The people we elect aren’t the ones calling the shots, says Tufts University’s Michael Glennon. Others at SN have also voiced similar opinions so I thought this might be an interesting read for our members.
The voters who put Barack Obama in office expected some big changes. From the NSA’s warrantless wiretapping to Guantanamo Bay to the Patriot Act, candidate Obama was a defender of civil liberties and privacy, promising a dramatically different approach from his predecessor.
But six years into his administration, the Obama version of national security looks almost indistinguishable from the one he inherited. Guantanamo Bay remains open. The NSA has, if anything, become more aggressive in monitoring Americans. Drone strikes have escalated. Most recently it was reported that the same president who won a Nobel Prize in part for promoting nuclear disarmament is spending up to $1 trillion modernizing and revitalizing America’s nuclear weapons.
Why did the face in the Oval Office change but the policies remain the same? Critics tend to focus on Obama himself, a leader who perhaps has shifted with politics to take a harder line. But Tufts University political scientist Michael J. Glennon has a more pessimistic answer: Obama couldn’t have changed policies much even if he tried.
Though it’s a bedrock American principle that citizens can steer their own government by electing new officials, Glennon suggests that in practice, much of our government no longer works that way. In a new book, “National Security and Double Government,” he catalogs the ways that the defense and national security apparatus is effectively self-governing, with virtually no accountability, transparency, or checks and balances of any kind. He uses the term “double government”: There’s the one we elect, and then there’s the one behind it, steering huge swaths of policy almost unchecked. Elected officials end up serving as mere cover for the real decisions made by the bureaucracy.
[Related]: ‘National Security and Double Government’
(Score: 1) by ThG on Tuesday October 21 2014, @06:15PM
after reading the files about Area 51.
You, eh I meant we, are not alone on this planet!
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Leebert on Tuesday October 21 2014, @06:19PM
He has the authority to fire people. Keep firing people all the way down until it changes. Yes, the article says that there are only about 250 political appointees, but that's still a LOT when you consider the number of their direct reports.
What happened was that he either intentionally misled people to get elected or unintentionally miscalculated the political price of fixing the problem. Which, if I understand the article, was the well-intentioned design of the post-war system.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 21 2014, @06:40PM
People mislead themselves and ignored the parts that didn't fit their romanticized view.
Obama just didn't bother to correct them.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by frojack on Tuesday October 21 2014, @07:56PM
Quoting the TFS:
Critics tend to focus on Obama himself, a leader who perhaps has shifted with politics to take a harder line.
Quoting Leebert:
unintentionally miscalculated the political price of fixing the problem
I suggest something far simpler: He was, like his gullible believers, just Hopelessly Naive. He got into office, and He GREW UP.
When he got into office and found out the scope of the problems that would his starry eyed idealism would cause, he came to the realization that doing anything approaching his promises would have devastating real world consequences. The idealism got a dose of real-world information that knocked him on his heels.
Regarding Gitmo: Every single one of those released have rejoined the battle, are leading ISIS, even while the worst of the worst are still sitting there.
As for nuclear weapons, its a safety issue. If these things aren't rebuilt they will become dangerous. So the choice is disarm completely or scrap the old and rebuild newer safer weapons in smaller quantities. (Yes, there is a reduction, and no, 1 Trillion is not big money.)
The Marines couldn't capture Osama even when they had him cornered, but some twerp sitting on the end of a huge monitoring network found him. That ONE incident convinced Obama that what he had been force-fed since election was true. Knowledge was power.
I don't discount there is strong inertia in government, and strong tendencies to protect bureaucratic fiefdoms. Change takes too long, progress seems slow. Clue: Its that way in every successful country.
However, there isn't even a widespread agreement of what constituted progress. The country is split almost down the middle on many issues. In such an environment, invoking wholesale change would end up alienating half the country no matter WHAT you do. And in the end, any attempt to impose drastic change would probably not be successful, because those same voters that put him in office also elect people who rein him in.
There is a reason we don't have a King in this country, and that government isn't at the whim of one man. There's also a reason 16-25 year olds don't run ANY country.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by gawdonblue on Tuesday October 21 2014, @08:30PM
Well that is bullshit and means I will now doubt everything else you say.
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Tuesday October 21 2014, @09:00PM
Thank you! Also quite relevant is that the majority of those who are currently sitting in Gitmo are Yemenis who have been cleared of any kind of wrongdoing or terrorist associations, but the Yemeni government (a US ally) doesn't want them to come back. In other words, our tax dollars are allowing another country to outsource its political prisoners to us.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by hemocyanin on Tuesday October 21 2014, @09:17PM
That's a comment worthy of Cold Fjord. The fact is, a huge percentage of Gitmo detainees were the victims of retaliation / massive bonuses. The US was offering rewards about 10x yearly income for information on people to sweep off to Gitmo. Imagine an asshole who has an annoying neighbor and the usual human avarice -- you can imagine what happened.
See page 15, text of US Gov't Flyer:
Or consider this:
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/world/2005-05-31-bounties_x.htm [usatoday.com]
I can say this -- if some random government came in and despite my actual innocence, imprisoned and tortured me for years, if I ever got out, I would do everything in my power to get revenge. I think most people would. The only thing that would stay my fury, would be an express apology, a lot of money, and promises of reform.
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Tuesday October 21 2014, @09:19PM
Two things, my response is to the GP (Frojack) quoted.
Secondly, here is the citation for the report I mentioned in my first blockquote: http://law.shu.edu/publications/guantanamoReports/guantanamo_report_final_2_08_06.pdf [shu.edu]
(Score: 1) by forkazoo on Tuesday October 21 2014, @11:37PM
Even if it is true, I'm not sure it should drive policy. If you were illegally imprisoned by a foreign imperial power for years without trial, why wouldn't you want to fight them? "People get angry at us when we do this, therefore we should do it forever," isn't necessarily the only possible line of logic that extends from post Guantanamo combatants.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Wednesday October 22 2014, @08:54AM
Many have already come to this conclusion long ago. If only our fellow Soylentil was either not so afraid, or not so full of it.
(Score: 2) by Leebert on Tuesday October 21 2014, @08:35PM
No doubt there's some of that there. But we have a rule of law, and I'm FAR more afraid of an out-of-control government than I am a bunch of terrorists. And I say that as a guy who works about 4 blocks from the US Capitol building, and thus has a bigger chance than most of not coming away from whatever happens at that particular ground zero.
I've been the guy who has, many times, pointed out that IMO this is ALL being done by well-intentioned people. I know quite a few of them. But the fact is that our form of government is a delicately balanced risk management equation. If that equation must change due to reality, well... let's have that conversation. It's not either-or. Do we need a "Bureau of Domestic Intelligence Data Collection"? Maybe. But it should be created in plain sight, with clear checks and balances in place. Sure, We the People don't need to know every little detail, that's why we hire 435 people to handle that for us. But when we've gotten to the point that the national security apparatus has been found straight-faced lying to our representatives that we employ to handle this for us, something is very, very wrong, and the risk scale has tipped WAY far in the other direction.
Yes, pragmatically, in practice, we've all known that the likes of the CIA have been doing these things for a very long time, and we've taken something of a "sometimes you just have to..." mindset. But this is different. It's at an unprecedented (and still unwarranted) scale, less and less in the very, very few "look the other way" parts of the government and more and more in plain view (e.g., Guantanamo). I won't get into the "why do you THINK these guys joined an anti-US organization when released from Gitmo?" question; I'll just leave it to say that a lot of the problems are quite self-inflicted and are dangerous feedback loops.
Anyway, you may well be right that the third unmentioned option of "he changed his mind" should have been included. But it still isn't excusable.
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Tuesday October 21 2014, @09:02PM
Or, as was the case of the NSA, breaking into computers controlled by a US Senator to delete incriminating information.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Tuesday October 21 2014, @09:09PM
But we have a rule of law, and I'm FAR more afraid of an out-of-control government than I am a bunch of terrorists.
We HAD a rule of law. Obama refuses to enforce them [wsj.com]
Not just the little laws, that everyone might agree need to be ignored occasionally, but the huge ones.
There was a time when the CIA and the NSA did not operate in this country. When people, here legally, flew airplanes into buildings all of that changed. They have gone for a technological solution instead of feet on the ground in a hundred little places talking to local police. Just easier to listen in on phone calls. They've gotten lazy, and let the computers round up everything.
I agree it is unprecedented, but only in this country. Others have operated this way for decades.
What I worry about is the day when these government snoops feel their livelyhood is threatened, and instead of a bunch of sting operations with inert fake bombs run against ignorant islamic militant wanna-be's they actually fund, or turn a blind eye to a shopping center attack [wikipedia.org] like Westgate. Every time the heat is turned up on them they run another silly security theater sting. I wouldn't be surprised if they have convinced/threatened Obama that any move against them would result in such an attack.
Its clear Obama has totally lost interest in the Job. Maybe its just because he has nothing more to gain, term-limited out. I suppose its also possible he's been totally cowed by the security apparatus.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by Leebert on Tuesday October 21 2014, @09:23PM
I've had similar thoughts, but I still don't see that as a problem for the President. That is the point at which he should use his greatest weapon, the press and the bully pulpit, stand up in front of the American people and tell them that he and the American public have been threatened, and that he has directed whatever law enforcement is still legitimate to immediately arrest the offender(s), or, failing in that, mobilizing the National Guard to remove the offenders as domestic enemies, or, failing in that, at least telling the American people that their government is no longer legitimate and allowing them to take whatever steps (if any) they see fit to remove the illegitimate government.
Again, unless he's concerned about his own well-being (political or otherwise), the president is pretty much never backed into a corner that doesn't let him do SOMETHING to uphold his oath. And if he's worried about his popularity, life and limb enough to not uphold his oath, than he is unworthy of the office.
Maybe I'm hopelessly idealistic, but I've seen people at the returns counter at Wal-Mart fighting a losing battle in a bigger outrage than I've seen any politician fighting against the out-of-control security apparatus. Except maybe Ron Paul.
(Score: 2) by tathra on Tuesday October 21 2014, @09:33PM
well, yes, but in this country we have a constitution - a document that grants the country sovereignty and grants our representatives the authority to govern - that explicitly limits the powers of government. a government which goes outside of the rules that it must follow to receive its authority and sovereignty is a rogue government. the US is officially a rogue nation. unlike those other countries which have been rogue (or under despots or dictators) for a long time, we're living through the time in which our government has gone rogue; its far too late in those other states to stop it, but we may still have a chance. the fate of our nation literally hangs in the balance. if the article is correct that its been too late for a long time, then we need to abandon ship or begin the Second American Revolution.
(Score: 3) by frojack on Tuesday October 21 2014, @09:42PM
Sorry to say it, but appeals to the constitution are laughed at in every courthouse in the nation.
Every lawyer and judge snickers up their sleeve when anybody raises a constitutional issue.
The constitution has no teeth. There is no punishment for violating it once you are in government.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by tathra on Tuesday October 21 2014, @10:26PM
there is, its just nobody is enforcing it.
5 U.S. Code § 7311 - Loyalty and striking [cornell.edu]
ignoring/undermining the constitution = overthrowing or advocating the overthrow of our constitutional form of government. if our representatives aren't respecting the constitution, we no longer have a constitutional form of government.
18 U.S. Code § 1918 - Disloyalty and asserting the right to strike against the Government [cornell.edu]
every federal employee who ignores, undermines, suggests to ignore or undermine the constitution, or knows their coworkers or superiors do is to be locked up for a year, fined, or both.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Wednesday October 22 2014, @08:40PM
Washington DC and those who control it consider the American people to be the greatest threat to them. They have demonstrated that with their failure to punish the NSA for massively violating our Constitution, and not charging investment bankers for laundering money for drug cartels or defrauding the American people, and militarizing local police departments, and a whole host of other crimes and usurpations. They have already declared war on us. It is important to understand that.
Our system of checks and balances was well-designed, but over the last 200 years it has been subverted to the point of collapse. There remains no branch of government or traditional avenue for peaceful change that can or will do anything about it, because they are all in on it. It is up to the American citizens to stand up and enforce the law.
Soylentils can do their part by developing software and hardware that undermines their central control and makes it impossible for them to conduct business as usual. Let's crowd-source intelligence gathering on them and make it public for all to see, so they can be hoisted on their own petard. Let's send clouds of drones to swarm over their homes. Let's stop working to help them, and apply our considerable skills to resist and stop them. There are millions more of us than there are of them. Snowden has shown us all how powerful information can be, so let's follow that example and do likewise.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Tuesday October 21 2014, @09:36PM
The country is split almost down the middle on many issues. In such an environment, invoking wholesale change would end up alienating half the country no matter WHAT you do.
Perhaps the government should be organized more in line with the subsidiarity principle?
That way the cities can progress without upsetting people that have a hard time to rethink.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 21 2014, @11:07PM
He GREW UP
Well, Obama got the part of his education that he had skipped over by being inside government such a short time.
JFK was another 40something whose personality (plus his "youth and inexperience", to quote a great line) damn near got us WWIII.
If the older, wiser Nikita Khrushchev (then 68) hadn't seen the consequences of continued saber rattling in October 1962, those of us who survived would be living the A Boy and His Dog|Threads scenario.
...then there's Dubya.
I think everyone's memories of that fiasco are fresh enough that I don't need to go into detail.
Oh, wait. He only -acted- like a 40something.
.
...and, as gawdonblue noted "rejoined" is bullshit.
If those people were an actual threat, they would have been tried and convicted (in the easy-to-get-a-conviction kangaroo courts of the post-9/11 USA).
The fact is, they we were released because they weren't ever militants.
All you had to do to get swept up in the insanity that is The War On Terror was have a neighbor who would drop a dime on you and make up some bullshit story.
(With you gone, the rat could then grab up that shiny new whatever you just acquired that he so covets.)
...though I would say those folks NOW have every reason to take up arms against the USA.
Blowback is a bitch.
-- gewg_
(Score: 2) by frojack on Wednesday October 22 2014, @01:16AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_former_Guantanamo_Bay_detainees_alleged_to_have_returned_to_terrorism [wikipedia.org]
http://articles.latimes.com/2011/apr/25/world/la-fg-yemen-wikileaks-20110426 [latimes.com]
http://online.wsj.com/articles/after-guantanamo-freed-detainees-return-to-violence-in-syria-battlefields-1401839291 [wsj.com]
http://www.militantislammonitor.org/article/id/6401 [militantislammonitor.org]
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/01/23/exgitmo-detainee-alshihri_n_160330.html [huffingtonpost.com]
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A52670-2004Oct21.html [washingtonpost.com]
I have no illusions about changing your mind on anything, but when even the huf and puf post is publishing it you have to wonder.....
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 1) by thelexx on Wednesday October 22 2014, @03:15AM
"Regarding Gitmo: Every single one of those released have rejoined the battle, are leading ISIS, even while the worst of the worst are still sitting there."
I would like to see evidence of that assertion. It doesn't surprise me but I've never heard that.
"1 Trillion is not big money"
Now I'm wondering what your agenda is.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Wednesday October 22 2014, @04:22AM
funny you should ask, since the citations appeared directly below your post.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 22 2014, @04:27AM
There is a reason we don't have a King in this country, and that government isn't at the whim of one man.
Please. A king is simply the Head of State. Quite literally - the crown on his head is more important than the king himself. Even King George III hardly represented the kind of fairytale monarch you are thinking of - he had to petition the British Parliament to to war against American revolutionaries because he didn't have the power.
The US has a Head of State too, only you've actually gone and given your guy extraordinary broad powers. He's quite whimsical about exercising them too... "Turns out I'm really good at killing people".
There is a reason you don't have kings in your country, but it's only semantic.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 22 2014, @09:35AM
The country is split almost down the middle on many issues.
And why is that? Is that because every issue has precisely two mutually exclusive sides?
Or is that because it gets you more votes to phrase everything in terms of "us vs. them"?
--FakeBeldin.
(Score: 2) by arslan on Tuesday October 21 2014, @11:01PM
Didn't he fire some folks? All that did was put in place new folks that are _still_ in the pocket of those behind the scenes. I believe the point of this article here is that those behind the scenes are not the ones in office so you can't "fire" them.
(Score: 2) by Leebert on Tuesday October 21 2014, @11:57PM
There is a management structure. Assuming the President issues legal orders, then somewhere down that management chain, political appointee or not, someone is either not following orders from above, in which case they can be fired for insubordination, or they are not subject to the organizational structure of the Executive branch due to some exception in legislation that was passed by the Congress.
Let's say it's the latter. Once again, our President has not used his office to its full ability to fix the problem. The Constitution specifically give the President one of these responsibilities in Article II, Section 3:
Has the President used the State of the Union for something other than a prime-time fashion gala (or, heck, at any point he so chooses to address the Congress, since "from time to time" isn't exactly schedule prescriptive); specifically, insisted that Congress fix such a hypothetical problem? If not, then it either doesn't exist, or again, the President has failed to take the action that he could have taken.
Can you help me understand how else such nefarious actors in government could be shielded from Presidential action?
(Score: 1) by octalrage on Wednesday October 22 2014, @05:43AM
I think the idea here is there are hidden people who can "fire" him if he doesn't do what they want.
(Score: 1) by Stardner on Tuesday October 21 2014, @06:25PM
(Score: 4, Insightful) by dyingtolive on Tuesday October 21 2014, @06:33PM
Frankly, I don't know as they'd actually care. Once you build a system to spoonfeed a dichotomy to people and squash any other alternatives, it doesn't really matter how many or how few people vote.
Really, fewer people voting would actually result in the greater capacity for change, as there would be a greater chance that one of the fringe candidates would be successful. At least, assuming the black boxes are honest.
Don't blame me, I voted for moose wang!
(Score: 1) by Stardner on Tuesday October 21 2014, @09:35PM
(Score: 2) by dyingtolive on Wednesday October 22 2014, @02:11AM
Wait, what?
Consider the 2008 election. There were about 70 million votes for Pepsi, 60 million votes for Coke, and about .7 million votes for Nader.
Now consider that voter turnout drops to 10% of what it was, roughly even across the board. That's kind of extreme, but this is the internet and accurate voter apathy models isn't something I'd like to do for fun. Now instead of Nader needing about 69.4 million votes to beat Pepsi, he only needs 6.94 million. That's practically a couple internet mobs.
That's what I mean when I say that overall voter apathy reduces barrier to change.
Don't blame me, I voted for moose wang!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 21 2014, @11:14PM
spoonfeed a dichotomy
You have a firm grasp on the present state of affairs.
There are, however, still some radio|TeeVee outlets that are fact-based and not beholding to (advertising-revenue-based) corporate decisions on content:
Pacifica Radio
Free Speech TV (cable)
Note that NPR is **not** in this group.
Want to check the veracity of a "news" story?
Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting http://fair.org [fair.org]
.
fewer people voting would actually result in the greater capacity for change
...or, maybe MORE people voting with ALL of those folks voting against the status quo.
When the results show that a MAJORITY of the electorate vote not-Blue and not-Red, it will become clear that the first-past-the-post method and the Electoral College are not representative of what the majority want.
At that point, demand that the Constitution be amended so that to win you have to get a MAJORITY.
That will mean ranked voting.
-- gewg_
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 21 2014, @11:41PM
FTFY
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 21 2014, @06:36PM
Votes are controlled by the influential. If you think your vote matters then you are not influential.
Try turning down the thermostat at work by 20 degrees and realize that it may only reduce 1-2.
The illusion of control promotes complacency.
Complacency is the ultimate enemy of real change.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 21 2014, @08:28PM
It is worse than that.
The parties are controlled by the party leaders.
An unfortunately good way to describe it is the movie the distinguished gentleman staring Eddie Murphy.
The party leaders decide who gets the cushy jobs. Who gets the cushy panels and who gets the crap ones or none at all. Look to the Majority/minority leaders and these are the 4 people who run our senate and congress. They get their marching orders from their parties boards.
Money keeps the 'rank and file' in line. Sure would be a shame if your opponent had 40 million in their re-election campaign fund and you had nothing. Sure would be a shame if where the money came from for you current election came to light.
If none of this was true would you see such stark party line votes? That just simply is not possible in a group of 500+ people. If it followed like real elections you would see the 20-30% hard core vote my way or the hit the highway and then the people who swing back and forth. Instead it is almost always party line. That just is not possible without some gross manipulation going on.
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Tuesday October 21 2014, @09:34PM
This is why I vote a straight Neither-GOP-Nor-DNC ticket. Even if some politician who was Ghandi-Jesus-SantaClaus all rolled into one was on the ballot, the very fact that he is part of either major party means he will be corrupted. The very fact of joining one of those parties is step one toward that inevitable corruption. So I only vote for 3d Parties (any available or for my cat when none is available).
(Score: 2) by VLM on Tuesday October 21 2014, @07:10PM
They've already stopped.
How many party loyalists can each side get to the polls.
Articles in the wash post have lead ins like "The swing voter is increasingly an endangered species"
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 21 2014, @06:28PM
Many people who voted for Obama obviously did not look into his voting history. Actions speak louder than words but the words were just sooo good.
Change that I can believe in. Wow.
I can hope for a better tomorrow.
Ignorance is bliss.
Voting being a placebo button or an office thermostat at best.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Tuesday October 21 2014, @06:53PM
As we say at work, "Hope is not a strategy."
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 21 2014, @09:57PM
As we say at work, "It's not my fault, it's the other guy."
(Score: 2) by skullz on Tuesday October 21 2014, @07:01PM
Or they looked into the other guy's voting history and ran away screaming.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by JNCF on Tuesday October 21 2014, @07:06PM
Too bad there was only one other option. [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 2) by skullz on Tuesday October 21 2014, @07:23PM
I tried putting myself in as a writein a few times but no one else seemed to jump on board. You only have yourselves to blame.
(Score: 2) by redneckmother on Wednesday October 22 2014, @12:29AM
If I'd only known... I wrote in my neighbor.
Mas cerveza por favor.
(Score: 2) by quacking duck on Tuesday October 21 2014, @07:26PM
We in Canada are very, extremely aware of the problems that come from vote-splitting. 10-20 years ago it was the 2 right-wing parties splitting their vote and getting nowhere, then they unified under a single, further-right banner, and in the last 10 years it's been centrist/left voters split across 2 major and one minor parties.
Our current government won a majority with less than 40% of the popular vote, and it'll take 20 years to undo the damage they've done to our democracy, government transparency/accountability, science and research programs, social programs, and international reputation.
This is the biggest problem with first-past-the-post voting systems, if it's just your side that has plenty of people who dare deviate from the major party (if there is one...), or can't organize to vote strategically, then the party you like least ends up winning.
And since our current government got rid of the vote subsidy, where each vote literally counted for some money towards that party, your vote really is wasted now if you try "sending a message" by supporting a smaller party.
(Score: 3, Informative) by JNCF on Tuesday October 21 2014, @07:35PM
Votes are always wasted, your one vote is ridiculously unlikely to change the outcome of a city election (let alone a national one). There is no reason to vote except as an idealistic gesture, so it seems odd to me when people use cynicism to determine how they should vote. If you're going to vote cynicly, please just stay home.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Leebert on Tuesday October 21 2014, @07:56PM
You're not thinking strategically. Vote third party. Enough third-party votes attract the attention of politicians who will make adjustments to try to sway those third party votes, especially when they anticipate a tight race. From their perspective, it's better to cede a few issues and win most of the power than it is to cede all of the power to your opponent.
Absent a candidate whom you can truly support, your vote can still help make a difference. Admittedly a less impactful one that we'd all like.
(Score: 1) by JNCF on Tuesday October 21 2014, @09:21PM
You didn't read the second half of my comment, evidently. I was totally encouraging people to vote third party. This will be even more apparent if you read the parent and grandparent posts (the grandparent was also mine). I still don't think that any one person voting third party will do anything - it's just an idealistic act. But I just so happen to like idealistic acts...
(Score: 2) by Leebert on Tuesday October 21 2014, @09:29PM
I've re-read it several times, and maybe I'm missing something but I don't see what you say is there.
"Votes are always wasted" seems pretty absolute to me, and seems to cover third-party votes. Likewise, saying that "[t]here is no reason to vote except as an idealistic gesture" implies that the vote has no value whatsoever, beyond some self-delusion that you're doing something. My point is that it CAN do something.
If I'm still being obtuse, please feel free to point out where I misinterpreted you.
(Score: 2) by JNCF on Tuesday October 21 2014, @10:05PM
Me-quote:
I think the corollary to "if you're going to vote cynicly, please just stay home" is "if you're going to vote idealistically, please come out to the polls." I guess I should have stated this outright, because evidently it wasn't clear enough.
When I say that there is no reason to vote except as an idealistic gesture, I say that as somebody who voted in the last election and intends to vote in the next one. I like idealistic gestures. I don't see it as self-delusion, I see it as fighting the good fight and losing. Better to fight and lose than stay home apathetic. I think that being oppositional to those in power is something that we should be in the regular practice of, for personal reasons.
I still don't think that an individual voting third party changes anything, except in that individual. I agree with this part of your first post:
I just think that "enough" is a great deal more than one. Individual votes are statistically insignificant. If you could sway ten percent of the votes (or even two percent), I agree that putting it towards a third party would do more to pull the rope in your desired direction than voting Red or Blue.
(Score: 2) by Leebert on Tuesday October 21 2014, @10:09PM
Fair enough; I think we're at a happy medium of agreement. :)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 21 2014, @10:35PM
No! That's not aloud! This is the internet.
(Score: 2) by aclarke on Tuesday October 21 2014, @08:59PM
I can't figure out for the life of me why we don't switch to runoff voting, or proportional representation.
No, wait, I can. FPtP helps keeps incumbents in power, and it's the incumbents who have the authority to make the changes. Yet another way in which democracy is, in practice, a sham.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 21 2014, @09:59PM
In New Zealand, we're faced with the same problem. Our right-wing National government is running the country, and they only got something around 33% of the total vote.
(Score: 2) by Leebert on Tuesday October 21 2014, @07:44PM
I find Duverger's Law [wikipedia.org] interesting. If you haven't heard of it, it's a good read.
(Score: 2) by JNCF on Tuesday October 21 2014, @09:27PM
That was a good read, thanks.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 22 2014, @05:58PM
That is interesting, thanks for the link.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Wednesday October 22 2014, @04:09AM
Looking at that list, how many of those parties have ever gotten a president elected? Gotten a candidate into a televised debate? Even gotten their totes shown on TV for election night?
They may be an alternative if enough people get pissed off enough, but they're perceived not to be and because we are a first past the post system, voting that way might make the guy you're not quite sure is sane win.
(Score: 2) by velex on Wednesday October 22 2014, @01:54PM
How about this? [freeandequal.org]
Larry King being involved says that it's a bit more than some lame initiative in a high school gym.
Now, the question to really ask is why the American people care so little about their democracy that they allow themselves to be spoon-fed information from the Department of Propaganda of the One Party (otherwise known as the “lame-stream media”)?
How do we get this information out?
(Score: 2) by sjames on Wednesday October 22 2014, @05:13PM
It is something, but you can't really blame the general public for being unaware of something that received practically no publicity (this is the first I have heard of it and it was 2 years ago) that is appearing on a website most haven't heard of.
Of course we don't get to see the 3rd party candidates debate the Rs and the Ds even there.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 21 2014, @07:45PM
Many people bitch and moan about what a piss-poor job Obama is doing, about how he not only hasn't delivered on his more significant campaign promises, but has made worse things that he had promised to make better. Yes, in retrospect, he obviously was not a good choice. Unfortunately, the only alternative offered was significantly worse. The people weren't given a choice between "good" and "bad", they were offered "less-than-wonderful" and "batshit insane". It was a lose-lose proposition.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 22 2014, @06:06PM
My ballot had many folks running. I voted for neither Obama nor Romney. I bet there were many other choices available on your ballot too.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Wednesday October 22 2014, @03:58AM
Nobody who liked Obama's words was going to vote for Romney, now were they? So what choice did they perceive?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 22 2014, @06:06PM
All the other folks running for President? You do know there were more than 2 choices, right?
(Score: 3, Informative) by VLM on Tuesday October 21 2014, @06:53PM
Most recently it was reported that the same president who won a Nobel Prize
I would have to check my numbers but I believe he's now bombed more poor brown countries than W did.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 21 2014, @07:07PM
I think the statement that is going around refers to "Muslim countries". I don't know if all of them are brown but they are Other.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Lagg on Tuesday October 21 2014, @07:07PM
Seriously, you're pathetic and shameless. I'm so fucking tired of this "oh what's new" or "what were you expecting" or "we can't change anything so why try :'(" crap. It's nothing but an excuse to be lazy pricks and not be ashamed of it. Just because you were expecting something outrageous or yet another NSA breach of privacy or Obama being a jackass doesn't mean you shouldn't be outraged about it and try to change it. Letting these people condition you to shrug off horrible things is just about the worst thing you can do to yourself and your given country. Yes, voting probably doesn't do what politicians tell deluded people it does. But do you really want people to take on this mindset of "oh why bother" and just not vote at all? Do you want these people to make decisions themselves without even the vague promise of repercussions?
This is shameful. It's pathetic and yet still seems to be the general consensus on how to react. Probably because it enables people to be lazy bastards. Hell this is even affecting any given internet community. That whole "ignore the troll and it'll go away" thing. Yeah. Take a look around and see where that got you. How are you enjoying the soapboxes that various pseudo-feminist groups and bible thumpers and indeed insane politicians have gotten? Are you happy that you didn't "feed" the trolls now? It's no different in real life, especially in this case.
http://lagg.me [lagg.me] 🗿
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 21 2014, @07:21PM
The office thermostat will not change the temperature much, if at all. People adjusting it are typically satisfied when it works a little or they just experience the placebo effect.
We need more outrage and hopefully pointing out how ineffective the thermostat is will convince people that something else needs to be done.
(Score: 2) by Alfred on Tuesday October 21 2014, @07:34PM
Angry Americans of the 1770s banded together and fought a war. Angry Americans of the 2010s yell at the screen they are watching in their individual homes.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 21 2014, @07:47PM
Complacency doesn't solve anything. Rage is better than that but it is useless if undirected.
Rage is one of the emotions that may motivate people to make the sacrifices you mention.
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Tuesday October 21 2014, @09:49PM
Angry Americans in 2011 camped out in the middle of New York City and a bunch of other places for months. The authorities (local police departments with coordination and spying by the FBI) shut the peaceable assembly down by force, completely illegally, and then carefully refused to acknowledge that that kind of dissent even existed. With the end result that only a few years later, you forgot that it happened.
That's not unusual: The largest protest action in human history [wikipedia.org] is now largely down the memory hole.
You have to remember that the secret government agencies we're talking about here see social movements and organizations as a threat, and respond accordingly. They reacted that way to the labor movement, to the Civil Rights Movement, and especially the anti-Vietnam Movement. And what they learned since that period was how to attack protest movements without getting video like this [youtube.com] and this [youtube.com] replayed constantly on the news, even though it still happens [youtube.com].
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Wednesday October 22 2014, @09:00PM
Very few people took up arms against the British. The educational materials at the Old Stone House here in Brooklyn, where the Battle of Brooklyn was fought, put the number at 5% of the total population who did anything to resist the crown (which includes farmers who hid their harvests to keep the redcoats from appropriating them, people who handed out broadsheets, and the like). So it's quite inaccurate to think that most or even a lot of the country has to rise up at once to effect change. Small numbers of motivated people can do it.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by JNCF on Tuesday October 21 2014, @07:27PM
Okay then Mr. Leader of The Revolution, what are we going to do about it?
If voting doesn't do what they tell us it does, what other options do we have?
Are we ready for violence yet?
If not violence, where do you intend to direct the outrage you lambast others for lacking?
If you don't do something useful with it, look in the mirror at the criticism you dole out.
Pathetic.
Shameless.
Outrage without action is useless.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by velex on Tuesday October 21 2014, @08:13PM
Start at the local level. Work to get measures on state ballots.
Marijuana is being legalized. That's proof that something can be done that the Masters of the Universe don't want.
I expect things like Wolf-PAC will be significantly more difficult due to the greater threat that represents and the greater brainwashing that allows people to accept what's going on.
Support your local Libertarian or Green party. More importantly (and ironically given TFS) vote for them. Sure, maybe the Masters of the Universe would start rigging elections left and right, but that information would get out. Maybe that'd start the revolution.
Doing nothing is not the answer.
(Score: 2) by JNCF on Tuesday October 21 2014, @09:28PM
I agree completely.
(Score: 2) by Lagg on Tuesday October 21 2014, @08:47PM
I write letters, I vote and I sign petitions. I know that at best they have little effect and usually end with me on a spam list from a given politician but I still do it and though I understand why others don't I still encourage it and more importantly I bring the cluebat when it needs bringing. Like right now. And don't give me this "leader of the revolution" shit. That's why your mindset is so pathetic. You think there's no space between outright rebellion and apathy. Just the fact that people acknowledge that these things are unacceptable is better than doing nothing at all. Total apathy because you feel impotent is exactly what these asshats want. They want you to expect and tolerate every little violation up until suddenly you're in a total police state (i.e. what has and is already occurring, especially in the UK).
http://lagg.me [lagg.me] 🗿
(Score: 2) by JNCF on Tuesday October 21 2014, @10:31PM
I'm not sure what you think my mindset is, but I have a feeling you're wrong about it.
I do think there is space between violence and apathy, and I think you're in a perfect position to fill it.
I don't think that writing letters, punching ballots, or signing petitions changes much, but I'm still glad you do those things.
I just don't think they're the best use of your time, Lagg.
You can do more, though you certainly aren't obligated to.
You know the FBI wants a backdoor in all encryption? [newsweek.com]
Laughable, I know.
In the future, the code will disagree with the laws.
I would focus your outrage on the code, not the laws; you can't change the laws.
(Score: 2) by Lagg on Tuesday October 21 2014, @10:47PM
I'm probably wrong but frankly you're not giving me much to go on with hyperbole like "leader of the revolution". Yes it might not be the best use of my time but there's not much else that can be done and I'd rather do that and get some level of personal reassurance rather than being defeatist about it. As far as code goes I'm not too concerned. The only place that will be an issue is in proprietary stuff. For open source projects not only will such laws be ignored but actively fought. Hackers tend to not be too open to such things. What would likely result is the cryptography equivalent of the Streisand Effect.
http://lagg.me [lagg.me] 🗿
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 21 2014, @11:28PM
In a recent edition of The Ralph Nader Radio Hour, Ralph noted that a letter to a Congresscritter that expresses **an opinion** will just get a form letter back.
What you do is ask a question.
The staff will then have to make an effort.
In the process, they may learn something they didn't know and that may find its way to the ear of the guy who votes on stuff.
It's one of the last things in the 13MB file at about 0:50:00.
http://archive.kpfk.org/mp3/kpfk_141011_110045nader.MP3 [kpfk.org]
Immediately after that, he tells how to take a bite out of a megacorporation at almost no cost to you.
(Identify a way that you have been injured by its actions and file a case in small claims court.)
N.B. Since they "improved" their site, I can no longer link directly to their streams.
If you want that instead, it's the October 11, 11AM program.
http://archive.kpfk.org/#ad_24906 [kpfk.org]
That program will remain accessible from their archive until early January 2015.
-- gewg_
(Score: 2) by Lagg on Wednesday October 22 2014, @01:17AM
Will keep that in mind, thanks. In my experience the boilerplate responses don't really change that much from question to opinion but will try to consciously do the former.
http://lagg.me [lagg.me] 🗿
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Wednesday October 22 2014, @08:48PM
Nonviolence and intentional subversion of the status quo are definite measures technologists like us can undertake. I offer Napster and Edward Snowden as two ready examples. Napster single-handedly signaled the end of a multi-billion dollar, very influential industry. But it was just file-sharing software, something many of us could have written if we had wanted to. Snowden has massively imploded global perceptions of the American government, but all he did was make documents of the NSA's crimes public. He didn't even have to write software to do that; he just had to want to and to have balls of steel.
I submit that there are many, many ways each and every one of us on SN can apply our skills to kick the "shadow government" in the nads, if we want to. If you're an American and think DC and its controllers are out of control, then I would say it's your patriotic duty to do so. We as a group can be a far, far more effective force for change than X million dirty hippies waving their fists in the street.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by skullz on Tuesday October 21 2014, @07:48PM
.. various pseudo-feminist groups and bible thumpers ...
Like combating sexual assault in the .mil's? Make sure that people get paid the same for the same job work? The only thing the bible folk have managed to do recently is to close down abortion clinics but that is mostly in Texas so it really doesn't count.
(Score: 1) by Gertlex on Tuesday October 21 2014, @08:08PM
Nice words... but I can't seem them changing the views of those you refer to.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 22 2014, @02:35AM
What I was expecting was for Congress to keep sucking, and President Obama to only be able to get done a small percent of what he had promised to try to do and to make his policy.
As soon as I see whiners talking about Guantanamo, I know it is a steaming pile or propaganda.
I voted for Obama to be President of the United States, not Dictator of the World. If he promised to do X and his proposal once in office was to do X and Congress was able to block him, that is him doing what he said he would do. Duh.
(Score: 2) by metamonkey on Wednesday October 22 2014, @03:30PM
There are four boxes to use in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order.
We're still barely working through the first three. What you're doing right now, complaining about it on the Internet counts as "soap." Keep doing it. Post your screeds here, on FaceBook, wherever. Talk to people about it. Yes, bitching on the Internet is part of your duty as a citizen.
Ballot hasn't had a chance yet. Next month is the first major election since the Snowden leaks came to light and the bulk of people got the message that the government is spying on everything they do. We haven't had a chance for people to listen to their representatives' stances on government spying and vote accordingly. Who knows, maybe people will vote for more spying. We don't know yet. I know I'm voting to re-elect my libertarian-leaning Republican congressman because when I wrote him a letter urging him to vote to cut funding to the spying programs he wrote me back a personal response and said "Yup, right there with you." So I got a good one. You vote for a good one, too, okay?
It'll be really interesting to see what happens in 2016. Government surveillance is obviously going to have to be addressed. There will be debate questions about it. The candidates will have to take a stance. Let's see what happens.
Jury's still grinding through the system, too. The EFF is working on it. Jewel vs. NSA and Shubert vs. Obama are going to be heard. Let's hear what the Supreme Court has to say about this.
My point is, the fact that people haven't taken to the streets with pitchforks and torches doesn't mean they don't care. It means they realize there is a slow democratic process to effect change in our society, and we have to let the machine work. It'll be years until we know the outcome. If it doesn't work, I don't know what'll happen afterwards, but telling people to take to the streets now is stupid.
Okay 3, 2, 1, let's jam.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 22 2014, @06:13PM
What box includes a mass work stoppage? Ain't ammo: nothing violent about it. Don't protest in the streets because then you'll be arrested and beaten, just stay home and stop working, that way only the perceived ring leaders would be arrested and beaten at home, which is a very small population. If 90% of the teachers stopped working until X changed, or 90% of the nurses stopped working until Y changed, or 90% of IT folks stopped working (GASP!) until Z changed, I think X, Y, and Z would change. I just don't see any political will to do any of that.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Wednesday October 22 2014, @08:56PM
Glib platitudes help no one. We have arrived where we are because those first three have failed. The last is reserved for shock value to act as a GOTO 10 statement. There is another stage that is called for now, and it is active resistance. Think hard how you can use your skills to expose and undermine the pillars of the status quo. If you're a network engineer, think of how you can shut the NSA out for good. If you're a hardware hacker, teach others how to make drones. If you're a low-level sysadmin, and you become aware of crimes committed by your bosses, leak the evidence to the blogosphere.
There are many things people like us can do that are effective, if we choose to do them and if we think freedom is worth getting up off the couch for.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by metamonkey on Wednesday October 22 2014, @09:40PM
Did you not read my post? The first three haven't failed yet. They're still being tried. Once we've had a presidential election and elected a pro-spying candidate (or one who promises to end spying and then reneges), then you can say ballot failed. Not yet. Once the EFF's lawsuits against the NSA have been lost, then you can say jury (I know judges aren't juries, but it fits the glib platitude) has failed. Not yet.
Agreed, there are things you can do in the meantime to make things more difficult for them, but ultimately this is a political problem, not a technological problem.
Okay 3, 2, 1, let's jam.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Alfred on Tuesday October 21 2014, @07:23PM
Institutions are set up to reduce critical thinking skills and civil discourse (I'm looking at you Department of Education), to suppress intellect and disadvantage us until we are acting like easily controlled cave-men. "But we be smart, we is graduates!" Yup, you sure are, congratulations, go back to your TV. As cliché as the word "sheeple" is it is astonishingly accurate.
There is so much pride and ego up there that they can't see us as human, we are like animals to them, livestock, breed the sheep, shear some sheep, kill some sheep. This is why slavery happens so easily so often. They also believe that we can't think for ourselves and we need them to protect us from us. While we as society lose our civility we are not helping our case.
Every crazy theory about "Double Government" or some such is rooted in truth, some more than others. How bad you think power and government is compared to what it really is, is like what you thought of the NSA before Snowden.
Thankfully not all rich guys are like this. Some are cool and down to earth and have a good head and respect for humans. They are very rare and are fantastic leaders.
I better leave it at that for now. I have a delivery of soapboxes to go collect.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday October 21 2014, @08:41PM
Yes, minister [wikipedia.org] was funny. Too bad the bureaucracy is generally humour-impaired.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by rts008 on Tuesday October 21 2014, @08:42PM
We have to get money out of politics before anything else can be significantly changed.
Do give a look at http://wolf-pac.com/ [wolf-pac.com]. They(wolf-pac) have already made progress in two states.
Once the money is out of the picture, then we can take back our government from the corporations.
P.S. I know there may be other ways, but uprisingings and revolutions frequently cause more harm than good, especially when they fail.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 21 2014, @09:11PM
Oligarchy was (still is?) the political hipster word that the "I'm too cool to vote" nihilistic whiners toss around here. But now this says it isn't an oligarchy, but a bureaucracy! Bureaucracy just doesn't have that evil-sounding overtone to it like oligarchy. Let's have a SN poll to come up with our new hipster word. Is The Establishment played out, or hipster-retro-cool??
(Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Tuesday October 21 2014, @11:35PM
Given that it is specifically about those bureaucracies tasked with security, what about "secucracy"?
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 22 2014, @04:55PM
I plan to read his book. However his response to "Do we have any hope of fixing the problem?" is so vague as to be useless. He knows more about this area than I do, it would have been helpful to give concrete actions he believes would make a REAL difference. Obviously he does not believe voting will change the important things. Mass work stoppage? What would people demand exactly? He had a great platform on which he could disseminate his views on how real people could make real change and dropped the ball.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 22 2014, @05:08PM
Not sure I buy this. To cite one example:
The Commander in Chief makes his own options. If he didn't like the options presented by his employees (the military answers to him and the American people), then he tells them what to do: provide a solution that reduces the number of troops; provide a solution that cuts the number of troops in half; provide a solution that reduces the number of troops to 0 within 3 months. You're unable to provide any such solutions? You're fired. Lather, rinse, repeat. If you end-up firing everyone than the solution solves itself, because there are no troops left. If the military refuses a lawful order from the President ("leave the occupied country" is a lawful order) then you arrest them. If the entire military refuses you arrest all of them. That's called a coup. If you're overthrown at least you've done your part as President.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 22 2014, @06:14PM
Firstly term limits are not democratic. They prevent voters from voting in the same person again and that's not democratic. Much of the justification for term limits can also be used to not allow various groups of voters to vote. e.g. stupid ignorant fools should not be allowed to vote at all, and only my vote should count.
Secondly term limits cause the real power to move to people without term limits.