Slashdot Mirror


Senate Passes 4-Year Re-Up of Patriot Act Provisions

Bloomberg News reports that, as expected, today "[t]he US Senate approved a four-year extension of provisions in the USA Patriot Act allowing law enforcement to track suspected terrorists with roving wiretaps. ... The measure goes to the House for final passage before being sent to President Barack Obama for his signature. The surveillance powers would be extended until June 1, 2015." The story mentions that the Patriot Act powers this approval includes would extend "to so-called 'lone wolf' suspects who aren't affiliated with any terrorist group."

422 comments

  1. Did your congressman do his duty? by jcr · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If your congressman or senator failed to vote against this violation of the fourth and fifth amendments, he or she has violated their oath of office. Don't vote for them again unless you want this shit to continue.

    -jcr

    --
    The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    1. Re:Did your congressman do his duty? by ickleberry · · Score: 3, Insightful

      There are unfortunately only two options in US politics: The Frying pan and the shiny new futuristic looking Frying pan with a non-stick coating

    2. Re:Did your congressman do his duty? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      What's the bill number so we can look it up???

    3. Re:Did your congressman do his duty? by Seumas · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Maybe people will start to finally learn that the choices they are fed are bullshit and that both A and B are part of the greater subject -- C. If you vote for A, it benefits C. If you vote for B, it benefits C. Instead of idiots arguing "derp derp derp red versus blue" they might finally invest that energy into understanding what is really going on and doing something about it. Then again, probably not.

      I'm sure the president has the ability to veto this though. Surely he will? All these people that were so intent on voting this past election for "change" because the new jackass was going to be entirely different from the last jackass are surely going to have saved us from evil, right? So their pony will do everything he can to overthrow the USAPATRIOT Act, right? That must be why we haven't heard him say a single damn word about it. At all. Because he's just holding his tongue, so he can wield the veto power, yeah?

      I'm sure everyone will finally stop investing all of their energy in Obama's birth certificate and being raging homophobes and marching around abortion clinics so they can focus on things that are actually impacting our entire way of life, like government oppression and the absolute corruption of government by corporate shills. Right?

    4. Re:Did your congressman do his duty? by blair1q · · Score: 1

      Haha. You voted for any of these incompetent clowns?

      The guy I voted for got beat by money that was backing a puppet.

    5. Re:Did your congressman do his duty? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      What's the bill number so we can look it up???

      Sorry, Citizen, that's classified.

    6. Re:Did your congressman do his duty? by NFN_NLN · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If your congressman or senator failed to vote against this violation of the fourth and fifth amendments, he or she has violated their oath of office. Don't vote for them again unless you want this shit to continue.

      -jcr

      I hope this is a lesson to everyone regarding temporary suspension of powers. There is NO SUCH THING AS TEMPORARY. Once you give them away they are gone until the next revolution and re-establishment of laws.

    7. Re:Did your congressman do his duty? by jhoegl · · Score: 1

      The guy I voted for got beat by money that was backing a puppet.

      redundant comment is redundant

    8. Re:Did your congressman do his duty? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It's the friendly naming that seems to fool people so they don't get upset. Call it what it is the "Domestic Spying Act" or the "Spying Against Anyone We Don't Approve Of Act". The purpose is to spy against people that potentially threaten the status quo not against groups that threaten Americans. It's a new McCarthy style witch hunt and nothing else.

    9. Re:Did your congressman do his duty? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      people like you who think this retarded shit are the reason we have nothing but the shitty futuristic frying pan to look forward to. run a campaign for someone in your home town who shows promise. ffs run yourself. if enough people did it and fucked with the system the system might churn out some results other than this crap. but no, you're an ass. and everyone around you is an ass too. like 290 million asses. and we wonder why things are going to hell.

    10. Re:Did your congressman do his duty? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Careful, you might get targeted as a "lone wolf" sort of terrorist these wiretaps are meant to catch - discarding the fact that a "lone wolf" would be very unlikely to be caught making a phone call...

    11. Re:Did your congressman do his duty? by l00sr · · Score: 5, Informative

      I believe this is the bill, intuitively titled Small Business Additional Temporary Extension Act of 2011. Apparently, this bill was "amended" by removing and replacing the entire text with the PATRIOT ACT renewal!

      Any senator NOT in the following list has some serious explaining to do:
      Sen. Max Baucus [D, MT]
      Sen. Mark Begich [D, AK]
      Sen. Jeff Bingaman [D, NM]
      Sen. Sherrod Brown [D, OH]
      Sen. Maria Cantwell [D, WA]
      Sen. Benjamin Cardin [D, MD]
      Sen. Dean Heller [R, NV]
      Sen. Patrick Leahy [D, VT]
      Sen. Mike Lee [R, UT]
      Sen. Jeff Merkley [D, OR]
      Sen. Lisa Murkowski [R, AK]
      Sen. Rand Paul [R, KY]
      Sen. Bernard Sanders [I, VT]
      Sen. Jeanne Shaheen [D, NH]
      Sen. Jon Tester [D, MT]
      Sen. Tom Udall [D, NM]
      Sen. Mark Udall [D, CO]
      Sen. Ron Wyden [D, OR]

    12. Re:Did your congressman do his duty? by nschubach · · Score: 1

      I'm not exactly sure how they are related, but this one specifically mentions the PATRIOT Act:
      http://www.opencongress.org/vote/2011/s/19

      --
      Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
    13. Re:Did your congressman do his duty? by artor3 · · Score: 3, Informative

      See how your senators voted here. I'm happy to see that both my senators (Cantwell and Murray) voted against.

      The Patriot Act isn't as invulnerable as it once was. It got only 72 votes in favor -- twelve above the necessary threshold. Maybe we can get rid of it in ten years or so.

    14. Re:Did your congressman do his duty? by Opportunist · · Score: 5, Insightful

      And if people stopped buying shitty appliances, producers would have to produce what the customer wants and the free market system would work.

      Guess what? We still have shitty politicians, we still have crappy goods and we still don't get what we really want in either. Why? Because people can't organize, that's why.

      So please, keep your ivory tower ideas to yourself unless you also provide an idea how to implement them.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    15. Re:Did your congressman do his duty? by bigstrat2003 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Change starts with you. Sitting around talking about how things are hopeless only ensures that things really are hopeless.

      --
      "16MB (fuck off, MiB fascists)" - The Mighty Buzzard
    16. Re:Did your congressman do his duty? by Algae_94 · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the link. It's good to see that as much as Sarah Palin has tried to destroy the reputation of Alaskans both of my Senators (Begich and Murkowski) voted against.

    17. Re:Did your congressman do his duty? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Erh... of COURSE he was beat by money that was backing a puppet! Nothing else was running!

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    18. Re:Did your congressman do his duty? by Opportunist · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Take any speech of McCarty and replace communist with terrorist and every reference to Russia with a reference to some Arab country and you'd be amazed how recyclable it is...

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    19. Re:Did your congressman do his duty? by nschubach · · Score: 3, Informative

      Actually, I think a lot of people are looking at the wrong bill... The one I posted above is from February (sorry) but this one was from today:
      http://politics.nytimes.com/congress/votes/112/senate/1/84

      --
      Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
    20. Re:Did your congressman do his duty? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Then it would have taken two decades to get rid of something temporary. That's longer than it took to get rid of an empire supposedly lasting a millenium!

      (Hi Godwin)

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    21. Re:Did your congressman do his duty? by DoomHamster · · Score: 3, Informative

      Here is the official roll call, btw:

      http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=112&session=1&vote=00084

      As noted, the name of the bill is completely unrelated because they took the unrelated bill and completely replaced it with the patriot act renewal. This is the type of practice that happens all the time. Running the congress app on my android has opened my eyes to the shenanigans that are pulled daily. Our government is a sham, folks.

    22. Re:Did your congressman do his duty? by Kelbear · · Score: 1

      See which way your congressman voted on this issue:
      http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=1&vote=00313#position

      Spoiler: Feingold (D-WI) voted Nay, and Landrieu (D-LA) did not vote. The other 98 voted Yea.

    23. Re:Did your congressman do his duty? by interkin3tic · · Score: 5, Interesting

      There are unfortunately only two options in US politics: The Frying pan and the shiny new futuristic looking Frying pan with a non-stick coating

      This is not an issue of the two party system, this is an issue of "the public is largely ignorant."

      It always annoys me in these discussions when someone suggests the structure of our politics is somehow to blame. That's blaming someone else for our failings, it has nothing to with the number of boxes on a ballot. If more than 50% of the voters wanted the patriot act gone, republicans AND democrats would be slinging mud about "I'd get rid of it a FULL DAY SOONER than my opponent would!" Getting rid of it does -not- require voting in a third party (which, not for nothing, would require us to get rid of the first-past-the-post voting system we have, a move which WOULD require a third party to be voted in).

      It's stuck with us because the voters these days are morons who are scared of foreigners with bombs, and are exactly the type of fools who would give up essential liberty for a little bit of security. Politicians are salesmen: they're going to give the customer what they want, not what they need.

      We're too gullible when they're campaigning if we seriously believe voting for anyone of any party and then doing nothing else has a good chance of changing anything. Politicians usually don't have the power to lead us very far, politicians can't convince us that the patriot act is an abomination, most of them don't even try. Cable news isn't going to try, terrorism and stoking our fears is too sexy and gets too many viewers to kill that golden goose. To get rid of the PATRIOT act requires those US to inform other voters of what a bad idea it is. Voting for a third party candidate is, in my humble opinion, purely a waste of time if you're just going to check "libertarian" or "green" and do nothing else about it.

      That is a tall order. And, full disclosure, I'm busy trying to cure spinal cord injuries and play videogames to campaign against the patriot act. I don't have a problem with apathy, but I do find fault with lying to ourselves that the 2 party system is the problem.

    24. Re:Did your congressman do his duty? by Kelbear · · Score: 1

      *facepalm* Goddammit, jumped the gun and grabbed the original vote! Looks like the site hasn't been updated with the vote on the extension.

    25. Re:Did your congressman do his duty? by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

      Don't vote for them again unless you want this shit to continue.

      I would point out that the primary season would be most effective time to raise the issue. If you're merely going to wait for the general election and choose between R, D, or whatever, you've likely missed the opportunity. I mean, you can probably make a symbolic statement by voting 3rd party, and can earn a pat on the back for that, but if you actually want it gone, it's not so simple.

    26. Re:Did your congressman do his duty? by grahamd0 · · Score: 4, Informative

      That must be why we haven't heard him say a single damn word about it. At all. Because he's just holding his tongue, so he can wield the veto power, yeah?

      It's actually worse than holding his tongue. He has come out in support of the renewal and accused the short list of senators opposed to it of threatening national security.

      http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2011/05/obama-administration-says-rand-paul-risking-national-security-by-delaying-patriot-act.html

    27. Re:Did your congressman do his duty? by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

      Maybe people will start to finally learn that the choices they are fed are bullshit and that both A and B are part of the greater subject -- C. If you vote for A, it benefits C. If you vote for B, it benefits C. Instead of idiots arguing "derp derp derp red versus blue" they might finally invest that energy into understanding what is really going on and doing something about it. Then again, probably not.

      It might help if you were a little more specific... I mean, are we talking A and B as in the parties and C is corporate overlords?

      I mean, idiots like me aren't idiots because we catch on really quickly...

    28. Re:Did your congressman do his duty? by NotQuiteReal · · Score: 1

      Don't vote for them again What do you mean again? I didn't vote for them in the first place.

      I've have voted in every election for the last 30 years and my candidates rarely win. My conscious is clear.

      --
      This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
    29. Re:Did your congressman do his duty? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You think telling people that is really going to change anything?

      The US government has successfully been whittling away people's rights ever since September 11th, in the name of "national security" of course, but in reality just to ensure the security of the system that they're replacing your so-called "democratic republic" with. The system in which the rich have the power and the poor are thrown to the dogs. The States is becoming more and more like China's thinly-veiled dictatorship with each passing year, and it's the voters that are allowing them to do it. They're voting in the people who thump the bible and tell them that evolution doesn't exist, that homosexuality and abortion are not just sins but should be _legislated_ as such, so that when their god inevitably doesn't show up with swift retribution they can just throw people in prisons instead. They're voting in the people that make massive cuts to education and health programs so that they can line their own pockets with "campaign contributions." The people who will shut down airports rather than give people a choice other than being irradiated or sexually assaulted before flying. All because some talking heads tell them that they're "safer" that way.

      Guess what? They believe it, too. Do you think these same people are even _aware_ of the fourth and fifth amendments, or would care if they did? They've already made their decision, the selfish decision -- "I want to be safe, therefore I will exchange my civil liberties for security." What they don't realize is that the security they're trading their freedoms for is a complete illusion, a lie. As George Carlin said, to paraphrase, you don't see the drug smugglers having any problems getting their packages on board a plane, do you? Of course not...why? The people that you've put in power want more, that's why, and nothing says power like money. It doesn't matter how many draconian security measures you put in place when they all ultimately depend upon people who are easily corrupted. If some nutcase wants a bomb on a commercial jet liner all he needs is to find the weak link in the chain and pay through the nose.

      For that matter, how many politicians can you name in current US politics that even _care_ what's written in the constitution? Bachmann claims to be an expert on it and she constantly stumbles over questions on the specifics. They'll only rattle the constitution sabre if they're protecting their own interests, not yours.

    30. Re:Did your congressman do his duty? by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 2

      Maybe people will start to finally learn that the choices they are fed are bullshit and that both A and B are part of the greater subject -- C. If you vote for A, it benefits C. If you vote for B, it benefits C.

      That is why we should always vote third party. It isn't about the third party actually winning - it is about putting the fear of blindly serving C into the parties that do win.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    31. Re:Did your congressman do his duty? by blair1q · · Score: 1

      My guy was a good progressive with moderateness in all the right places and a set of balls where it counted. If he was a puppet, then he was my puppet.

    32. Re:Did your congressman do his duty? by lexsird · · Score: 1, Insightful

      The rest are guilty of High Treason against the Constitution in my opinion. They should be arrested, tried, and when found convicted publicly executed for the world to see what happens when you attack the Constitution of the United States like this. We kill "terrorists" who do less against us. Terrorists might kill a few of us, knock down some buildings, but they don't DESTROY OUR CONSTITUTION. That has to be done by traitors HERE, not there.

      Can't we Grand Jury indite every damn one of them for this when they set foot back home in their perspective states? Not only do we need to recall each one of them, but we need to prosecute each one of them. That oath to protect the Constitution isn't some formality, its vital and sacred. These fuckers need to be taught that and in a lesson hard enough that any fuckers in the future think twice about violating it again.

      --
      Take the Red Pill.
    33. Re:Did your congressman do his duty? by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 1

      This is a common misconception. There are plenty of third parties out there, just waiting for you to vote for their candidates. The fact that they are minority parties is a symptom of the way most Americans approach elections.

      --
      Palm trees and 8
    34. Re:Did your congressman do his duty? by Opportunist · · Score: 2

      Ah, a man of principle, honor and dignity?

      No wonder he couldn't win in this system.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    35. Re:Did your congressman do his duty? by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Insightful

      How cute. Yeah, change starts with me, and if we all thought like this we'd be living in a better world.

      Call back when you have a workable solution how to do it.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    36. Re:Did your congressman do his duty? by bigstrat2003 · · Score: 2

      I fail to see how it's worse than doing nothing while lamenting the status quo, which is what you seem to propose.

      --
      "16MB (fuck off, MiB fascists)" - The Mighty Buzzard
    37. Re:Did your congressman do his duty? by Sponge+Bath · · Score: 4, Insightful

      There is NO SUCH THING AS TEMPORARY.

      Wikipedia: The Banking Act of 1933... introduced banking reforms...commonly known as the Glass–Steagall Act... provisions that prohibit a bank holding company from owning other financial companies were repealed on November 12, 1999.

      Temporary seems to apply to good laws more than bad.

    38. Re:Did your congressman do his duty? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A lesson taught many times throughout history.

      And, of course, never remembered.

    39. Re:Did your congressman do his duty? by FalleStar · · Score: 1

      Here's how the Senate voted: http://politics.nytimes.com/congress/votes/112/senate/1/84 Still looking for the House votes.

    40. Re:Did your congressman do his duty? by joocemann · · Score: 2, Informative

      If your congressman or senator failed to vote against this violation of the fourth and fifth amendments, he or she has violated their oath of office. Don't vote for them again unless you want this shit to continue.

      -jcr

      Here's a roll call of votes on the patriot act.

      http://irregulartimes.com/index.php/archives/2011/02/08/roll-call-vote-who-voted-for-and-against-the-patriot-act-282011/

      I want to make a point here. I know many-a-commenter likes to equate the democrats and republicans, saying they are both pro-corporate, and both *equally* bad for us. And yet when I see roll calls on votes, as you will see here, there is a striking trend among the issues that most americans (of all parties) are not getting represented correctly on.... Take a look. You'll see it right away unless you're in denial. Squint your eyes... Have a look.

      Yes.. you see some dems on YEAS. and you see some repubs on NAYS. But what you *really* see as a whole is that the republicans are consistently selling us out.

      So go ahead, attempt to equate the parties, but on issues like this, the truth is absolutely clear, them dems are definitely the lesser of two evils. Spread the word, and if you're a republican, at least accept the truth. Please. And then go ask your representative why they are always selling you out.

    41. Re:Did your congressman do his duty? by RoFLKOPTr · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Politicians are salesmen: they're going to give the customer what they want, not what they need.

      Politicians take it a step further. They make people think they need what the politician wants. How else could somebody possibly be elected with a campaign entirely based upon Hope and Change? The problem with politics is that in order to make it you must be a slimy bastard. People can fantasize all they want about how they could go in and fix politics but the fact is that you're not going to get past your local city council without back room deals and backstabbing the public.

    42. Re:Did your congressman do his duty? by joocemann · · Score: 0

      There are unfortunately only two options in US politics: The Frying pan and the shiny new futuristic looking Frying pan with a non-stick coating

      As I just made clear, there is actually a difference between the two that is greater than 'shinyness'.

      Take a look at the roll call, and look at more on other very serious issues where the population majority would disagree.... REPUBLICANS ALWAYS DOMINATE THE BILLS THAT GO AGAINST US.

      http://irregulartimes.com/index.php/archives/2011/02/08/roll-call-vote-who-voted-for-and-against-the-patriot-act-282011/

      Please, by all means, quit acting like the parties are equal.

    43. Re:Did your congressman do his duty? by joocemann · · Score: 0

      Talking pretty loud for a guy who says he sits down. Go sit down and leave the politics for people that care. You just told us you give up, so just do it and quit the babbling. You're part of OUR problem, don't you see?

      Go write a poem about it, I bet nothing changes then either...

    44. Re:Did your congressman do his duty? by MimeticLie · · Score: 1

      Your logic seems a bit circular to me. "The voters are morons because they keep electing the same people over and over again. They keep electing the same people over and over again because they're morons."

      The most meaningful way that we as individuals can voice our opinions in this society (short of owning a multimedia empire. Hi, Rupert.) is through our vote. You've recognized this, and take it to mean that because people keep voting for the two existing parties that they are stupid. I take it to mean that they recognize they only have two choices and are trying to make their voices heard with the few options they have available.

      If you want an example of this in action, look at the Tea Party. Regardless of how you feel about them (I happen to disagree with them on just about everything), they're a group that is certainly going outside the political orthodoxy. However, they've recognized that the only way to impact politics on a meaningful level is to join the existing two party system. If we had a system that provided representation based on support rather than geography, they would certainly be their own party. With the current political structure, voters who don't like their party's platform have to try to change it from within rather than abandoning the party entirely to side with people who better support their interests. And you, rather than looking at this and saying "Maybe our system needs restructuring" say "They're all sheep".

      And how convenient for you. It lets you keep your conviction that you don't need to do anything but complain about the way things are. If nothing changes, it's everyone else's fault. You do have a problem with apathy, just not in the way you meant it.

    45. Re:Did your congressman do his duty? by joocemann · · Score: 1

      http://irregulartimes.com/index.php/archives/2011/02/08/roll-call-vote-who-voted-for-and-against-the-patriot-act-282011/

      This is an issue where republicans can be held accountable. You should not act like it isn't, especially now that you've seen the votes.

      See it for yourself, and please don't bother wasting my time pointing out the few dems on YEAS and repubs on NAYS. I'm not stupid, and I see a very clear trend.

    46. Re:Did your congressman do his duty? by joocemann · · Score: 1
    47. Re:Did your congressman do his duty? by joocemann · · Score: 1

      See how your congressmen voted on the same issue in february.

      http://irregulartimes.com/index.php/archives/2011/02/08/roll-call-vote-who-voted-for-and-against-the-patriot-act-282011/

      You'll notice in the senate and house that the republicans are definitely selling us out. The difference is more drastic in the house, but even with the senate almost no republicans (where's the tea party patriots at right now?) voted no. Dems might be bad, but the republicans are complete trash.

    48. Re:Did your congressman do his duty? by artor3 · · Score: 1
    49. Re:Did your congressman do his duty? by Requiem18th · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Which is why I advocate doing away with elections altogether and implement Sortition. Essentially. Use the same system we use when selecting juries than when selecting representatives. A representative sample of the population is better than a man at representing the population wouldn't you think?

      Yes a Jury will lack experience in technical matters. But so are politicians. Like with politicians and like juries in trials, experts can be provided to inform the jury to take decisions. Unlike politicians, they won't make false promises,
      won't take decisions to advance a non existent political careers, nor are they as likely to cheat for personal gain, since they would be different people from different social levels.

      --
      But... the future refused to change.
    50. Re:Did your congressman do his duty? by DamienNightbane · · Score: 0

      The rest are guilty of High Treason against the Constitution in my opinion. They should be arrested, tried, and when found convicted publicly executed for the world to see what happens when you attack the Constitution of the United States like this. We kill "terrorists" who do less against us. Terrorists might kill a few of us, knock down some buildings, but they don't DESTROY OUR CONSTITUTION. That has to be done by traitors HERE, not there.

      Second.

    51. Re:Did your congressman do his duty? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is manipulation of the general "moron" population though, done for the benefit of those in power. Things like the Patriot Act empower the rulers and they like that.

    52. Re:Did your congressman do his duty? by Lehk228 · · Score: 2

      it's shenanigans but it is inevitable shenanigans, as long as bills may be amended things like this will happen, if bills were prohibited from being amended after introduction nothing would ever get done (not that i am 100% opposed to that).

      requiring that bills remain on a particular topic is weak and then requires that the scope and extent of "topic" be defined such that it would be just wide enough for the widest legitimate bill but narrow enough to block out the bullshit, for everyones personal definition of legitimate and bullshit bill.

      the only workable solution is a more involved electorate, and history has shown that to not be particularly workable or realistic.

      --
      Snowden and Manning are heroes.
    53. Re:Did your congressman do his duty? by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 1

      I didn't vote for the creature last time and it still got in. Oh well. This voting thing is great.

    54. Re:Did your congressman do his duty? by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Ah, the old "run for office yourself" gambit. It makes you look all, like, cool and worldly and stuff, and liberates you from actual thought.

      I did work on two state campaigns here in California, for people I initially liked. Learned they were just sociopaths in it for themselves like all the others.

      OK, I'll run. Do you have a great big pile of money I can use? Or donors who will give to a nobody like me? Oh, and when I am beaten because some union, Party or corporation backed scumbag pwns me in the culpable media, can you make sure my job is there to go back to?

      Oh, wait, I have a rather interesting personal past. Nothing criminal, just interesting and experimental. The media will go after *that* to the exclusion of all else, including actual issues.

      Give me or point me to a workable strategy for a real citizen politician, who hasn't exactly lived the life of a monk, to pull it off, and I'll seriously consider it.

    55. Re:Did your congressman do his duty? by sootman · · Score: 1

      > This is not an issue of the two party system, this is an issue of "the public is largely ignorant."

      It's a little more complicated than that. There's also the little issue of "those with power will use that power to keep their power."

      > Politicians are salesmen: they're going to give the customer what they want, not what they need.

      Also wrong. A GOOD salesman doesn't give a fuck what you want, he sells you whatever the hell he wants to sell.

      --
      Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
    56. Re:Did your congressman do his duty? by interkin3tic · · Score: 2

      This is an issue where republicans can be held accountable. You should not act like it isn't, especially now that you've seen the votes.

      As someone who has always voted democrat, I'm not particularly broken up if you for some reason pin this on the republicans. You should realize though that the democrats didn't come out fighting against it either. For the most part, those that didn't vote FOR it passed the chance to bring up the issue. They avoided the opportunity to educate the public that "your children are still a zillion times more likely to die from choking on a hotdog than they are to die in a terrorist attack of any sort, so calm the fuck down about it and don't give up your rights to vainly try to prevent it."

      In my book, there's little difference between a republican who passes something I'm opposed to, and a democrat who cowers in the corner and lets the republicans pass things I'm opposed to.

    57. Re:Did your congressman do his duty? by ChrisMaple · · Score: 2

      If more than 50% of the voters wanted (fill in the blank)...

      It's just not true. Some things stay in place because it's advantageous for politicians to keeps them there (a.k.a. arrogance of power). There was obvious majority opposition to ObamaCare, which didn't stop it from becoming law. For something like the "Patriot Act" to be repealed or discontinued, opposition would have to be both numerous and VERY LOUD. Or the people in the legislature would have to be honorable, fat chance.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    58. Re:Did your congressman do his duty? by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

      The fact that they are minority parties is a symptom of the way most Americans approach elections.

      No, they're a symptom of the first-past-the-post voting system. The countries that have more than two parties don't have those parties because of anything the voters think. It's not that americans have a hard time with numbers greater than two.

      The fact that so many slashdotters think third parties are the only way to get issues addressed is a symptom of the way few people pay any attention to primaries, which fill the role of multiple parties in this country. The only difference is that in multiparty systems, the coalition is formed before the election instead of after.

    59. Re:Did your congressman do his duty? by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      This one has more D's than R's in the sponsorship list.

      At this point, I expect it to pass unanimously.

    60. Re:Did your congressman do his duty? by joocemann · · Score: 1

      They did largely vote NAY, in the house. So thats a little bigger than being passive.

    61. Re:Did your congressman do his duty? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      More than 50% of the population want to end tax credit to oil companies, raise taxes on people earning more than $1MM/year and businesses and have universal (single payer) health care.

      None of these have a hope in hell as long as getting re-elected costs so much money (which favors the incumbent) and the money for that reelection comes from big oil, insurance companies and the companies that benefit from low taxes.

    62. Re:Did your congressman do his duty? by Roduku · · Score: 2

      run a campaign for someone in your home town who shows promise. ffs run yourself. if enough people did it and fucked with the system the system might churn out some results other than this crap.

      So please, keep your ivory tower ideas to yourself unless you also provide an idea how to implement them.

      There's the problem right there. It was spelled out in black and white and you still failed to recognize it.

    63. Re:Did your congressman do his duty? by MyFirstNameIsPaul · · Score: 4, Interesting

      With some research the problems and their solutions can be uncovered. I have determined that the primary cause of the politicians' lack of concern for their constituents is that the voting districts are too huge. House districts were originally supposed to be 30,000 people and not more than 50,000 people. With smaller districts comes greater access to office because the barrier to entry is greatly reduced. No longer are expensive media campaigns and popular personalities the benefit they are when a district is 700,000 people. Another issue resolved is the effectiveness of lobbying. The number of lobbyists required to lobby 10,000 people is so high that it makes it cheaper to just develop superior products than attempt to influence Congress. Unfortunately, every part of the Government and all special interests stand to lose with by returning power to the citizens, so the resources required to fight such a battle are unlikely to present themselves.

      --

      I once took an excursion to Reddit, and later HN. Unlimited up/down voting sucks when dealing with a hive-mind.

    64. Re:Did your congressman do his duty? by ChrisMaple · · Score: 2

      The problem with random selection is that as bad as most politicians are, at least at the federal level most are a bit above average intelligence. The biggest advantage I see is that we'd be likely to get a much more moral bunch. The question becomes, how rapidly will power corrupt them?

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    65. Re:Did your congressman do his duty? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If that is true, I'm voting for the frying pan that doesn't want to raise my taxes.

    66. Re:Did your congressman do his duty? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hate you because you're right.

    67. Re:Did your congressman do his duty? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful
      You want ideas? Start with these few:

      • If your state has closed primaries join a group to help get them open and participate in this effort.

        Drop your party affiliation if you currently belong to a major party.

        Put a candidates sign in your front yard.

        Use the interwebs to spread the word in a rational fashion.

        Contribute to third party candidates that you find acceptable. Start on the local and state level. Third party candidates who run for federal positions are mostly a lost cause right now. I know people who like to throw a few dollars their way to keep the names in the spotlight but locals and state level candidates have a real chance at winning with some momentum behind them.

        And above all else: Actually vote third party! As long as people think that voting for a small party or an independent is a waste of a vote it will be a waste of a vote. The number of people I know who are sick of the majors is incredible but few do anything about it because they take the 'lesser of two evils' cop out over actually standing their ground. How do we expect change with that way of thinking?

      These aren't 'ivory tower ideas', these are things you can do today with near minimal effort. Your voice will be heard if you just stop trying to rationalize away the efforts of third party/independent candidates. If nothing else, your vote going to a third party or independent candidate will show whichever major party you'd normally be aligned with that you're ready to take on an alternative seriously. Maybe if there is enough of a threat to the party they'll see that putting a token figure in place is going to cost them and there may be reform from within. The Republicans almost headed in this direction before they lost their way again. Maybe the next batch will be more in line with the Republican party of old if running corporate puppets and wanna-be thugs out there only brings dissatisfaction to their normal supporters.

      We can do this but we need to stick together.

    68. Re:Did your congressman do his duty? by MagusSlurpy · · Score: 1

      My crazy-ass Senator voted against it. In fact, he filibustered for seven hours. Apparently he's not completely crazy.

      --
      My sister opened a computer store in Hawaii. She sells C shells by the seashore.
    69. Re:Did your congressman do his duty? by interkin3tic · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I guess that was an oversimplification, I didn't mean to suggest it was a magic 50% and we'd instantly get our way. After all, during the Bush administration, there were polls saying 75% of Americans wanted national medical healthcare, but that didn't materialize during the midterms or the 2004 election.

      Still, it would at least be discussed. With whatever percentage are opposed to the healthcare reform, there was talk of repealing it during the midterms and still is talk about it.

      And speaking of percent opposed to healthcare reform, I strongly disagree that there was an -obvious- majority. There was a lot of noise, but it was not obvious to me that most voters were opposed to it. Then again, I was for it and didn't really care how many people were against it, much as I don't care how many people are okay with the patriot act.

    70. Re:Did your congressman do his duty? by Ihmhi · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Really? What about all of those politicians that don't believe in evolution, believe in young earth creationism, etc.? I'd say largely the politicians are just as dumb as the rest of us with the exception of politically-relevant skills (spinning, P.R., maintaining a public image, etc. - and even then they fuck those up a lot!).

    71. Re:Did your congressman do his duty? by nedwidek · · Score: 1

      I'm sure the president has the ability to veto this though. Surely he will?

      Sure he could, but since it was passed on 72 to 23 it would be overridden in a heart beat (unlikely that 7 yeas will turn to nays). The only real option open to the president if he is unhappy with the bill is to let it sit on his desk and become law unsigned.

      Congress isn't going out of town anytime soon so a pocket veto won't happen.

      http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_law.html

      --
      Post anonymously - For when your opinion embarrasses even you!
    72. Re:Did your congressman do his duty? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thanks, Boxer and Feinstein got a "you lost my vote" email.

    73. Re:Did your congressman do his duty? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I feel you...

    74. Re:Did your congressman do his duty? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Informative

      HE JUST FUCKING TOLD YOU, ASSHOLE.

      Get involved. Run a campaign. Run for office yourself. Though at the rate you're going, I'd be buggered if I vote for a weaksauce whinger like you. Hell, even just running on a solid platform and getting your ass kicked would be better than sitting on your pasty-white ass and complaining that 'nobody told you what to do!'

      Well, fine. SOMEONE is telling you what to do and how to fix the goddamned system. Shake it up. Get involved. Kick ass and take names. Tell people what you're standing up for and DO it. Tell them that a vote for you is a vote against violation of the Constitution. Are you going to sit there and whine how you don't listen to ACs, or are you going to FUCKING DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT?

    75. Re:Did your congressman do his duty? by nog_lorp · · Score: 1

      I've got one. Let's start a political party founded on the premise that parties are terrible at policy and issues, and should focus on the *party* aspect.

      "We are firm believers in personal politics. That is why we, as a party, have no platform. Vote for someone you fucking agree with, not someone who totes the party line."

      Then, throw the fattest parties of any party. I'd call it the Purple Party.

    76. Re:Did your congressman do his duty? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      dubya tee eff

      Someone needs to make a "law rebuilder" that takes all these amendments and crams them all into a working and current document.
      It'd be like a CVS system with history for legal reference.

      As the system is now, it will only make it easy for Congress to obfuscate the law.

    77. Re:Did your congressman do his duty? by cyn1c77 · · Score: 0

      You're deluding yourself.

      When it comes to voting, the American people are between a rock and a hard place. The two major political parties collude to prevent any sweeping change because the status quo benefits them.

      And politicians aren't salesmen. They are professional spindoctors, whose only goal is to get themselves elected and keep themselves in power.

      As a voting American, you can do nothing to stop the direction the country is going because they quash those proposals before they even make it to a vote. And if you try any sort of significant dissent, you will be labelled as a terrorist by the patriots.

      Meet the new boss, same as the old boss...

    78. Re:Did your congressman do his duty? by nog_lorp · · Score: 3, Interesting

      However, they've recognized that the only way to impact politics on a meaningful level is to join the existing two party system.

      Am I the only one who noticed that the Tea Party was co-opted and neutralized by the Republican party? It wasn't without huuuuge expenditure of time, effort, and money that the Tea Party was redefined from "radical splinter group in opposition to the Republocrat system" to "militant wing of the Republican party".

    79. Re:Did your congressman do his duty? by nog_lorp · · Score: 1

      Dissenting to save face when you know it won't have any effect is not the same as protecting our rights. You don't expect a fucking filibuster when it comes to something like, oh, continuing to suspend our rights in spite of a total lack of terrorist attacks against us?

    80. Re:Did your congressman do his duty? by nog_lorp · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Over time we'll get a picture of how rapidly power corrupts them. Then we can determine how quickly we need to swap them out with a new group. Problem solved.

    81. Re:Did your congressman do his duty? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      if you don't capitulate to one of the two big parties, you never will get to the state and federal levels.

    82. Re:Did your congressman do his duty? by epyT-R · · Score: 1

      uh it is to blame. the 'positive' choice is limited to two parties. these parties are full of politicians who say one thing and do another once in office. you talk like politicians have no desires or agendas of their own and we are the sole reason they're in power. the parties leaderships decide who ends up on the ballot before we get to vote. those choices are based on what the social and economic lobbies want.

      the status quo is best served by appealing to fear, so that is what's done.

    83. Re:Did your congressman do his duty? by epyT-R · · Score: 2

      Why aren't you doing the same?

    84. Re:Did your congressman do his duty? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except it won't, Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon plans to put a hold on the bill, so it won't even reach the floor for discussion.

      AC to keep my mods.

    85. Re:Did your congressman do his duty? by glodime · · Score: 1

      Even with the help of your link and Opencongress.org and govtrack.us and thomas.loc.gov, I still have no fucking clue what they actually voted on. I spent the better part of an hour trying to figure it out. The best I could do was several news sites insisting the the Patriot Act was extended but no specifics other than dates.

    86. Re:Did your congressman do his duty? by chrismcb · · Score: 1

      It's stuck with us because the voters these days are morons who are scared of foreigners with bombs, and are exactly the type of fools who would give up essential liberty for a little bit of security. Politicians are salesmen: they're going to give the customer what they want, not what they need.

      And yet recent history has shown us it isn't foreign bombers we need to worry about. They can't seem to blow up a car in time's square let alone their underpants. It is the domestic bombers we apparently have to worry about. But thats ok, we'll suspend our liberties anways

    87. Re:Did your congressman do his duty? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      A very interesting map. I'm somewhat glad to reside in a state where both senators have voted "no" - it is a good sign for the sanity of local politics.

      I don't quite understand the geographic distribution, though. It seems that most opposition comes from western states? All five which voted fully against are in the west. Coincidentally, four out of five are also blue, and most "no" votes overall are Dems; but, of course, majorities of both parties voted in favor...

    88. Re:Did your congressman do his duty? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      it's shenanigans but it is inevitable shenanigans, as long as bills may be amended things like this will happen

      I'm not outright claiming that this is false, but all such stories seem to be coming out of US; so this seems an uncommon practice in most parliamentary democracies. So either it's not as inevitable as claimed, or it is only ever publicized in US (which I find hard to believe).

    89. Re:Did your congressman do his duty? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      “The bottom line is that if these provisions are allowed to lapse, even temporarily, the nation will be less safe ... today, there are significant, ongoing terrorism and counter-intelligence investigations where these tools are or may prove to be necessary. We cannot risk any lapse in these critical authorities, regardless of how brief that is. Particularly now, at a time of enhanced threats ... the intelligence and law enforcement communities are working at a rapid pace to analyze and exploit recently collected intelligence to safeguard our national security. We are using, and we need, all of our collection authorities to investigate and prevent terrorist attacks. Taking away any of these tools, even temporarily, will impact our ability to identify and disrupt terrorist plots.”

      "Why, of course, the people don't want war. Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece. Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship. ... voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."

      One of those is by Goring. Another - by the looks of it - by an ardent follower?

    90. Re:Did your congressman do his duty? by cold+fjord · · Score: 3, Informative

      I hope this is a lesson to everyone regarding temporary suspension of powers. There is NO SUCH THING AS TEMPORARY. Once you give them away they are gone until the next revolution and re-establishment of laws.

      I don't think you quite have the hang of how things work in a democracy.

      After the Civil War, black Americans were free, but then segregation laws were passed in some states, but they were ultimately struck down. The United States once had a constitutional amendment prohibiting alcohol, and then it was undone as very unpopular by another constitutional amendment. During World War 2, Americans had their spending controlled by ration books for things like food, gasoline, and clothing. That's over. During World War 2, American media and mail was censored by the government. That's over. Until recently, cities and states could place onerous restrictions or prohibitions on the ownership of firearms by law abiding citizens, but that has been struck down.

      The Patriot Act was previously amended to address civil rights concerns:

      Senate passes Patriot Act changes
      Posted 3/1/2006 11:11 AM Updated 3/1/2006 9:48 PM
      By John Diamond, USA TODAY
      WASHINGTON — The Senate added civil liberties protections to the USA Patriot Act on Wednesday, clearing the way for renewal of the anti-terrorism law passed shortly after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.
      The 95-4 vote ended months of bipartisan debate centering on privacy rights. Subsequent procedural votes Wednesday showed enough Senate support to move the bill this week to the House for final passage and then to President Bush.

      Most Americans are OK with spying on people in direct contact with terrorist organizations, or who are plotting an attack.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    91. Re:Did your congressman do his duty? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 2

      Yes.. you see some dems on YEAS. and you see some repubs on NAYS. But what you *really* see as a whole is that the republicans are consistently selling us out.

      And yet in Senate, the majority of Dems voted yea as well. So both parties are beyond redemption.

    92. Re:Did your congressman do his duty? by stooo · · Score: 1

      Seriously, guys, I am German. The global spying and people control we see today in USA is at the same leven than in the former east germany, and that was really a bad situation. I'll never ever travel to USA again. I tink you'll continue to lose much tourist revenue...

      --
      aaaaaaa
    93. Re:Did your congressman do his duty? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes it is an issue of the two party system. We have anti-terror laws running up for extension in Germany and we have four parties, two major, two minor (plus a third minor one that's practically irrelevant and just opposes everything). The government is usually formed from a major and a minor party and on this matter both minor parties (liberals and greens) are opposed to the extension while both major parties (social democrats and conservatives) are for it. Now there's a real discussion between the ruling major and minor party (the latter got the ministry of justice among their posts) that would not exist if we didn't have the second (proportional) vote.

    94. Re:Did your congressman do his duty? by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Experts are already bought and paid for with research funding, and failing to walk the party line gets you out of a job and out of your position of an advisor.

      Dr David Nutt, advisor for drug policy to the Labour government, said marijuana shouldn't be reclassified to Class B (up from the C they dropped it to) and should be regulated, but legalised. Weed was reclassified, Nutt was fired.

      The corruption is deeper than politicians, I'm afraid.

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
    95. Re:Did your congressman do his duty? by FrkyD · · Score: 1

      You know, I've been thinking about just that problem for quite a while now. The problem of a past. I'm pretty convinced that in most areas, a truly open approach to your own background could actually be a benefit. One of the reasons these normal politicians get raked over the coals for the skeletons in the closet has a lot to do with their campaign platform and peoples love of pointing out hypocrisy.

      And most normal folk out there have made mistakes. Own up to it out-front, make it a feature not a bug, and I think the chances are good that people would respond positively. Americans are suckers for a good story of redemption, and being able to tell a story that your average voter could relate to would at least be a change from the status quo.

      If I still lived in the states I would seriously consider something like this, because I fear the U.S. has hit the point where you no longer have anything to lose...

    96. Re:Did your congressman do his duty? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Problem is that to get elected you have to compromise all your principals. Unless you are independently wealthy you are going to have to ask other people for money to run your campaign. Even if you somehow avoid that you will be one person among many locally elected officials and will have to compromise to get anything done. Even the president can't just go around doing what he wants, he has to give up some of his principals to get people on-board.

      That is how democracy is supposed to work. Different view points are represented and the result is a weighted compromise, which unfortunately often ends up pleasing no-one and being unrelated to any kind of principal or ideal.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    97. Re:Did your congressman do his duty? by gutnor · · Score: 1
      Expert can be provided indeed. Actually expert are also provided currently to our politician, that is called lobbying.

      It would take also some serious motivation for a middle/lower class citizen to either risk changing things or go voluntarily in a confrontation. It takes a certain personality to either be a (not -yet- corrupt) politician or Greenpeace activist. The average citizen would be shitty at the job for the same reason they are not in the street with their gun to change the current government.

    98. Re:Did your congressman do his duty? by Yvanhoe · · Score: 1

      I'm sure the president has the ability to veto this though. Surely he will?

      "Because Obama was in France for meetings of the Group of Eight nations, he directed that an autopen machine, which holds a pen and replicates his signature, be used to sign the bill, the White House said."
      http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2011/05/26/bloomberg1376-LLTGQ90YHQ0X01-03RT0Q7C05LIS1S0GM1FIG4797.DTL

      Also on another article, in French It is said that the white house declared this law as "crucial for the security of USA). It is not the first time that Obama do not care about it but it is the first time I see him endorse it fully. That is now official : even a progressive democrat in power is a threat to privacy. What are we suposed to do now ?

      --
      The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
    99. Re:Did your congressman do his duty? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Start small, in your town.
      It takes a fuckload of work.
      Or you wanted something easy?
      I get the idea that you are making up excuses.
      Sorry, there is no magic pill.
      Take responsibility for where you live.
      Run yourself or find candidates that are not sociopaths.

    100. Re:Did your congressman do his duty? by Opportunist · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Because it wastes your resources, wears you out and finally you end up like me, someone who has tried what you propose and failed, got jaded and doesn't even bother to look for a solution anymore.

      First get a concept that's worth your effort. Something that can actually succeed. Else you're just the comic foil of the next election.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    101. Re:Did your congressman do his duty? by DarkOx · · Score: 1

      The problem is getting beyond that local election. In local politics people are pretty willing to do a "re-think". I have family members who have held local offices ranging form school board all the way up to mayor. Getting elected in those elections is very possible even if you don't fall in line with DNC or RNC platform. Main reason is two things get you elected at the local level, the first being name recognition and the second being issues. To get elected locally you need to get more yard signs in the ground than the other guys and two be able to articulately discuss the issues the community is facing at any town halls or debates your community dose, to win the votes of those who attend.

      You can win on ideas locally because people understand the issues. You can talk about budget items which are 100K and that's a sum of money regular folks understand. They are aware of the problems with the park, and the deteriorating condition of Vine Street, etc. They can think about tax law changes because the system is fairly simple usually and they understand how what you are suggesting will affect them almost immediately.

      Move this up to the national level. You can't win just by being right. You have to win on sound bites and you have to get those heard, which takes money which either you have to already have or you need support from the conventions and that comes with strings. When you talk about your ideas they now pertain to things like medicare, energy policy, numbers with trillion after them, or the middle east, that most Americans do not really understand but have been taught to be really scared about.

      If you dare take a position on any of these things you are done for, the establishment guy without having to offer any ideas of his own will run an add about how your are planning to kill everyone's grandmothers, let the terrorists win, bankrupt the nation, cost people their jobs, destroy the planet, etc. So even though anyone of any intelligence whatsoever can see we are are spiraling towards certain destruction on multiple fronts, even without understanding the details will vote for the status quo because they are scared and simply respond like a deer in the head lights.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    102. Re:Did your congressman do his duty? by asylumx · · Score: 4, Funny

      Yes, the "Don't like it? Fix it yourself!" response. GP must be a Linux guy.

    103. Re:Did your congressman do his duty? by asylumx · · Score: 1

      A good salesman TELLS the customer what they want, and convinces them he's right.

    104. Re:Did your congressman do his duty? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Ok, let me rephrase that: An idea that actually has any chance of having any impact.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    105. Re:Did your congressman do his duty? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      We can do this but we need to stick together.

      Yes, yes, yes, that's so true... and that's also not going to happen. Never. Forget it. Welcome to the real world version of the prisoner's dilemma where everyone picks defect.

      Why do you think Unions came into existence and why are they so vilified by industry? After all, workers are workers and if they all sticked together, they could easily demand sensible wages and good working conditions by themselves, no need for a Union for that, right? The reason why Unions are so dreaded by the Industry is that people DO NOT organize themselves unless someone or something provides a focus point. It is simply not going to work. Never.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    106. Re:Did your congressman do his duty? by guyminuslife · · Score: 2

      "If there's a new way, I'll be the first in line. But it better work this time."

      --
      I don't believe in time. It's a grand conspiracy designed to sell watches.
    107. Re:Did your congressman do his duty? by Aladrin · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Amen, brother. I vote for who I want in office, not 'the best that could win'. I hate it when people say a vote for a third party candidate is a wasted vote. It's that attitude that ensures we are stuck with the status quo.

      --
      "If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you." - DM
    108. Re:Did your congressman do his duty? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem with random selection is that as bad as most politicians are, at least at the federal level most are a bit above average intelligence.

      Except the President now and then.

    109. Re:Did your congressman do his duty? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      " they might finally invest that energy into understanding what is really going on and doing something about it. Then again, probably not."

      And here we have "the masses are stupid" argument. Criticism and no solid advice. How do you invest energy in finding out what is going on? The media is polarized and opinionated, no longer reporting news but filtering facts to fit opinion. People like you think that your opinion is the only right one so anyone who thinks different is attacked for their opinion. The politicians lie all they can. Tell me, where do you direct this energy to get the "truth" if there is such a thing? All you are doing is standing there and yelling "you are all stupid. Fix the problem". I'm sure this makes you feel superior, but it doesn't really help the situation. Talk is cheap, results matter.

    110. Re:Did your congressman do his duty? by somersault · · Score: 1

      I thought the whole thing was rather obviously pointless as a teenager, so have never bothered to vote. You may agree with some of a politician's proposed policies, but it's also likely that somewhere you really disagree with them. You also can't be sure that they will even do what they say they are going to do.

      Why is there nothing that can be done about the Patriot act? Can't somebody sue the government or something? As JCR said, it is clearly in breach of the 4th and 5th amendments.

      --
      which is totally what she said
    111. Re:Did your congressman do his duty? by somersault · · Score: 1

      find candidates that are not sociopaths

      What? Is there any other type of person that would actually want to be a politician these days?

      --
      which is totally what she said
    112. Re:Did your congressman do his duty? by Rockoon · · Score: 1

      They said that if I voted for McCain that the wars would continue, that Guantanamo would remain open, and that government spending would go through the roof.

      I voted for McCain, so I guess that they were right.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    113. Re:Did your congressman do his duty? by Dog-Cow · · Score: 0

      Well, unfortunately the rest of the (Western) world is not going to war with the US (to bring [back] democracy).

    114. Re:Did your congressman do his duty? by El+Torico · · Score: 1

      Maybe he is. I don't see any evidence either way.

      --
      In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is usually crucified.
    115. Re:Did your congressman do his duty? by RogerWilco · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I think there are two big flaws in the US system:

      1) The assumption that people's wishes and needs line up along geographic boundaries. No matter if it's 2, 30,000 or 700,000 people in a district.
      2) First past the pole systems. People can't be divided into two groups. In my country we for example have 9 major political parties with each different combination of the following: [liberal vs. conservative, religious vs. atheist, socialist vs. capitalist, enviromentalist vs. industrialist].

      It means that government happens by coalition, which means that the compromises are made between parties, instead of between groups within parties (tea party anyone?). I think it's a more transparent process.

      I feel it also gives a lot more power to significant minorities as long as they're willing to compromise.

      Next to that it allows for more rejuvenation in the political system, as even a relatively small group can get a foothold and grow from there into replacing established groups.

      --
      RogerWilco the Adventurous Janitor
    116. Re:Did your congressman do his duty? by hitmark · · Score: 1

      Not going to have much of an effect as long as things run by "winner takes all". As long as C can ensure that either A or B get the highest percentage once the rest have spread themselves over XYZ, there is no fear to be had. Just observe the recent outcome in Canada.

      --
      comment first, facts later. http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm
    117. Re:Did your congressman do his duty? by wintercolby · · Score: 1

      The problem with this is that as groups get larger, cliques tend to form. Leadership solidifies and before long you have an oligarchy of the few ruling the massive number of representatives from smaller districts. That oligarchy would then become the group to buy, and we'd be back into the same boat. There's no escaping the fact that when we're talking about people, we're talking about cattle. They do as the media directs. It's only when they are dealt with one on one, or incredibly small numbers, that humans have a chance of being intelligent. Even with complete transparency into your legislator's cow like behavior, following the leadership of his or her party, it is unlikely that a change in locally elected representatives would alter the behavior of the elected body.

      The only solution is to educate and be educated, an optimist would say that interactive online media gives us a much stronger possibility for this to be the case than the passive TV generation. Even of Facebook people seem driven to read what they see critically, and attempt to respond in an intelligent fashion, or maybe that's my perception filter kicking in.

      --
      Most ignorance is vincible ignorance. We don't know because we don't want to know. --Aldous Huxley
    118. Re:Did your congressman do his duty? by RogerWilco · · Score: 1

      I do think it's part of the two party system.
      See also my post #36261500 in this thread

      In a two party, first past the post system, elections get decided on a few major issues, or even which candidate you like more.
      As I write in my other post, if I look at the system in my own country, where we have representative voting, parties are actually divided along multiple lines: [liberal vs. conservative, religious vs. atheist, socialist vs. capitalist, enviromentalist vs. industrialist]

      Governments are formed though coalition, where sometimes even a small party can be the deciding factor, if it gives two other parties a majority.

      My point with this is that if there is a topic that is only interesting to a small minority, and a large part of the population doesn't care, then by organizing, this group can get it's point into a coalition agreement if it's willing to compromise on a lot of other grounds.

      See for example what now happened in the UK with the Liberals. They formed a coalition with the Conservatives, giving a way a lot of points, to get their most important point, the voting system change.

      Another example is the Pirate Party in countries like Sweden and Germany. Over 90% of the population just doesn't really care about copyright legislation. If at some point the Pirate Party would be needed to create a majority in parliament in either country, they could get some real changes to the copyright legislation enacted, even if they would represent only 1-2% of the voters.

      Having representative voting has the big advantage that a small minority that's passionate about an issue where a large majority doesn't care about, can have a real effect on policy.

      The advantage of two party systems is that you nearly always have one party with a majority and you can't get into trouble forming a government because coalition negotiations fail.

      --
      RogerWilco the Adventurous Janitor
    119. Re:Did your congressman do his duty? by hitmark · · Score: 1

      Hell, this is a pattern as old as civilization. Just observe how Rome went from republic to dictatorship...

      --
      comment first, facts later. http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm
    120. Re:Did your congressman do his duty? by wintercolby · · Score: 1

      s/'Even of Facebook'/'Even on Facebook'/ . . . fixed that for me.

      --
      Most ignorance is vincible ignorance. We don't know because we don't want to know. --Aldous Huxley
    121. Re:Did your congressman do his duty? by Anonymous+Meoward · · Score: 0

      Am I the only one who noticed that the Tea Party was co-opted and neutralized by the Republican party?

      Nope. And let's be honest. It was an incredibly, transparently easy thing to do, especially with a crapload of money available.

      Fact is, most TPers have lower levels of education and are easily manipulated. (Go ahead, mod me as a troll.) Fear-mongering will never go out of style, as Roger Ailes will gladly tell you.

      Remember the movie "Meet John Doe"? Well, the Tea Party is just like the John Doe Party in the film. It started with good intentions, and once it achieved a certain political critical mass, it was co-opted by powerful interests with other agendas. Including convincing the rabble that they needed what those interests wanted.

      For that reason, I see the Tea Party role in the next election being practically insignificant. They were duped after their big win in 2010, and who doesn't believe that whey won't get fooled again?

      --
      --- The American Way of Life is not a birthright. Hell, it's not even sustainable.
    122. Re:Did your congressman do his duty? by black+soap · · Score: 1

      The only "Temporary" laws are the ones that limit the government's power. Laws that expand the government's authority temporarily i.e. during some sort of emergeny will be extended. "Temporary" taxes will become permanent, and grow. I am liking more and more Herbert's concept of a "Bureau of Sabotage"

    123. Re:Did your congressman do his duty? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Everyone who could and has the means to is also a beneficiary of it. Who would?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    124. Re:Did your congressman do his duty? by Chriscypher · · Score: 1

      Else you're just the comic foil of the next election.

      Mr. Trump, is that you?

      --
      "You have liberated me from thought."
    125. Re:Did your congressman do his duty? by jonescb · · Score: 1

      I don't like this idea. It sounds good, but legislatures write law, and what are most legislators? Lawyers. Do I want Joe SixPack writing laws when he has zero legal background. And do I want "experts" telling him what to do? A bunch of random nobodies would be too easily manipulated by these experts or advisers who know how the system works.

    126. Re:Did your congressman do his duty? by Scragglykat · · Score: 1

      There was an article on Gizmodo earlier this week talking about why politicians lose sight of what is good and what those that voted for them want... it's just the way our brains work. All of us think we would make a great leader or politician, but once you have that POWER, that ALL ENGROSSING POWER!!! COURSING THROUGH YOUR VEINS!!! well, we have all seen what the power of the dark side does to everyone. It's a basic concept that many movies use, because it's true. When we become powerful in our own eyes, those that are not powerful become less important, or not important at all, and let's face it. The Patriot Act gives MORE POWER to the government... and politicians are the government. It's like lightning from your fingers... what sort of Sith lord would they be without lightning fingers? And they aren't going to give up this power either. See also, the Emperor coming to power over the Senate, then not giving that power up. Really, if you think of it, Star Wars is/was a satirical view of our government. Only instead of one Emperor, we vote a new Emperor in every 4-8 years. By the time they get to that point, the dark side has already corrupted them with power. So really, ickleberry is correct. It's in our nature to uncontrollably become the shiny new futuristic looking frying pan. It can't be helped.

    127. Re:Did your congressman do his duty? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah? And doing anything more than sitting around talking about enacting change gets your ass listed as a lone wolf.
      Hell, talking about it might be enough
      *tinfoil hat on*

    128. Re:Did your congressman do his duty? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      From people in the know, Glass-Steagall really has little to do with safety. The non-commercial banking activity was not the root of the crisis (mortgages were, and they're the basic function of the commercial bank!). The problem is bad regulations, not lack of regulations, such as bizzarre rules on capital charges and federal subsidies for mortgages (i.e. fannie/freddie).

    129. Re:Did your congressman do his duty? by zeroshade · · Score: 1

      Anyone who is a victim of it, has had their rights taken so they aren't capable of suing.

    130. Re:Did your congressman do his duty? by Requiem18th · · Score: 1

      But they still perform their duties as juries in trials so it's not like nobody is willing to accept this challenge.

      --
      But... the future refused to change.
    131. Re:Did your congressman do his duty? by TheSpoom · · Score: 1

      With smaller districts comes greater access to office because the barrier to entry is greatly reduced.

      The real problem is that no current politician WANTS a low barrier to entry. They all want to keep the constituencies that they bought with their hard-earned money. And you better believe that the two major parties want the barrier to entry as high as possible.

      So we have a chicken and egg problem:
      Citizens want smaller districts, but in order to do so, they need to get one of their representatives into office. Unfortunately, they can't, because the district is too large to run one of their candidates...

      --
      It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
      - E. Debs
    132. Re:Did your congressman do his duty? by Requiem18th · · Score: 1

      Then my proposal is, at worst. Slightly better than we are now. At least a jury is less likely than a politician to deliberatively choose which experts to take advise from. How often politicians have already decided the answer they want before officially asking for advice? Very often I'll dare to say.

      --
      But... the future refused to change.
    133. Re:Did your congressman do his duty? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree, The problem is the government is not open enough, the information on who voted on what and what bills in the works is not common enough knowledge. So even though we have voted them into office, there is very little oversight for what they actually do when they get there. Any oversight that is in place is not good enough or is no longer applicable in this age. I say the next bill should be to make senators and congressmen accountable for their voting, and require that they take an hour each month where they must appear on video and give a monthly update for what they have been doing. So that districts who voted them in can see what is happening and have a chance to respond for their actions. This video must be public in some fashion, either public broadcast,web site, etc... We need to as a Country remind the government who is really in charge and that We the People was penned for a purpose. To that we must know what they are doing.

    134. Re:Did your congressman do his duty? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, that's a damn good idea....

    135. Re:Did your congressman do his duty? by locallyunscene · · Score: 1

      Vote for someone without a (D) or (R) next to their name. You register to vote already right?

      Seriously, that would be enough. If enough Green, or Libertarian, or independent candidates got votes then the party lines of the respective parties would adjust garner more votes in those areas. If you vote in a D or R no matter what they do then they have no incentive to do anything differently.

    136. Re:Did your congressman do his duty? by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

      And if you try any sort of significant dissent, you will be labelled as a terrorist by the patriots.

      Idiots like Ann Coulter already call all liberals terrorists, if that's what you're talking about. Besides, what's a little name calling? Hell, on 9/12, people were already throwing around the terrorist name. Either Pat Roberts or Jerry Fallwell basically said atheists and/or feminists caused 9/11 within a few months. Big freaking deal, so they'll call us terrorists. Been called that before.

      If you're talking about being deported to gitmo for gaining traction on repealing the patriot act through legal means, no, that's absurd no matter how you look at it. If you take your tinfoil hat off, your suggestion taken literally is easy to spot as absurd. If you keep your tinfoil hat on, you think that repealing the patriot act would take away all the power of "the man?" The "patriots" wouldn't risk exposing themselves to persecute you for something as trivial as the patriot act. You'd have to go after all their pocketbooks before they'd assasinate you or deport you.

    137. Re:Did your congressman do his duty? by Requiem18th · · Score: 1

      As opposed to the current system where laws are ALSO written by lawyers but they are vetoed by trusty representatives that don't care at all about the people they purportedly represent, do not share their status, do not share their burden and have substantial opportunities of personal gains through corruption?

      --
      But... the future refused to change.
    138. Re:Did your congressman do his duty? by somersault · · Score: 1

      If I lived in the US I'd consider doing it just for funsies. Though first I'd need money for a team of lawyers (money which would hopefully be recovered if they won, which they probably wouldn't because they'd presumably be bribed or otherwise silenced by the government).

      I'm not sure if suing would even be the right word, but I'm not a lawyer so I'm not sure what the appropriate way to challenge an illegal law is.

      --
      which is totally what she said
    139. Re:Did your congressman do his duty? by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      Here's hoping you're right and he pulls it off.

      Not holding my breath,though.

    140. Re:Did your congressman do his duty? by gearsmithy · · Score: 2

      So go ahead, attempt to equate the parties, but on issues like this, the truth is absolutely clear, them dems are definitely the lesser of two evils.

      You mean like the one who signed this into law? Like the one who promised to close Gitmo? Like the one who based his entire political campeign on peace? Like the one who promised Federal resources wouldn't be spent on prosecuting individuals who abide by state laws? I'm so sick of this "the democrats are the lesser of two evils" nonsense.

    141. Re:Did your congressman do his duty? by SoyQueSoy · · Score: 1
      --
      You are a victim of the future. And the future has marvelous boobs.
    142. Re:Did your congressman do his duty? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      I'm at every election in my country (not the US) and I do vote what I think is the right choice. Yes, in most recent elections that meant my vote was cast in vain since they didn't get past the entry bar.

      I don't consider it a "lost vote" though. I voted for what I wanted. Apparently most people didn't want that, but that's ok, we're a democracy and hence the majority gets what they want. It gets easier with every election to vote for something but the "big five" in my country who manage to get into the parliament, since NONE of them offer what I want and I frankly care less with every election which one of them wins the race.

      My hope is, as you mentioned, that, if enough people vote for some "fringe" party, the big ones will pick up their agenda to siphon those "lost" votes, if only to avoid another party in the fold of parliament parties they have to deal with. My hope is they learned from the 80s when the Greens got in when environmental issues were ignored long enough for people to actually go out and consider voting for a party that has just this and little else on their table a viable option. I doubt they'd want to make that mistake again, so even getting 2-3 percent of the votes on a minority party without influence might make their agenda something that cannot be ignored anymore.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    143. Re:Did your congressman do his duty? by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

      Those types of discussions happen here too, they happen in primaries, they happen in the media, they happen with individual members of a party. I mean, there were votes against the patriot act as you can see. There's plenty of opportunity to talk about it in a primary. It doesn't happen, because Americans are more convinced the world is out to get us than Germans are. If Germany had a 2 party system instead, there would still be the same discussions.

    144. Re:Did your congressman do his duty? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Try again. If people stop buying things, no one will have anything because the law of Capitalism states that people will sell the cheapest made thing at the highest price. Good luck unless you can make due without tools, like the amish. (who use cordless drills and skid steers for work only)

    145. Re:Did your congressman do his duty? by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

      if there is a topic that is only interesting to a small minority, and a large part of the population doesn't care, then by organizing, this group can get it's point into a coalition agreement if it's willing to compromise on a lot of other grounds.

      That happens here too, the thing is you can't just show up on the general election. Primaries fill that role here. Look at the libertarian poster boy Ron Paul: he's a republican. Pro-business and the religious right both fit into the republican tent more or less and compromise okay. If they were two different parties, they'd form a coalition and it would basically be the same politics. The tea party is actually a wing of the republican party, they were smart enough to realize that going the path of true 3rd party was futile.

      The main problem with the first-past-the-post system in my eyes is that for some reason, the left wing seems convinced that the only reason we usually have 2 parties is because the voters don't realize there are more than two boxes in the general election, leading to more 3rd party voting, and more vote splitting. If liberals realized that and if Nader had been more interested in what was good for the country than his own ego, Bush would have lost the electoral vote in 2000.

    146. Re:Did your congressman do his duty? by lsamaha · · Score: 1

      Generally, a sovereign government cannot be sued. However, lawsuits can be brought (and have been brought) by average citizens to challenge the constitutionality of the act. In my opinion, people's frustrations in a constitutional democracy most commonly boil down to "why don't a majority of voters agree with my notion of what's best for America" and "why don't federal court judges accept my cursory evaluation of how the law should be interpreted" and I'm no exception on these counts.

    147. Re:Did your congressman do his duty? by lwsimon · · Score: 2

      No, you're right. I've been involved in the "tea parties" (not the lower case) since Bush was in office. The first one I attended was a fund raiser for Ron Paul - not that I'm a big Paul fan, but I was interested in the connections to be made there.

      After the elections, it took off and was great for a while. After the April 2008 events, it started attracting broader support from conservatives, though, and that was the beginning of the end.

      In 2008, you would meet people who identified themselves as Objectivists, libertarians, agorists, minarchists, voluntarists, etc - and would be happy to sit and discuss political philosophy. In 2011, you meet people who bitch about Obama for 20 minutes without ever making a logically consistent argument beyond "I disagree".

      I want my damn tea party back.

      --
      Learn about Photography Basics.
    148. Re:Did your congressman do his duty? by MyFirstNameIsPaul · · Score: 1

      If you take a look at states like New Hampshire, where they have ~3000 people per district in the lower house, it really doesn't work that way. When constituents there complain about something, they get a real response from their representative. The opposite is true here in California where there are 485,000 people per district in the lower house. When constituents complain they're lucky if they get a form letter response. I was surprised to learn that New Hampshire does have strict laws as to parties and as such there are really only two parties, but the actual political spectrum of those parties is quite diverse. New Hampshire is one of the most business-friendly states in the nation, yet they tend to fall a little on liberal side when it comes to social policy. My opinion is that the business-friendly environment is a result of the citizenry's relatively easy access to office and the liberal social policy is a result of the beliefs of the population, suggesting that almost no matter what one's beliefs, businesses can thrive so long as the little guy has a real voice.

      --

      I once took an excursion to Reddit, and later HN. Unlimited up/down voting sucks when dealing with a hive-mind.

    149. Re:Did your congressman do his duty? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are unfortunately only two options in US politics: The Frying pan and the shiny new futuristic looking Frying pan with a non-stick coating

      This is not an issue of the two party system,

      So true. We have eight parties in the Finnish parliament and I hate voting for any one of those fuckers.

      CAPTCHA is 'slaver'. Ha-ha?

    150. Re:Did your congressman do his duty? by amRadioHed · · Score: 1

      In the house? No I wouldn't expect a filibuster in the house.

      --
      We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
    151. Re:Did your congressman do his duty? by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 1

      You demonstrate the problem right there. You assume what I did was "mistakes." They are only "skeletons" because of the Puritanical attitude a lot of people suddenly get at election times.

    152. Re:Did your congressman do his duty? by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 1

      I get the idea that you are making up excuses.

      No, I'm voicing pretty clear and real caveat. Nothing you said addresses that.

      No magic pill? Wow. Thanks for that wisdom, Mr. Guru, sir.

      There's also another problem: I no longer give a shit. I *want* California to go bankrupt.

    153. Re:Did your congressman do his duty? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If more than 50% of the voters wanted the patriot act gone, republicans AND democrats would be slinging mud about "I'd get rid of it a FULL DAY SOONER than my opponent would!"

      Really? But over 50% of voters want the Bush tax cuts for the rich repealed, more than 50% think gay marriage should be legal, etc., etc.

      Face it, the USA is a failed state, an interesting experiment that ultimately damaged the entire planet.

    154. Re:Did your congressman do his duty? by rokstar · · Score: 1

      Most of them probably don't believe that nonsense, its just good pandering at very little cost to them politically. They'd tell you that they believe the earth is flat if it got them enough votes.

    155. Re:Did your congressman do his duty? by wintercolby · · Score: 1

      The question is how many representatives are in each state's lower house. New Hampshire is a small state while California is huge. My congressman never writes me back, I'm in Virginia.

      --
      Most ignorance is vincible ignorance. We don't know because we don't want to know. --Aldous Huxley
    156. Re:Did your congressman do his duty? by rcw-home · · Score: 1

      If more than 50% of the voters wanted the patriot act gone...

      You need a higher percentage than this. Let's pretend that:

      • A representative lives in a semi-contested district where they've, regardless, served for several terms.
      • The issue in question is a big one - one that voters may make their next decision on
      • The issue isn't one that's aligned with either the dem or rep platform.
      • A change on the issue might anger voters who disagree more than it would sell voters who agree.

      If only 50% of voters wanted the bill to pass, then about half of the voters who would ordinarily vote for the candidate may vote against them in the next term. While it's often true that the last bullet is just a figment of the representative's imagination, and that half the voters who wouldn't ordinarily vote for the candidate may vote for them now, if a representative has found a platform that gets them elected over and over, they won't want to risk changing it and fracturing their constituent base.

    157. Re:Did your congressman do his duty? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The two party system does not represent the people. Who is for the the patriot act? Certainly not me, nor the people I talk to, or the forums I read. The two party system means that the politicians do not represent the interests of the people who voted for them, rather they represent the interests of the people who funded their campaigns.

    158. Re:Did your congressman do his duty? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It's stuck with us because the voters these days are morons who are scared of foreigners with bombs, and are exactly the type of fools who would give up essential liberty for a little bit of security. Politicians are salesmen: they're going to give the customer what they want, not what they need.

      This is true. But what is left out, I think, is that the American people are massively propagandized by those in government, the media, and advertising. It serves the interests of all three of those sectors to keep the people afraid. When a person is afraid, they can be controlled by offering a relief from that fear.

      Thus politicians get votes (and power and money), the media get viewers (and ad revenue) and advertisers sell products, all by keeping people afraid and anxious. In my limited experience most people are largely unaware that this is happening. They may have an idea that it goes on in the abstract, but it does not inform how they form opinions and make decisions. They still treat the government and news media as authorities to be trusted, not power structures to be treated with healthy skepticism. If people haven't seen it, I think they should watch the movie Manufacturing Consent. It was made decades ago, but is still quite effective in describing how the people can be bent to the will of those in power.

    159. Re:Did your congressman do his duty? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When we organize, like the air traffic controllers tried to do, the president can order that everyone in the union be fired and replace with non-union workers, in the interests of safety of course. EIther the order comes directly from the president that we're all fired, or the government just subsidizes the corporations that fire their U.S. workers and rehire workers for 1/20th the wages in another country. When we put together a grassroots efforts and get a guy who sounds like one of us and promises to make things right, he just turns out to be a plant and signs the Patriot Act re-up. It's the futuristic frying pan for us.

    160. Re:Did your congressman do his duty? by Ihmhi · · Score: 1

      That's a possibility that I would like to believe, and Occam's Razor hits an impasse here for me. Complete morons, or political geniuses? Both are valid explanations.

    161. Re:Did your congressman do his duty? by Magius_AR · · Score: 0

      Am I the only one who noticed that the Tea Party was co-opted and neutralized by the Republican party?

      That's because you're ignorant and apparently blind to front page news. The Tea Party has made far more effort to stay true to its philosophy than say "hope and change" Obama has. It just so happens that they're a bit outnumbered at the moment, having to fight not only Democrats, but also their own party.

      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/26/patriot-act-extension-passes-senate_n_867736.html

      http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20110516/ts_csm/382261_1

    162. Re:Did your congressman do his duty? by riondluz · · Score: 1

      I second getting rid of federal elections too! It harks back to a time when D.C. was a far-off place ,reached by horseback and many days ride from one's home district. Then, it made sense. Today it makes no sense at all.

      I say we replace our congresscritters with a big LCD screen in their chair in the House.
      That screen represents the peoples' voice back home. And, back home, instead of a congresscritters' office, we could have a bi-partisan committee that serves to inform the public of current legislation and play an active role in shaping it according to the voice of its citizens.

      Voting on laws is done via ATM-like machines distributed around the State at convenience stores
      (or state-liquor outlets). Swiping your license is a "Yes" vote, not voting is a "No" vote.
      This implies that a citizen must go out of their way to vote FOR a thing they happen to want.

      The votes get counted and weighted againt the voter registration list. A majority vote == Yea
      and the next day (voting day in D.C) the LCD shows a big green thumbs up:)

      The idea of congress was a necessary evil when it was first created and for which we no longer have a need. Our borked system can only be repaired with direct democracy. This would be a step in the right direction.

      my .02

      --
      resist propaganda
    163. Re:Did your congressman do his duty? by Savantissimo · · Score: 1

      Sounds like a good idea, but I'd want a little statistical selectivity in the pool - people who have graduated from an accredited college are automatically in the pool, everyone else who wants to be in the pool has to file a form.

      It might also be a good idea to weight the pool - people paying lots of taxes, people with advanced degrees or degrees in harder subjects, people who are more engaged, and so forth should have a higher likelihood of being selected (but to keep the power-seekers out it shouldn't be an overwhelming weighting, but something that maxes out at say, a factor equal to the log_2 of the size of the pool, and maxes out rarely, few people having more than a slight edge.)

      How could this system be adapted to encourage a coherent long-term view and policies, though? How can we judge who likely has the best-supported views, the greatest insight on any given issue and make them the most likely to be setting policy on that issue? That's the real problem. Representation by sortition may keep most of the lizards out, but how can we do even better, selecting the wisest rather than the worst or the most widespread?

      --
      "Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?" - Patrick Henry
    164. Re:Did your congressman do his duty? by Savantissimo · · Score: 1

      "Most Americans are OK with spying on people in direct contact with terrorist organizations [state.gov], or who are plotting an attack."

      But what percentage of the time that the powers of the Act are invoked is the target " in direct contact with terrorist organizations"? (Which is a faulty and fear-mongering standard, by the way.) A few percent, if that? No, these powers have nothing to do with terrorism, but with power-seeking. This Act gives them the power to do whatever they like to anyone, including you and me, even up to having us assassinated for no reason that they are required to state, let alone prove. The supposed safeguards are toothless even if followed, and entirely meaningless to the vast majority who don't know their rights were violated, or to those who do not have vast sums to pursue their case in a court. Even those who can afford to go to court must file in a system that is virtually always obsequious to the other branches of the government and considers talk of rights as mere noise.

      "Temporary" is meaningless, (it may be decades or generations before a "temporary" measure ends). Any assurances from government officials as to how a statute will be used are also meaningless - the wording is inevitably stretched as far as it will go in the interests of those in power who are using the law.

      --
      "Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?" - Patrick Henry
    165. Re:Did your congressman do his duty? by Renevith · · Score: 1

      Most Americans are OK with spying on people in direct contact with terrorist organizations, or who are plotting an attack.

      What about spying on anyone they want? I didn't even have to read TFA to find this gem:

      the Patriot Act powers this approval includes would extend "to so-called 'lone wolf' suspects who aren't affiliated with any terrorist group."

      If you take away the double speak, 'lone wolf suspect' just means 'anyone we want.' Anyone they want to spy on is automatically a 'suspect' by definition, and if they don't have any connections to terrorism, then I guess they are a 'lone wolf.'

    166. Re:Did your congressman do his duty? by FrkyD · · Score: 1

      No, im just using the standard phrasing. I and many of my friends made choices to live lifestyles that wouldnt pass the pres test, but even people who have tried to be a comic book citizen wouldnt pass muster because, well, shit happens.
      And in case you didnt notice, i was giving you the only workable strategy i can think of. One that not many people have tried. just man up to who you are and face the puritans/press/whatever down.
      So will you be on the ballot or not?

    167. Re:Did your congressman do his duty? by thoughtlover · · Score: 1

      Learned they were just sociopaths in it for themselves like all the others.

      OK, I'll run. Do you have a great big pile of money I can use? Or donors who will give to a nobody like me?

      Exactly. And not that I want to be negative towards the process of a 'nobody' being able to penetrate the "good ol boys' club" (basically a lot of ivy-league alumni), but I saw a sobering quote on (I think) a /. user sig...

      "I tried to run for office as an honest politician, but I couldn't find anyone to help pay for my campaign."

      I'll end with a quote from the esteemed Homer (J. Simpson) to sum up on the prior quote...

      "It's funny because it's true"

      --
      No sig for you! Come back one year!
    168. Re:Did your congressman do his duty? by joocemann · · Score: 1

      But that still isn't evidence of 'equation', is it? no. see the truth and quit acting like your inch is the same as my centimeter.

    169. Re:Did your congressman do his duty? by joocemann · · Score: 1

      You call it nonsense, but the evidence is there that they are not EQUAL, the dems ARE the lesser evil. You probably didn't even open the link, or when you did, you must have clearly ignored what you were looking at else you couldn't have replied with the idiocy you just did. No, obama won't be getting a vote from me in 2012 thanks to his lack of veto, but the evidence still stands, and does for many other key 'citizen' issues that most people disagree with.

      Ignore it all you want, act like your inch is the same as my centimeter, but the truth is real and voting for republicans IS a worse choice.

    170. Re:Did your congressman do his duty? by Requiem18th · · Score: 1

      That would be too new actually, and in fact seems more prone to corruption for me. After the Diabold machines getting Windows viruses during election, I still want something a little more well tested and old fashioned.

      Juries are a tried (pun not intended) and true system, I just propose to extend their role in society.

      --
      But... the future refused to change.
    171. Re:Did your congressman do his duty? by MyFirstNameIsPaul · · Score: 1

      The population of the state is arbitrary. Virgina has a population of 8 million with 100 members of the lower house, so that's 80,000 people per district. California has a population of 37 million and has 80 people in the lower house for 462,500 per district. New Hampshire has a population of 1.3 million and 400 members of its lower house for 3250 people per house. Although the ratio in Virginia is better than here in California, it is still quite larger - larger than the congressional districts were when the Constitution was ratified. Additionally, you may have a non-responsive representative in your district.

      --

      I once took an excursion to Reddit, and later HN. Unlimited up/down voting sucks when dealing with a hive-mind.

    172. Re:Did your congressman do his duty? by mikecirioli · · Score: 1

      I think that it is even more important to impose strict term limits on office holders. Once you can make a career out of being a congressperson (or senator, or whatever) you now have a conflict of interest in that you are likely concerned about getting re-elected, which will likely lead to a compromise on principles in order to further that goal. If you knew that once you got elected, you had one (or a very limited number of) shot at doing anything significant or effecting any sort of change, and had no reason to do something solely in order to please the people who will hopefully keep you in your political job, then our elected representatives might actually focus on the task at hand. Another thing along these lines I'd like to see addressed is the issue of office holders with dual citizenship. How on earth can we expect them to act in our best interest when they admit up front that they claim a country other than the one they are ostensibly working for as their own. Sure, they also claim the US, but can we really trust them to act in the best interest of normal single-citizenship americans when the chips are down? Basically, what i'd like to happen is to strip away all the non-job-related perks of being in office, it should be enough of an honor to have a chance to serve our country without throwing in all the money and other enticements offered by lobbyists, fat cat constituents, etc!

    173. Re:Did your congressman do his duty? by riondluz · · Score: 1

      Diebold's are voting machines where you choose from a list. My machine is more like an ATM, which could be open-sourced and provide a reciept. Hell, a State could even provide a website that lists the "Yea" voters that you could double-check on.

      Your idea about juries is a good one, I like mine because it includes everyone in the process.

      --
      resist propaganda
    174. Re:Did your congressman do his duty? by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 1

      Well, I'm hoping to retire early, and there are some city level issues I feel strongly about, so there's a decent chance I could start at city council level.

    175. Re:Did your congressman do his duty? by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but I'm an engineer, and a good one. Even if I decide something can't be done, if enough people repeat that back to me, I start to think, well, wait a minute... maybe it can... :) But at the moment I got nothin'. What few nascent ideas I have eventually need sizable funding. I'd rather find someone like minded with a more.... marketable past, and just run the campaign. I'd take a crack at that tomorrow if someone offered.

    176. Re:Did your congressman do his duty? by Requiem18th · · Score: 1

      The thing I don't like about that is lack of accountability.

      Like, imagine bad laws get passed and who's to blame? So I want a way for the guys running the system to have some supervision, and what better way than random selection?

      --
      But... the future refused to change.
    177. Re:Did your congressman do his duty? by Requiem18th · · Score: 1

      Actually if you buy into public elections, what is the problem of electing dual citizenship governors?

      Yes, they may take decisions that benefit another country in your detriment, but that is the will of the people.

      What is the problem with a governor from, say, Haiti, redirecting relief funds there? The people who elected him did so knowing he was from Haiti. In fact the people who elected him probably have family there and that's why they elected him.

      The problem is when the representative does NOT represent the electorate which is what I mean to amend.

      --
      But... the future refused to change.
  2. "lone wolf" suspects by itsenrique · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Oh god, here it is. The latest in fear buzzword technology. "Hunker down", WMD, axis of evil, and now the "lone wolf". I miss when "lock box" was the stupidest of these pre-9/11. The worst part is, the media keeps using these deceitful memes and people just keep eating bowl after bowl of this shit.

    1. Re:"lone wolf" suspects by jd · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Lone wolf is particularly bad. Wolves are horrible hunters when solitary. They're only a significant threat to anything in packs. (The German U-Boat fleet discovered that, too, when they became incapable of forming their own wolfpacks.)

      If you want a meme that describes solitary madmen, "lone lolcat" would be more effective. Cats are dangerous on their own. Just ask a cheezburger.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    2. Re:"lone wolf" suspects by XxtraLarGe · · Score: 1

      You guys may not know this, but I consider myselfâ¦a bit of a loner. I tend to think of myself as a one man wolf pack. And then about 10 years ago, a cow-orker introduced me to /., and I thought â¦wait a second, could it be? And now I know for sure, I just added 1 million more geeks to my wolf pack. Millions of us wolves running around the internet together, looking for Beowulf Clusters & Turing Completeness. So tonight, we make a toast!

      --
      Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
    3. Re:"lone wolf" suspects by XxtraLarGe · · Score: 1

      Why did /. turn my ellipses into Ã|???

      --
      Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
    4. Re:"lone wolf" suspects by misexistentialist · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The nature of government is expansionary. Since "lone wolves" have no ties to terrorism and few obvious characteristics, intensive surveillance and broad restrictive measures must be wielded against 100% of population.

    5. Re:"lone wolf" suspects by XxtraLarGe · · Score: 2

      Why did /. turn my à into Ãf???

      --
      Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
    6. Re:"lone wolf" suspects by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 1

      "Lone wolf" is not a "new" buzzword; I had heard it used prior to 2001 to describe certain white supremacist group tactics. Timothy McVeigh was described as a "lone wolf."

      --
      Palm trees and 8
    7. Re:"lone wolf" suspects by sockman · · Score: 2

      Do not question the slashcode.

    8. Re:"lone wolf" suspects by aplusjimages · · Score: 2

      But we all had a good laugh when "teabagging" was on the news.

      --
      Can I bum a sig?
    9. Re:"lone wolf" suspects by jd · · Score: 2

      And, apparently, 35% of the wildlife.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    10. Re:"lone wolf" suspects by PaulBu · · Score: 1

      10 years belated "Welcome!", Steppenwolf! ;)

      Funny how some people's signatures are alike...

      Paul B.

    11. Re:"lone wolf" suspects by Anubis350 · · Score: 1

      I knew the damn roofies came from slashdot!

      --
      "goodbye and hello, as always" ~Prince Corwin, from Zelazny's Amber series
    12. Re:"lone wolf" suspects by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      It's a Carnivore glitch. Never mind that.

    13. Re:"lone wolf" suspects by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a protest against your poor typography.

    14. Re:"lone wolf" suspects by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Lock box" was actually a good idea, it was just too simplified and combined with Gore's monotone voice, it just became easy for comedians to mock him by repeating it. "lock box" *cue laugh track*

      It was actually just a common sense way to deal with the Social Security budget issue. Whenever the government goes over budget (they always do), they would "borrow" from SS. Gore's plan was simply STOP RAIDING THE RETIREMENT PLAN FUCKTARD. If it had been called "leave this money alone" instead of "lockbox", things might have been different. Comedians wouldn't have had an angle.

      Shit, if Gore had been elected, 9/11 might not have even happened. Gore was VP under Clinton when Bin Laden tried to blow up the WTC the first time. One of his often forgotten hoity toity ideas if he got elected was to require strengthened cockpit doors. Good thing we got that Bush fella in there. He decided the previous administration were too preoccupied with that Bin Laden guy and ignored any intel to the contrary, and told his cabinet to do the same.

      A Gore presidency probably would have sucked ass, but I think Bush was way worse.

    15. Re:"lone wolf" suspects by rpillala · · Score: 1

      To be fair, "lock box" was far more benign than the scare terms. Social security money continues to be abused, so an actual "lock box" would have made a difference.

      Also you forgot "war on terror."

      --
      When the axe came to the forest, the trees said, "Look out - the handle was once one of us."
    16. Re:"lone wolf" suspects by XxtraLarGe · · Score: 1

      I actually started reading slashdot back around 98 or 99, but didn't register until there was an article about presidential candidates and they excluded Harry Browne, so that was probably in 2000.

      Of course, my quote was supposed to be a parody of the speech from "The Hangover", but I don't think anyone recognized it thanks to /. screwing up the formatting.

      --
      Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
  3. Sad by DoomHamster · · Score: 2

    This thing is never going away...

    1. Re:Sad by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 2

      "Temporary security measures" rarely do, since the problem of keeping a country safe is never truly solved. All the DoJ has to do is point to the myriad domestic terrorist groups as justification for extending the PATRIOT act. There will always be radicals who want to take down the US government, and thus there will always be something for the DoJ to point to.

      --
      Palm trees and 8
  4. Lone wolf? by cant_get_a_good_nick · · Score: 5, Insightful

    approval would extend "to so-called “lone wolf” suspects who aren’t affiliated with any terrorist group."

    So, more needle in a haystack stuff, we need to violate everybody's privacy just in case one in the 7billlion people on the planet hate us. Didn't they use to hate us for our freedom? Not a problem anymore....

    1. Re:Lone wolf? by itsenrique · · Score: 0

      I think they hate us cause of Israel.

    2. Re:Lone wolf? by Black+Parrot · · Score: 0

      I think they hate us cause of Israel.

      Didn't OBL explicitly say that he wanted to bring down the WTC after he saw the ruin of the buildings of Lebanon?

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    3. Re:Lone wolf? by jhoegl · · Score: 1

      If it is my standard to prevent mutilation of teens, then I am self centered
      If it is my standard to prevent stoning of people, then I am self centered
      If it is my standard to require due process and truth, then I am self centered
      If it is my standard to require people treated humanely, then I am self centered

      If it is your standard that people be killed on your word, then you are .........
      If it is your standard that people not receive due process, then you are .........
      If it is your standard that vigilantism trumps the rule of law, then you are .........

    4. Re:Lone wolf? by LordLimecat · · Score: 2

      Many Americans live in conditions that are worse than those of even the shittiest third-world nations.

      Well, heres the decision that has to be made-- are you able to live with the fact that, in a free society, someone could decide to end your life and there is little that could be done to prevent it?

      If not, then be prepared to give up freedoms for each and every ounce of security and peace of mind that you want.

      On the flip side, if you want your freedoms, be prepared to accept that, occasionally, really tragic things can happen to you, or your loved ones, and the most society will be able to do is punish the perpetrators after the fact.

      I think if you were to gather opinion from the population at large, you would find them leaning heavily towards the "protect me from all danger" end of the spectrum; hence things like the patriot act (which, truth be told, probably do wonderful things for law enforcement)

    5. Re:Lone wolf? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No.

    6. Re:Lone wolf? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Yes. Yes you are.

      It's not your prerogative to tell the people of the world how to live their life. Personally, I don't know why stoning should be seen as a sensible way to punish a crime, but thankfully I'm not subject to this kind of punishment. And since I don't want to be, I simply stay out of countries where people think it's a good idea.

      If these people want it differently, I guess it's their, and not my, right to change that. By vote, by force, by whatever means they please. If it's something I like, I might go and visit. If it's not, I'll just stay here. If someone tries to force the idea that stoning is a good idea to punish someone into my country, I'll do my best to kick him out.

      The same's true if someone thinks the ridiculously backwards legal system of the US should be imported here, btw.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    7. Re:Lone wolf? by jhoegl · · Score: 2

      The irony is you are the one being self centered.
      "If it doesnt happen to me, then it is not my problem" is what you are saying.
      True, I wish people would pick up a stick and start charging, but the realization is that you can not fight people with guns this way.
      So people will stay in the situations they are in until someone with a bigger gun comes and says "hey, that is wrong"
      If you are being beat on by three people and four people walk by, what do you hope happens?
      I suggest you reflect further upon your thoughts in these matters.

    8. Re:Lone wolf? by surveyork · · Score: 0

      I think that just reading www.haaretz.com (a Jewish newspaper) could open the eyes of Americans. There are much harsher critics of Israel's policy in Haaretz alone than you'll find in any US MSM. Well, some will rationalize those critics as coming from self-hating Jews and move on with their unconditional support of Israel. Hamas and Hezbollah are no saints, but Bibi and Lieberman have no intention of making up with the Palestinians no matter the conditions (see the "Palestine papers").

      --
      2019 is going to be the year of Linux on the desktop.
    9. Re:Lone wolf? by surveyork · · Score: 1

      Many people who hate the US do it because the US has a tendency to go to war directly or indirectly whenever and wherever they see their national interests compromised. I think most US-haters wouldn't mind the US being the world police if the US weren't so war/violence-prone. Granted that there are radicals who want to extend their faith all over the world and their main target is the US, but not the only one (Madrid, London bombings).

      --
      2019 is going to be the year of Linux on the desktop.
    10. Re:Lone wolf? by russotto · · Score: 1

      I'm guessing this wasn't the building in Lebanon he was referring to.

    11. Re:Lone wolf? by cavreader · · Score: 1

      Until the Arab world steps up and acknowledges their contribution to prolonging the conflict instead of blaming Israel for the whole mess there will never be any resolution of the existing problems. They don't need to apologize they just need to own up to the fact that Israel didn't just steal any land they gained it by winning the wars that the Arab world launched against them. They have never been able to get past the humiliation of losing to the tiny state of Israel and will never be satisfied until Israel no longer exists no matter what concessions Israel agrees to.

    12. Re:Lone wolf? by surveyork · · Score: 1

      I agree with what you say but the problem now is that Israel won't make any concessions as long as Bibi & Lieberman are at the helm. They won't negotiate, they won't accept any concessions made by the Palestinians, they won't stop new settlements, nothing. They just won't do it. It was never in their plans. It will never be. I hope the situation will change with a future new Israeli PM.

      --
      2019 is going to be the year of Linux on the desktop.
    13. Re:Lone wolf? by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      I don't think the guy really understood what's worse than even the shittiest of third-world nations. If you're in usa in some crazy, crazy sect of partially your own will, then sure, maybe that's true. but that's like saying that mr goatse was raped. like, imagine living with some really abusive family- that happens in every country for some unfortunate folk. but imagine living in a jungle - with a really abusive family. it's much shittier.

      do you know who makes the most anti-america propaganda in the world? america.

      like these roving wiretaps. It's not like we don't have them elsewhere, I could be wiretapped for something that could at most just get me a fine, but if the coppers did that, it would be very bad budget use for them.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    14. Re:Lone wolf? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Buy guns. While they're still legal.


      I am not kidding.

    15. Re:Lone wolf? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Neuroscience will not be kind to all possible states of permissiveness.

      The rhetorical trick is closing off the idea that "we know better than you." I have no doubt that 99% of the time it's hot air being blown up an asshole because of our animal dominance instincts. Note that when saying "by force," presumably you don't include the idea that someone might use it against you, because, hey, you're permitting stuff to happen.

    16. Re:Lone wolf? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      You can't? It worked pretty well in Iran in 1979. A few million unarmed people against the 4th largest army of the world. Guess who won.

      They wanted change and they got it. Ok, it was against the interests of the US, but that's what I'm talking about, it's not MY right to tell them how to live their life. You call me self centered because I want to give people what we allegedly all want to give them: The right to decide for themselves how they want to live. And how do we do that? By invading their country and forcing them to do it our way. That's not going to work.

      It's a difference whether you're invited or whether you're inviting yourself, don't get me wrong here. I'm all for the aid to the Lybian population who tries hard to get their regime ousted. But the initial spark has to come from the people and they have to call for your support, simply going there and declaring that you're going to liberate them isn't going to endear you. They have to WANT you to do it, else you're just another occupant they will want to get rid of.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    17. Re:Lone wolf? by laughingcoyote · · Score: 2

      You are absolutely incorrect.

      If you walk by two guys who are pounding the shit out of a kid, do you: A) Walk by, figuring the kid should "change that" if (s)he wants to quit getting beaten on-by vote, by force, you know, what have you. B) Call the police. C) Try to intervene yourself. If you would pick A, I would consider you an utter piece of shit, and I think you probably would too. But that's just what you're advocating here-refusing to help someone who is being hurt by someone more powerful and cannot defend themself.

      There is nothing selfish about defending someone who cannot defend themself. Most people in dictatorships don't want the dictatorship to continue. But when you risk death at the hands of the secret police for even appearing to step slightly out of line, it's hard to make change from the inside. When you're a young child, it's hard to prevent yourself from being mutilated if that's what your entire society does. When you're being tortured and killed on the basis of a rumor that you might have thought the wrong thing, it's awfully hard to say "Hey, guys, wouldn't you mind stopping that?"

      Maybe you're the type of person who can stand idly by while people are tortured and killed, as long as it's not happening to you or anyone you know, and can even sanctimoniously try to make it into some kind of noble act. I'm glad I'm not.

      --
      To fight the war on terror, stop being afraid.
    18. Re:Lone wolf? by Dog-Cow · · Score: 0

      The Palestinians won't make any concessions either, so it doesn't really matter what Israel does. And Israeli politicians are fully aware of this, and thus can take any position that happens to suit their agenda.

      Also, the Palestinian leadership (especially Hammas) does not want an internationally recognized state. If they get one, the first mortar shelling or suicide attack from across the border will result in a full-scale Israeli invasion to level the State, while the world looks on. They need the status quo in order to appear as the victim.

      The bottom line is that neither side is "right" in the sense of being justified morally and historically in their actions. Everything that is going on is a matter of politics. As Bibi pointed out to Obama, Israeli Arabs enjoy more rights and freedoms than Arabs in any other ME country.

    19. Re:Lone wolf? by Dog-Cow · · Score: 0

      You are thinking about this incorrectly. It is not a case of "it doesn't happen to me", but rather "it doesn't affect me." By forming into communities, states and countries, we form ever-larger groups of (decreasing) influence. However, for the most part, conditions outside of the country do not affect those in the country. (Yes, of course we have the global economy, wars, etc., but for most "local" laws this holds true.) It is a perfectly moral position to hold that those who do not affect me should not be affected by me. For the most part, indirect effects are inevitable, but there's no reason to go out and meddle with someone else's laws.

    20. Re:Lone wolf? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Defending someone who cannot defend himself is something laudable, if that someone wants you to defend him. No, most people in dictatorships don't want it to continue. The question is, though, will it get better or worse? Allow me to put you in the boots of someone who lives in a dictatorship.

      You are, say, 30 years old. On your streets, there's military presence that makes sure you stay in line, so you don't speak up. You also remember the time when you were a kid, where those military people outside were shooting, because it was civil war. Back then, you could get killed by a fluke, a stray shot, no matter what you do. Now, you can only get killed for stepping out of line. You perceive that as an improvement because now you can actually DO something (or not do something specific) to stay alive rather than just hanging on hope and luck.

      You don't like your government, but at least now you have a job, you can actually go there without a constant fear of being shot and you start to make a living, something you couldn't 15 years ago when the only way of living was with a rifle in your hands, else you'd be just the playtoy of some tinpot dictator that ruled the local area in the name of one of the warring factions. You do get searched now and then, and the police is coming to your home now and then to see if everything's ok, but it's STILL better than them or their rival factions kicking down your door on a weekly base and redecorating your home because they thought you're working for the other side since they were there a week ago.

      You know that your government will not cease to exist because you want it to, no matter how much you want it to. And you know that change will currently only come violently. And you remember violence from your childhood, it's not something you want back.

      This is the situation in many dictatorships these days. Many have faced civil war or border wars in the past 2-3 decades and many people remember this. You might see why they see an oppressive stability as superior to the promises of freedom that comes at the price of another battle.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    21. Re:Lone wolf? by MaDeR · · Score: 1

      Aren't you cute. You probably even believe this is why USA intervened in various parts of world.

      --
      What modern Obelix would say today? Of course, "Those crazy Americans!".
    22. Re:Lone wolf? by cavreader · · Score: 1

      I honestly don't see what concessions Israel could offer to satisfy everyone. I have been there several times over the past 15 years and I was struck at just how small the area was. No matter the reason Israel is right in the middle of millions of people who hate them and have never been shy of broadcasting that fact. I think any Israeli leader who compromises the states security would be committing suicide because without a shadow of a doubt the Arabs will never stop attacking Israel until there is no Israel left. The thing is that this time the Jews while not go down quietly. If they are ever in the position of being over run I imagine at a minimum Damascus, Cairo, Tehran, and Mecca will end up radioactive craters and to tell you the truth I wouldn't blame Israel for doing it. Maybe such a catastrophe is what it will take to force the world off it's reliance on Arab states petroleum products while also showing the world for the second time in 70 years how low humans are prepared to sink in demonising their enemies to the point of total annihilation.

    23. Re:Lone wolf? by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      I pasted the wrong quote in. I meant to paste in parents quote, and I missed it on preview.

      My entire point was that its not some "government is trying to be bad for bad's sake" thing. People are clamoring for security from a certain form of danger; well, guess what, each bit of security will cost you a bit of freedom.

      Right now, someone could walk into the room you are in (or the room you will be when you go out to eat, or get home, etc), and open fire on you, possibly killing you. This happens occasionally, and makes big news when it does, and a lot of times people get a hard dose of reality that yes, we live in a free society where this is possible.

      The problem (depending on your point of view) is when people ask for the government to prevent such scenarios at all cost. The media was doing so after 9/11, and so we got all sorts of airport security changes, and the patriot act, and all the rest. Do we have more security? Im sure we do, and Im sure the patriot act has helped in that regard. Was it worth it? Well, I think you would be suprised that the answer will differ between individuals. Im not sure it was, but Im not going to pretend that there wasnt a reason for the Patriot Act to begin with.

      To give you another example, just imagine if you really wanted to prevent the possibility of the shooting scenario above. Can you imagine the powers we would have to grant the police, surveilance and otherwise, in order to effectively prevent someone from walking into a bank with a pistol and opening fire?

    24. Re:Lone wolf? by jhoegl · · Score: 1

      A few million sure, and it is a rare thing.
      When a few million rise up and the government doesnt consent, it turns into Libya.

      It is great that these things happen. however for Iran, it turned into a repressive regeime did it not?
      Hardly the ideal candidate for following such ideology
      Iraq, sure we went in and attacked. Cut off the head. But instead of leaving them to their own devices, we stayed and helped.
      We only know one way to setup a government, one that is ruled by the people, not a single dictator.
      We are trying to get them to take responsibility by allowing them to chose. In fact we did not force this type of government.
      Instead we suggested and said we could help, because we have the experience. They are making their own government, making their own constitution, and making their own mistakes.
      I would rather we attempt to guide and nurture what we know than just leaving and say, "good luck".

    25. Re:Lone wolf? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Umm... don't get me wrong, but historically, the US don't really put too much emphasis on democratic leaders in the countries they "liberate". Might have been a concession to the war against the Soviets, but when I look around from South Korea, to South Vietnam, to Iran (pre-revolution), to Chile... I dunno, but when I think of "democratic leaders", it's not really names like Syngman Rhee, Duong Van Minh, Reza Pahlavi or Augusto Pinochet that spring into my mind first. Just to pick a few as a sample.

      Iraq, if you have to mention it, was the ONLY country in the whole region where the Islamists couldn't get a boot in the door. Saddam was a king size asshole, but at least he wasn't a friend of religious nutjobs. Yes, the Iraq was actually the only secular country in the whole region. Well, at least 'til we changed that. Now it's one of the best breeding grounds for Islamist recruitment. Mission accomplished, eh?

      Don't get me wrong, but I can see why some people are kinda wary of this kind of "help".

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  5. Right violations on the installment plan by The+Archon+V2.0 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Because now that Osama is dead, this abomination is now to protect from mysterious random people.... A nice way of saying the PATRIOT act will stop being extended when we get rid of every last human being who hates America.

    1. Re:Right violations on the installment plan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So the PATRIOT act will get rid of the Senate? I hope so.
      But actually, the PATRIOT act is about the most un-American thing you can do. The only thing that could surpass that, would be a full-scale totalitarian fascist regime.
      (But who needs that old technology, when you can use modern social engineering and mass-media, to make people *want* all is effects, without needing any of its enforcement. That actually beat the 1984-style total surveillance. Since you don't need to force that which is has become a part of your mindset anyway.)

    2. Re:Right violations on the installment plan by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Let's play a game of thermonuclear war? Just to end this madness.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    3. Re:Right violations on the installment plan by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Erh.... You are aware that Italy and Germany actually voted their Fascist regimes into office in the first half of the 20th century? That was not a revolt of some petty criminal turned wannabe dictators (like, say, in Russia), that was a simple and quite 'normal' election. Pretty much the same happened in a few other countries in Europe (don't think just Germans and Italians are that stupid, most of central-eastern Europe was a fascist dictatorship of some sort). It was a huge Propaganda and mass-media coup, and I bet Mr. Goebbels would have killed for something like Facebook (and probably he'd have killed it quite quickly after taking power... but that's another thing).

      The US could easily be turned into a fascist state. First, unite the two big parties behind the scenes and stuff them with sock puppets, willing dummies that keep the show up of two separate parties but actually working together. Keep up the charade of the two party dictatorship and call it free election when in fact it doesn't matter who wins any elections since they both push the same agenda anyway. The election system makes sure that no third power could muscle in and you're set. That part is easy to accomplish (and a few will certainly feel compelled to tell that it had already been reached). Sure, an independent candidate might win a seat or two in senate or congress, but they'll be few and far between, if push comes to shove the two parties will have enough votes to keep anything bad from happening. Just keep up the bickering and the discussion before you finally "have to" vote for something because there is "no alternative".

      The situation for the US is actually much more favorable than it was for Germany before WW2, you have a lot more wiggle room. Of course you have to fight a war, since you have to have an external enemy to distract from domestic problems (which can be addressed as soon as this external enemy is defeated, which of course must never happen), but you have a globe to choose from where you want to fight. Germany had to do it at home, which is really bad for production and moral. As long as you can keep the war far, far away, nobody at home will care about it (and behold, the support for the fascist regime was pretty strong until the air raids started to make the people at home feel the war). As long as you can keep domestic losses to a minimum, nobody will care.

      Whatever surplus workforce you have, you can simply stuff into the army. This serves two purposes at once. First, since there is very little "low smarts" work left that hasn't been shipped overseas, you can put your "less gifted" citizens occupied, especially in the younger demographics (Spain currently has a big problem with young, unemployed people, I bet they'd kill for a way to get rid of them). You have less unemployed people, create jobs for the braindead and at the same time you can press more money out of the people at home since they have to support your boys at the front lines.

      The situation for domestic spying and a secret police are actually MUCH more favorable than they were in Germany. You have every "right" to spy on your citizens since you already had a big attack. The German Gestapo was never really well liked throughout its history. People feared it from day one, nobody was "happy" about it or actually wanted it to exist, it was at best seen as a necessary evil and nobody wanted to talk about what they did in their basements. You, on the other hand, can easily get a lot of support for domestic spying, after all there are so many "sleepers" in your country, a fair lot of people will gladly cheer for an arrest of a few terrorists since they were proven to be a threat to the country and safety of the people, not just a boogeyman like the socialists in Germany who actually had quite a few sympathizers.

      Yes, the situation for creating a fascist dictatorship in the US could not be much more favorable.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    4. Re:Right violations on the installment plan by the+linux+geek · · Score: 1

      Italy and Germany ended up with fascist governments due to back-room political maneuvering, not elections. The Nazis never got close to an election majority.

    5. Re:Right violations on the installment plan by pclminion · · Score: 3, Insightful

      A nice way of saying the PATRIOT act will stop being extended when we get rid of every last human being who hates America.

      Exactly correct. The PATRIOT act will end when we have eliminated those who hate America: the "representatives" who continue to extend it.

    6. Re:Right violations on the installment plan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      mysterious random people, indeed.

      Next thing you know, Anonymous will officially be designated as a terrorist group.

      Major lulz will ensue.

    7. Re:Right violations on the installment plan by cold+fjord · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Because now that Osama is dead, this abomination is now to protect from mysterious random people....

      Lets clarify this a bit, shall we?

      Yes, it will help protect us from mysterious people - currently unknown people who are in contact with terrorist groups, as well that people plotting attacks. That is the point after all, isn't it?

      Although most people on Slashdot seem to oppose spying on anyone, most Americans are OK with spying on people in direct contact with terrorist organizations like Al Qaeda (organizations trying to kill large numbers of people, not Dennis Kucinich/Ron Paul voters ... unless they happen to be eco-terrorists engaged is actual terrorism).

      And maybe you've forgotten, the Patriot Act has been amended in the past to address civil rights concerns.

      As to Osama being dead... let's try a thought experiment.....

      If Steve Jobs were to die tomorrow,... would Apple computer vanish? Would the board of directors and senior executives vanish? The tens of thousands of employees and contractors? The factories that make Apple products? The thousands and thousands of stores that sell their products? The tens or hundreds of millions of customers that own or are buying Apple products? Would the products vanish? Would any of it vanish anytime soon if Steve Jobs died tomorrow? The answer is: No. The Apple board of directors would name a new CEO and the company would continue. Apple might ultimately fail and vanish after some years due to lack of vision, or drive, or by losing its iconic chief visionary, but it wouldn't vanish immediately. It is also possible that they would benefit from Jobs exiting the scene... it would take time, probably years, to determine.

      So, what about Al Qaeda? Now that Bin Laden is dead,... has it vanished? Has Al Qaeda's world-wide leadership vanished? Have the tens of thousands of varied terrorists and insurgents around the world swearing loyalty to Al Qaeda vanished? Have the caches of weapons and cash vanished? Have the tens or hundreds of thousands of people that they trained vanished? Have the hundreds of thousands or millions of active supporters around the world vanished? Have the tens of millions of Muslims that approve of them vanished? The answer is: No. Al Qaeda has named successors to Bin Laden, and they are carrying on in their various plots and campaigns of destruction, murder, and mayhem. In a sense they may even be more lethal now --- Al Qaeda's leadership has vetoed some planned attacks in the past since they projected that it wouldn't meet the Al Qaeda standard for body counts. The new leadership may take what they can get. Of course, if you have enough incidents killing dozens or hundreds at a time, you can still reach a total body count in the thousands. So, yes, Al Qaeda is still dangerous.

      It has been understood by anyone interested that this is a problem that will almost certainly last decades - that was being discussed not long after 9/11. Here is something from 2007: Pace Says War on Terror Will Require Decades of Effort. What is the alternative? Give in the their demands? Bin Laden's demands are that the United States convert is Islam, throw away the Constitution, and govern by harsh Sharia law. In case you are wavering about which way to go, here are the top ten reasons this may not be a good thing from the previous link:

      10. Islam commands that drinkers and gamblers should be whipped.
      9. Islam allows husbands to hit their wives even if the husbands merely fear highhandedness in their wives.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    8. Re:Right violations on the installment plan by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Nazis didn't have a majority, but they did have a plurality in the last elections that were still fair, with a very large margin (they were twice as big as the next biggest party after them). Furthermore, comparing to previous results, their showing has been steadily improving with every new election. There's little reason to believe that they wouldn't get the majority eventually, even without back-room deals. It was a convenient shortcut, not the deal-breaker.

    9. Re:Right violations on the installment plan by headkase · · Score: 1

      Tell that to: Maher Arar, a Canadian who happened to be passing through the USA when Homeland Security kidnapped him, sent him to Syria where he was tortured for a year before he was finally sent back to Canada because he was not a terrorist and had nothing to do with them. But hey, a little collateral damage is ok in Free societies. I really hope it's you and you come back with a new tune then.

      --
      Shh.
    10. Re:Right violations on the installment plan by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Not a majority, no. But IIRC they were the strongest party in the last free elections... hold on, lemme look it up... there it is.

      He was just short of the majority, in today's election system he would probably get it. He even managed to get the 2/3 majority for his "Ermächtigungsgesetz" that eventually led to the fascist dictatorship, all from the elected Parliament members.

      He did bend the law and he did abuse it. But he didn't break it and he got everything he got "technically legal", i.e. the way things are today, too. Let's be honest here, nobody cares about the spirit of the law or the way it was meant to be anymore. Everyone's looking for loopholes to abuse. He was just one of the first to actually ignore the rules of engagement in politics, something that's state of the art today.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    11. Re:Right violations on the installment plan by HalAtWork · · Score: 1

      when we get rid of every last human being who hates America.

      What is this, China?

    12. Re:Right violations on the installment plan by black+soap · · Score: 1

      Because President Obama made congress do this, even though they were all opposed?

    13. Re:Right violations on the installment plan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Partisan troll is partisan. And unsuccessful!

    14. Re:Right violations on the installment plan by Savantissimo · · Score: 2

      How on earth did this pap straight from the nattering neocon "expert" echo-chamber ever get modded up?
      The shredding of the bill of rights not about terrorism.
      The military spending is not about defense.
      The whole scam is designed to get powerful psychopaths even more power.
      They don't care about anything else, least of all the rights of mere people.
      Freedom for others would limit the psychopaths' power, but terror enhances it.
      Therefore these psychopaths have waged war not on terror but on freedom.
      Thus they are the common enemies of all who desire freedom.
      If they were treated as they themselves have treated the powerless, who would call it unjust?

      --
      "Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?" - Patrick Henry
  6. it goes beyond mere roving wiretaps by praedor · · Score: 5, Insightful

    And goes into a 4 year extension of Big Brother spying on what books you read or buy, what your emails contain, etc. It allows Big Brother to collect information on you sans any justification whatsoever - you don't even need to have ANY connection to a so-called "terrorist" or "terrorist organization" (like environmental groups, worker's rights groups, anti-corporate groups, etc...you know, horrific "terrorists").

    It is not a "yawn". It is yet another shiv into the heart of so-called "liberty" and "freedom".

    Land of the free, home of the brave MY ASS. Land of the chattle, home of pansy candyasses is more accurate.

    --
    In Bushworld, they struggle to keep church and state separate in Iraq as they increasingly merge the two in America.
    1. Re:it goes beyond mere roving wiretaps by bmo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      >home of pansy candyasses is more accurate.

      Indeed, we used to be braver than this not that long ago.

      All the boomer "rebels" turned into fraidycats.

      No protest songs.
      No protests.
      If Kent State happened today, people would just shrug their shoulders and blame "the terrorists"

      --
      BMO

    2. Re:it goes beyond mere roving wiretaps by Black+Parrot · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It allows Big Brother to collect information on you sans any justification whatsoever

      The FBI has been doing this for decades. That notorious threat to public safety, Lucille Ball, had an extensive FBI file.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    3. Re:it goes beyond mere roving wiretaps by Black+Parrot · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If Kent State happened today, people would just shrug their shoulders and blame "the terrorists"

      No, they'd demand to know if it was going to have any effect on the price of gasoline.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    4. Re:it goes beyond mere roving wiretaps by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can't distill rum in my own home.

      Land of the free my ass.

      Home of the insipid pants-wetting soccer mom, more cowardly than even the most yellow of the French.

    5. Re:it goes beyond mere roving wiretaps by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No protest songs.
      No protests.

      There were protests. The police broke them up quickly and quietly, sometimes violently.

    6. Re:it goes beyond mere roving wiretaps by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yawn.

    7. Re:it goes beyond mere roving wiretaps by Lehk228 · · Score: 1

      it's past the inflection point, at this point start gathering important information on crude farming techniques and water purification with sun and glass. when it all falls apart we will need enough people with their heads on crooked to help pick up the pieces.

      we can try as hard as we can to hold things together and keep it all from falling to shit, but it is imperative that enough people are ready to act and to disorganize after the fall so that nobody can use it to seize control and make it into a war on each other.

      --
      Snowden and Manning are heroes.
    8. Re:it goes beyond mere roving wiretaps by surveyork · · Score: 1

      I think it's more like "Land of the free market and home of the brave new corporation-controlled world."

      --
      2019 is going to be the year of Linux on the desktop.
    9. Re:it goes beyond mere roving wiretaps by mjwx · · Score: 1

      It allows Big Brother to collect information on you sans any justification whatsoever

      The FBI has been doing this for decades. That notorious threat to public safety, Lucille Ball, had an extensive FBI file.

      Hoover was a cross dresser, he probably just wanted to know where she got her skirts from.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    10. Re:it goes beyond mere roving wiretaps by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and legislate it so all universities required you to have a full bodyscan to get onto the premises conviniently sold by some congressional douchebag's supporter, with a relatively small subsidy because that makes it not be "evil socialism".

    11. Re:it goes beyond mere roving wiretaps by cold+fjord · · Score: 0

      The FBI has been doing this for decades. That notorious threat to public safety, Lucille Ball, had an extensive FBI file.

      Maybe they had a reason for looking?

      America may have loved Lucy but she made the FBI suspicious when she registered with the Communist Party in 1936 at the insistence of her grandfather. Although the House Committee on Un-American Activities began their investigation in 1953, no evidence was ever shown that she had supported the Communist Party and her registration appeared to be only for the sake of pleasing her grandfather. --- Lucille Ball

      -----

      Things I didn't know about American Communism: -- David Bernstein

      I'm reviewing Martin Redish's book, The Logic of Persecution, for the Northwestern Law Review. The book is an interesting look at the so-called "McCarthy era" (which both pre and post-dated McCarthy) from a First Amendment perspective. I'll post a link to the review soon.......

      Here are some of the facts I learned from doing research for my review, some of which are just "fun facts," and others of which affected my view of the era in question (if you want footnotes, you will have to wait until I circulate the paper):

      (1) The first chairman of the House committee that was the predecessor to HUAC, Samuel Dickstein, was probably a Soviet agent.

      (2) Hollywood scriptwriters who were members of the Communist Party (CPUSA) were expected to use their positions to promote Communist doctrine and the Party's agenda, or, if that was not possible, at least to work to exclude anti-Soviet sentiment. (And I already knew, but you might not have, that each of the Hollywood Ten was a member of the CPUSA.)

      (3) The first federal prosecution under the Smith Act (later used to prosecute CPUSA leaders) was the prosecution of eighteen leaders of the Trotskyist Socialist Workers Party 1941. The CPUSA not only applauded this action; Party leaders assisted in the prosecution.

      (4) The Smith Act prosecutions of CPUSA leaders were largely a result of the fact that top government officials had recently learned from decoded "Venona cables" between the Soviet Union and its agents and affiliates abroad that the Soviet Union used American Communists to engage in wide scale espionage against the United States. The CPUSA leaders were not prosecuted for espionage and related charges (conspiracy) because that would have involved revealing that the U.S. had deciphered the Soviets' code, and also much of the additional evidence the government had was obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment. Instead, the government resurrected the Smith Act, and proceeded with prosecutions of highly dubious constitutionality (though upheld by the Supreme Court, which implicitly recognized that these prosecutions were "special").

      (5) Not only did the CPUSA recruit spies for the Soviet Union through its "secret apparatus," it was prepared to engage in violence on behalf of the Soviet Union.

      (6) The Smith Act prosecutions and other government and private anti-Communist activity destroyed the usefulness of the CPUSA to the Soviet Union for espionage.

      (7) Many of the questionable tactics used by the government against domestic Communists in the late 1940s and 1950s, including Smith Act prosecutions, were previously used by the government against domestic Nazis and fascists in the late 1930s and early 1940s by the Roosevelt Administration.

      (8) Alger Hiss was not prosecuted for spying because the statute of limitations had expired.

      (9) During the "Red Decade" of the 1930s, Hollywood Communists ran their own blacklist againist their polit

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    12. Re:it goes beyond mere roving wiretaps by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It allows Big Brother to collect information on you sans any justification whatsoever

      The FBI has been doing this for decades. That notorious threat to public safety, Lucille Ball, had an extensive FBI file.

      The difference being that under this Act, they can serve a warrant that is not reviewed and is so classified that you can't even tell your attorney that you were ever served one. Word of these came out a few years back, when it was discovered that multiple Libraries had received them despite John Ashcroft swearing on national TV that they would never use them to get Library records.

    13. Re:it goes beyond mere roving wiretaps by MaDeR · · Score: 1

      (un)fortunatley, this will not be that fast. Every empire falls for hundred years. USA will be no exception. But I agree that future historians will mark our times as beginning of end of USA, ironically starting just after fall of the other world superpower.

      --
      What modern Obelix would say today? Of course, "Those crazy Americans!".
    14. Re:it goes beyond mere roving wiretaps by cmdr_klarg · · Score: 1

      If Kent State happened today, people would just shrug their shoulders and blame "the terrorists"

      No, they'd demand to know if it was going to have any effect on the price of gasoline.

      Of course it would. The price of gasoline jumps if a camel in the Middle East farts sideways.

      --
      THE SOFTWARE, IT NO WORKY!!!
  7. A valuable lesson to be learned: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    If you want right wing policies/torture camps to stick around, vote liberal.

    1. Re:A valuable lesson to be learned: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      If you want right wing policies/torture camps to stick around, vote liberal.

      No kidding! "Hope and Change" my ass!

  8. comparison to Syria by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Syria's Emergency Law lasted from 1962 until 2011, and it took a popular revolution to change it. Since Americans are meeker than that and care less about their civil rights, there is no chance these new powers are ever going away, so let's stop pretending they are "temporary".

    They are not temporary, and to keep saying "oh, just 4 more years" is just newspeak for "forever".

  9. Re:Yawn. by jhoegl · · Score: 1

    I agree, many people will die between 2012 and 2015.
    Would you also like to predict which way water falls?

  10. This is just the tip of the iceberg, John. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    John, this legislation is nothing but the very tip of the iceberg. Even if it were canned, nothing would really change. Your entire society has some pretty severe problems with it these days, and this sort of legislation is perhaps even one of the most minor of all of the problems.

    Your nation's economy is in the shitter thanks to outsourcing, "free trade" and several costly wars that have been lost (Iraq) or are in the process of being lost (Afghanistan). Many Americans live in conditions that are worse than those of even the shittiest third-world nations.

    Then there's been the massive rise of stupidity. Education is frowned upon in many areas of the United States. Combined with religion, this becomes a very dangerous mix. The fact that the Republican Party gets any support at all these days is an excellent indicator of just how bad the situation has become.

    There are so many systemic problems at play that solving just one or two won't do a damn thing to improve the entire situation.

    1. Re:This is just the tip of the iceberg, John. by LordLimecat · · Score: 1, Troll

      The fact that the Republican Party gets any support at all these days is an excellent indicator of just how bad the situation has become.

      Good thing we have Europe to bail us out, right? Also, I didnt get the memo about how we lost in Iraq (though Saddam was dead, dontcha kno), or in Afghanistan.

      Education is frowned upon in many areas of the United States.

      Which areas?

      Combined with religion, this becomes a very dangerous mix.

      Yes, those terrible Catholic private schools and those awful awful homeschoolers, what with their above average test scores and whatnot...

      The fact that the Republican Party gets any support at all these days is an excellent indicator of just how bad the situation has become.

      Youd almost think that those retarded Republicans thought the founding principle of the country was a small, limited federal government, or something...

      Many Americans live in conditions that are worse than those of even the shittiest third-world nations.

      Ah, bless your heart, you werent serious, youre just a troll.

    2. Re:This is just the tip of the iceberg, John. by jd · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I disagree, in that I believe firmly that if education were massively improved (and I mean massively), many of the other problems would become obvious to the majority of people as would the solutions. People function with split realities, but not well, and the more extreme the split the greater the discomfort. Deliberately worsen that discomfort through high quality (and maximal quantity) education. These will be the people who do the voting in 20 years time and who will also be the candidates then as well. Superior voters with superior candidates to choose will necessarily improve the situation as a whole.

      Those will also be the businesspeople in that timeframe and thus will be making more rational decisions on what jobs are appropriate to be overseas and what jobs are appropriate here.

      An informed electorate, or so Plato tells us, will also be less eager to go to war and less eager to blindly follow populist leaders. Indeed, he made it an essential criterion for a functional democracy. The experience of the last decade tells us he was right on the dangers of ignorance, so it seems worth testing whether he was right on the benefits of knowledge and wisdom.

      Education alone won't fix all the issues, but I see no reason why - over time - it wouldn't solve a good number. Combine it with quality public healthcare and you solve many of the problems that ill-health cause (weakened economy, reduced opportunity, reduced flexibility, inferior mobility, desires for feel-good politics and/or substance-abuse, etc.)

      That last one is worth reflecting on a bit. Religion may be the opiate of the masses, but feel-good politics is crack cocaine. Neither is good for you, both should be avoided where possible, but populist politicians are infinitely more dangerous than populist preachers. Jim Jones killed less than a thousand in total, fanatical politicians in 1914-1918 were managing to average that per day per nation for four years.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    3. Re:This is just the tip of the iceberg, John. by s73v3r · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Youd almost think that those retarded Republicans thought the founding principle of the country was a small, limited federal government, or something...

      Nothing the Republican Party has done in the past 50 years has illustrated that they actually believe this.

    4. Re:This is just the tip of the iceberg, John. by nschubach · · Score: 1

      Which party were we talking about again?

      --
      Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
    5. Re:This is just the tip of the iceberg, John. by jhoegl · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Actually some of the points are valid.
      Our schools are receiving less and less money, reducing our GPA as a whole and decreasing our abilities to field educated people in our society.
      The issues in Texas where they have put creationism in books, a fundamentally specific religious ideology towards christianity.
      The issue where the Church somehow gets a pass on pedoiphilia without being prosecuted.
      Republicans do have that ideology, but constantly increase government, look at both Bushes vs Clinton.
      What they do though, is they try to underfund/undermine those parts of the government that actually look after consumers and patrons.
      Queue images of Gulf Oil Spill and Katrina.

    6. Re:This is just the tip of the iceberg, John. by LordLimecat · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Im sorry, its almost like youre trying to blame me for what other people have done, or infer what I believe from what others have done.

      That aside, Republicans believe in a smaller government than the Democrats, and thats a good first step in my eyes.

    7. Re:This is just the tip of the iceberg, John. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I disagree, in that I believe firmly that if education were massively improved (and I mean massively), many of the other problems would become obvious to the majority of people as would the solutions.

      Educated people are much more difficult to entice into armed service (unless they are leading). Canada (at least, the province of Alberta), is going down this road too. More undereducated people, more focus on military assertion. It isn't pretty, especially when all that aggression has nowhere to vent...

    8. Re:This is just the tip of the iceberg, John. by geminidomino · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That aside, Republicans believe in a smaller government than the Democrats, and thats a good first step in my eyes.

      Except they really kind of... don't. At all. They just disagree in which areas the government should step in and fuck things up (Interfering with our corporate overlords vs. say... marriage.)

      Been that way for at least 25 years (probably more but I would have been too young to remember).

    9. Re:This is just the tip of the iceberg, John. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Really? Why did more democrats vote no then republicans?

      I could ask 100 questions like that that show you that Repubs are only for small gov in name only. Obviously you've consumed the kool-aid.

    10. Re:This is just the tip of the iceberg, John. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Iraq War was a failure and a loss because America spend billions upon billions of dollars killing innocent civilians and destroying harmless mud brick buildings. Had even just a single year's worth of Iraq War expenditure been put towards education or health care (or even both at the same time!), millions of Americans would be far better off now. It's pretty much the same situation in Afghanistan.

      Education is frowned upon in basically every state but California and those in New England. The pure hatred of education and knowledge is by far the worst in places like Alabama, Arkansas, Tennessee, Oklahoma, Mississippi, Missouri, Kentucky, West Virginia, Georgia, the Carolinas, and even Wyoming and Montana. Not surprisingly, these areas have extremely high levels of poverty. If you haven't visited them recently, please do so. See for yourself how many Americans live in conditions that even the poorest Africans would find intolerable.

    11. Re:This is just the tip of the iceberg, John. by jcr · · Score: 1

      Our schools are receiving less and less money

      Not true. Inflation-adjusted, per-pupil spending has been vastly increased since the 1960s (when we were getting much better results.)
      We're not getting what we pay for.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    12. Re:This is just the tip of the iceberg, John. by jhoegl · · Score: 1

      I dont think that is right.
      Do you know a teacher starts out at 35k and they end around 55k average?
      That is barely lower middle class and a shame.

    13. Re:This is just the tip of the iceberg, John. by Curunir_wolf · · Score: 1, Interesting

      The issues in Texas where they have put creationism in books, a fundamentally specific religious ideology towards christianity.

      That's nothing compared to the indoctrinated ideology from the One World Communists that they have been pushing into the curriculum for the last 20 years.

      --
      "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
      --- Jerry Garcia
    14. Re:This is just the tip of the iceberg, John. by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 1

      Many Americans live in conditions that are worse than those of even the shittiest third-world nations.

      Not that I disagree we have many problems, but I can't fathom where you got this from. Did you watch a report on the Hurricane Katrina aftermath and just project that outward or something?

    15. Re:This is just the tip of the iceberg, John. by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 1

      Youd almost think that those retarded Republicans thought the founding principle of the country was a small, limited federal government, or something...

      I agree with your other points, but when is this version of the Republican Party going to appear? Are we to expect some sort of emergent phenomena from the current chaos? ;-)

      Their lip service to limited governmental power, along with the endless Jesus bullshit, is why they lost me two decades ago.

    16. Re:This is just the tip of the iceberg, John. by jcr · · Score: 1

      I didn't say that the teachers were getting the loot. Most of that increase in spending goes into paying useless bureaucrats who never see the inside of a classroom.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    17. Re:This is just the tip of the iceberg, John. by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 1

      One thing to do is give a good grounding, starting in middle school, on how to take and idea and develop it into something that becomes real. Teach them how to start a business and create jobs and run a company in a responsible manner. There was nothing even close to that when I was in school.

    18. Re:This is just the tip of the iceberg, John. by russotto · · Score: 1

      One thing to do is give a good grounding, starting in middle school, on how to take and idea and develop it into something that becomes real. Teach them how to start a business and create jobs and run a company in a responsible manner. There was nothing even close to that when I was in school.

      Like being a politician, it's not one of those things everyone can do. It can only be done by those who can convince people to take risks on them. Investors, to risk their money, and employees to risk the instability of working for a startup.

    19. Re:This is just the tip of the iceberg, John. by ThurstonMoore · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Is it just me or has anyone else noticed that the people who sign their names after their comments are usually douche bags? /. is not the only place i've noticed this.

    20. Re:This is just the tip of the iceberg, John. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This seems obvious to me. The joke is that we all act like one has less evil intentions than the other while they're screwing us over. None of them are victims of a shitty system... they're active participants. All of them.

      One yells that they interfere because they want smaller government and more security. The other yells that they want to help everyone and make things fair.

      All are liars. Voting on which lies you like the sound of best isn't really a useful vote.

    21. Re:This is just the tip of the iceberg, John. by LordLimecat · · Score: 2

      State-recognized marriage doesnt really seem like an impressive example of "government getting too big", since its something governments have done for the last thousand or so years, and has been regarded for basically all of them as a good thing. Perhaps you disagree with which unions the state recognizes, but that doesnt mean "government is too big"; they would technically have to be bigger to recognize more unions.

      An example of "bigger government" would be "We the Fed think that we should handle your retirement savings", or "we will be taking care of health insurance".

      Honestly, trying to paint republicans as favoring large expansive governments is disingenuous. Democrats believe in all sorts of social programs, republicans dont; I didnt think that anyone disputed that.

    22. Re:This is just the tip of the iceberg, John. by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 1

      *shrug* Not everyone can do math or science or become literary experts or, hell, home economics, but we teach all those. It's just a fundamental part of a market economy that goes shockingly untaught. The real engine of job growth is small to medium business. You convince investors by developing a solid business model, bubbles aside. Actually, a general foundation in business sense mixed into general education might prevent bubbles.

    23. Re:This is just the tip of the iceberg, John. by glodime · · Score: 1

      ...trying to paint republicans as favoring large expansive governments is disingenuous.

      Except for the large increase in government under the Bush Administration who had a Republican controlled congress for a good portion of his term. The Republican Party and the money that funds it didn't seem interested in reducing government when it was able to. They do seem interested in creating fires so that they can keep the campaign funds and the lobbying economy flowing while trying to take credit for solutions to the problems they create. The Democratic Party works the campaign funds and the lobbying economy from a different angle often for the benefit of the same corporate and wealthy individual interests.

    24. Re:This is just the tip of the iceberg, John. by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 3, Informative

      Honestly, trying to paint republicans as favoring large expansive governments is disingenuous.

      Here is a map which shows who voted for the extension "PATRIOT" Act. Count the red dots. Count the blue dots. Compare and contrast.

      Democrats believe in all sorts of social programs, republicans dont; I didnt think that anyone disputed that.

      No-one does. It's just that it's not the only area in which government can be expanded. Republicans are big believers in being "tough on crime", which in practice means stuffing prisons with harmless weed junkies. Then there's those unconstitutional TSA "near-border" patrols. There's Guantanamo.

      (Yeah, all that stuff is now tacitly maintained by D for their schemes, but it was created by R.)

    25. Re:This is just the tip of the iceberg, John. by jcr · · Score: 1

      If you have some issue with me, be a man and say what it is.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    26. Re:This is just the tip of the iceberg, John. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only if it is optional. We do not need more mandatory classes that don't have anything to do with teaching the basics that 99% of society will likely use. That just increases the rate of failures among those are are disinterested (for something that lots of people won't use, so it isn't worth it, and it's inefficient). Choices should be there, but unless almost everyone is going to actually use it, it should be optional. Yes, some people haven't made up their minds, but most people will likely forget the information taught in the classes by the time they have to use it, anyway, so making it mandatory is, again, useless and inefficient.

    27. Re:This is just the tip of the iceberg, John. by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      Frankly, I think our school system is half the problem.

      Before institutionalized education, the average teenager probably spent most of their formative years around adults, learning to act like adults.

      Today, they spend most of their formative years around others their own age, learning to act like others their own age. They often do this up to the age of 21-22 with college being what it is. Sure, it is a lot more fun, but not exactly great for developing maturity/responsibility.

      However, the problem certainly doesn't end with schools. The whole system has some fundamental flaws:

      1. People just naturally want to fit in with everybody else. If they talk to their friends and find that 70% of them like candidate A, pretty soon they'll all like candidate A. The hold-out who likes candidate B will find themselves less accepted by the group. Sure, maybe that is learned in part in the school cafeteria, but I think most people are wired that way too.

      2. People favor sound bytes over nuanced argument. People now live in fear that candidate A will get rid of social security or whatever. Nobody can even talk about reforming the system - they simply get labeled by some sound bite and massacred in the polls. So, people keep their messages simple. However, not every problem has a simple solution.

      3. There is no accountability after election. People say whatever they need to say to get elected, and then when they're up for re-election they do the same. The same flaws of human nature that prevent people from making rational decisions about voting the first time prevent people from considering actual track record the second time.

      4. People are lousy at estimating risk. People worry about somebody blowing up a plane they fly on once every three years, or that the politician will somehow turn the US into a theocracy, or that social security will be completely eliminated, or that social security will be completely bankrupt, or sea levels will rise 200 feet, or whatever. They don't worry about outcomes which are less dramatic but much more likely to impact them, so candidate bothers to talk about anything grounded in the real world.

    28. Re:This is just the tip of the iceberg, John. by Dog-Cow · · Score: 0

      It has been demonstrated that people will, even when they know they are participating in a bubble, continue to inflate the bubble. Education alone won't solve that problem.

    29. Re:This is just the tip of the iceberg, John. by MachineShedFred · · Score: 1

      Isn't that like saying that something is a bit less moist than the Pacific Ocean?

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
    30. Re:This is just the tip of the iceberg, John. by MachineShedFred · · Score: 1

      Oh, you mean those guys that have been either kicked out of office by way of the ballot box, or had the pleasure of dealing with primary challengers attacking them from the right?

      Yeah, there's a reason those Tea Party guys have gotten so much attention recently, and it's not just because of the ease of making junior-high level jokes about the name.

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
    31. Re:This is just the tip of the iceberg, John. by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      Here [nytimes.com] is a map which shows who voted for the extension "PATRIOT" Act. Count the red dots. Count the blue dots. Compare and contrast.

      Be that as it may, one example does not change the way Republicans will tend to vote. There could be many reasons for that vote, and I havent kept up on it enough to know what they might be.

      I do know that Republicans are by definition socially conservative, politically conservative, etc, and hence are generally not in favor of zillions of new corporate regulations, or zillions of new social programs.

      I honestly cannot fathom what you all are trying to say-- are you honestly asserting that Democrats favor a smaller government than Republicans, because of one vote?

    32. Re:This is just the tip of the iceberg, John. by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      So it is your position, then, that Democrats favor a smaller government than republicans?

      Why, then I will pull out my own anecdote-- why did more Republicans vote no to the healthcare bill than democrats?

      Is it possible that in each scenario (patriot vote, and healthcare vote) there are multiple reasons affecting each vote?

    33. Re:This is just the tip of the iceberg, John. by glodime · · Score: 1

      I mean the new guys like Rand Paul too. He changed his entire platform once money from the Kochs started coming in.

    34. Re:This is just the tip of the iceberg, John. by russotto · · Score: 1

      *shrug* Not everyone can do math or science or become literary experts or, hell, home economics, but we teach all those. It's just a fundamental part of a market economy that goes shockingly untaught.

      Almost everyone could do math or science or literature or home ec at the high school level, given proper teaching. Very few can found and build a successful business, regardless of education.

    35. Re:This is just the tip of the iceberg, John. by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      Only on slashdot will someone state their flamebait opinion, and others will walk past, nod their heads, and go "interesting".

    36. Re:This is just the tip of the iceberg, John. by lwsimon · · Score: 1

      Can you cite a reference to the following?

      [quote]Our schools are receiving less and less money[/quote]

      --
      Learn about Photography Basics.
    37. Re:This is just the tip of the iceberg, John. by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 1

      But do we find so few because we don't give the basic education? Would we have more entrepreneurship if we introduced kids to it at early age in a more formal matter? That's I'm sayin'.

    38. Re:This is just the tip of the iceberg, John. by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 1

      The trick is to prevent the bubbles from starting. Good trick, I know, but one to pursue somehow.

    39. Re:This is just the tip of the iceberg, John. by s73v3r · · Score: 1

      That aside, Republicans believe in a smaller government than the Democrats, and thats a good first step in my eyes.

      No they don't. They believe in less for entitlements, and less for making sure that consumers don't get screwed by big business, but the ABSOLUTELY believe in larger government when it comes to deciding who can be married, what you can put into your body, defense spending, and the police state at airports. Remember, it was a Republican who started the "Wiretap everybody" program.

      Who believes in smaller government now?

    40. Re:This is just the tip of the iceberg, John. by s73v3r · · Score: 1

      State-recognized marriage doesnt really seem like an impressive example of "government getting too big", since its something governments have done for the last thousand or so years, and has been regarded for basically all of them as a good thing. Perhaps you disagree with which unions the state recognizes, but that doesnt mean "government is too big"; they would technically have to be bigger to recognize more unions.

      WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG. WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG. YOU'RE WRONG.

      By definition, Big Government is government that is more intrusive to you. Deciding who can and cannot get married is intruding on your rights, and so not allowing for gay marriage is allowing Big Government to thrive. Also, you forget the actions of the Federal Government to get in the way of allowing states to legalize gay marriage, what with passing the law which allows states to ignore the "Full Faith and Credit Clause."

      An example of "bigger government" would be "We the Fed think that we should handle your retirement savings", or "we will be taking care of health insurance".

      Or, "We will be wiretapping your phones to look for terrorists," or "We will be eliminating your right to come together as a group and collectively bargain."

      Honestly, trying to paint republicans as favoring large expansive governments is disingenuous. Democrats believe in all sorts of social programs, republicans dont; I didnt think that anyone disputed that.

      No, trying to paint Republicans as for "Smaller Government" is disingenuous. Small government where it fits them, maybe, but definitely large expanses in government when they see something they don't like. Such as banning gay marriage, wiretapping phones, controlling what you can and cannot put in your body, and increasing the Military Industrial Complex.

    41. Re:This is just the tip of the iceberg, John. by s73v3r · · Score: 1

      There could be many reasons for that vote, and I havent kept up on it enough to know what they might be.

      And it's still a vote to expand the size of government. You cannot disagree with this.

      I honestly cannot fathom what you all are trying to say-- are you honestly asserting that Democrats favor a smaller government than Republicans, because of one vote?

      No, we're challenging your claim that Republicans are actually in favor of "Smaller Government". They're not. They just want government bigger in different areas than Democrats do. They want smaller social programs, they want smaller consumer protections, but they definitely want bigger government when it comes to your bedroom and bigger government when it comes to the military.

    42. Re:This is just the tip of the iceberg, John. by s73v3r · · Score: 1

      So it is your position, then, that Democrats favor a smaller government than republicans?

      Not at all. It's our position that Republicans are no more in favor of smaller government than Democrats. They just differ on where government should grow.

    43. Re:This is just the tip of the iceberg, John. by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      There could be many reasons for that vote, and I havent kept up on it enough to know what they might be.

      You don't know what PATRIOT Act is?

      If you do, then how the hell can there be any reasons to vote for that abomination for anyone who values small government?

      I do know that Republicans are by definition socially conservative, politically conservative, etc, and hence are generally not in favor of zillions of new corporate regulations, or zillions of new social programs.

      Exactly, the Republicans are socially conservative which means that they are in favor of zillions of social regulations - usually under the guise of "public morals".

      I honestly cannot fathom what you all are trying to say-- are you honestly asserting that Democrats favor a smaller government than Republicans, because of one vote?

      You have already been told that several times. No, Democrats do not favor smaller government. But the only difference between Dems and Reps with respect to size of government is that they want to see it big in different areas of importance. You, apparently, seem to pay attention only to those where Dems would like to play big (market regulation, welfare etc), and completely ignore those where Reps want to trample on our rights (legislating morality and various "security" bullshit). This vote, in particular, shows the latter.

      (Of course, it's not like both parties focus only on their areas. After all, plenty Dems supported PATRIOT Act, whereas e.g. "No Child Left Behind" - unmistakingly a social program - is entirely a Republican creation.)

    44. Re:This is just the tip of the iceberg, John. by jd · · Score: 1

      Schools teach material too slowly (which is why so many kids get bored at school). Given that there are 40 work hours in a week, it would not require a huge speedup to teach everything already covered, elementary business science (operational research requires you can draw a polygon, non-linear optimizations require that you can draw an S) and elementary economics theory (which is the same as elementary games theory and how many students do you know who object to learning about games?)

      I don't know if that would match up with your suggestion, but I can't see how that could hurt and I can certainly see how optimization and strategy apply to so many facets of life that making them fundamental subjects could bring major benefits.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    45. Re:This is just the tip of the iceberg, John. by Magius_AR · · Score: 1

      I mean the new guys like Rand Paul too. He changed his entire platform once money from the Kochs started coming in.

      Umm, you do realize he filibustered the hell out of this thing, tried to amend it, AND voted against it? You're calling that a different platform?

    46. Re:This is just the tip of the iceberg, John. by Magius_AR · · Score: 1

      I agree with your other points, but when is this version of the Republican Party going to appear?

      It's called the Tea Party. Sadly, it's small and decried by both sides. Though Rand Paul is doing his best to uphold small govt principles.

    47. Re:This is just the tip of the iceberg, John. by glodime · · Score: 1

      On the topic of this thread, the fake concern about government spending by the GOP, he did a complete reversal. He substantially changed his platform once money from the GOP stopped blocking him out of the the old boys club. But you are right that he hasn't changed his position on the Patriot Act's erosion of personal privacy from the government. (I was also mistaken when I said that it was Koch money that changed things for Rand. It was general GOP money. My bad. It Seems that the Koch money was funding his initial popularity and the Tea Party rallies in general.)

      Here are some excerpts from a Rolling Stone Magazine article on the Rand Paul and Tea Party in Kentucky that illustrate my point:

      "In the early days of his campaign, by virtually all accounts, Paul was the real thing — expansive, willing to talk openly to anyone and everyone, and totally unapologetic about his political views, which ranged from bold and nuanced to flat-out batshit crazy. But he wasn't going to change for anyone: For young Dr. Paul, as for his father, this was more about message than victory; actually winning wasn't even on his radar."

      "Early in his campaign, Dr. Paul, the son of the uncompromising libertarian hero Ron Paul, denounced Medicare as "socialized medicine." But this spring, when confronted with the idea of reducing Medicare payments to doctors like himself — half of his patients are on Medicare — he balked. This candidate, a man ostensibly so against government power in all its forms that he wants to gut the Americans With Disabilities Act and abolish the departments of Education and Energy, was unwilling to reduce his own government compensation, for a very logical reason. "Physicians," he said, 'should be allowed to make a comfortable living.'"

      "Paul's platform began to rapidly "evolve." Previously opposed to erecting a fence on the Mexican border, Paul suddenly came out in favor of one. He had been flatly opposed to all farm subsidies; faced with having to win a general election in a state that receives more than $265 million a year in subsidies, Paul reversed himself and explained that he was only against subsidies to "dead farmers" and those earning more than $2 million. Paul also went on the air with Fox News reptile Sean Hannity and insisted that he differed significantly from the Libertarian Party, now speaking more favorably about, among other things, judicious troop deployments overseas.

      Beyond that, Paul just flat-out stopped talking about his views — particularly the ones that don't jibe with right-wing and Christian crowds, like curtailing the federal prohibition on drugs."

  11. Democrats, just another side of the same coin... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Will ye tossers start voting something like greens or independents or whatever your alternative parties are already? I mean, last non-dem and non-rep president was 1850-1853.
    And don't start whining about how it's never going to matter because of them needing more than whatever share. With that attitude, it never will matter. So grow a pair and start filling in some alternative boxes next election.

    </rant>

  12. E-mail by danhaas · · Score: 1

    Now I'm changing my e-mail provider to something outside of US. Any suggestions?

    1. Re:E-mail by Seumas · · Score: 1

      Are you inside the US? If you're inside the US or your email will transmit through the US, then you're no more protected than having your content hosted outside of the states.

    2. Re:E-mail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Run your own? AFAIK, the US can tap anything coming in/out of the country. You'll just look more suspicious.

    3. Re:E-mail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      safe-mail.net using Tor and login with only SSL enabled
      mail.ru, not sure if it is all SSL like safe-mail

    4. Re:E-mail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1
    5. Re:E-mail by Seumas · · Score: 1

      A lot of law-enforcement entities in the united states consider the act of concealing contents or communications (encryption, etc) to itself be a suspicious act, which means it would be much easier to acquire a right to search. Not that you need a right to search anymore.

    6. Re:E-mail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  13. Did anyone vote against this? by Compaqt · · Score: 2

    Anybody have a list?

    --
    I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the Internet. Blog
  14. Don't Forget. by Seumas · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is the act that allows the president to declare ANYONE an enemy combatant. Even an American Citizen. And disappear them. No representation. No trial. They just vanish, to be indefinitely imprisoned and even tortured. Hell, killed, for all we know. Since nobody knows that the person is being held, there's no limitation. Granted, this has gone wrong pretty much every time it has been used (documented incidents of innocent people being shipped off to gitmo for example) against innocent people a number of times. But hey, it has the word PATRIOT in it!

    These assholes despise the citizenship of this country so much that they stuff something called the PATRIOT act with everything that is the opposite of patriotism and that directly undermines the country they claim the act is meant to protect. And we all sit around like fucking sheep, worrying about meaningless bullshit like birth certificates. And worse, all those jackholes who went around doing the "you HAVE to vote!" last year think that they've done their civic duty, because they voted. They chose between the giant douche and the turd sandwich and disavow any responsibility for upholding the status quo that continues to pin us all under its thumb.

    1. Re:Don't Forget. by MoldySpore · · Score: 1

      <sarcasm>They used the word "Re-Up" in the title of this article. "Re-up" is a slang term for picking up a supply of drugs. That means the poster, Timothy, is most likely a drug dealer. Which means, by extrapolation, he purchases drugs from a larger supplier. Which also means those drugs most likely come from terrorists, who use the money to fund terrorist acts against the USA. Therefore, using the Transitive Property of Equality, we can now charge Timothy with treason and terrorism.

      See? Protection is only a simple mathematical property away! </sarcasm>

      --

      "I hope you know how very lucky you are to know me, because I am so incredibly incredible."

    2. Re:Don't Forget. by the+linux+geek · · Score: 2

      You make those of us who oppose the Act look bad when you make blatantly misinformed rants about its actual contents. The PATRIOT Act is mostly related to special search-and-seizure power, not "enemy combatants".

    3. Re:Don't Forget. by formfeed · · Score: 1

      Don't expect this to get any better till they finally capture or kill Osama bin Laden.

    4. Re:Don't Forget. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is the act that allows the president to declare ANYONE an enemy combatant. Even an American Citizen. And disappear them. No representation. No trial. They just vanish, to be indefinitely imprisoned and even tortured.

      Think you may have overstepped a bit there. This would be a pretty obvious habeas corpus violation - one of the few things which would be hard for the judicial branch to ignore, even now.

      Do you have a cite for this?

  15. Step by Step by Renraku · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Step 1: Be attacked by terrorists.

    Step 2: Implement draconian laws designed to 'combat terrorism' citing the terrorist attack and getting everyone scared. Temporary measures, of course.

    Step 3: After society is good and locked down, pass extension of those laws.

    Step 4: President gets elected that promises to remove these. President instead extends these.

    Step 5: Another terrorist attack or foiled plot.

    Step 6: Obviously this one law isn't working, so pass another.

    Step 7: Progress and repeat until you can't take a shit without someone needing to be there to look up your asshole and make sure you aren't about to shit a bomb into the public toilet at the gas station.

    Step 8: Children grew up with these laws, and they're just how things are.

    --
    Job? I don't have time to get a job! Who will sit around and bitch about being broke and unemployed then?
    1. Re:Step by Step by cosm · · Score: 1

      ... and make sure you aren't about to shit a bomb into the public toilet at the gas station.

      As a frequent traveler, I can confirm from the public toilets I have seen that this is already a common affair.

      --
      'We are trying to prove ourselves wrong as quickly as possible, because only in that way can we find progress.' RPF
    2. Re:Step by Step by Yaa+101 · · Score: 2

      Step 0.5: Pay and educate terrorists to attack you.

    3. Re:Step by Step by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cosm, you are the lowest form of scum on Earth to make jokes at the destruction of the US Constitution. I hate the fact I served so that you can walk around and talk shit and snicker, in light of the serious fascist crap going on. You are a sorry excuse for a human and a waste of protoplasm.

    4. Re:Step by Step by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      still, I've never had anyone complain that they weren't allowed to move between states in usa.

      in the soviet union though....

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    5. Re:Step by Step by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Step 1: Create terrorists in regions that already hate us.

      Step 2: Be attacked by those terrorists.

      Step 3: Implement draconian laws designed to 'combat terrorism' citing the terrorist attack and getting everyone scared. Temporary measures, of course.

      Step 4: After society is good and locked down, pass extension of those laws.

      Step 5: President gets elected that promises to remove these. President instead extends these.

      Step 6: Another terrorist attack or foiled plot.

      Step 7: Obviously this one law isn't working, so pass another.

      Step 8: Progress and repeat until you can't take a shit without someone needing to be there to look up your asshole and make sure you aren't about to shit a bomb into the public toilet at the gas station.

      Step 9: Children grew up with these laws, and they're just how things are.

      There fixed that for you.

    6. Re:Step by Step by cosm · · Score: 1

      Cool story bro--check my other comments. It is OK to joke around once in awhile. I applaud your enthusiasm, but cool your internet rage down and spend some time analyzing my other thoughts posted here. /feedingtroll

      --
      'We are trying to prove ourselves wrong as quickly as possible, because only in that way can we find progress.' RPF
  16. Re:Yawn. by jd · · Score: 0

    Upwards in Australia, relative to Europe.

    --
    It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
  17. Legislative Process by iluvcapra · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Staffer: "How much time do we need to debate the Affordable Care Act?"

    Senator: "At least eight months!"

    Staffer: "How much time for the federal court appointee?"

    Senator: "T is Undefined. We're filibustering him without a vote."

    Staffer: "How about to renew the USA PATRIOT act?"

    Senator: "Oh, four to six hours."

    --
    Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
    1. Re:Legislative Process by rpillala · · Score: 1

      Oh how I wish that were merely funny.

      --
      When the axe came to the forest, the trees said, "Look out - the handle was once one of us."
  18. America's Dead. Get over it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Despite getting off to such a terrible start with the genocide of the "Native Americans" America was the last great hope for humans voluntarily creating a true democracy. The Constitution is an absolutely wonderful work. Future historians will marvel at it's elegance as the founding fathers saw, and attempted to protect against, what would come after them.

    Sadly they underestimated the unstoppable inertia of the mass of the "sheeple".

    America failed. It's another dead end.

    Ho hum... On with the show...

    Reboo, restart, on with the show.

  19. Sweet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Here's more "Hope and Change" for us.

    1. Re:Sweet by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      That's more like "hope for change". Ya know, hope dies last...

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    2. Re:Sweet by frank_adrian314159 · · Score: 1

      Here's more "Hope and Change" for us.

      It's better than the "Clubbing over the head and forced buttsex" the other guy would have given us.

      --
      That is all.
  20. Re:Did anyone vote against this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=112&session=1&vote=00019

  21. Oh really by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Encryption is a beautiful thing. You can use IMAP and SMTP with SSL/TLS. You can encrypt your messages themselves with PGP. You can tunnel the traffic through a VPN or SSH connection.

  22. Re:Did anyone vote against this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Link: http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=112&session=1&vote=00084

  23. Re:Did anyone vote against this? by adispenza · · Score: 3, Informative

    Anybody have a list?

    Here's the list. You can filter by state with one of the links at the top. Three cheers for both of my state's senators voting nay. http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=112&session=1&vote=00076

  24. Why even Bother? by hackus · · Score: 1

    Everybody knows it is never going to go away.

    Why not just make it permanent and stop pussy footing around.

    -Hack

    --
    Got Geometrodynamics? Awe, too hard to figure out? Too bad.
  25. Re:Did anyone vote against this? by artor3 · · Score: 1

    The NY Times vote coverage is a pretty handy resource for this sort of thing:

    http://politics.nytimes.com/congress/votes/112/senate/1/84

  26. The western US voted no by Noren · · Score: 2

    Notice that the 13 westernmost states votes' total to 12-14 against. What's wrong with the rest of the country?

  27. Secret Patriot Act by QuietLagoon · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Further information here.

    You think you understand how the Patriot Act allows the government to spy on its citizens. Sen. Ron Wyden says it’s worse than you know. Congress is set to reauthorize three controversial provisions of the surveillance law as early as Thursday. Wyden (D-Oregon) says that powers they grant the government on their face, the government applies a far broader legal interpretation — an interpretation that the government has conveniently classified, so it cannot be publicly assessed or challenged. But one prominent Patriot-watcher asserts that the secret interpretation empowers the government to deploy ”dragnets” for massive amounts of information on private citizens; the government portrays its data-collection efforts much differently.....

    1. Re:Secret Patriot Act by lexsird · · Score: 2

      Sweet Jesus! Wow! We are seriously fucked! They have lost their fucking minds on us. Mark my words, we are all under the gun on this one.

      Get this people, they can "classify" any horseshit they want. They have just pissed all over the Constitution with this crap. What an Orwellian nightmare this is! What a bunch of pussies we are for letting this happen! We have to fire every one of these fuckers that voted for this. We have to put some people in that will overturn this shit. I am not talking later, but NOW. Look into recalling each and every one of these pricks. It's that or be cursed by your descendants for letting this shit happen.

      --
      Take the Red Pill.
    2. Re:Secret Patriot Act by yanko22 · · Score: 1

      Sen. Ron Wyden says it's worse than you know.

      So he went ahead and voted for it. Makes total sense.

      --
      The atheist,by merely being in touch with reality,appears shamefully out of touch with the fantasy life of his neighbors
    3. Re:Secret Patriot Act by riondluz · · Score: 1

      With Infragard waiting in the wings....

      --
      resist propaganda
  28. Just wait to the Dems are in power! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Then this Republican bullshit will stop!

  29. Hope and change we can believe in by Nimey · · Score: 1

    Bah.

    --
    Hail Eris, full of mischief...

    E pluribus sanguinem
  30. Behold, High Treason by lexsird · · Score: 1

    This act is one of the greatest violations of our Constitution I have ever seen or ever heard of in our history. To allow it was insanity that capitalized on a weak moment in our history. To continue it is nothing less than treason. Why haven't these people been arrested and tried for treason? Where is our Military which is sworn to protect our Constitution from enemies foreign and DOMESTIC? They could snatch up these traitors and hold them while our high courts try them.

    Oh yeah, they are out fighting wars that aren't Constitutionally viable. Shall we just call it as it is and render the Constitution dead?

    --
    Take the Red Pill.
    1. Re:Behold, High Treason by Leebert · · Score: 1

      Why haven't these people been arrested and tried for treason?

      Because passing unconstitutional laws isn't illegal. (that's why we have a supreme court) They're just doing what the people have demanded they do. The people, on the other hand, are stupid. *shrug*

    2. Re:Behold, High Treason by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."

    3. Re:Behold, High Treason by lexsird · · Score: 1

      You don't need a gun to make a war against a people, to enslave them and drive them under your heel into the dirt. These fuckers have done what no army in the world could have done. We have fought war after war, against all kinds of enemies and and none of them have done the damage that these bastards have done to our Constitution. Are we so undereducated and idiotic that we have to ignore history when this kind of thing happens in a country?

      I lived through the cold war, and remember it well. We faced down vodka swilling soviets pounding on their tables at the UN with their shoes. We dealt with the KGB, which is infinitely more slippery and deadly than all of these terrorists put together. We didn't pussy out and hand over our civil liberties then.

      One attack and we hand over our liberties like a bunch of stupid pussies. One attack, and the Constitution gets thrown out the window. 10 years later, the damn thing should expire, but NO, we will NEVER be safe, there will always be some fucked up excuse for authoritarians to keep throttling the Constitution into the dust.

      I really didn't think our founding fathers could envision their descendants being a bunch of cowardly idiots that would allow something so blatantly Anti-American to happen. They figured we would have to be invaded, or taken over by a foreign power before our Constitution would be so trashed. Had they known we would have turned into a bunch of ratfuck cowardly pussies that let traitors like this get away with such crap, they would have spelled it our very clear what to do. How could they have known? We couldn't have envisioned this 30 years ago, you would have been laughed out of town if you predicted crap like this happening.

      4 more years you say? Well that is long enough, there will be nobody left to fight it by then. Fighting this will be seen as "a threat" and they can whisk away "enemies" and there isn't shit you can do about it. Welcome to the dark, fucked up future, where we were all collective idiotic pussies that handed over our liberties. If you retarded lemmings don't think so, get back to me in 4 years, when Liberty and Freedom will indeed be a fading dream even in the minds of the staunchest Patriot.

      The next step, mark my words, is our "American Terrorists". Let's shake the dice and see who comes up at the next "Enemy de Jour", shall we start on Fundamental Christians? We've been marginalizing them in the media for quite a while, they look like easy pickings. Who else? Liberals? They have all those "socialistic and communistic" ideals, lets get them before they get us. Oh, I know, crazed Mexican drug gangs! Yes, we have a winner!

      "your papers please", get used to it. Get used to shit like the TSA being EVERYWHERE.

      --
      Take the Red Pill.
  31. Re:Democrats, just another side of the same coin.. by artor3 · · Score: 2

    40% of Democrats voted against, compared to only 10% of Republicans. If you want to effect change, vote Democrat, straight ticket, every time. From President down to the local dogcatcher. When the GOP is dead and buried, then we can make a new party to the left of the Dems. If you try to go for third parties right now, then the right-wing fascists will use their short term benefit to pass laws that improve their electoral odds in the future. That is, after all, what they are doing right now. They've eliminated all semblance of campaign finance law, made it more difficult for traditionally liberal groups to vote under the guise of attacking non-existent voter fraud, and are working on dismantling unions -- the one remaining well-funded left-leaning demographic.

    If the Republicans regain the White House in the next ten years, while also controlling Congress, you better be prepared to live under a right-wing hegemony for the rest of your life, because their grip will become unbreakable.

  32. Lone Wolf Terrorist? by MoldySpore · · Score: 2

    "Other provisions allow authorities to obtain business and library records, and to target so-called “lone wolf” suspects who aren’t affiliated with any terrorist group."

    a.k.a. Anyone. Say something negative about the government? You're a lone-wolf terrorist.

    Sure, we aren't there yet. But doesn't that seem like where this is headed? That part scares the crap outta me. I had no idea that was in there.

    --

    "I hope you know how very lucky you are to know me, because I am so incredibly incredible."

    1. Re:Lone Wolf Terrorist? by Slowdude · · Score: 1

      Lone-wolf? Yep. That's me. Didn't think pretending to believe in a [gG]od was necessary and I have a brand new spanking label. The oath taken by the military (for the enlisted guys) is in part to "...to defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and DOMESTIC;... I just want to know when that's actually going to happen. The third stanza is to obey orders, the first is to defend the Constitution. And no, I'm not advocating a forceful change of government. Advocating a return to constitutional rule, even peacefully, might be considered treason now.

    2. Re:Lone Wolf Terrorist? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Other provisions allow authorities to obtain business and library records, and to target so-called “lone wolf” suspects who aren’t affiliated with any terrorist group."

      But doesn't that seem like where this is headed? That part scares the crap outta me. I had no idea that was in there.

      Oh my fucking God! You didn't know that was in there? Where the fuck were you when the thing was passed. And I'll bet your some bullshit libertarian / tea party fucker, too. Your friends on the right passed this one, dummy. And I would bet that Rand Paul and senior voted for it, also.

      The right in the country - the entire right, even the bullshit part that bends back toward civil liberties - is so full of shit it's not funny anymore.

    3. Re:Lone Wolf Terrorist? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Say something negative about a corporation? You're a lone-wolf terrorist.

      FTFY

  33. Comment from Canada by Lieutenant_Dan · · Score: 1

    Privacy legislation in parts of Canada is such that because of the PATRIOT Act we cannot store or process certain type of data in the States. There are workarounds, but the hassle of appeasing privacy officers and the various boards just eliminates the US as a viable option. We now look more to the EU now ...

    Just so know, since it is clear that the US is losing business because of this.

    --
    Wearing pants should always be optional.
  34. Blah blah blah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Blah blah blah politics blah blah blah

  35. Hey Mr. Ass fuck, read this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Why doesn't it start with YOU?

  36. Re:Democrats, just another side of the same coin.. by Opportunist · · Score: 2

    Well, to be fair, Fillmore was a Whig, which was pretty much the "other party" before the Reps existed.

    Face it, the US always had a two party system.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  37. Re:Did anyone vote against this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Thank you for the useful link. And thank you to Washington's senators. I will vote for you come your next election.

  38. Mike Honda, Dianne Feinstein, and Barbara Boxer... by jcr · · Score: 0

    Fuck all three of you. You don't represent me, you tax-sucking, power-grabbing assholes.

    -jcr

    --
    The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
  39. My congressman (Mike Thompson D-CA) by joocemann · · Score: 1

    ... will definitely be voting AGAINST this. He voted against it before and when I check his record he really does vote how his VOTERS/CITIZENS he represents actually would want things to go...

    My point of mentioning this is that here in northern california it is clear that we citizens have garnered the respect from our rep. And while many of ya'll in other districts and states will bitch about their reps selling them out, it is also likely YOU WON'T DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT.

    Write your congressman. Show up to the townhall meetings and places where they speak when you get the opportunity.

    I know that on this issue, and many others, my man is in line. Get yours in line, because the trash ya'll keep electing and neglecting are passing all these bills and laws that are destroying the country.

    1. Re:My congressman (Mike Thompson D-CA) by DamienNightbane · · Score: 0

      CA-4's Tom McClintock is also against it. As much as I miss being a constituent of the Texas-14th congressional district and having Dr. Ron Paul be my representative, I'm glad to know that Mr. McClintock actually has some integrity.

  40. Re:Did anyone vote against this? by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 1

    al franken did!

    --

    --
    "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
  41. lol @ lolcats by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    FYI - you all are now being watched by the FBI. =-P

    (this is my first slashdot comment ever)

  42. CNN and the Rand Paul Filibuster by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Rand Paul filibustered the attempt for 7 hours. Go to CNN, search Filibuster. There's nothing relevant. Reid went and got this backdoored in while Rand was doing his PATRIOTIC duty.

    1. Re:CNN and the Rand Paul Filibuster by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Edit: apparently some time in the last couple hours they finally did post something.

  43. Anyone else find it strange by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That they just happened to have 1000 page patriot act ready to be passed within a couple of days of 9/11? And remember just before the vote how the people who opposed the patriot act were attacked with American Military Anthrax? It sure all seems like part of a plan to me.

  44. Rand TRIED to stop it by anarkhos · · Score: 2

    But Reid attached it to some unrelated bill to avoid any debate.

    How does that feel, Nevada?

    --
    >80 column hard wrapped e-mail is not a sign of intelligent
    >life
    1. Re:Rand TRIED to stop it by Kamiza+Ikioi · · Score: 1

      But Reid attached it to some unrelated bill to avoid any debate.

      How does that feel, Nevada?

      Are you looking at it backwards, perhaps? It sounds like Reid was trying to help the bill he attached it to, assuming he thought it would pass without debate... probably because the other bill involved spending, and that's how you get spending bills passed. Republicans would never vote down the Patriot Act, so this helped the other bill, rather than the other way around.

      --
      I8-D
  45. Piffle by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 1

    Are you including benefits and other extras? Raw salary is a surprisingly smaller part of the whole picture than many people realize.

    Here in California the average teacher salary is >$60K, and they golden health care plans, pensions and other perks.

  46. Ron Paul 2012 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    'nuff said

  47. First Past the Post by Reason58 · · Score: 1

    Not a thing changes until first past the post goes.

  48. Re:Did anyone vote against this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Al Franken voted Yea? What the hell! I guess you don't need to be a life-long politician to sell out; a couple years is apparently more than enough

  49. Re:Democrats, just another side of the same coin.. by EuclideanSilence · · Score: 2

    40% of Democrats voted against, compared to only 10% of Republicans. If you want to effect change, vote Democrat, straight ticket, every time.

    NO.

    Let me repeat that.
    NO!!!

    If you vote for a party, in this case Democrats, who are 60% in support of a bill then you are telling them that it is ok to continue supporting this bill. The only reason even 40% are against it is because of all the people voting away from their party. Keep voting away from both parties until they reach 100%.

    And stop being a shill for your political party. If you are so heavily loyal to one that you'd advocate a party line ticket for them just because they only fucked up 60% percent of their vote, then you need a new hobby. ESPN might be good for you.

  50. comment? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fu-uck.

  51. Obama : The Last Great Hope for America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Obama is the only one who can save us with a veto. Let's hope he stands true to his campaign promises.

    1. Re:Obama : The Last Great Hope for America by EnergyScholar · · Score: 1

      I presume you are joking. Obama has now demonstrably lied about most of his campaign promises. Obama has already come out in favor of the P.A.T. R.I.O.T. act, and has already criticized those opposed to it.

      Obama has lied to us every bit as egregiously as George Bush. Obama has completely sold out the principles he claimed to run on, and the people who voted him into office.

      Please wake up!

  52. Thanks for posting this (before I did ;) ). by PaulBu · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Actually, Rand Paul was filibustering this for 7 hours, just asking for a (promised by Reid last time it was extended) full week of discussion!

    (I liked this title: http://www.unelected.org/democrat-harry-reid-blocks-rand-pauls-filibuster-of-the-patriot-act but you are welcome to google your own!).

    And then we see people still thinking that there is some major difference between people wearing 'D' or 'R' labels, rather than between honest people and liars, and true "public servants" (as in, *Representatives* of *Us, the People*) and ones who pretend to be, to advance their agenda and get rich in the process...

    And, before you start protesting, saying that all he wanted to do is to amend it with some additional "gun rights" language, it was only one of his several proposed amendments (picked by Media for obvious reasons of further polarization of us). I guess it was quite a brilliant move to provoke at least some discomfort of cognitive dissonance in the minds of mainstream NRA-supporting republicans, who *also* see absolutely no harm in PATRIOT act!

    Well done, "Aqua Buddha"! ;)

    Paul B.

    1. Re:Thanks for posting this (before I did ;) ). by Rockoon · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Well there is a difference between the D's and the R's.... sort of.

      It was an R that was trying to filibustering this.

      This isnt to say that all Republican's are like Rand Paul, but there wasnt a single Democrat senator actively trying to stop it so it is quite fair to say that NO Democrat is like Rand Paul.

      My hat is off to men and women in Kentucky who voted this man in.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    2. Re:Thanks for posting this (before I did ;) ). by WrongMonkey · · Score: 1

      I don't know what you mean by "actively trying to stop it", but out of the 18 Senators who voted against it, 13 were Democrats.

    3. Re:Thanks for posting this (before I did ;) ). by WrongMonkey · · Score: 1

      Sorry, I got my numbers wrong, but my point still stands. 23 voted against, 18 were Democrats. http://politics.nytimes.com/congress/votes/112/senate/1/84

    4. Re:Thanks for posting this (before I did ;) ). by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      but there wasnt a single Democrat senator actively trying to stop it

      It certainly appears that way, doesn't it!

      R Senators: 41 Yes, 4 No
      D Senators: 30 Yes, 18 No

      I bet your hat is still off about Mitch McConnell getting elected too

    5. Re:Thanks for posting this (before I did ;) ). by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why didnt those Democrats join in on the filibuster?

      pssst: Its because they wanted it to pass while still bring able to say that they voted 'nay'

  53. I'm calling 'dupe'! by countertrolling · · Score: 1

    Not so much with the story, though it does apply, but with the comments... just more of the same old crap... and here we are, with even a worse law than before. In fact, I'm calling a preemptive 'dupe' for the story that will pop up when it renewed in 2015.. and the time after that... turtles all the way down...

    --
    For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
  54. And the President is going to veto it, right? by PaulBu · · Score: 2

    ... Right??? (as someone asked above)

    If I were cynical (which I am!), I would say that both parties ensured passage of the PATRIOT act just to keep things "the way they are". Democrats, being more vulnerable in the next election cycle, had to cut their losses by having some of the most vulnerable ones splitting from the main party line.

    So, in some way, I think that I respect the tiny minority of 4 republicans who voted against it way more than 18 democrats. If only that I can think that they voted for their principles, and not political considerations.

    Paul B.

  55. What Will It Take by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A sceen of carnage by FBI and DIA milita laying wast to a section of East L.A. or South Boston or S.E. DC with copious blood and body parts on the street of the "Clean" America.

    Till then the Reps and the Sens will vote to have their own bank accounts scurbed.

    For them a "Dead American" is not a terriorist.

    Blessid be the Dead Americans on this Memoral Day to Cum.

  56. Pro Treason Government Trolls by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    To all who love to talk about democracy and freedom while smashing it at home and giggling like nazi bullies.
    To you jokesters who think it's funny to mod down true oathkeepers as trolls

    Disobeying your sworn oath is treason and terrorism
    The patriot act is the opposite of the constitution
    The DHS and TSA is in opposition of the constitution and their current activity is domestic terrorism.

    The nazi pieces of shit who say anything to the opposite of this are the true domestic terrorists.

  57. Re:Did anyone vote against this? by SheeEttin · · Score: 1

    Yes, the vote was 74-13.
    It took more digging than it should have (neither Slashdot nor Bloomberg gave links or dates; good going, guys), but here's some pertinent info:
    The bill is S.1038, passed May 24, 2011. It was sponsored by Harry Reid, and cosponsored by Mitch McConnell.
    I can't see a way to see the actual vote on either the Senate or Library of Congress pages, so here it is from the Washington Post. Votes for: 40 Republicans, 34 Democrats. Against: 3 Republicans, 9 Democrats (and Bernie Sanders, Independent).

    As always, please contact your Senator and tell them how you feel about how they voted. Find their information through here. (Remember, a written letter carries a hell of a lot more weight than an email. A hand-written letter will probably go right to the Congressman's desk, rather than their staff.)

    And FYI: The House version, H.R.67 is still in subcommittee. The House and Senate versions will have to be reconciled before they're passed. You should probably write your Representative too.

  58. Re:Did anyone vote against this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  59. If software worked this way. by istartedi · · Score: 3, Funny

    1: What happened to our Apache build?

    2: I updated the web server by replacing it with Tetris.

    --
    For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
  60. Re:Yawn. by nog_lorp · · Score: 0

    Or, as Buckminster Fuller would say, it falls in. In towards the center of gravity. I'm gonna go take the stairs out to the second floor.

  61. Re:Mike Honda, Dianne Feinstein, and Barbara Boxer by RoFLKOPTr · · Score: 1

    I can't believe Boxer and Feinstein have been re-elected without fail by this state for almost TWENTY FUCKING YEARS. It doesn't matter how good or bad a politician is doing (these two morons are about the worst senators I've ever seen, by the way, and they're the only ones that have represented me in my adult life), NOBODY should be kept in office that god damned long.

  62. Re:America's Dead. Get over it. by frank_adrian314159 · · Score: 2

    ... they underestimated the unstoppable inertia of the mass of the "sheeple".

    I hate that term. It's so old and worn out. Rather than making the user of the term look "catchy" or "with it", it just makes them look like a crank. Try using the phrase "Too many citizens are uninformed and apathetic". Doesn't that sound better? And it might work better - even though the people you talk about may be "sheeple", people are very, very unlikely to listen to or join with those that insult them. So, if you want to have fun with your "clever" characterization, remember that you've guaranteed change will take even longer.

    --
    That is all.
  63. What about cubs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Does this law encompass also the cub if the "Lone wolf" happens to have a cub?

    Great manga, btw.

  64. Re:Yawn. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Obviously thats opposite for a Ringworld, but which way would water fall.. in a Dyson sphere?

  65. "Media" Reporting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It makes me sick to see the title of this article:
    http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-patriot-act-20110527,0,7749454.story
    "Patriot Act provisions extended just in time"

    I don't understand how some people can write bullshit like that and still call themselves Americans. Disgusting.

  66. We don't hate USA. by stooo · · Score: 0

    We don't hate USA. The US is just a very bad example for democracy. Do you think other governments will bother with privacy, free speech, and justice, when even USA does not ? I heard that USA advocates democracy in some countries. They should not do so, they are a very very bad example.

    --
    aaaaaaa
  67. Re:Yawn. by Neil+Boekend · · Score: 0

    Depends. You could spin it fast enough so the centrifugal force would create a fake gravity on the equator, but on the poles the gravity of the star would win. If you don't spin it you'll fall to the star everywhere, depending on the diameter of the sphere.
    For a ringworld the same concept would hold, except there would be nothing on the poles.
    I'd advise spinning it, whether it's a ringworld or a Dyson sphere. People like to live in the light and sunlight is free on the inside.

    --
    Well, I might have a way, but it only works on a semi spherical planet in a vacuum.
  68. Re:Democrats, just another side of the same coin.. by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 2

    40% of Democrats voted against, compared to only 10% of Republicans. If you want to effect change, vote Democrat, straight ticket, every time.

    That doesn't make any sense whatsoever. If 40% of Dems voted against, then 60% of Dems voted for. So when "GOP is dead and buried", 60% of the Congress would keep the party line intact.

  69. Congratulations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Due to my work I see a lot of security specialists and people that manage travel for VIPs. Do you know that the US is considered a higher risk to travel to than Russia?

    This is due to the decision of the Ninth Circuit to be perfectly happy with the TSA copying any data it feels like - because there is already little trust left in the US this is not seen as a security measure, but as blatant, state sanctioned industrial and economic espionage. A number of companies I know are in the process of reconsidering their presence in the US - which means job losses.

    I think ti would really help if there was some transparency introduced. I can see the need for the measures, but without clear, verifiable controls and an audit process that can be trusted this is just an open invitation for abuse, and the results show..

  70. "Fair Game" now applied by USA? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What USA does now looks just like "fair game" doctrine used by Scientology. Copy is the highest form of flattering?

    USA used to be an example of freedom for people out there, but it no longer is. With every new "security" measure introduced by this country (sexual molestation at airports, collecting any data on anybody, treating everyone as a suspect).
    Extending "patriot act" is yet another nail in the coffin.

    What is sad is that USA public buys all that and is happy with such good laws. It doesn't concern them, only the bad people should be afraid, right? RIGHT?

  71. Becoming a politician is not an option by mangu · · Score: 2

    run yourself

    The problem is that most people need to work at full time jobs to earn their living. Being a politician is an option only for those who have deep pockets supporting them.

  72. Re:Mike Honda, Dianne Feinstein, and Barbara Boxer by jcr · · Score: 1

    I can't believe Boxer and Feinstein have been re-elected without fail by this state for almost TWENTY FUCKING YEARS.

    Yeah, it really makes me want to hurl.

    When Feinstein gave that snotty little speech dismissing the thousands of messages she'd received in opposition to the bailouts, saying we all just "didn't understand" it, I wanted slap her upside her smug little head.

    -jcr

    --
    The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
  73. Re:Yawn. by lxs · · Score: 0

    It would fall towards or orbit around the star in the center of a Dyson sphere.
    Isaac Newton was the first to prove that everywhere inside a spherical shell of uniform density the gravity cancels out, so only the mass of the central star has influence.

  74. Re:Did anyone vote against this? by dotancohen · · Score: 1
    --
    It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
  75. This Sucks. by assertation · · Score: 1

    I have been disgusted with liberals who have criticized President Obama for not being 100% progressive in all of his decision. A president is not a king and needs to compromise to be effective.

    However, renewing The Patriot Act truly disgusts me.

    Oh well, at least it is something that expires and has to be renewed. Too bad the Bush Tax cuts for the wealthy weren't structured that way.

    1. Re:This Sucks. by Savantissimo · · Score: 1

      They were. The rhetoric is that letting them expire = tax increase.

      --
      "Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?" - Patrick Henry
  76. Re:Democrats, just another side of the same coin.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Um, no. The majority of Democrats supported this too, that makes them evil. Sorry, you lose and your goose stepping only shows how despirate you are not to have to think about the situation you're in.
     
    Stop blaming parties and start working on getting individuals you want in office and you'll see a change in politics. You will see none before you do this.
     
    And don't act like the Democrats don't pass laws to improve their electoral odds. Either you're a blind dimwit or you're a shill.
     
    Democrats had a blank check and did nothing but pass another unproven social program that even they admit they didn't completely understand. To top it off they made everyone push the panic button by claiming that the healthcare system would fall apart without immediate action. Sound a bit like another law they just voted to extend? Think about it.

  77. SSDD by Kamiza+Ikioi · · Score: 0

    SSDD, SOP, SNAFU, FUBAR, and the usual other acronyms to describe our government.

    --
    I8-D
  78. Juries & WalMart by Mr_Krabs · · Score: 1

    Use the same system we use when selecting juries than when selecting representatives. A representative sample of the population is better than a man at representing the population wouldn't you think?

    A lawyer friend of mine said to me one day. Wanna know what your jury would be like if you were brought up for trial? Go into walmart and pick 12 random people standing in line. That is likely to be the "jury of your peers." It's not exactly a comforting thought.

    1. Re:Juries & WalMart by Requiem18th · · Score: 1

      But a politician is likely to be worse!

      Even if he is smarter, he isn't likely to be more moral. Or rather his morals adapt to the votes he wants to bag. He is as likely to vote for that racist act or religiously righteous law you fear the wallmart crowd would, simply to please them. Even worse, he is highly motivated to turn political discourse into rhetorical drama to laverage emotional responses.

      Politicians, living comfortably above the middle class, rarely live under the results of their own legislations, the repercussions they care about are only those that affect their careers.

      And that's just look forward. Looking backwards. Politicians need to get into a party and then get lobbied before they can seriously contend to executive positions. In other words they need to get bought for the specific matter of jump starting their careers!

      So yeas, it's not a comforting thought when compared to some imaginary perfect authority figure, but I think it can take us to a better position than we are right now.

      --
      But... the future refused to change.
  79. Re:Did anyone vote against this? by iter8 · · Score: 1

    You can get the roll call votes here
    House: here
    Senate: here

  80. Re:Yawn. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Back on subject. America is becoming a fascist state. Watch this:

    http://thepiratebay.org/torrent/4741481/The_End_Of_America_2008_DVDRip_XviD-DOMiNO(No_Rars)

  81. So much for the VETO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/05/26/ap/congress/main20066458.shtml

  82. Obama == Bush's Third Term by TonyXL · · Score: 1

    I hope all of you Obama supporters are happy now.

    Next time you look in the mirror you'll realize you are nothing but a sucker who got duped by slogans and promises.

  83. Re:Thanks for posting this (before I did ;) ) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah, keep telling yourself that. Except that 87% of the Republicans in the Senate voted for the extension, while "only" 59% of Democrats did.

    Sure, a majority in both cases, but the difference is significant.

  84. "lone wolf" -- FEMA camps by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is an excuse to spirit away the dissenters and self-reliant in the middle of the night, never to be seen again. Ahem, Bradley Manning, 8th Amendment anyone?