Voters like to be monitored…

Those that follow my comments here, and on other blogs, know that I at times wage a battle of logic against the illogic of the left. In fact, I find it amusing that I am so often called names, when I employ their tactics against themselves (for reference to this, go read some of the comment battles at The Lobby.)

One of the on-going battles from the left is the sense that Americans are outraged at the government’s apparent monitoring of our lives. The self-absorbed left somehow believes that the US government is actually so interested in the mundane aspects of our daily lives that they listen to us, and track information about us, and our “normal” conversations. The left seems to think that most Americans would rise up against such government monitoring, even though the monitoring is done in the interest of national security, and thus, the safety of our populace.
Well, I for one wouldn’t want to extrapolate too far, or draw too many generalizable conclusions about these views from just one election, but I do find the situation in Philadelphia interesting. Today, Tuesday, 16 May 2006, Pennsylvania (my once and future home) held their primary elections. While there were many outcomes that may take the headlines, including the ouster of several incumbents, the silent yet critical news story may be about the referendum. Yes, THE referendum. The Associated Press ran a story (found at that said:

As police warn of a rising tide of gun violence, voters this week will get a chance to weigh in on whether Philadelphia should become the next big city to add public surveillance cameras to its crime-fighting arsenal.

A referendum on the ballot in Tuesday’s primary will ask voters whether they think the city’s charter should be amended to allow officials to use video surveillance to ”fight crime and violence” in a way that ”protects civil liberties and legitimate privacy interests.”

As of this moment, reports are that the city, a city (like so many other cities around the nation) dominated by the left and the Democrats, has voted overwhelmingly to allow video surveillance.
The outcome, as listed at, at this time, is:
Referendum – Video Surveillance – Ballot Issue
Philadelphia, 1543 of 1681 Precincts Reporting – 91.79%

  Name Votes Pct
Yes 62,518 79.12
  No 16,498 20.88

Note, this is with nearly 92% of the votes counted. Assuming every remaining vote goes against the ballot, those rougly 8,000 votes wouldn’t be enough to stop it.
Yes, Philiadelphia has voted to allow their government to monitor their activities, and record them, to provide a sense of security. They are sacrificing security over privacy and personal rights.
Actually, I would be more opposed to this, than even the NSA listening. Partly because of my libertarian leanings, but also because a local law enforcement officer is more likely to have personal connections with the individuals monitored, and thus the potential is far greater for personal malfeasance.
Yup. The left likes to whine and complain about the Republicans and the Right. They like to scream about individual rights, but put their own lives at risk and they give up those rights faster than Kennedy grabs a whisky bottle.


10 thoughts on “Voters like to be monitored…

  1. Check out the cover of Newsweek this week. Headline: “Spying on Your Calls: Is it Legal? What Else Don’t We Know?” You know I really don’t think the government cares what I’m saying on my phone. Maybe they use it to cure their insomnia?

  2. What phone lines are they hooking up to anyway – I mean my cell phone anyone with a cell phone’s bandwith radio can spy on my conversations… BTW, I believe the HAM vention is in town (Dayton) this weekend…I don’t have a land line anymore. So let them. My conversations consist of “Whats for dinner?”; “I don’t know. What are you making.”;”Softball’s cancelled.”

  3. I have never understood the term “Once and future” – I am surrounded by English teachers and I was too shy to say what does that mean!! GEEZ am I a goofball.

  4. “Once and future” — it happened before, is not happening at the moment, but will happen again. But I digress.

    I’m torn over the whole debate of the NSA’s intrusion into our lives. However, I can well understand the support over the PA referendum, and yet still be enraged over NSA. The difference between the two is that people who make calls expect those calls to be private. However, I suspect that people understand that when you go to a public place, you expect to loose some modicum of privacy. (And hence the term, *public* in public surveillance.)

    (For the record, I tend not to care that NSA is collecting phone numbers — or even listening in on my phone calls. My dilemma centers around when DO you start caring how much the government is –spying’ on you? Big Brother, anyone?)

  5. Mike, The govm’t knows who owns guns – well as least the legal guns, and now they know who is talking smack. One day, that loud mouth guy Jimbo talking about the govm’t in a bad way may disappear or worse yet have a chip planted in his frontal lobe and then we will be saying, “Wow, have you heard from the crazy guy Jimbo. He agrees with the pres. and wants to fight for his country.” AHHH! I say we are all gonna die anyway. I would rather die suddenly.

  6. Do they know who is talking smack? I was under the impression they just know who I am talking to, not what I am talking about. I guess if I’m talking to Mr Proven-Smack-Talking-Guy, they could make the assumption I am talking smack as well. (But then, if I’m talking to Mr Terrorist-Guy, wouldn’t you want to know?)

    So, Right Student, just out of curiosity, do you think the govm’t shouldn’t know who has guns?

    Ummmmm, chips are good. They make me happy. Oh wait, that’s potato chips…. never mind.

    On a side note, Prof, one of your links is still off. (The one to the Lobby. Go figure, their link for you is off as well though. I think they may be fixing that though. (?))

  7. MIKE! Ohmigod, finally someone responds. OK> To answer your q the anon.Mike, I don’t think the govm’t should know who has guns. That is like saying I think they should be able to go to our homes and take the only protection we have away from us when they want to – isn’t that why they know who has guns???
    One day there might need to be – actually NEED to be – a revolution in this country. We might need to talk smack and take action. GEEZ. Anyway, about the link – I noticed it too but considering the Lobby has The Proffessor on the lobby site as a team member it probablly is a mistake. Hmmm….

  8. I was under the impression that they know who has guns in order to prevent the mass killers/drug addicts/your neighbor who is psychotic/etc from getting a weapon and going on mass rampage and killing everyone around them. (Or at least the target of their anger at the time.)

    Do you think individuals having a weapon would really be effective in a revolution? Do you think you could get all of America to revolt against the government at one time? We can’t even get everyone to vote, let alone vote one way. I more envision a revolution of this proportion would have neighbor fighting neighbor, and mass choas breaking out.

  9. “They” want you(pretend you is bold for emphasis) to believe that is why “They” know who has guns. The company I work also wants me to know they are looking out for my best interests.

    I hope that I will not be alive to witness such things. But where there is Financial crashes and where there is corruption, one can only hope we will be able to defend ourselves in case of a civil war or in case of a revolution. The United States is not that old – 200 years give or take a few for the western states…Mexico just had a revolution within the last 200 years (1910 a few more wars after that). Conspiracy theories and lessons learned from the past…that is all that I am implying.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *