Another exceptionally busy - but extremely rewarding - day down at Arisia. MANY thanks to fans who turned up to say "hi" at the Gender in Gaming, PC Gaming panels. More details, naturally, when I get settled back home on Monday night (or Tuesday morning.)
Anyway! Proving once again that the BEST kind of politician is a politician facing a "base versus base" re-election fight, the Obama Administration has come out against the SOPA bill... and was subsequently dissed for doing so by Rupert Murdoch. Like I said, Election 2012 is reliable-base versus reliable-base (neither party has a record worth running on, so the strategy on both sides will be to fight so dirty that the only people who'll show up to vote will be the pre-decided base) so big, sweeping "stuff that's popular with my likely supporters" moves are the name of the game. Score one for the good guys.
Since I know someone is already prepping the "b-b-b-but the NDAA!!!!" response, here's my take on that: It sucks, it's scary, I hate it... but I also recognize that ANY electable U.S. politician would've signed it at this point in time regardless of party. Speaking only for myself, MY calculation goes like this: Right now, the NDAA would be unlikely to survive a challenge at the Supreme Court, and will get even LESS likely to survive with each new "liberal" justice that could potentially be appointed in Obama's second term... BUT, should the Republicans re-take the Presidency, the judges they'd be likely to appoint could easily swing the Court toward UPHOLDING the NDAA.
For me, this is the ultimate "politics for grownups" realization: You don't elect presidents as "leaders," you elect them as MASCOTS - vanguards of a broad party/political-philosophy. NOTHING is more important in modern (and forseeable-future) American law than the makeup of the Supreme Court and Federal Bench, and only Presidents can appoint judges. That's why it doesn't matter what Obama (or Romney, or whoever else) "says" they believe about abortion, gay-marriage, etc - they WILL appoint Judges who'll side either with the broad-liberal or broad-conservative narrative, and THAT will decide the course of countless future laws.
George W. Bush replaced two right-wing Supremes with two more right-wing Supremes. If ANY liberal/democrat/progressive politician had been President instead, we'd have an UNSTOPPABLY-progressive, secular, pro-science, pro-reason, anti-tradition-for-tradition's-sake Supreme Court and would be living in (IMHO) a vastly better America as a result. THAT - above all else - decides who I support and how I vote. Not men. Not character. Not even speeches or promises. Judges, judges, judges.