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?
how would voting for the other asshole have been any better?
There are more than two options.
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.
Campaign finance reform would go along way to changing the system.
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.
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.
No it won't. It will do nothing. The voter has to learn to resist propaganda, and think critically. Check the records, not the campaign speeches. Campaign 'reform' is a bullshit shell game, just like term limits. They will find another way to launder the money.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
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.
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."
I've always been partial to the idea of having government officials selected from a lottery drawing of any citizen, similar to a draft.
At the minimum, I wouldn't mind seeing term limits in Congress.
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."
After citizen's united there is no real chance of campaign finance reform.
Do you know how many decades people worked for in various states to get campaign finance reform at the state level and to have it wiped out in a single instant by the supreme court.
Do you have any idea how difficult it will be to get this fixed at the federal level since it would require a constitutional amendment. Corporations will spend hundreds of billions of dollars to defeat it and that much money will win. They will have studies that play everywhere constantly about how great it is that money is the same as speech etc.
Computer modeling for biotech drug manufacturing is HARD!
"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.
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.
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.
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.
You can cower and boot-lick your way through life if you want. Me, I want to live free.
Hence the Anonymous Cowardice.
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.
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?