9 ms·

> The "state secrets" firewall means that the public has no ability to police government surveillance. The public can change the composition of the Congress, w

> The "state secrets" firewall means that the public has no ability to police government surveillance. The public can change the composition of the Congress, which has oversight and lawmaking authorities over domestic intelligence agencies.

vkou 7y ago
With the state secrets firewall, you have no idea whether or not you should change the composition of Congress.
nimbius 7y ago
id argue one cannot change the composition of congress. political propaganda is regulated through the big 3 media outlets, and is a one-way monologue reinforcing certain values and priorities. Congressional candidates respond only to the cash that is required to secure their elections, and thus their real constituency is comprised almost entirely of corporate interests.
- aphextim 7y ago
  >id argue one cannot change the composition of congress. I hope that if term limits ever become a thing, it would only take a few elections of well informed voters to start making the change. I think that congress is supposed to be a fluid body of people that are supposed to represent the population, and change as the population's interests change. What we have now is career politicians making it to congress, and then milking it with all the donations, re election groups and lobby groups funneling them money making it very hard to actually enact any real change. Even if one or two people make it to congress that are young and full of ideas/change they cannot get anything done because they are vastly outnumbered by the old fogies still writing policies like the 1950's.
  - harikb 7y ago
    While terms limits solve one problem, it creates a far bigger one. Most well meaning “good people” have to sacrifice their career in order to serve in Politics. Yes, it is a career. But what is wrong with it? What do you think they should do with rest of their life? Moreover, it takes more than one term to achieve any meaningful change. Things like Obamacare didn’t just start with Obama. Major changes takes 10+ years. Congress/senators should be under better scrutiny, yes. Don’t let them become corrupt, prevent insider trading etc. but terms limits is not the solution to this problem. In my opinion I think term limit would rule out “poor people” from ever trying to run for office.
    - derivagral 7y ago
      Your point is valid here, but I'll mention that the type of people you feel would possibly be excluded are very likely already excluded by the current system.
aaomidi 7y ago
The public who cares about this have no say in all of the other seats of the house.
chishaku 7y ago
Why is this comment being downvoted? What alternatives are there other than achieving meaningful representation in government e.g. Congress?
- mindslight 7y ago
  It's being downvoted because it's utterly fallacious. The democratic process has been captured by mass media and turned into a simulation of choosing change. Divisive bikesheds are played up to the max, while the fundamental substantive issues like this are off the discussion table. Any candidate that dares to break rank and bring them up gets labeled "fringe" and memory-holed by the maintream media. The ultimate alternative is going to be voting from the rooftops, when we've finally become fed up with the results of their corruption.
  - emn13 7y ago
    Furthermore; democracy relies on there being meaningful communication and an at least somewhat unbiased sampling of popular opinion. So firstly on meaningful communication: Under the guise of freedom of speech nowadays falsehoods, and even more critically just plain noise is pervasive; the freedom to shout nonsense is inhibiting the freedom to hear a reasonable and diverse set of opinions and facts. Most (loud and repeated) messages are by corporations and other groups too; because that channel simply has more resources - and that's unfortunate not because corporations are intrinsically evil (which they aren't), but because people are intrinsically social and groups of people often quite the reverse; so that corporate "speech" in the form of campaign finance typically is plainly corruption - albeit legal, even if most of its constituent individuals are reasonably moral people. In short; we know the evils of censorship and have robust traditions to at least oppose that; but we do not have similar traditions vs. overload and deception, and indeed our (entirely reasonable) protections against censorship make us more vulnerable to these rising problems. Is there a solution? Who knows; but any solution certainly is not on the public radar yet let alone nearby. Secondly on democracy: It's pretty plausible that democracies undeniable success in the past centuries may have benefited in part be due to the uncanny wisdom of the crowds. But that effect has risks and flaws (a quick google finds e.g. https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20140708-when-crowd-wisdom-goes-wrong https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20140708-when-crowd-wisdo... discussing some of those). And as it so happens, simply because we communicate so much nowadays, we're always bombarded with what which constituency will vote / should vote / thinks / etc; in ways that would have been simply inconceivable a century ago. And exactly that kind of information turns out to critically undermine the wisdom of the crowds. Polling (and in general political commentary not on the substance but on the shifting political winds themselves) is poison to democracy. The more people know about how others vote and how they should vote... the worse they vote collectively. Democracy's decision making advantage is being eroded without any malice or election manipulation required; it's an entirely natural social process that indeed may well be the ultimate root cause of the polarization of US politics. We're not going to get congress to do much good until we can get democracy to work again; and we won't be able to do that until we have some way to address these fundamental, underlying weaknesses we currently face. Almost by definition if you can get one party on board, there will be another that's opposed - and a cacophony of voices shouting factually inconsistent statements, lies, disagreements, lobbying to the point that no unbiased sampling of voters will ever exist. So whether people have thought about it or not; everybody realizes that grand benign national changes are utterly beyond the divided, impotent congress that suggesting they do more then keep the lights on (and even that is pushing it nowadays!) is so naive as to come across as almost insincere.
jessaustin 7y ago
Congress should have oversight over TLAs, but unfortunately the converse is the case. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jul/31/cia-director-john-brennan-lied-senate https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jul/31/cia-di...
rdiddly 7y ago
Ideally and in my fondest wishes, you're right. In practice however, I think it has become a game only people with vast sums of money can play.
auiya 7y ago
> The public can change the composition of the Congress In theory. In practice, Congress members are not selected by a public electorate, but rather by careful gerrymandering practices paid for by corporate interests designed to benefit themselves financially. In the USA, you have no choice of your elected leaders.
- coliveira 7y ago
  Correct, technology and money make it possible for politicians to select voters, instead of voters selecting politicians.
coliveira 7y ago
The result of Citizens United was the death blow on American democracy. First, companies can put as much money as they want on elections, second, rich people control companies, and third, foreign countries also control companies. Put this together and the USA has no functioning democracy anymore, it is at the whims of billionaires and/or foreign powers.
- posterboy 7y ago
  There are many things more important than money, so either money doesn't break the system, or if it does, it's at least countable and potentially to be held accountable. It just makes sense to make that explicit.
- refurb 7y ago
  If money is so powerful, why is Michael Bloomberg not going to get the democratic nomination?
  - rplst8 7y ago
    Money, and the threat of money are both factors. There are bigger fish than Bloomberg.
  - Nasrudith 7y ago
    Really influence is a commodity which can and is bought and sold (see enorsements) and money may be used to purchase it but the two aren't identical. You can't just compare budgets and pick a winner unless both have comparable strategies and influence. It brings to mind a quixotic approach of trying to value influence quantitatively. Like trying to figure out how much value could be extracted from a celebrity endorsement.
  - coliveira 7y ago
    Because Bloomberg is not the only one with a lot of money trying to get the presidency.

vkou 7y ago

With the state secrets firewall, you have no idea whether or not you should change the composition of Congress.

nimbius 7y ago

id argue one cannot change the composition of congress. political propaganda is regulated through the big 3 media outlets, and is a one-way monologue reinforcing certain values and priorities. Congressional candidates respond only to the cash that is required to secure their elections, and thus their real constituency is comprised almost entirely of corporate interests.

aphextim 7y ago
>id argue one cannot change the composition of congress. I hope that if term limits ever become a thing, it would only take a few elections of well informed voters to start making the change. I think that congress is supposed to be a fluid body of people that are supposed to represent the population, and change as the population's interests change. What we have now is career politicians making it to congress, and then milking it with all the donations, re election groups and lobby groups funneling them money making it very hard to actually enact any real change. Even if one or two people make it to congress that are young and full of ideas/change they cannot get anything done because they are vastly outnumbered by the old fogies still writing policies like the 1950's.
- harikb 7y ago
  While terms limits solve one problem, it creates a far bigger one. Most well meaning “good people” have to sacrifice their career in order to serve in Politics. Yes, it is a career. But what is wrong with it? What do you think they should do with rest of their life? Moreover, it takes more than one term to achieve any meaningful change. Things like Obamacare didn’t just start with Obama. Major changes takes 10+ years. Congress/senators should be under better scrutiny, yes. Don’t let them become corrupt, prevent insider trading etc. but terms limits is not the solution to this problem. In my opinion I think term limit would rule out “poor people” from ever trying to run for office.
  - derivagral 7y ago
    Your point is valid here, but I'll mention that the type of people you feel would possibly be excluded are very likely already excluded by the current system.

aaomidi 7y ago

The public who cares about this have no say in all of the other seats of the house.

chishaku 7y ago

Why is this comment being downvoted? What alternatives are there other than achieving meaningful representation in government e.g. Congress?

mindslight 7y ago
It's being downvoted because it's utterly fallacious. The democratic process has been captured by mass media and turned into a simulation of choosing change. Divisive bikesheds are played up to the max, while the fundamental substantive issues like this are off the discussion table. Any candidate that dares to break rank and bring them up gets labeled "fringe" and memory-holed by the maintream media. The ultimate alternative is going to be voting from the rooftops, when we've finally become fed up with the results of their corruption.
- emn13 7y ago
  Furthermore; democracy relies on there being meaningful communication and an at least somewhat unbiased sampling of popular opinion. So firstly on meaningful communication: Under the guise of freedom of speech nowadays falsehoods, and even more critically just plain noise is pervasive; the freedom to shout nonsense is inhibiting the freedom to hear a reasonable and diverse set of opinions and facts. Most (loud and repeated) messages are by corporations and other groups too; because that channel simply has more resources - and that's unfortunate not because corporations are intrinsically evil (which they aren't), but because people are intrinsically social and groups of people often quite the reverse; so that corporate "speech" in the form of campaign finance typically is plainly corruption - albeit legal, even if most of its constituent individuals are reasonably moral people. In short; we know the evils of censorship and have robust traditions to at least oppose that; but we do not have similar traditions vs. overload and deception, and indeed our (entirely reasonable) protections against censorship make us more vulnerable to these rising problems. Is there a solution? Who knows; but any solution certainly is not on the public radar yet let alone nearby. Secondly on democracy: It's pretty plausible that democracies undeniable success in the past centuries may have benefited in part be due to the uncanny wisdom of the crowds. But that effect has risks and flaws (a quick google finds e.g. https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20140708-when-crowd-wisdom-goes-wrong https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20140708-when-crowd-wisdo... discussing some of those). And as it so happens, simply because we communicate so much nowadays, we're always bombarded with what which constituency will vote / should vote / thinks / etc; in ways that would have been simply inconceivable a century ago. And exactly that kind of information turns out to critically undermine the wisdom of the crowds. Polling (and in general political commentary not on the substance but on the shifting political winds themselves) is poison to democracy. The more people know about how others vote and how they should vote... the worse they vote collectively. Democracy's decision making advantage is being eroded without any malice or election manipulation required; it's an entirely natural social process that indeed may well be the ultimate root cause of the polarization of US politics. We're not going to get congress to do much good until we can get democracy to work again; and we won't be able to do that until we have some way to address these fundamental, underlying weaknesses we currently face. Almost by definition if you can get one party on board, there will be another that's opposed - and a cacophony of voices shouting factually inconsistent statements, lies, disagreements, lobbying to the point that no unbiased sampling of voters will ever exist. So whether people have thought about it or not; everybody realizes that grand benign national changes are utterly beyond the divided, impotent congress that suggesting they do more then keep the lights on (and even that is pushing it nowadays!) is so naive as to come across as almost insincere.

jessaustin 7y ago

Congress should have oversight over TLAs, but unfortunately the converse is the case. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jul/31/cia-director-john-brennan-lied-senate https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jul/31/cia-di...

rdiddly 7y ago

Ideally and in my fondest wishes, you're right. In practice however, I think it has become a game only people with vast sums of money can play.

auiya 7y ago

> The public can change the composition of the Congress In theory. In practice, Congress members are not selected by a public electorate, but rather by careful gerrymandering practices paid for by corporate interests designed to benefit themselves financially. In the USA, you have no choice of your elected leaders.

coliveira 7y ago
Correct, technology and money make it possible for politicians to select voters, instead of voters selecting politicians.

coliveira 7y ago

The result of Citizens United was the death blow on American democracy. First, companies can put as much money as they want on elections, second, rich people control companies, and third, foreign countries also control companies. Put this together and the USA has no functioning democracy anymore, it is at the whims of billionaires and/or foreign powers.

posterboy 7y ago
There are many things more important than money, so either money doesn't break the system, or if it does, it's at least countable and potentially to be held accountable. It just makes sense to make that explicit.
refurb 7y ago
If money is so powerful, why is Michael Bloomberg not going to get the democratic nomination?
- rplst8 7y ago
  Money, and the threat of money are both factors. There are bigger fish than Bloomberg.
- Nasrudith 7y ago
  Really influence is a commodity which can and is bought and sold (see enorsements) and money may be used to purchase it but the two aren't identical. You can't just compare budgets and pick a winner unless both have comparable strategies and influence. It brings to mind a quixotic approach of trying to value influence quantitatively. Like trying to figure out how much value could be extracted from a celebrity endorsement.
- coliveira 7y ago
  Because Bloomberg is not the only one with a lot of money trying to get the presidency.