Slashdot Mirror
Obama's Privacy Reform Panel Will Report To ... the NSA
FuzzNugget writes "No, you didn't just stumble upon The Onion by mistake. Ars Technica reports that Obama's 'reform' panel will report directly to James Clapper, the Director of National Intelligence who arguably lied to Congress about whether the NSA conducted dragnet surveillance of Americans' communications. But is anyone really surprised?"
Either he did or he didn't, there's no in-between. In actuality he lied, and did it intentionally.
Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
It's up to us to contact our representatives and let them know that they can't just sweep this under the rug like usual. There has to be consequences.
"Here Lies Philip J. Fry, named for his uncle, to carry on his spirit"
Oh, screw you. How were we supposed to know he was going to pull this crap, and how would voting for the other asshole have been any better?
I've slowly started to come to the view that representative democracy has basically failed. It's time to try a new system.
What that system should be up for discussion but the idea of voting for representatives who then decide the policy has been tried and failed. It's too easy for corruption to take root and it's too easy for those people to grab power for power's sake.
I refuse to accept that there is no better solution than the status-quo. There must be a way to capture the will of the people, protect minorities, and protect the people from government overreach. There must be a way to have our cake and eat it.
how would voting for the other asshole have been any better?
There are more than two options.
You explain everything with malice in the government, and idiocy in the voters
Sarah Palin is an anti-intellectual spawn of Satan, but it is rather funny how that obnoxious line from one of her red meat rallies - "How's that hopey changey stuff working out for ya?" turned out to be oddly prophetic.
Yeah, it must be a big surprise that such a lying politician came from Chicago. No one saw that coming, nosirree.
Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
There are many puppets. Do you still think you have options?
This is a panel to determine if the US "employs its technical collection capabilities in a manner that optimally protects our national security and advances our foreign policy while appropriately accounting for other policy considerations, such as the risk of unauthorized disclosure and our need to maintain the public trust."
This isn't supposed to be oversignt. It's entirely for the NSA's benefit.
You know, at least politicians of yesteryear would *convincingly* lie to us. I really appreciated the time and effort they went to to construct these elaborate castles of "inaccuracies", all in an effort to appease the masses.
These new politicians...I dunno...they don't even *try* anymore. It's like they're too busy screwing us and just phone in the excuses.
Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
"...but, but, but, *BUSH*!"
Seriously, in your mind, at which point does Obama become responsible for his own actions?
It's not like the 2012 election was GWB vs. Obama.
The article doesn't state it, but I heard on CBS News Radio this morning that the panel will also operate in secret, and all records will be classified.
Nothing to see here, move along, citizen. Thank you for your cooperation.
I think the surprise is how well the President and Republicans are united on this issue....
Eyes pinched closed, fingers in their ears, going 'nah nah nah nah'.
They could have found a libertarian/green buddy (whichever they don't choose) and both vote for 3rd parties, feeling safe they wouldn't change the outcome of the 'lessor of two evils' election while still boosting the party they actually support.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
There had been enough hints in his previous mandate to know that the trend was just growing. And while voting for the other was been no change of direction, expressely voting no option, or choosing a third party, just to show that you don't approve what the main 2 are, would be a way. If a big enough percent of people didn't like (and expressed to be that way) any of the options, they would had at least a hint.
If you think this is already bad, there are still a few years for things getting even worse, and enough people that think just like you (that if is not one is the other), so the next election won't change trends at all, no matter if is elected the other party. Things will get so bad that 1984 will look like utopia, not distopia.
how would voting for the other asshole have been any better?
There are more than two options.
Only in theory, not in practice. Without ranked voting, a vote for a 3rd party candidate is effectively a vote against whoever your second choice is, so voters are often faced with voting for the lesser of 2 evils. In the past 4 presidential elections, the only time a 3rd party candidate managed to get more than 1% of the popular vote (yet still 0% of the electoral votes) was in 2000 when Nader had 2.78% of the popular vote and if a fraction of his votes had gone to Gore, George W Bush wouldn't have made it to the white house.
More than anything else, I've been arguing for years that the biggest problem we have in our representative republic is our single-vote system. What we need is an instant runoff voting system to replace our single-vote ballot. I'm tired of the debates over Perot's role in 1992 every time a party needs to drum up support for an unpopular candidate, the debates over how to dethrone current party establishments without splitting the vote and thus forefitting to the other major party among Democrats and Republicans (well, mostly spoken of by Republicans actually), Libertarians and Greens voting for R and D candidates because their own party "can't win", and so on.
The only two ways to dethrone our two same-result-different-rhetoric parties are either to challenge the establishment in primaries (which occasionally works, but more often seems not to work) or to effectively end the monopoly they have on the ballot box by eliminating this idiotic idea that a third-party vote is thrown away. Instant runoff means no vote is wasted, no matter how unlikely a voter's highest-ranked candidate's victory seems.
Example: I know a lot of people who hated Romney and Obama as candidates, and would have liked to have selected someone else, but were so terrified of one or the other that they voted for the one who was most likely to defeat the one who scared them most. That's no way to elect a leader. Similarly, we could have used this process during the primaries to avoid similar problems in candidate selection. Especially states with early primaries, where it could be used to correct for candidates dropping out before the conventions. Though to be fair, most people are unaware that they elect delegates, not candidates.
The whole issue of picking candidates based not on merit but on "electability" is poison to a healthy democratic election.
In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
how would voting for the other asshole have been any better?
There are more than two options.
Vote Libertarian, and get the best of no world.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Is that they live in a world so far removed from our own - in which civil rights, due process and conflicts of interest are active concerns - to such an extent that doing something like this "ain't no thang". Disturbing.
Frankly, they could have at least pretended to give a shit.
Except even that doesn't fully capture what is going on here. More like putting KFC in charge of the henhouse?
Only in theory, not in practice. Without ranked voting, a vote for a 3rd party candidate is effectively a vote against whoever your second choice is, so voters are often faced with voting for the lesser of 2 evils.
There is never an excuse when you willingly vote for evil. Never.
This excuse of yours only convinces other people that are also looking for an excuse for why they willingly voted to increase evil. Excuses only help the conscience of people willing to swallow them.
"His name was James Damore."
the best way to get by is to assume that the internet is a military installation, and you have temporary guest access.
Yeah, it must be a big surprise that such a lying politician came from Chicago. No one saw that coming, nosirree.
Excuse me, but he's from Kenya, not Chicago!
Perhaps Americans don't yet believe you have a One Party system. You know the one. It's called the Business Party (run by the rich and powerful for their own benefit) with two factions: Democrat and Republican.
Looking back, it seems like the USA was sold a raw deal. First, soften you up with Baby Bush (and his occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq after the event of 911 and the institution of the NSA spying program before the attacks), then turn around and hit you between the eyes with "Hope". Obama strengthened Baby Bush policies (including several additional rounds of giving money to the already rich bankers thru QE2 and QE3, as well as the currently discussed spying on American soil on Americans), and expanded Presidential power to "legally" execute whomever he chooses without the executed ever standing trial for their deeds.
Apparently habeas corpus and rights granted by the 4th amendment are too difficult and "heavy" concepts for simpleton-Americans to realize their value. Perhaps liberty and freedom are concepts just too remotely difficult to grasp and apply in any meaningful way to your daily lives.
You could go back just a bit further to see an even greater impact that a 3rd party had on the election. GWB's father lost his 2nd term due to Ross Perot taking almost 20% of the vote, which arguably would have gone to GHWB & led to his reelection.
"It comes from a very ancient democracy, you see...."
"You mean, it comes from a world of lizards?"
"No," said Ford, who by this time was a little more rational and coherent than he had been, having finally had the coffee forced down him, "nothing so simple. Nothing anything like so straightforward. On its world, the people are people. The leaders are lizards. The people hate the lizards and the lizards rule the people."
"Odd," said Arthur, "I thought you said it was a democracy."
"I did," said Ford. "It is."
"So," said Arthur, hoping he wasn't sounding ridiculously obtuse, "why don't the people get rid of the lizards?"
"It honestly doesn't occur to them," said Ford. "They've all got the vote, so they all pretty much assume that the government they've voted in more or less approximates to the government they want."
"You mean they actually vote for the lizards?"
"Oh yes," said Ford with a shrug, "of course."
"But," said Arthur, going for the big one again, "why?"
"Because if they didn't vote for a lizard," said Ford, "the wrong lizard might get in."
Things will get so bad that 1984 will look like utopia, not distopia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utopia_(book)
Utopia isn't really what people think it is. Of course, the irony is that in modern usage, it does mean "perfect society" despite the satirical bent of More's original work.
And I believe 1984 was actually intended to look like Utopia in the first place, IIRC.
"One vote" is a pretty ridiculous system. The will of the people is much better represented when one person can simultaneously vote for both his favorites. Or all three. One vote per person per candidate, not one vote per person, makes much more sense. It would also get more people voting, since they can actually pick the one they want to win, AND the lesser evil.
Of course, such a system would give independent candidates a chance. That will not be tolerated.
You seem to be under the misconception that there are two major political parties. In reality there is only one party that has managed to convince most people that (1) that there are two major parties, (2) there is a substantial difference between the two, and (3) that one or the other represents thier interests (and/or one or the other is out to destroy everything near and dear to you. )
Any insufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology.
No, the conversation oh_my_080980980 is having right now is:
Mom: Barry-proxy-oh_my_080980980, did you take a cookie after you were told not to?
Barry-proxy-oh_my_080980980: But Georgie took one too!
Any adult knows the problem with that.
Right now a lot of Dems probably feel the same way most republicans felt during Bush's final year or two. Voting face palm in both cases.
> How were we supposed to know he was going to pull this crap
For me, Obama's own radio ads were what convinced me he'd be very bad for the country. Until he started running ads were I lived, I was hopeful he'd be inspiring ala JFK.
I pay attention to people who have managed to get something I want, who have succeeded in something I want to do. I ask them "how did you do that"?
So for me, Obama's message of attacking success was alarming. I see that people who show up ten minutes early, so I TRY to follow their example. Obama's message indicated if he punctual people who dress nice get ahead, he'd put an 80% tax on watches to knock down those selfish punctual people. He SHOULD look at the presidential portraits and ask "what would Kennedy do?". In the campaign, he seemed more likely to look at the Kennedy portrait and flip Kennedy off for doing better than him. So that's how I knew he'd pull a bunch of crap.
Combined with that, about a year before he started his campaign he said it would be "irresponsible" for him to run for president because "I believe in knowing what you're doing when you apply for a job." He was correct in stating that he wouldn't know what to do as president, but that might have been okay IF he'd recognized that and followed the examples of successful presidents.Unfortunately, that's his number one flaw - he doesn't learn from successful people, he envies them and attacks whatever is successful.
> and how would voting for the other asshole have been any better?
It couldn't have been much worse. You might say 2008 was worse, but even awful Bush, in his first six years, looks better than Obama's first six years by most objective measures. That's comparing Obama to one of the worst presidents in history.
Romney at least appeared COMPETENT, though kind of slimy. He really reminds me of Bill Clinton in that way. On the economy, for example, everybody wants
for there to be more jobs. Romney, having something of a clue, would probably create more jobs. He wouldn't be focused on union jobs, if that matters to you, but non-union jobs are better than no jobs.
And most of you voted for him. I hope you are proud of yourselves.
Puhleeze.. don't be dense
Dude, when you are asked to eat a shit sandwich consisting of a bite on the left, or a bite on the right, the only choice you have is to look for an area where the shit is thinnest.
Join the Slashcott! Feb 10 thru Feb 17!
Only in theory, not in practice. Without ranked voting, a vote for a 3rd party candidate is effectively a vote against whoever your second choice is, so voters are often faced with voting for the lesser of 2 evils.
There is never an excuse when you willingly vote for evil. Never.
So it's better to never vote at all?
I have never seen a candidate with whom I agree with 100%, so every candidate is somewhat "evil" in that he's not completely in agreement with my principles.
If I feel that one candidate is 10% in line with my ideals, another one is 50% in line with my ideals, and a distant third candidate with no realistic hope of winning is 75% in line with my ideals, I'd rather use my vote to bring in the 50% candidate rather than vote for the 75% candidate knowing that makes the 10% candidate more likely to win.
Or I could just write-in myself since no running candidate is completely "non-evil".
Which is more of a waste of my vote?
There is never an excuse when you willingly vote for evil. Never.
Absolutely true, in a mathematical sense even:
There are roughly 300 million people in the United States, of whom only one can be President at any given time.
With 300 million available candidates, many of whom are not nincompoops, why does America keep electing nincompoops to political office?
Sending a message to select 1 out of 300 million possibilities requires 29 bits. So if you vote in only the general election for the Presidency, then some mysterious force narrows the election down to 2 out of 300 million possibilities - exerting 28 bits of decision power - and then you, or rather the entire voting population, exert 1 more bit of decision power. If you vote in a primary election, you may send another 2 or 3 bits worth of message.
Where do the other 25 bits of decision power come from?
(...) Since around half the population is under the age of 35, at least one bit of the missing decision power is exerted by 55 delegates in Philadelphia in 1787. Though the "natural-born citizen" clause comes from a letter sent by John Jay to George Washington, a suggestion that was adopted without debate by the Philadelphia Convention.
(...) Likewise, not everyone would want to be President. (But see the hidden box: In principle the option exists of enforcing Presidential service, like jury duty.) How many people would run for President if they had a serious chance at winning? Let's pretend the number is only 150,000. That accounts for another 10 bits.
Then some combination of the party structure, and the media telling complicit voters who voters are likely to vote for, is exerting on the order of 14-15 bits of power over the Presidency; while the voters only exert 3-4 bits. And actually the situation is worse than this, because the media and party structure get to move first. They can eliminate nearly all the variance along any particular dimension. So that by the time you get to choose one of four "serious" "front-running" candidates, that is, the ones approved by both the party structure and the media, you're choosing between 90.8% nincompoop and 90.6% nincompoop.
I seriously think the best thing you can do about the situation, as a voter, is stop trying to be clever. Don't try to vote for someone you don't really like, because you think your vote is more likely to make a difference that way. Don't fret about "electability". Don't try to predict and outwit other voters. Don't treat it as a horse race. Don't worry about "wasting your vote" - it always sends a message, you may as well make it a true message.
(...) Oh - and if you're going to vote at all, vote in the primary. That's where most of your remaining bits and remaining variance have a chance to be exerted."
Source: Stop Voting For Nincompoops.
Conservatism: (n.) love of the existing evils. Liberalism: (n.) desire to substitute new evils for the existing ones.
That doesn't change the fact that the corporate owned media gets to screen who gets the airtime they need to reach the public.
If you don't sell your soul to the corporate sector you will never make it past the primaries.
And unlike other elections, you do not get to write-in for the president.
Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job.
...the Director of National Intelligence who arguably lied to congress about whether the NSA conducted dragnet surveillance of Americans' communications.
Damn /. editors, you misspelled "arguably". The proper spelling is D-E-F-I-N-I-T-E-L-Y.
There are many puppets. Do you still think you have options?
Yes, the ones the corporate media fails to acknowledge. If they were puppets they'd be covered by the press.
Last election I voted Green Party, although since my daughter lives in Ohio I encouraged her to vote Obama. Ohio is a swing state, I support the Occupy movement, and the Republicans ran a corporate raiding, job killing 1%er from Wall Street who made millions on the suffering of others.
I won't vote Libertarian because they're only for giving the corporations and the rich assholes who run them the liberty to trample my rights, put me in an unsafe work environment, and make the air as filthy as it was before the EPA (as well as dismantling our already almost nonexistent safety nets).
I won't vote Constitution party because they want the US to be a Christian theocracy. Sorry but as a Christian I'm prohibited from forcing my morals on others ("do unto others). This is a secular nation with the right to worship anything you want, including Wicca, Satan, FSM, money (our country's primary religion) or nothing at all.
But I'd be stupid (except in the rare occasion that you're in a swing state and one of the two main candidates is a monster like Romney) to vote R or D because they want to put me in jail for smoking pot (I have arthritis and yeah, I like to get high). You have loved ones who smoke pot, why are you voting for people who want them in prison? That's just brain dead stupid.
Don't stay home on election day, vote for a loser and show your discontent with the status quo (that is, unless you like the NSA trolling through your email and phone records and want your children or parents or friends in jail).
NO VOTE IS WASTED.
Free Martian Whores!
Until there is a Libertarian candidate, who is remotely viable, picking Republicans is what Libertarians ought to be doing. Because Republicans are far less wrong on economy. And economic freedom is required for prosperity...
The opposite is literally true. I don't personally vote economic issues (there's nothing wrong with doing so), but if I were to, voting Republican would not be an optimal choice.
On contrast, if an ultra-Conservative "RethugliKKKan" wins elections and, horrors, manages to outlaw abortions... Guess what? I'll still be able to afford my daughter's trip to Canada, should she ever want the procedure.
You seem to primarily vote your wallet, and you also have a liberal position on at least one social issue, or, at least, you're not crazy about the Republican platform position on that issue (please correct me if I read you wrong). Again, nothing wrong with that, but holding a Republican preference with what you've shared of your political views seems... decidedly strange. I'd honestly be interested in how you arrived at the preference you have.
...the deterioration of our economy...
What deterioration? Now, I'll be the first to admit that we're not exactly seeing Clinton-era growth, but we are seeing steady, albeit slow, improvement. Again, literally the opposite of deterioration.
The only reason the distant third candidate has no realistic hope of winning is due to you, personally, and people that share your mentality.
I hope you're satisfied with choosing between two sides of the same coin.
Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.
In today's terms, they had 'skin in the game'.
The poor - who are, for the most part, the working poor, not the slovenly slothful parasites of Ayn Rand's potboiler daydreams - have the most 'skin the game' of anyone. Bad policy is more likely to result the literal loss of their skins--everything from limited access to costly healthcare to dangerous working conditions to weakening of environmental regulations disproportionately affects, and shortens the lives of, the poor.
Which means those who do have something spend all their time and money defending themselves against the mob (via buying the representatives outright) instead of making the whole society better.
I give up. Your argument appears to be that the system is broken because the wealthy landowners have to spend too much time and money to control the system, when they ought to have it for free; if we just put them in charge, then they would magically put that money and effort into vague and nonspecific improvement of society (to everyone's benefit!) --and not bickering amongst themselves. Sorry, not buying it.
~Idarubicin
There is never an excuse when you willingly vote for evil. Never.
So it's better to never vote at all?
I have never seen a candidate with whom I agree with 100%, so every candidate is somewhat "evil" in that he's not completely in agreement with my principles.
That's an extremely broad concept of "evil." As in, invalid.
As we have most recently seen with Obama, the positions he takes when he's in power are not the positions he takes when he's campaigning. I didn't vote for him in 2008 because as soon as he was nominated, he selected Joe Biden as his running mate. That was a strong signal that he was going to preserve the status quo on structural issues. I think Obama-care was the most significant difference with the Republican candidate, so we'll see how that goes.
You should vote for a person based on non-evil decision-making. Realistically, no one president is going to be able to repeal Roe v Wade. No one president is going to dismantle the military. NASA is not building a base on the moon. So vote for the candidate that, when faced with decisions that he can make, will probably make good decisions. I voted for Obama in the 2008 primary because of a quirk of California voting law and because he was campaigning on Change, and I really think the country needs to change. (Then he revealed Biden, and I realized: Nope, no major change.) I trust the third-party candidates more because they're upfront about the ideological basis of their decision-making.
I don't think there's a good way to quantify alignment with ideals. That leads to all sorts of problems with statistical weighting and evaluating how true the candidate is to the ideal. In my short adult life, I've thought that all the major candidates were less than 50% aligned with my interests. Also, writing yourself in is a silly protest. You need to vote for a team of delegates to the Electoral College.
Have a nice time.
Or Common Sense by Tom Paine. Then remember that both sets of documents were originally published anonymously in order to protect the authors.
Still think being Anonymous (especially in this political climate) is a bad idea?
Say whatever you want about how much they may be in the same camp or agree philosophically, but Clapper is the Director of National Intelligence. The NSA is led by General Keith Alexander, the Director of the NSA, who reports to the Director of National Intelligence. If you're going to complain about who reports to who, at least know who reports to who...
Screw that, I'm voting for the GOOP
Why settle for a lesser evil when you can have can vote for the Great Old One Party?
Cthulhu/Nyarlathotep 2016!
Your politics are rather black-and-white and naive. Are you a libertarian?
Who taught you to cast "black and white" aspersions as your "excuse" for the bad excuse?
(a) willingly vote for someone that you know is bad
(b) willingly vote for someone that you think might be good
Yes it really is black and white, but no it is not wrong or bad to see it for what it really is.
Do you know why?
Because the argument doesnt present an opinion. Instead, the argument examines an excuse that relates to your own opinion. The argument deals with your opinion of a man and your actions given that opinion of that man. Specifically the argument destroys the excuse of willingly voting for the lesser of two (in your opinion) evils, because it shows quite succinctly that you still voted for what you believed to be evil.
Its black and white because it doesnt present an opinion. I know its uncomfortable when someone tells you that you willingly voted for fucking evil. Doesnt change the fact that you willingly voted for fucking evil.
"His name was James Damore."
Bullshit. If that were true, the third party candidates would have significant numbers in the polls and only reduced numbers in actual votes.
His reelection is explained by his opponent being Mitt Romney.
You're oversimplifying things, while at the same time expanding the discussion to include irrelevant points.
With polls, for instance, the public is more likely to indicate support for a person who is described by the operator as one of the "leading candidates". There's no reason to suspect that this increased support stems from actually hearing the words "leading candidate" spoken orally. It wouldn't be much of a leap of logic to suspect that, in general, people are more likely to support a person who is believed to be a leading candidate. This seems to support my position more than it supports yours, in that it would explain why people are reluctant to support (either in polls or in actual elections) a candidate that is not perceived to be "leading". This is consistent with your own position, even.
If people voted for their own preferences instead of concerning themselves with how other people will vote (which is all you're doing when you bring up whether or not someone has any realistic hope of winning), the world would be a better place. But, from what I understand, that might let the wrong lizard win.
Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.
Having more candidates is only the solution if we have approval voting. If we have plurality voting, then a two-party system is best. ...but a two-party system is terrible, which is why we need approval voting.
If you think voting for the Green Party is a way to secure your personal freedoms, you are sadly mistaken. If there was a name for an environmental-socialist "theocracy", their platform would be it.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.