What does it say that people care less about loss of Civil Liberties than about a Pastor who is not even on the ballot?

We are so sophisticated, and I mean to indict myself too, I am a typical partisan, that we care about the horse race and all the ways we can divide ourselves up into them and us, but we don't care too much that:

the government engages in these kind of actions against LAWYERS;

that, the SCOTUS (as they say on the internet) decided that even if an action, photo id's, falls hardest on the poor and old and those who move, and even if the motivation was for the political gain of the affluent political party, so what?

I follow crime closely.  I can absolutely ensure you that I'm more informed about major cases than 95% of people.

But here's how I look at it.

I'm weird.  

Not the public.

I'm the weirdo.

My kid is grown now.  I'm not obsessed with my career as in the past.

So I have time to follow the stories.

Who in real life does?

And thank God, they don't!

So I don't begrudge those who tell me that Hillary is proposing a single-payer healthcare plan.  LOL*

They are just in that stage of life where news hits them about once every 3 days.

Haven't you ever been there?

Offtopic(?) But I already refuse to apply to certain jobs because their security "risk analysis" is poorly designed and arguably classist, racist, sexist, and homophobic.  And the "Full medical and disclosure and credit checks are required" statement is usually stated right above or below the EEO statement...hilarious.

It's bad from a civil rights/respect issue, but also because people self-select out, so they get lower quality workers (in this case lawyers) and weed out anyone with different points of view and discourage those with strong ethical standards.  The organization (govt) loses big time and so do the people it serves.

IMHO, a revision to the Civil Rights Act would actually fix many of these problems (though not the political view/1984 aspects or lawyer confidentiality issues of wiretapping).  It simply needs to be revised to contain stronger policies and/or reporting so that Government is held to the same standards as businesses.  Right now the executive is basically exempt--it makes it's own rules.  Whereas everyone else has to make sure they don't create patterns of hiring/retention/promotion that lead to discrimination.  Simply having that threat of suit  leads to higher quality hiring processes and a lower chance of misuse/insensitivity--in the private sector unnecessary credit checks can be seen as a lawsuit risk.

My favorite public sector story: a SF police dispatcher polygraph that asked a lesbian (as a control question) why she was dressed the way she was...

and..."have you ever done anything that would be considered amoral?"