Slashdot Mirror


Obama Appointee Sunstein Favors Infiltrating Online Groups

megamerican writes "President Barack Obama's appointee to head the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs advocated in a recent paper the 'cognitive infiltration' of groups that advocate 'conspiracy theories' like the ones surrounding 9/11 via 'chat rooms, online social networks, or even real-space groups and attempt to undermine' those groups. Sunstein admits that 'some conspiracy theories, under our definition, have turned out to be true' Sunstein has also recently advocated banning websites which post 'right-wing rumors' and bringing back the Fairness Doctrine. You can find a PDF of his paper here. For decades (1956-1971), the FBI under COINTELPRO focused on disrupting, marginalizing and neutralizing political dissidents, most notably the Black Panthers. More recently CENTCOM announced it would be engaging bloggers 'who are posting inaccurate or untrue information, as well as bloggers who are posting incomplete information.' In January 2009 the USAF released a flow-chart for 'counter-bloggers' to 'counter the people out there in the blogosphere who have negative opinions about the US government and the Air Force.'"

72 of 689 comments (clear)

  1. Why fear terrorists... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Why fear Middle Eastern terrorists, when there are home-grown Americans so eager to utterly destroy freedom of expression...

    1. Re:Why fear terrorists... by spun · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Is that what these reports say? Or do they simply advocate countering free speech with *GASP* more free speech? It sounds like propaganda, which is bad, but nothing like COINTELPRO.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    2. Re:Why fear terrorists... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If you are willing to give up your liberty for security, you will get neither liberty or security.

      No matter how secure a nation makes itself, it is still vulnerable to attack by citizens or foreign nationals. The Idea of liberty is that citizens actively participate in the security of their nation by allowing citizens the freedom to keep and bear arms. At the start The President of the United States walked around without security and among dissenters themselves wearing guns. The idea was that as an elected leader he would be protected by his fellow Americans.

      Now the roles have reversed and we are kept swine for the government to protect. It is almost more of a crime to protect yourself from a criminal than it is for them to visit hostilities upon you.

    3. Re:Why fear terrorists... by Nefarious+Wheel · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I don't know, they're blogs and chat groups. Open to all, generally. I see it as a legitimate use. It's no more subversive than any other astroturfer would be, and such postings are pretty easy to recognise. Now, if they actually blocked content or filtered it in any way (you listening, Conroy?) then that would be truly evil.

      --
      Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
    4. Re:Why fear terrorists... by BobMcD · · Score: 4, Insightful

      So the government is joining conspiracy theory groups, posing as ordinary citizens, winning their trust, and then debunking their theories. This is bad, the end.

      FTFY

      Just because other bad events exist you wish to excuse this behavior away?

    5. Re:Why fear terrorists... by Chris+Burke · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yeah well I fucking hate "astroturfers" and marketeers disguising themselves as customers in forums, and having the government do it is ten times worse.

      Sure it's not nearly as evil as actually shutting down or censoring the content on forums, but that doesn't mean I like it.

      I mean, as an academic paper about conspiracy theories and how they could be defused, it doesn't sound that terrible*. As a government policy? It's shitty, and I don't like it. If the government wants to make more information/propaganda available officially, that's fine with me. Hiding the source of information presented to the people is not how our government should work. Fuck that.

      * The observation from the paper that a conspiracy theorist would not believe someone who is coming from an organization involved in the conspiracy is obviously true. And it's also true I think that conspiracy theories can come from having insufficient information (rather than simple craziness). I thought there was some sense behind some of the 9/11 conspiracies... until I talked to a civil engineer who explained to me what would happen when the steel in a skyscraper was merely heated enough to weaken.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    6. Re:Why fear terrorists... by BobMcD · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If only that is what they are proposing to do, that would be fine. Let the arguments stand on their own merit, and let people decide without coercion. Particularly without using any government agents to influence the conversation through infiltration.

    7. Re:Why fear terrorists... by wizardforce · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Oh please. The "right" is every bit as interested in manipulating others' lives as the "left" is. The dangerous bit is that the right pretends to be something completely different.

      --
      Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
    8. Re:Why fear terrorists... by tsm_sf · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That should be pretty obvious, since treason now means "something I don't like."

      --
      Literalism isn't a form of humor, it's you being irritating.
    9. Re:Why fear terrorists... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      then you admit that it is subversive. the federal government DOES NOT GET TO SUBVERT IT'S CITIZENS! end of discussion.

    10. Re:Why fear terrorists... by Chyeld · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Realism is calling, it wants you to acknowledge that most paranoid delusionists aren't going to decide arguments on their merits but on how closely the argument feeds their own paranoia.

      This is a good idea/bad idea moment.

      Good idea: Infiltrating said groups and using facts to undermine and destroy the leadership's control over the group by disproving their theories.

      Bad idea: Infiltrating said groups and using lies and manipulation to undermine and destroy the leadership's control over the group by pretending to disprove their theories and by smearing their reputation.

      The problem is, Good idea can slip into Bad idea quite easily. That's not a failure of ethics, it's a failure of judgment.

    11. Re:Why fear terrorists... by BobMcD · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Delete the word 'infiltrating' from the good idea and we'd agree.

      I'd rather see complete transparency and the honest truth winning out. Sabotaging the personality war is basically cheating.

    12. Re:Why fear terrorists... by MrNaz · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I agree with your line of reasoning, but I would like to point out that in reality, despite what Fox News tell you, the enemies of the US do not "hate us for our freedoms". Rather, they hate us for our foreign policy of waging war to secure economic interests and our propping up of foreign dictators like Saudi Arabia who support our foreign policy greed.

      No enemies of the USA hate the USA because it has freedom of speech and more than you hate Saudi Arabia because it has sand dunes.

      --
      I hate printers.
    13. Re:Why fear terrorists... by Chyeld · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Complete transparency is great for financial workings, policy making, and driving.

      It's not so great when dealing with radical groups who are already convinced that anything 'the man' says is a load of bullshit.

    14. Re:Why fear terrorists... by MindlessAutomata · · Score: 4, Insightful

      So we need a final arbiter of the truth... and that truth is the government.

      Yes, I'm sure there's nothing wrong with that idea.

      Face it: the very fact that there is no source of indisputable truths, no objective source of morality, and no guidebook on how to live life means that people are ultimately left to their own devices to determine who is right and wrong, what is good and evil, so on and so forth. You can't just point to someone and say "they get to tell us what the truth is." That's religion.

      And yes, that means some people will be hopelessly wrong, and some will believe terrible things. Deal with it.

    15. Re:Why fear terrorists... by Peter+La+Casse · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The Fairness Doctrine is appropriate for the public airwaves, a shared resource,

      No. The Fairness Doctrine is a tool for the government to suppress political views it does not agree with. That's how it was used, and that's why people want to bring it back.

    16. Re:Why fear terrorists... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      If you actually read his paper... oh wait, this is Slashdot. Let me sum up... In his paper, he didn't advocate censorship or anything really bad (at least in the paper). He mentioned a lot of different possible government responses and pointed out that there were possible problems with each approach. Notably, he seemed to lean towards talking to extremest groups so that they heard information that countered their theories. This seems pretty reasonable. He gives an example of Muslims in the military going into chat forums of extremest groups and presenting more moderate views. This seems like a pretty good idea. He didn't advocate banning any web sites.

      Likewise, if you look at the flowchart, it is not at all nefarious. It basically says if someone is making claims contrary to your view, that you can present evidence that challenges the weak points in their argument. I don't see anything wrong with that.

    17. Re:Why fear terrorists... by wumingzi · · Score: 3, Insightful

      In a negative light, this means "find the people saying things we don't like and replace them with people who say what we want."

      I'm sure it depends a lot on how you look at it. The devil is in the details.

      There are a lot of echo chambers out there where some pretty odd ideas get kicked around. I define this in the "ZOMG! OBAMA IS A SECRET MUSLIM AND WANTS THE WIMMIN OF AMERICA TO WEAR BURKAS!" category. If you think the US government is spending too much, borrowing too much, or that the health care plan is a Really Bad Idea... Well, we have freedom of speech and you're allowed to say that. I suppose you're also allowed to say the president is a secret Muslim.

      What Sunstein is advocating requires a very close reading. He is suggesting that subject matter experts go into these groups to set the record straight. He also says that SMEs MUST be kept at arms-length from employees of the Federal government. The minute that anyone in these areas gets the idea that someone is a bought and paid shill for the government, the game is over. That person is branded a shill and their word is worthless.

      It seems to me to be an interesting thought experiment, but almost impossible to implement as policy. We're talking about a group of people with VERY sensitive antenna about the comings and goings of the Federal government. If there is an open information program with a budget and a line item to buy the time of SMEs to "get the story out", the game is up. If there's a secret program, it has to stay secret. The moment anyone says anything, not only will the intended targets go ape, a lot of people like me who don't reflexively mistrust the government but are wary of state power in general will also get upset.

      End result: Nothing Happens

    18. Re:Why fear terrorists... by PopeRatzo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I mean, as an academic paper about conspiracy theories and how they could be defused, it doesn't sound that terrible

      Well, an academic paper is exactly what it was.

      Sunstein was a private citizen when he wrote it, and he has never advocated any of these things as public policy since becoming part of the administration.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    19. Re:Why fear terrorists... by DigiShaman · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Oh man! Cut to the chase shall we? The Fairness Doctrine is aimed squarely at Rush Limbaugh. The Democrat party has a major hard-on for getting rid of him. Had it been any other time or country, the military would have assassinated him AND his family long ago. He pisses them off that badly!!!

      So what do Rush Limbaugh and Micheal Moore have in common? They both exercise the 1st Amendment to its fullest. Very brave of them!

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    20. Re:Why fear terrorists... by Chyeld · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Rest easy then, because he didn't. Like many things, the article was slanted in order to get you to respond to the non-factual material being implied rather than the actual items being presented. Read the linked PDF paper.

    21. Re:Why fear terrorists... by Chyeld · · Score: 4, Insightful

      So what do Rush Limbaugh and Micheal Moore have in common? They both exercise the 1st Amendment to its fullest

      and apparently only the 1st Admendment, as both have the brain and body of a sea slug.

    22. Re:Why fear terrorists... by kindbud · · Score: 4, Insightful

      He proposed not just blocking content, but actually banning certain content.

      No, he didn't.

      In particular, he proposed banning "conspiracy theories".

      No, he didn't. What has happened here, is that you've been Punk'd by WorldNetDaily. Yep. You might wish it was Ashton Kutcher instead. I am not sure which should be more embarrassing.

      --
      Edith Keeler Must Die
    23. Re:Why fear terrorists... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      But how do we know you're not some Obama/Sunstein shill trying to debunk these conspiracy theories just like TFA said?

    24. Re:Why fear terrorists... by Mikkeles · · Score: 3, Insightful

      '... or recruit people specifically to kill people it's not.'

      Like these people?

      --
      Great minds think alike; fools seldom differ.
    25. Re:Why fear terrorists... by Eil · · Score: 3, Insightful

      One question... who do you work for?

      </sarcasm>

    26. Re:Why fear terrorists... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I mean, as an academic paper about conspiracy theories and how they could be defused, it doesn't sound that terrible

      Well, an academic paper is exactly what it was.

      Sunstein was a private citizen when he wrote it, and he has never advocated any of these things as public policy since becoming part of the administration.

      That is such bull. If it's an academic paper then it is his expert counsel based on rigorous research. Or what he believes. Either way, if he doesn't implement it when given the chance he is either a poor scholar or a spineless administrator.

    27. Re:Why fear terrorists... by colonelquesadilla · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Actually, treason means at least two witnesses can testify that you waged war against the united states of america. It is punishable by, and only by, death. It is the only crime defined in the constitution, and for good reason, because the word gets trotted out so often in times just like these. Treason is such an obvious tool for a dictatorship that it was defined so strictly in our constitution that no one has ever been convicted of it. We have a well thought out legal document there... it would be nice if people respected the first, second, fourth and fifth amendments as well.

      --
      It's either false dichotomies, or the terrorists win, you decide.
    28. Re:Why fear terrorists... by networkBoy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Actually I think Rush also exercises the 2nd amendment IIRC.

      That said, while I tend to agree with Rush more often than not, I think that both of those two men are extreme. I also think that is good. The day extremest views are suppressed is the day I can start my countdown to being censored as well.

      KKK
      Black Panthers (what's left at least)
      Rush
      Michael
      that coast to coast guy (what's his name?)
      all are good signs that our constitution works (even if I think they are kookey)
      -nB

      --
      whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
    29. Re:Why fear terrorists... by DurendalMac · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Since when is the Fairness Doctrine free speech? Since when is banning sites that post "right wing rumors" free speech?

      You have an awfully warped definition.

    30. Re:Why fear terrorists... by Lord+Kano · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So what do Rush Limbaugh and Micheal Moore have in common? They both exercise the 1st Amendment to its fullest. Very brave of them!

      They're both also hypocrites. Rush went to rehab for addiction to prescription drugs but made fun of Ted Kennedy's alcohol addiction. Michael Moore made millions of dollars in a capitalist society by making and releasing a movie the denounced capitalism.

      LK

      --
      "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
    31. Re:Why fear terrorists... by Monsuco · · Score: 3, Insightful

      But rather than being alone to state his opinions, he was there with representatives from three other political parties.

      Nearly every political pundit TV show seems to have panels. They bring on people who have views that may or may not differ with the host and they argue.

      Radio shows generally will let you call in and argue with the host.

      I see no shortage of view offered on the American radio or TV. I see no reason to impose quotas on different points of view. The fairness doctrine is a solution in search of a problem and the idea of taxpayer funds being used to hire bloggers to promote an agenda is a gross abuse of power.

    32. Re:Why fear terrorists... by Curunir_wolf · · Score: 4, Insightful

      MOD PARENT UP!

      Very insightful. I used to be very critical of Charlotte Iserbyt (author of "The Deliberate Dumbing Down of America"), because I thought her title and viewpoint were overly inflammatory, that, yes, there was too much incompetence and bad ideas in the educational system and our outcomes were falling behind those of other countries. But I've changed my mind lately. I'm convinced that it is deliberate. So my apologies for statements I made about Charlotte Iserbyt in the past.

      The thing about the "conspiracy nuts" is that their ideas would never get so much traction if 100% of what they say is false. There is an absence of clear and credible answers, too many inconsistencies in the official stories, and not enough real information. So all kinds of crazy ideas spring out of that.

      The problem with Sunstein's plan is that he wants to create infiltrators that parrot the official story, not just to shut down the crazy theories, but to get rid of the questions. And questioning government is vital to a democracy. When government has control of every side of the message, then, yes, all conspiracy theories go away, but so do any questions about what they are doing. And that's bad.

      --
      "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
      --- Jerry Garcia
    33. Re:Why fear terrorists... by Monsuco · · Score: 3, Insightful

      We need to get past this two party nonsense and get more diverse political viewpoints, and the Fairness Doctrine won't get us there.

      The reason for America's rigid two party system is due to the way elections work, not due to American mindsets. We generally elect people through simple pluralities to single seat districts. In many European countries they have variations of proportional representation. People vote for parties rather than specific candidates and candidates are apportioned based on party turnout. Thus a party with voters that aren't strong enough in any particular area to win a plurality can still win seats.

      The real impact this has is on how a party gets what it wants. In European countries an election is held. Normally a parliament will be split with several large centrist parties holding most seats. They will then have to offer up compromises with radical small parties to form coalitions so a Prime Minister can be selected. If there is no compromise then parliements are "hung" and usually get dissolved by another election or votes of no confidence (a majority may remove a Prime Minister at any time for any reason) break up the divided government.

      In America we don't need to form coalitions after an election, those coalitions never move. From Lincoln to today, Republicans have long been a center-right collection of businessmen, libertarians (small "l"), and deeply religious people. The Democrats have long been center-left minded people who felt that they needed to help groups that they felt needed special treatment by society through government intervention. From Andrew Jackson to Obama, the group de jure has changed, the mindset hasn't.

      In addition to stability the two party system promotes centrism. In order for a bill to pass it must be approved of by the House, the Senate (and it normally must be 60% of the Senate or else the bill is procedurally killed by fillibuster), and the President. When a bill can't pass the leadership in Congress or the President will normally have to convince the most moderate members to go along, usually by changing the bill to a more moderate version. In order to win office one must not be to radical, or voters will be scared. A Presidential Candidate needs to spend most of his time worrying about how the most moderate "swing states" will vote. You can't just crank up the turnout to win over your base, you need the moderates to help you. Control of the House and Senate depend upon the centerist districts and states.

      I like the way our system works. I like appealing to the center rather than the fringe. There is a lot of room for improvement, such as eliminating gerrymandering, reforming primaries and cacauses, and amending the constitution to enact a budget line-item veto (preferably one that also mandates a balanced budget) to eliminate pork would all be nice starts.

    34. Re:Why fear terrorists... by JoshuaZ · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Because you can actually read the sources and verify that this individual is actually correct.

    35. Re:Why fear terrorists... by causality · · Score: 2, Insightful

      MOD PARENT UP!

      Very insightful. I used to be very critical of Charlotte Iserbyt (author of "The Deliberate Dumbing Down of America"), because I thought her title and viewpoint were overly inflammatory, that, yes, there was too much incompetence and bad ideas in the educational system and our outcomes were falling behind those of other countries. But I've changed my mind lately. I'm convinced that it is deliberate. So my apologies for statements I made about Charlotte Iserbyt in the past.

      The thing about the "conspiracy nuts" is that their ideas would never get so much traction if 100% of what they say is false. There is an absence of clear and credible answers, too many inconsistencies in the official stories, and not enough real information. So all kinds of crazy ideas spring out of that.

      The problem with Sunstein's plan is that he wants to create infiltrators that parrot the official story, not just to shut down the crazy theories, but to get rid of the questions. And questioning government is vital to a democracy. When government has control of every side of the message, then, yes, all conspiracy theories go away, but so do any questions about what they are doing. And that's bad.

      Anyone who honestly and thoroughly researches the topic and has enough guts to go wherever the facts may lead them will ultimately be forced to come to the same conclusion. The really funny thing is, the deliberate nature of it is almost obvious, provided one has the skill of totally disregarding anything that is said and instead examining the sum total of the actions that are taken. That's easier said than done and your first obstacle is the fact that you'd rather not believe it (this is one reason it takes some guts). Still, it's not well-hidden at all, it's hidden in plain sight. In the past, the designers of forced government schooling were much more open about their intentions.

      For all of this, I know of no better reference than John Taylor Gatto. He has an essay here and a full book, available for free online in its entirety, located here.

      --
      It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
    36. Re:Why fear terrorists... by Majik+Sheff · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The primary difference is in disclosure. In a news/talk show the white house talking head has a pretty little bar at the bottom of the screen that says their name, and something along the lines of "White House Talking Head".

      When agents of the government, ANY GOVERNMENT, begin executing informational warfare tactics on free people it is the duty of those people to fight back.

      --
      Women are like electronics: you don't know how damaged they are until you try to turn them on.
    37. Re:Why fear terrorists... by rel4x · · Score: 2, Insightful

      -We are being spied on all the time.
      -They lied to us to get us into Afghanistan.
      ...just like in Vietnam -We have consistently overthrown governments in foreign countries.
      -We've had orders that involved killing US citizens make it remarkably high up the ladder.


      I agree with the examples you chose, but our government hasn't exactly given us a multitude of reasons to trust them

      --

      Before you mod me funny, think, perhaps I was insightfully funny?
    38. Re:Why fear terrorists... by MobyDisk · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I was with you for the first half.

      In addition to stability the two party system promotes centrism.

      No, the two-party system destroys centrism. We waffle back-and-forth between a democratic majority, and a republican majority depending on the economy.

      You can't just crank up the turnout to win over your base, you need the moderates to help you.

      I think that entire paragraph is based on this one assumption, which is not correct. Cranking up the turnout to win your base is precisely what presidential candidates do. Most people decide at an early age, which party they will subscribe to. They almost never change. What controls the result of the election is what percentage of those people you get out to vote.

      There is this myth of the moderate Americans who decide the vote. I wish it were true. Close elections like Ohio are often attributed to the moderate "swing vote" but the reality is that polls show (I don't have links right now) that there are almost no moderates a tall.

      This is why political candidates appeal to the moderates only during primaries. They need to capture as much of their party as possible. After that, they need to move to the left or right to distance themselves from the other party and get out their base.

  2. What do you expect... by Kazoo+the+Clown · · Score: 4, Insightful

    What do you expect from the party of Barbara Streisand, than to institutionalize the "Streisand Effect"?

    1. Re:What do you expect... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      As an outsider who used to be a liberal, I find conservatives' fixation on Barbara Streisand to be utterly bizarre. When I was a liberal, the only times I ever thought about Barbara Streisand were when conservative wackadoos got enraged over things she said or did -- and that was just long enough to think "Barbara Streisand? Huh? Who gives a shit?" The other liberals I knew had more or less the same reaction.

        Now that I've moved to a position outside that of the R vs. D "Go team!" demographics, I think I grasp the foundation of the problem: modern conservative politics, lacking much in the way of coherent principles since Goldwater went down, has to appeal to emotion. Consequently, the conservative hate machine is born, and every two minutes, there has to be a new Two Minutes Hate, and a constant cycling of new targets for hatred. Otherwise conservatives might stop being angry for a moment and start thinking for themselves. This would be as dangerous for Republican politicians as if the Democratic base really sat down and thought about what they actually want and whether their politicians ever showed any inclination of giving it to them. (No, being the answer to that. The Democratic party is a self-contained, self-interested machine at this point.)

        Then again, I guess that "Streisand Effect" is also easier for conservatives to stomach than "Nixon Effect", the real modern archetype of an individual who made things worse by trying to hush everything up.

        - mantar

    2. Re:What do you expect... by Mesa+MIke · · Score: 2, Insightful

      There's already a "Palin Effect."
      Except it's usually called, "Palin Derangement Syndrome" (PDS).

    3. Re:What do you expect... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Hmm. Worked into a lather? The liberals I know (and some of the moderates and conservatives) think Palin's endlessly hilarious, and conservatives' belief that she makes them furious is another "Huh?" thing.

      And, no, I'm not still "inside" the democrat team demographic. I declined to vote in the last election because I'd come to believe that Obama and McCain were merely two sides of the same coin. Neither party represents the people, and anyone who tried to do so would not survive the system as it stands. Obama's actions to date have proven me right -- whether it's domestic spying, big-ticket military interventionism, or the nonsense in TFA today, Obama's "lesser of two evils" is a very tiny, almost unmeasurable value of "lesser." In this respect, "D vs R" is nothing but a farce that ought to be dismantled.

        The longer the people are trapped inside the narrative of this "team sport" the longer the government will parasitize this country. The only moral justification for our government's existence is that it claims to represent the people. It has proven itself unable to do so.

    4. Re:What do you expect... by ArcherB · · Score: 2, Insightful

      What does any of your drivel have to do with my point that she's monumentally unqualified and unprepared for the job of VP?

      It proves my point that PDS exists and you are exhibition B. See, you can sit there all day and accuse me of /ignoring/ the fact that Palin is not qualified for VP, all while you /ignore/ that Palin had just as many years political experience as Obama, and all of it executive, just like the job of president, while Obama had zero executive experience. His experience consisted of sitting on boards and working in legislative bodies. He shared the responsibility with everyone else around him and came up with a consensus via vote. Palin ran a small business, was a mayor and governor. She was the figurehead. When stuff went wrong, she was to blame, even if she had nothing to do with it. You've heard "The buck stops here." Only CEO's, presidents, governors and mayors say that. Legislators do not. So even if you ignore what the jobs were, and what the jobs they were applying for (president vs VICE president) Obama and Palin's political experience is a wash. However, when you consider that Obama was at the TOP of the ticket while Palin was on the bottom, it's obvious that Obama was much less qualified for the job he was running for than Palin was for the job she was running for.

      And you blame ME for /ignoring/ the obvious.

      But how about you read and understand what I write before engaging in internet drama?

      Um... you didn't say anything except that PDS was a myth and I was a "fucking moron", which I find hilarious as in the very next post, you bring up Palin's qualifications and completely ignore Obama's, which again proves my point entirely.

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    5. Re:What do you expect... by earlymon · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I never attacked.

      I simply explained the genesis of her association with liberal Democrats.

      You have no clue what "side" I may be on.

      You've read quite a bit into me, whole cloth, all on your own.

      As far as not seeing comparable behavior between conservatives and liberals - you simply don't know enough liberals and conservatives.

      And unlike you, I know nothing of your personal experiences other than what you tell me.

      Keep laughing Coward - for you, it's clearly part of your rationalization that you can substitute screed for rational thought - obviously.

      BTW - some of us have a better grasp of history and a better sampling of humanity. Get over it.

      --
      Pathological kinda promises Path + Logical - but instead, you get stuck with pathetic.
  3. Hurf Durf - by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    In before screeching about the Thought Police - who are apparently real. This sort of thing will only agitate paranoid netizens and make the rest of us even less trusting of the government (and information that appears to be supportive of it) than we already are.

  4. Attempt to undermine those groups by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Don't you merely confirm their conspiracy theories with this dunderheaded plan?

  5. GENIUS! by Monkeedude1212 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What better way to prove that there isn't a conspiracy
    THAN TO TRY AND STOP PEOPLE FROM SPREADING IT.

    This would have been a good article to write one of my 5 or 6 paragraph conspiracy theories that I whip up out of thin air, but I already did one of those today, and my brain hurts.

  6. Re:Responsible dissent. by Hatta · · Score: 4, Insightful

    However, there ARE people out there who practice irresponsible dissent, and their sole purpose is to disrupt the lives of everyone in order to make a point which most find irrational. I am all for these people getting shut down, so long as those who are responsible and do not infringe on the liberty of others are left in peace.

    The question is, who gets to decide which is which? It would be very easy for a government engaged in an unjust war to label peace protesters as "irresponsible dissenters" and have them shut up.

    --
    Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
  7. Re:Responsible dissent. by MarkPNeyer · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Who gets to determine the difference between responsible dissent and irresponsible dissent? A Conservative might claim that comparing George Bush to Hitler is "irresponsible", while a Liberal might say that claiming Obama is not a U.S. Citizen is "irresponsible."

    It's best just to let people who are wrong keep talking, and simply ignore them. Shutting them up with the power of the government is a bad idea - because those same powers could be used against people trying to bring attention to government misdeeds, like the people in Boston who were arrested for recording what they saw as police brutality.

    --

    My blog
  8. Counterproductive? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    I guess the whole infiltration thing will convince the conspiracy theorists that they were right all along, and anyone who questions their theories can now be dismissed as a government infiltrator :/

  9. Re:Responsible dissent. by ArsonSmith · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I agree, it's OK for the government to shut down people I disagree with as long as they leave the people I agree with alone.

    --
    Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
  10. Brilliant! by straponego · · Score: 4, Insightful

    By floating this, he's ensured that participants in these groups, who by definition are more suspicious than most, will now be paranoid that their peers are government infiltrators. They'll be less open with each other, and may quit altogether. And the Man doesn't even have to follow through to have this effect-- it's totally free! Well played, fascist.

    Of course, social interaction may be the last thing holding some of the target audience from going lone gunman, but you can't make an omelette without killing a few people. At least, I can't. And the more incidents we have, the more funding the security apparatus gets. There is no downside!

    Wait... should I post this? ...ah, I trust you guys.

  11. Re:Responsible dissent. by phantomfive · · Score: 3, Insightful

    What on earth do you consider irresponsible dissent? Publicly asking for a birth certificate from the president of the US on your TV show? Or do you consider it something more disruptive, like the sit-ins and freedom rides that happened during the civil rights movement?

    I can think of a lot of inane things out there, from birthers to truthers to GNAA, but those people are just annoying. A good moderation system like slashdot's can fix all of them.

    This isn't talking about a moderation system, this is talking about sponsoring bloggers to try to influence public perception. This is like what Nixon did, he had a letter-writing organization that would write tens of thousands of letters to news agencies trying to get them to change their programming. The ONLY time infiltrative deception is acceptable is if the organization is criminal, like the mafia. You shouldn't be trying to infiltrate tea-partier groups, even if you disagree with their politics.

    The only thing I can think of that would be irresponsible dissent would be something like starting your own militia and invading your neighboring town, and even that in some cases would be morally acceptable. I mean, we have people who are literally trying to secede from the union, and that is alright. But if that isn't irresponsible, what is?

    --
    Qxe4
  12. Not a good source by OverlordQ · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'd probably consider myself right of center, but I also don't think World Net Daily is a very unbiased source.

    --
    Your hair look like poop, Bob! - Wanker.
  13. Fire him by Pedrito · · Score: 3, Insightful

    He ought to be fired for being stupid enough to think the government should waste even a penny dealing with conspiracy theorists. Just ignore them. It works just fine. Sure, they pop up now and then, but really, think about it: Of all the various theories about the Kennedy assassination, what do any of them matter in the long run? How does it really affect the government? It doesn't.

    All the 9/11 conspiracy theorists have accomplished what? Pretty much nothing.

    The more important question is: Who gets to decide who is the conspiracy theorists? That's where the real danger is. Hard to believe Obama would hire such an idiot. Sounds like a George Bush kinda guy.

    1. Re:Fire him by DigiShaman · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Hard to believe Obama would hire such an idiot

      If you know anything about Obama and his associations, this is to be expected. And while yes, I'm mainly a Conservative (not a religious fundee), it should be noted that Obama is not a Liberal in the true sense of the word. No, he's an out-right Statist!

      He was speaking the truth when he said there would be change. However, it wasn't the change you were looking for was it? Don't expect the Republicans to save us from this atrocity as their party is officially dead (thanks GWB). In fact, don't expect anyone to save us. Were all fucked now. I hope you all find company among misery, because that's all we have left now.

      No excuse me while I zero out my hard drives.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
  14. Proof the standard media is worthless by Omnifarious · · Score: 2, Insightful

    To me this reads like a complete admission that government has little or nothing to fear from standard media, which is something I've felt for a long time. And they think I should be giving them my money or that Google should be paying them for their worthless prattling of the establishment line.

  15. which by memnock · · Score: 2, Insightful

    online groups?
    Sarah Palin's Facebook followers? better off going to the circus.

    E.L.F.? do they post their plans for world domination to their forums?

    this is an appointee for Obama, but i have to wonder who actually proposed this person for Obama to nominate. someone left over from the Bush regime, like Gates? is he contracting work out to John Yoo? anyway, it's not like the C.I.A. or N.S.A. isn't already doing this.
     

  16. Obama Cares by LostCluster · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Post anything negative to a Twitter-aware company like Comcast, and they connect you with somebody from corporate who will set right whatever you're complaining about. What's the difference between that and the Air Force wanting to debate people spreading inaccurate information about them?

    If you allow comments on your blog... that's something who disagree with you can use.

  17. One simple question: by BorgAssimilator · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Why is our tax money being used for this?

    I mean, I don't care about people who think the moon landing is fake. Let them spend their time thinking that. It doesn't hurt me. What does hurt me is _my_ hard earned money being used for a useless cause.

    It even states in TFA that "some conspiracy theories, under [their] definition, have turned out to be true." So why spend time and energy arguing potentially the wrong side?

    --
    "Intelligence has nothing to do with politics!"
    -Londo Mollari
  18. GWB by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Remember when the left-wingers merely suspected GWB of thinking about possibly doing something similar and how apeshit crazy they went over that slim possibility?

    Where are those people now?

    Now that someone is actually proposing these CHILLING suggestions, because they are against "right wing nutjobs" it is okay?

    Hypocrites. It wasn't right then, it isn't right now. It doesn't matter what you "agree" with; that which needs protection is that which you DON'T agree with.

    Obama Administrator is no friend of Liberty, and he is making GWB look angelic at this point. Don't get me wrong, the Republicans aren't any better, and I'm not defending them either.

    --
    Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    1. Re:GWB by nomadic · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Remember when the left-wingers merely suspected GWB of thinking about possibly doing something similar and how apeshit crazy they went over that slim possibility? Where are those people now?

      Right where they usually are? Obama has been attacked plenty of times by the left, throughout his entire presidency. How on earth can you honestly pretend otherwise.

    2. Re:GWB by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Remember when the left-wingers merely suspected GWB of thinking about possibly doing something similar and how apeshit crazy they went over that slim possibility?

      Where are those people now?

      Uh.... right here? Or are you trying to say that if one person on slashdot says something, every person on slashdot must say the same thing as well? Cuz I can't help you with that.

      It was a dumb thing then, it's a dumb thing now, and I hope Sunstein gets crucified for even suggesting that. This is the kind of crap that I'm willing to hold against Obama come election day. His only chance then would be to run against Palin.

      --
      Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
    3. Re:GWB by Nimey · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Obama has been attacked plenty of times by the left, throughout his entire presidency. How on earth can you honestly pretend otherwise.

      Confirmation bias.

      --
      Hail Eris, full of mischief...

      E pluribus sanguinem
    4. Re:GWB by PopeRatzo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It was a dumb thing then, it's a dumb thing now, and I hope Sunstein gets crucified for even suggesting that.

      Neutron, did you actually read Sunstein's paper, or only the World Net Daily story?

      Seriously, friend, go to the source on this one.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
  19. Re:Is President Obama secretly a Republican? by Philip+K+Dickhead · · Score: 3, Insightful

    There's a reason for this, there's a reason education sucks, and it's the same reason it will never ever ever be fixed. It's never going to get any better. Don't look for it. Be happy with what you've got... because the owners of this country don't want that.

    I'm talking about the real owners now... the real owners. The big wealthy business interests that control things and make all the important decisions. Forget the politicians. The politicians are put there to give you the idea that you have freedom of choice. You don't. You have no choice. You have owners. They own you. They own everything. They own all the important land. They own and control the corporations. They've long since bought and paid for the Senate, the Congress, the state houses, the city halls. They got the judges in their back pockets and they own all the big media companies, so they control just about all of the news and information you get to hear.

    They got you by the balls. They spend billions of dollars every year lobbying. Lobbying to get what they want. Well, we know what they want. They want more for themselves and less for everybody else, but I'll tell you what they don't want.

    They don't want a population of citizens capable of critical thinking. They don't want well-informed, well-educated people capable of critical thinking. They're not interested in that. That doesn't help them. That's against their interests. That's right. They don't want people who are smart enough to sit around a kitchen table and think about how badly they're getting fucked by a system that threw them overboard 30 fuckin' years ago. They don't want that. You know what they want? They want obedient workers. Obedient workers, people who are just smart enough to run the machines and do the paperwork. And just dumb enough to passively accept all these increasingly shittier jobs with the lower pay, the longer hours, the reduced benefits, the end of overtime and vanishing pension that disappears the minute you go to collect it.

    And now they're coming for your Social Security money. They want your fuckin' retirement money. They want it back so they can give it to their criminal friends on Wall Street. And you know something? They'll get it. They'll get it all from you sooner or later 'cause they own this fuckin' place. It's a big club and you ain't in it. You and I are not in the big club. By the way, it's the same big club they use to beat you over the head with all day long when they tell you what to believe. All day long beating you over the head with their media telling you what to believe, what to think and what to buy. The table has tilted, folks. The game is rigged and nobody seems to notice. Nobody seems to care. Good, honest, hard-working people: white collar, blue collar, it doesn't matter what color shirt you have on. Good, honest, hard-working people continue -- these are people of modest means -- continue to elect these rich cocksuckers who don't give a fuck about them.

    They don't give a fuck about you. They don't give a fuck about you. They don't care about you at all! At all! At all! And nobody seems to notice. Nobody seems to care. That's what the owners count on. The fact that Americans will probably remain willfully ignorant of the big red, white and blue dick that's being jammed up their assholes every day, because the owners of this country know the truth. It's called the American Dream, 'cause you have to be asleep to believe it.

    -- George Carlin

    --
    "Speaking the Truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act." -- George Orwell
  20. Re:Wow, you can't get better sources than WND? by copponex · · Score: 3, Insightful

    People should be encouraged to explore their theories, not prevented from thinking about them.

    And when people start telling others that vaccines are really bad for you (thus endangering the whole population with an outbreak of measles, mumps, rubella...), should a CDC representative, after identifying themselves, offer a counter point? I fail to see how a public official engaging a possible lunatic without hiding their identity is a threat to freedom.

    If you don't believe that public officials should engage the public, you must have a very poor opinion of many of the Founding Old White Guys.

  21. The paradox of high standards... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    > In the words of Noam Chomsky: "Goebbels was in favour of free speech for views he liked. So was Stalin. If you're really in favor of free speech, then you're in favour of freedom of speech for precisely for views you despise. Otherwise, you're not in favour of free speech."

    If you actually held people to that standard, you'd find that very few people actually support free speech.

  22. Manufacturing useful radicals, ... by sznupi · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ...criminalizing organizations. That's the biggest potential of such infiltration. Actually manufacturing unlawful dissent, in direct opposition to the official policy.

    Because, as it clearly states, the goal is to place infiltrators in key positions of organization...meaning they effectively try to take it over.

    And we know how that ends; few years ago German courts dismissed cases against neonazis because there was so much infiltration - the agents were basically the ones running the show!
    It was similar in communist Poland, when SB (security agency) had many agents in Solidarity movement (I guess Stasi did so too), especially in very useful factions already lending towards radicalism.

    When your agents start to influence the policy of given organization, it's not only easy to make sure the members aren't misinformed, but also to radicalize them. Manufacturing in this way convenient scapegoats.

    --
    One that hath name thou can not otter
  23. Re:Responsible dissent. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Any time you wish your buddies had a power, imagine what it would be like if the other team had that same ability.

    That maybe why some of the things Obama supporters disapproved of and wanted Obama to shut down didn't get shut down. All the powers and abilities they really didn't like and felt no one should have.

    "Hey! This Gitmo place, seems it actually serves a useful purpose. Those are some real bad guys they got there. The wiretapping... uh yeah... did you read the reports on the shit they got from that? Just imagine if they hadn't overheard those motherfuckers and stopped them."

  24. Re:Responsible dissent. by JBaustian · · Score: 2, Insightful

    You all voted for this guy, so whose fault is it when he picks Sunstein etal. to expand the regulatory reach of government into areas you never though possible or desirable? He has never really hidden his beliefs, motives, or goals.