7 ms·

It amazes me that journalists publish things like this with a straight face, then don't understand why nobody trusts the media. "Well, sure, unconstitutional p

by liber8 10y ago

It amazes me that journalists publish things like this with a straight face, then don't understand why nobody trusts the media. "Well, sure, unconstitutional power grabs are tolerable when someone I like is in power, but this new guy is bad!" Yes, that's how it always works. That's explicitly the reason our government was designed the way it was. Why do educated people forget this every time "their guy" gets into power?

cheald 10y ago
It's amazing how many articles I've seen in the last week by people suddenly finding limited-government religion. When people campaign against the expansion of government powers, it's not because we're afraid that the Good Guys are going to abuse them, it's because we know that eventually the Bad Guys will.
- revscat 10y ago
  Could you point to one or more?
  - sverige 10y ago
    I can point to 44, all of whom had the title "President of the United States of America." That's one of the fundamental reasons separation of powers was built into the constitution. The assumption was (correctly) that all people are corrupt and will abuse their power if left unchecked by other self-interested people who have equal power and opposing agendas. So in addition to those 44, there are all the people who have had the titles "Representative," "Senator," and "Justice." Not a popular view today, I realize.
    - revscat 10y ago
      I was asking about the articles he referred to.
- adamlett 10y ago
  Please don't pretend that limited government is the same as checks and balances. You can have a police state and limited government (a government that does little for its citizens) at the same time. And you can have an expansive welfare state with clear separation of powers (think Sweden).
kchoudhu 10y ago
It's not just journalists. I've had multiple, extended conversation with Ivy League educated, highly compensated, otherwise rational people about how burning it all down now for sure is preferable to potentially burning part of it down later. There is a sickness in this country, and it is called partisanship. Its destructive power is more frightening than anything Trump could hope to do.
- generic_user 10y ago
  Its much more serious then partisanship. There is no real civilizational Ethose in America at this point. Many of us tried to stop the growth of Neo consrvatism on the Right and now Identity politics on the Left because they are both reactionary civilizrtional poison. But the hemlock was to sweet not to drink and everyone drunk.
  - gopher2 10y ago
    Huh. Can you elaborate or point to something that talks about this culture shift away from "civilizational ethos" in detail? Obviously I'm familiar with what identity politics and neo conservatism are, but I'd like to read more about the point you're making.
    - generic_user 10y ago
      I'm not a Political Scientist or even particularly well read on the subject. But 'The Clash of civilizations', by Huntington Is a fairly standard big picture view. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clash_of_Civilizations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clash_of_Civilizations America is unfortunately now immersed in tribalism. Those who should be trying to reverse the trend such as the media and Intellectuals have embraced tribalism as much as the rest. There is no civilisation that can withstand the forces of tribalism. The breakup of Yugoslavia is an informative example of how a state collapses when ethos is replaced with tribalism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yugoslavia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yugoslavia
      - 10y ago
bluetwo 10y ago
Because "their guy" said exactly what he would do, and it is ugly.
- csallen 10y ago
  So you're saying you'll blindly trust anyone with a weapon so long as they haven't explicitly told you they'll do something bad with it?
  - dllthomas 10y ago
    Sounds like the second amendment...
    - hga 10y ago
      There are scope issues, e.g. one thing almost all hold to not be acknowledged as an inalienable right in the 2nd Amendment is possession of weapons of mass destruction. Compare to the implicit scopes of the 4th Amendment, which I'll quote in full: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. Many have argued that these pervasive dragnet surveillance systems axiomatically violate the 4th Amendment by their scope alone ("particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized"), which akin to the much, much greater scope of WMDs vs. the arms of infantrymen. Although this domain is a lot more nuanced, e.g. metadata is pretty universally held not to be protected like data, but what about mass collection of metadata?
      - dllthomas 10y ago
        I whole-heartedly agree. I wasn't making a serious argument either for preserving the domestic surveillance or against the second amendment. I just found the wording amusing, and I wanted to get people thinking about the distinctions you spell out.
tootie 10y ago
Did the media or Time in particular ever advocate mass surveillance? Pretty sure they've been railing against it for years. We wouldn't even know about it without the NY Times exposing Bush's Stellar Wind. They're just placing a new urgency on it now that our President-elect has promised to grossly abuse it.
- Shivetya 10y ago
  No, they are placing an urgency on it now that a candidate they do not approve of will be assuming power. If Hillary had won I seriously doubt you would see one article about it except from sources derided as right wing. So the NY Times went after it under Bush, maybe this country just needs Republican Administrations just so the press will do their damn job. They certainly got silent for most of eight years.
  - hga 10y ago
    maybe this country just needs Republican Administrations just so the press will do their damn job Many people have been making the point that for this reason, for the foreseeable future the Presidency must be limited to white male Republicans ^_^. Seriously, for more than a generation pretty much all capital and lower case 'c' constitutional checks and balances utterly fail if that's not the case.
  - hackuser 10y ago
    > So the NY Times went after it under Bush ... They certainly got silent for most of eight years. The evidence does not bear this out. The NY Times also 'went after it' under Obama, publishing Snowden's and Manning's leaks for example. They also broke the story on Clinton's email server, which probably cost her the election eventually.
    - grzm 10y ago
      If I were more ambitious, I'd love to see meta-analyses investigating questions like this. Given the tools we now have available, it's likely more a question of figuring out how to design the experiments. Might even be useful for the organizations themselves. I'm not so naive as to think anyone is free of bias. Best we can do is be aware of them and build processes that guard against our biases from negatively influencing our desired goals. This might be one tool in that tool box.
matt4077 10y ago
This isn't a journalist. It's an opinion piece written by an activist. Please show where this activist writes in support of the NSA programs in the past. Even if there were such a thing as homogenous left: I believe the number of people from the left defending these programs has been pretty short for as long as I can remember.
- maxerickson 10y ago
  The decision about what to publish is journalistic. It seems they have published thoughts about surveillance previously though. http://nation.time.com/2013/10/04/what-happened-to-obamas-nsa-reforms/ http://nation.time.com/2013/10/04/what-happened-to-obamas-ns... http://nation.time.com/surveillance-society/ http://nation.time.com/surveillance-society/
- liber8 10y ago
  Please show where I said anything about "support of the NSA programs in the past." Please show where I said anything about the "left". This is a problem that both democrats and republicans suffer from. Remember when the PATRIOT Act was proposed and enacted? Most democrats thought it was an unbelievably unconstitutional overreach that would be the end of the world, and republicans mostly saw it as a necessary tool that didn't even really have any constitutional concerns worth mentioning. Magically these perspectives flipped when Obama got into power. This happens every single time. *I would also note that journalists' "tolerance" for the NSA programs over the last 8 years is essentially tacit support. Nearly all of the network media's coverage of the NSA issues over the last few years has been centered on whether the effectiveness of the programs justify their existence. There has been virtually no network condemnation of these programs based on their illegality and unconstitutionality, whereas that was a major focus from 2001 to 2007.
  - dllthomas 10y ago
    > Magically these perspectives flipped when Obama got into power. Can you provide evidence of this? I know a lot of Democrats, and I don't remember any of them ever saying a positive word about the PATRIOT Act. Certainly, those actually in power are always reluctant to give it up. But I haven't seen that applying to their supporters in the particular example you cite.
hga 10y ago
One reason is that for a substantial subset of these people, they imagine they'll be one of the commissars, instead of one of the anonymous bodies in a ditch.
jdp23 10y ago
Evan and FFTF have been actively working against NSA spying under the Obama administration. The EFF and EPIC, which have been around longer, has worked against NSA spying under the Obama, Bush II, Clinton, and Bush I organizations; the ACLU, all of the above and more. What about you?
intended 10y ago
Im not even american, and I've constantly seen articles from mostly liberal sites complaining about the surveillance state, for the past decade+ now.
smsm42 10y ago
I love however how the left suddenly rediscovers the dangers of unlimited government power and benefits of limited government powers. Too bad it won't last.

by liber8 10y ago

cheald 10y ago

It's amazing how many articles I've seen in the last week by people suddenly finding limited-government religion. When people campaign against the expansion of government powers, it's not because we're afraid that the Good Guys are going to abuse them, it's because we know that eventually the Bad Guys will.

revscat 10y ago
Could you point to one or more?
- sverige 10y ago
  I can point to 44, all of whom had the title "President of the United States of America." That's one of the fundamental reasons separation of powers was built into the constitution. The assumption was (correctly) that all people are corrupt and will abuse their power if left unchecked by other self-interested people who have equal power and opposing agendas. So in addition to those 44, there are all the people who have had the titles "Representative," "Senator," and "Justice." Not a popular view today, I realize.
  - revscat 10y ago
    I was asking about the articles he referred to.
adamlett 10y ago
Please don't pretend that limited government is the same as checks and balances. You can have a police state and limited government (a government that does little for its citizens) at the same time. And you can have an expansive welfare state with clear separation of powers (think Sweden).

kchoudhu 10y ago

It's not just journalists. I've had multiple, extended conversation with Ivy League educated, highly compensated, otherwise rational people about how burning it all down now for sure is preferable to potentially burning part of it down later. There is a sickness in this country, and it is called partisanship. Its destructive power is more frightening than anything Trump could hope to do.

generic_user 10y ago
Its much more serious then partisanship. There is no real civilizational Ethose in America at this point. Many of us tried to stop the growth of Neo consrvatism on the Right and now Identity politics on the Left because they are both reactionary civilizrtional poison. But the hemlock was to sweet not to drink and everyone drunk.
- gopher2 10y ago
  Huh. Can you elaborate or point to something that talks about this culture shift away from "civilizational ethos" in detail? Obviously I'm familiar with what identity politics and neo conservatism are, but I'd like to read more about the point you're making.
  - generic_user 10y ago
    I'm not a Political Scientist or even particularly well read on the subject. But 'The Clash of civilizations', by Huntington Is a fairly standard big picture view. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clash_of_Civilizations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clash_of_Civilizations America is unfortunately now immersed in tribalism. Those who should be trying to reverse the trend such as the media and Intellectuals have embraced tribalism as much as the rest. There is no civilisation that can withstand the forces of tribalism. The breakup of Yugoslavia is an informative example of how a state collapses when ethos is replaced with tribalism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yugoslavia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yugoslavia
    - 10y ago

bluetwo 10y ago

Because "their guy" said exactly what he would do, and it is ugly.

csallen 10y ago
So you're saying you'll blindly trust anyone with a weapon so long as they haven't explicitly told you they'll do something bad with it?
- dllthomas 10y ago
  Sounds like the second amendment...
  - hga 10y ago
    There are scope issues, e.g. one thing almost all hold to not be acknowledged as an inalienable right in the 2nd Amendment is possession of weapons of mass destruction. Compare to the implicit scopes of the 4th Amendment, which I'll quote in full: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. Many have argued that these pervasive dragnet surveillance systems axiomatically violate the 4th Amendment by their scope alone ("particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized"), which akin to the much, much greater scope of WMDs vs. the arms of infantrymen. Although this domain is a lot more nuanced, e.g. metadata is pretty universally held not to be protected like data, but what about mass collection of metadata?
    - dllthomas 10y ago
      I whole-heartedly agree. I wasn't making a serious argument either for preserving the domestic surveillance or against the second amendment. I just found the wording amusing, and I wanted to get people thinking about the distinctions you spell out.

tootie 10y ago

Did the media or Time in particular ever advocate mass surveillance? Pretty sure they've been railing against it for years. We wouldn't even know about it without the NY Times exposing Bush's Stellar Wind. They're just placing a new urgency on it now that our President-elect has promised to grossly abuse it.

Shivetya 10y ago
No, they are placing an urgency on it now that a candidate they do not approve of will be assuming power. If Hillary had won I seriously doubt you would see one article about it except from sources derided as right wing. So the NY Times went after it under Bush, maybe this country just needs Republican Administrations just so the press will do their damn job. They certainly got silent for most of eight years.
- hga 10y ago
  maybe this country just needs Republican Administrations just so the press will do their damn job Many people have been making the point that for this reason, for the foreseeable future the Presidency must be limited to white male Republicans ^_^. Seriously, for more than a generation pretty much all capital and lower case 'c' constitutional checks and balances utterly fail if that's not the case.
- hackuser 10y ago
  > So the NY Times went after it under Bush ... They certainly got silent for most of eight years. The evidence does not bear this out. The NY Times also 'went after it' under Obama, publishing Snowden's and Manning's leaks for example. They also broke the story on Clinton's email server, which probably cost her the election eventually.
  - grzm 10y ago
    If I were more ambitious, I'd love to see meta-analyses investigating questions like this. Given the tools we now have available, it's likely more a question of figuring out how to design the experiments. Might even be useful for the organizations themselves. I'm not so naive as to think anyone is free of bias. Best we can do is be aware of them and build processes that guard against our biases from negatively influencing our desired goals. This might be one tool in that tool box.

matt4077 10y ago

This isn't a journalist. It's an opinion piece written by an activist. Please show where this activist writes in support of the NSA programs in the past. Even if there were such a thing as homogenous left: I believe the number of people from the left defending these programs has been pretty short for as long as I can remember.

maxerickson 10y ago
The decision about what to publish is journalistic. It seems they have published thoughts about surveillance previously though. http://nation.time.com/2013/10/04/what-happened-to-obamas-nsa-reforms/ http://nation.time.com/2013/10/04/what-happened-to-obamas-ns... http://nation.time.com/surveillance-society/ http://nation.time.com/surveillance-society/
liber8 10y ago
Please show where I said anything about "support of the NSA programs in the past." Please show where I said anything about the "left". This is a problem that both democrats and republicans suffer from. Remember when the PATRIOT Act was proposed and enacted? Most democrats thought it was an unbelievably unconstitutional overreach that would be the end of the world, and republicans mostly saw it as a necessary tool that didn't even really have any constitutional concerns worth mentioning. Magically these perspectives flipped when Obama got into power. This happens every single time. *I would also note that journalists' "tolerance" for the NSA programs over the last 8 years is essentially tacit support. Nearly all of the network media's coverage of the NSA issues over the last few years has been centered on whether the effectiveness of the programs justify their existence. There has been virtually no network condemnation of these programs based on their illegality and unconstitutionality, whereas that was a major focus from 2001 to 2007.
- dllthomas 10y ago
  > Magically these perspectives flipped when Obama got into power. Can you provide evidence of this? I know a lot of Democrats, and I don't remember any of them ever saying a positive word about the PATRIOT Act. Certainly, those actually in power are always reluctant to give it up. But I haven't seen that applying to their supporters in the particular example you cite.

hga 10y ago

One reason is that for a substantial subset of these people, they imagine they'll be one of the commissars, instead of one of the anonymous bodies in a ditch.

jdp23 10y ago

Evan and FFTF have been actively working against NSA spying under the Obama administration. The EFF and EPIC, which have been around longer, has worked against NSA spying under the Obama, Bush II, Clinton, and Bush I organizations; the ACLU, all of the above and more. What about you?

intended 10y ago

Im not even american, and I've constantly seen articles from mostly liberal sites complaining about the surveillance state, for the past decade+ now.

smsm42 10y ago

I love however how the left suddenly rediscovers the dangers of unlimited government power and benefits of limited government powers. Too bad it won't last.