Happy Hour Discurso

Today's opining on the public discourse.

Remember when I told you that if we didn't stand up and start screaming, we could kiss our civil liberties goodbye? Hate to say I told you so:

Federal agents may take a traveler's laptop computer or other electronic device to an off-site location for an unspecified period of time without any suspicion of wrongdoing, as part of border search policies the Department of Homeland Security recently disclosed.

Also, officials may share copies of the laptop's contents with other agencies and private entities for language translation, data decryption or other reasons, according to the policies, dated July 16 and issued by two DHS agencies, U.S. Customs and Border Protection and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

"The policies . . . are truly alarming," said Sen. Russell Feingold (D-Wis.), who is probing the government's border search practices. He said he intends to introduce legislation soon that would require reasonable suspicion for border searches, as well as prohibit profiling on race, religion or national origin.

Russ Feingold is the most stalwart ally we have in this fight. I'll keep you posted on any developments on that legislation, and let's make sure our Congresscritters hear our message loud and clear: this blanket surveillance shit, this evisceration of the Fourth Amendment, has to stop.

I'm not terribly hopeful we'll find many allies on the conservative side of the aisle. After all, they can't even wrap their heads around basic auto maintenance, much less civil liberties:

Barack Obama reminded an audience yesterday that American consumers can save money and improve fuel efficiency by keeping their tired [sic] inflated and getting regular tune-ups. I thought this was just common sense, and one of those simple steps that everyone already knew about.

Apparently, Republicans have decided that it’s worthy of mockery.

“[Obama] suggested we put air in our tires to save on gas,” McCain told a group of voters. “My friends, let’s do that, but do you think that’s enough to break our dependence on Middle Eastern oil? I don’t think so.”

Well, Obama didn’t say we could break our dependence if we inflated our tires; he said we could save money and improve fuel efficiency. It won’t “break our dependence on Middle Eastern oil” if we open up more of America’s coastlines to oil drilling, either, but it’s suddenly become the basis for McCain’s entire energy policy.

But it seems Republicans really are worked up about this tire thing.

[snip]

Ben at TP set the record straight.

Is making sure your car tires are inflated properly to save energy and gas money “loony tunes?” The federal government doesn’t think so. Neither does the auto industry.

The Department of Energy estimates that (based on gas costing $3.96/gallon), “you can improve your gas mileage by around 3.3 percent by keeping your tires inflated to the proper pressure” which would ultimately save “up to $0.12/gallon” or, nearly the amount of the federal gas tax ($0.18/gallon), a tax Gingrich supports repealing. Moreover, the auto industry agrees with DoE’s assessment.

But more importantly, Obama is correct to suggest that inflating tires properly and getting regular tune-ups “could save all the oil that they’re talking about getting off drilling” — and by a long shot. According to the Energy Information Administration, if Congress lifted the moratorium on offshore drilling, by 2030, oil crude production in the “lower-48″ outer continental shelf will increase by about 200 thousand barrels per day. By contrast, the production offset based on Obama’s proposal will likely approach 800 thousand barrels per day, immediately.

Ah, but you see, the facts don't matter to Republicons. If a Democrat tells them water's wet, they'll be queuing up to declare that water is, in fact, absolutely dry. There's no stupidity quite like ideological stupidity, is there?

Well, corporate stupidity runs a fairly close second:

About a month ago, Newsweek reported that Wal-Mart, after years of embracing conservative politics, was beginning to draw some criticism from the right. In particular, some conservatives believe the retail behemoth was “being too nice to unions.”

It seemed like an odd complaint, given that Wal-Mart has been vehemently anti-labor since, well, forever. But in case there were any lingering doubts, consider this front-page report in the Wall Street Journal. (thanks to R.P. for the heads-up)

Wal-Mart Stores Inc. is mobilizing its store managers and department supervisors around the country to warn that if Democrats win power in November, they’ll likely change federal law to make it easier for workers to unionize companies — including Wal-Mart.

In recent weeks, thousands of Wal-Mart store managers and department heads have been summoned to mandatory meetings at which the retailer stresses the downside for workers if stores were to be unionized.

According to about a dozen Wal-Mart employees who attended such meetings in seven states, Wal-Mart executives claim that employees at unionized stores would have to pay hefty union dues while getting nothing in return, and may have to go on strike without compensation. Also, unionization could mean fewer jobs as labor costs rise.

A Wal-Mart customer-service supervisor from Missouri, who attended a mandatory meeting of store employees, told the WSJ, “The meeting leader said, ‘I am not telling you how to vote, but if the Democrats win, this bill will pass and you won’t have a vote on whether you want a union.’ I am not a stupid person. They were telling me how to vote.”

Indeed they were. Something tells me this is most likely totally fucking illegal and will come back to not only bite them in the arse, but rip gaping holes in ye olde butt cheeks in the not-too-distant future.

I can but dream.