4 ms·

This can keeps getting kicked down the road a couple years. Bundled into some other huge bill or abother. Not too long an extension usually, but gee, sure seems

This can keeps getting kicked down the road a couple years. Bundled into some other huge bill or abother. Not too long an extension usually, but gee, sure seems unlikely Congress will ever have to actually reckon with their monsters ever, will ever have to re-decide a thing that was deliberately explicitly built as a short term thing to be re-evaluated. > But these conversations were halted after Congress and the Biden administration squeezed a short-term extension of the spy program through the annual defense bill, potentially keeping it in effect until 2025. I am a strong leftist progressive who believes in strong competent doing government, very much. But the inability of government to have to face up to old decisions & evaluate how things have been going & make new better informed decisions keeps being super undermined by awful shitty omnibus bills. (Personally I think one party actively sabotages the system & does not want governance or compromise, but anyways...)

hilbert42 3y ago
"This can keeps getting kicked down the road a couple years." And it will continue to do so because the only people who care about the matter are the few who read columns like this. Similarly, we see the same apathy amongst the masses when it comes to copyright reform. To overturn decisions of entrenched power—government or corporate—we need the masses to react and demonstrate in the way they did during the Vietnam War and there's no stomach around for that these days (there's been no such reaction for 50 years). Opponents of such laws just have to accept the fact that they don't have the numbers and likely won't for some considerable time.
- pas 3y ago
  grassroots efforts work in a lot of cases. it of course doesn't mean it can be done by sending a few handwritten snail mails only, but a lot can be achieved through slow and steady activism and the necessary coalition building. recently protest-driven movements turned into hyperpoliticized empty performative shells of themselves, mostly through the radicalization process driven by the interplay of inciteful keyboard warriors and the gullible ones eager to please on the streets.
  - hilbert42 3y ago
    "grassroots efforts work in a lot of cases." True, but I'd deemphasize 'a lot of cases' to just 'some' cases. Decades ago I was involved in a successful grassroots effort to have changes made to broadcasting law where I am and it was successful but the change was only possible because opposition was minimal and the then laws were grossly out of date. Issues where money is involved—especially where stakeholders have the potential to lose money even if it amounts to a pittance as in some proposals for copyright reform—will be vehemently opposed by stakeholders more on principle than from actual potential loss. Same goes for matters over security, when Government claims some need for new law over spying/security—whether justifiable or not—then the majority won't give the matter a second thought on grounds that (a) it doesn't concern them personally [even when it does, as here], and (b) they just assume Government is in a better possession of the facts thus has some justifiable reason to implement new law. Laws on security are passed by default as no one wants to be blamed in the otherwise unlikely event something will go wrong. Moreover, these days, there is also a worrying trend for many people to want to seem to be reasonable and non-confrontational which has the effect of self-censorship, this leads to debate being stifled. In such circumstances overturning unjust or unreasonable law is nigh on impossible unless some catastrophic event mandates change, and this rarely if ever occurs. One of the major problems with modern democracy is that so few citizens brother to scrutinize laws that do not concern them personally, this allows 'bad' law to be legislated or continue to exist at the instigation of those who have a vested interest in seeing the existence of such laws. As inevitably 'bad' law is backed by the politically and or financially powerful, those who oppose such law simply can never muster the critical mass necessary to achieve change. Every cause I've supported in recent decades has suffered from this effect. I've given up expecting to see the law change in my lifetime. That might sound defeatist but the data suggests I'm correct.
    - pas 3y ago
      > inevitably 'bad' law is backed by the politically and or financially powerful, those who oppose such law simply can never muster the critical mass necessary to achieve change well, I don't know, some hard data would be good to have for this discussion. to me it seems there is a big status quo bias for a lot of things, which keep bad stuff on the books, and during populist surges more bad stuff ends up on the pile (looking at the recent crazy anti-abortion laws) that said it's really strange how things seem to be falling apart while intersectionality is on the news a lot. but of course performativity is also at its peak (and there's still some steps to go before we reach a McCarthy-era hysteria), but real coalition building is rare (and hard, and requires compromises, and due to the constant one-upmanship of keyboard warriors moderates are excommunicated by the raging mobs) and due to one of the fundamental differences between progressive and reactionary ideology being conformity (and basically forced ideological homogeneity and purity) one group tends to push the needle during these populist surges not the other so, as I said, data would probably shine some light on this, but after reading slowboring.com a lot one of the takeaways is that the median voter doesn't really have amazing politics, so whether they care or not doesn't lead to big progress. but that's where persistent campaigns can make some difference, by educating people. (just as unfortunately propaganda can also make fine work of people's minds the same way.)
- mrangle 3y ago
  You labor under the delusion that protests are not state level intimidation and excuse to ram through what they want to, against a small obstacle that isn't with the program: popular opinion (seemingly most common), an institution, or a branch of government. Actual grassroots protests, often representing true popular opinion, get demonized and buried by the press. Participants are prosecuted as far as they can be. Any protests that bring "change" get the opposite treatment, and coincidentally commonly take on a severely antidemocratic tone rooted in the threat of violence against innocents.
jevoten 3y ago
> awful shitty omnibus bills Several countries have bans on omnibus bills [1], so like billboards [2], this is a solvable problem. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-subject_rule https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-subject_rule [2] https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2015/aug/11/can-cities-kick-ads-ban-urban-billboards https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2015/aug/11/can-cities-ki...
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
ThunderSizzle 3y ago
> I am a strong leftist progressive who believes in strong competent doing government, very much So your a conservative in the US since the US Federal government is probably the worst example of competency...? Or do you still prefer a strong incompetent fascist government to a weaker competent government that has checks and balances to it?
- socrates137 3y ago
  I think your question at the end is a good one for discussion. But let’s be honest, even “conservatives” in the U.S. aren’t fighting for small government. It’s barely given lip service, and only when they’re trying to justify gutting government funding. They’re often the ones pushing for authoritarian measures and flirting with outright Nazis at this rate. I say this as someone who misses the principled “small government” conservative. I didn’t agree with them in a great many ways, but at least I respected them.
  - Snow_Falls 3y ago
    Often when I see people advocating for small government, they mostly mean cutting things that they don't use. It's always about cutting welfare, or ending this or that subsidy. Why does (in my country at least) it seem that the "small government" types are the ones that want to criminalise protest, destroy privacy and encryption and make us scan our faces to watch porn (whatever you feel about the subject, can we atleast agree that that is a step to far?). Heck our "small governments" types are trying to get the face of everyone with driver's license in a police database.
- Snow_Falls 3y ago
  "Do you agree with me or are you a fascist?" Come on, you're being unfair. "strong government" can mean many things, strong regulation in the e.g. gambling industry is something a strong goverment does but that doesn't mean it's fascist. Also, the idea that a weak government is the only kind that has checks and balances is just silly. Not to mention there are plenty of leftists that very much want a weak government, not just conservatives. E.g. libertarian socialism, left-wing anarchists, the strong tradition of syndicalist in the US. Also, you must live a charmed life if you have access to the internet and believe that the US government is the worst example of competency.

hilbert42 3y ago

"This can keeps getting kicked down the road a couple years." And it will continue to do so because the only people who care about the matter are the few who read columns like this. Similarly, we see the same apathy amongst the masses when it comes to copyright reform. To overturn decisions of entrenched power—government or corporate—we need the masses to react and demonstrate in the way they did during the Vietnam War and there's no stomach around for that these days (there's been no such reaction for 50 years). Opponents of such laws just have to accept the fact that they don't have the numbers and likely won't for some considerable time.

pas 3y ago
grassroots efforts work in a lot of cases. it of course doesn't mean it can be done by sending a few handwritten snail mails only, but a lot can be achieved through slow and steady activism and the necessary coalition building. recently protest-driven movements turned into hyperpoliticized empty performative shells of themselves, mostly through the radicalization process driven by the interplay of inciteful keyboard warriors and the gullible ones eager to please on the streets.
- hilbert42 3y ago
  "grassroots efforts work in a lot of cases." True, but I'd deemphasize 'a lot of cases' to just 'some' cases. Decades ago I was involved in a successful grassroots effort to have changes made to broadcasting law where I am and it was successful but the change was only possible because opposition was minimal and the then laws were grossly out of date. Issues where money is involved—especially where stakeholders have the potential to lose money even if it amounts to a pittance as in some proposals for copyright reform—will be vehemently opposed by stakeholders more on principle than from actual potential loss. Same goes for matters over security, when Government claims some need for new law over spying/security—whether justifiable or not—then the majority won't give the matter a second thought on grounds that (a) it doesn't concern them personally [even when it does, as here], and (b) they just assume Government is in a better possession of the facts thus has some justifiable reason to implement new law. Laws on security are passed by default as no one wants to be blamed in the otherwise unlikely event something will go wrong. Moreover, these days, there is also a worrying trend for many people to want to seem to be reasonable and non-confrontational which has the effect of self-censorship, this leads to debate being stifled. In such circumstances overturning unjust or unreasonable law is nigh on impossible unless some catastrophic event mandates change, and this rarely if ever occurs. One of the major problems with modern democracy is that so few citizens brother to scrutinize laws that do not concern them personally, this allows 'bad' law to be legislated or continue to exist at the instigation of those who have a vested interest in seeing the existence of such laws. As inevitably 'bad' law is backed by the politically and or financially powerful, those who oppose such law simply can never muster the critical mass necessary to achieve change. Every cause I've supported in recent decades has suffered from this effect. I've given up expecting to see the law change in my lifetime. That might sound defeatist but the data suggests I'm correct.
  - pas 3y ago
    > inevitably 'bad' law is backed by the politically and or financially powerful, those who oppose such law simply can never muster the critical mass necessary to achieve change well, I don't know, some hard data would be good to have for this discussion. to me it seems there is a big status quo bias for a lot of things, which keep bad stuff on the books, and during populist surges more bad stuff ends up on the pile (looking at the recent crazy anti-abortion laws) that said it's really strange how things seem to be falling apart while intersectionality is on the news a lot. but of course performativity is also at its peak (and there's still some steps to go before we reach a McCarthy-era hysteria), but real coalition building is rare (and hard, and requires compromises, and due to the constant one-upmanship of keyboard warriors moderates are excommunicated by the raging mobs) and due to one of the fundamental differences between progressive and reactionary ideology being conformity (and basically forced ideological homogeneity and purity) one group tends to push the needle during these populist surges not the other so, as I said, data would probably shine some light on this, but after reading slowboring.com a lot one of the takeaways is that the median voter doesn't really have amazing politics, so whether they care or not doesn't lead to big progress. but that's where persistent campaigns can make some difference, by educating people. (just as unfortunately propaganda can also make fine work of people's minds the same way.)
mrangle 3y ago
You labor under the delusion that protests are not state level intimidation and excuse to ram through what they want to, against a small obstacle that isn't with the program: popular opinion (seemingly most common), an institution, or a branch of government. Actual grassroots protests, often representing true popular opinion, get demonized and buried by the press. Participants are prosecuted as far as they can be. Any protests that bring "change" get the opposite treatment, and coincidentally commonly take on a severely antidemocratic tone rooted in the threat of violence against innocents.

jevoten 3y ago

> awful shitty omnibus bills Several countries have bans on omnibus bills [1], so like billboards [2], this is a solvable problem. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-subject_rule https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-subject_rule [2] https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2015/aug/11/can-cities-kick-ads-ban-urban-billboards https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2015/aug/11/can-cities-ki...

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

ThunderSizzle 3y ago

> I am a strong leftist progressive who believes in strong competent doing government, very much So your a conservative in the US since the US Federal government is probably the worst example of competency...? Or do you still prefer a strong incompetent fascist government to a weaker competent government that has checks and balances to it?

socrates137 3y ago
I think your question at the end is a good one for discussion. But let’s be honest, even “conservatives” in the U.S. aren’t fighting for small government. It’s barely given lip service, and only when they’re trying to justify gutting government funding. They’re often the ones pushing for authoritarian measures and flirting with outright Nazis at this rate. I say this as someone who misses the principled “small government” conservative. I didn’t agree with them in a great many ways, but at least I respected them.
- Snow_Falls 3y ago
  Often when I see people advocating for small government, they mostly mean cutting things that they don't use. It's always about cutting welfare, or ending this or that subsidy. Why does (in my country at least) it seem that the "small government" types are the ones that want to criminalise protest, destroy privacy and encryption and make us scan our faces to watch porn (whatever you feel about the subject, can we atleast agree that that is a step to far?). Heck our "small governments" types are trying to get the face of everyone with driver's license in a police database.
Snow_Falls 3y ago
"Do you agree with me or are you a fascist?" Come on, you're being unfair. "strong government" can mean many things, strong regulation in the e.g. gambling industry is something a strong goverment does but that doesn't mean it's fascist. Also, the idea that a weak government is the only kind that has checks and balances is just silly. Not to mention there are plenty of leftists that very much want a weak government, not just conservatives. E.g. libertarian socialism, left-wing anarchists, the strong tradition of syndicalist in the US. Also, you must live a charmed life if you have access to the internet and believe that the US government is the worst example of competency.