all in favor of the unborn. They will do anything for the unborn. But once you’re born, you’re on your own. Pro-life conservatives are obsessed with the fetus from conception to nine months. After that, they don’t want to know about you. They don’t want to hear from you. No nothing. No neonatal care, no day care, no head start, no school lunch, no food stamps, no welfare, no nothing. If you’re preborn, you’re fine; if you’re preschool, you’re fucked."
- George Carlin

okay people keep on saying ‘oh the old white guys won’ but you are COMPLETELY discrediting the young people who recently came in, particularly the youngest woman ever, also the first Haitian American, African-Americans, and many others in a diverse group and it pisses me off that you all don’t even acknowledge that

5

This is one reason I’ve been enjoying the hell out of GamerGate. First, it has been awesome having a great big group of people witness the same bullshit that my industry has been dealing with for years. Second, SF/F people tend to be squishy and polite, with a handful of outspoken outliers like me and the rest of the Evil League of Evil, so SJWs have run roughshod over my industry… But gamers? Holy shit. You really think you can pick a fight with people whose brains are programmed to win? - Science Fiction Author Larry Correia

Meet the Big Damn Heroes.

Obama's "Net Neutrality" plan would subject internet service to a 16.1% tax

image

While President Obama uses words like “keep the internet free,” his plan to give the FCC authority to regulate the internet as a public utility would subject internet service to regulation, content control, and (as is the case with everything the government touches) high taxes.

from Forbes:

The relationship between the Internet and government has become a useful barometer of personal and economic freedom. Oppressive governments use the Internet to oppress political enemies, censor ideas, and spy on citizens. The United Nations and other international organizations see the Internet as an untapped opportunity for tax revenues and regulations to support political favorites.

Of course Congress can and does pass symbolic laws to protect the Internet, such as the recent extension of the Internet Tax Freedom Act that prohibits new state and local taxes on broadband access. Congress is eager to block state and local tax collection on the Internet on the reasonable theory that taxes will harm the Internet, one of the few engines of growth in our otherwise recession-prone economy.

Yet Congress is oblivious to Federal Communications Commission efforts to undermine the spirit if not the letter of ITFA by extending substantial new federal fees on broadband access. These fees could be as harmful, if not more so, than any that state and local governments might imagine. Yet many in Congress, unaware of the fees that might be applied to the Internet, applaud the FCC.

Under its “Open Internet” or “network neutrality” proceeding, the FCC would regulate the Internet and broadband service providers with rules similar to those that courts have not once but twice ruled unlawful. By statute, the FCC regulates telecommunications services, not Internet services. Rather than wait for Congress to give it authority to regulate Internet services, the FCC asserts that power for itself by some imaginative interpretation of the Communications Act.

One set of proposals considered by the FCC would classify Internet services, or at least Internet access services, as “interstate telecommunications services” bringing the regulation of those services exclusively to the FCC.

The FCC imposes fees of 16.1% on interstate telecommunications services that will generate more than $8 billion in federal universal service funds in 2014. Additional FCC fees on interstate telecommunications services raise $1 billion for federal telecommunications relay services. Although Congress mandates the general nature of the federal universal service fund and telecommunications relay services, it is the FCC alone that sets the budget size of the funds and develops the fee structure to raise receipts for the funds.

Even with all of its power, the FCC does not have the money to fund all of the new programs it seeks. For example, just in the past year, the FCC announced an ambitious multi-billion program to connect schools and libraries with Wi-Fi. Other advocates seek expansion of the low-income program. But where can the FCC find funds for new social programs not required by statute?

The FCC’s network neutrality proceeding may easily provide the answer. By classifying broadband access services as “interstate telecommunications services,” those services would suddenly become required to pay FCC fees. At the current 16.1% fee structure, it would be perhaps the largest, one-time tax increase on the Internet. The FCC would have many billions of dollars of expanded revenue base to fund new programs without, according to the FCC, any need for congressional authorization.

read the rest

Just in case you were wondering, the process that is laid out here is exactly what Obama proposed in his video address last weekend.  He called on the FCC to classify the internet as a “public utility,” and by definition, we should expect the same 16.1% tax as any other “interstate telecommunications services.”

This is not a Democrat or Republican issue.  Keeping the internet free is much bigger than partisan politics.  Politicians on both sides of the aisle have sought to regulate the internet because of what a powerful tool it is.  

Fighting to keep the internet free from government regulation is a liberty issue.  It’s about the freedoms of speech, press, and privacy all rolled into one.  We have seen time and time again how those freedoms get chipped away by governments, and we must stand against any efforts to regulate against them on the internet.