5 ms·

So the Democrats are the ones to blame for making a big story out of Snowden? That's a very interesting theory. And you follow it up with a long list of securi

So the Democrats are the ones to blame for making a big story out of Snowden? That's a very interesting theory. And you follow it up with a long list of security state problems. I don't want to dismiss you out of hand, but you have to acknowledge that not every person writing about Snowden is a Democrat, or manipulated by Democrats, or is somehow caught up in some tech celebrity hero worship. I hate tech celebrity stories. I'm a registered independent. Voted with the Republicans a couple of times nationally, with the Democrats a couple of times, and with a third party a couple of times. I find it strange to be accused of being manipulated by one party. Hell, it's both parties that got us into this mess. Why would the Democrats think they could control this message? They're going to lose as many, and maybe more, people from the center as the Republicans are. And if you're seriously suggesting that we need even more access and control over information, instead of just cleaning up the bureaucratic mess we already have, I'm at a loss for words. I suppose once the hole gets deep enough, the only logical choice is to keep digging? American security is in exactly the state that it deserves given the completely shitty leadership both parties have shown over the last 30 years or so. Nobody knows what their mandates are, nobody seems to have any idea of how to identify and properly assess threats, and there's hardly anybody in charge. This is a failure of Congress and the President. A good housecleaning would not only fix privacy issues, it might straighten the rest of the mess out. Maybe. It might be just that we've created an intelligence and security apparatus that's too damned big. In which case, it's all going to need to be decentralized/privatized/deregulated somehow. But all of that aside, your comment struck me as an attack on the readers and voters here, so I felt I should reply. Snowden is but a small story in a much larger tapestry of a security state gone to hell because of poor oversight and structure. I don't think the Democrats have any more or less to do with that than the Republicans. And I don't think they have much to gain by pointing out what a mess they've helped create.

skrebbel 13y ago
> I'm a registered independent Completely off topic, but what does this mean? (I'm not American). You register your political affiliation in the US? What for?
- LoganCale 13y ago
  Mostly to vote in primary elections, which occur within each party to vote for who will be nominated as that party's primary candidate.
  - skrebbel 13y ago
    So where do you register as an independent? Not at the democratic or republican party offices, I imagine. Does it grant you rights to vote in primaries of all parties? Or none? If the latter, what's the point?
    - LoganCale 13y ago
      You have to be registered with the government as a voter in order to vote at all. When you register, you list your party affiliation. If it is one of the major parties, that information also adds you to the party's list of members, granting you the ability to vote in their primary elections. If you register as an independent (e.g. unaffiliated) voter, it depends on what state you're in, but sometimes you can vote in either primary and sometimes none at all. Note that there is also an Independent Party, which is different from lowercase independent, meaning no party affiliation at all.
      - skrebbel 13y ago
        wow. I thought democracy meant voting is anonymous. Scary! Thanks for the explanation
        rdouble 13y ago
        Voting is anonymous. You register so you can receive the ballot.
        LoganCale 13y ago
        The vote you place is anonymous. Your vote is not tied to your voter registration, but you have to prove that you have registered in order to place that vote.
Daniel_Newby 13y ago
> I find it strange to be accused of being manipulated by one party. Indeed. From your point of view, you have gathered plenty of information, weeded out the crap, and applied careful logic to the good information. From your point of view, you have come to solid conclusions about the NSA and you do not like them. Any thinking person sees the obvious contradictions between spying and democracy, right? But why did you spend all that effort on the NSA issue? Their domestic surveillance has been an open secret for decades. If we go back to the OSS and its precursors, for the better part of a century. Out of the universe of thousands of current issues, matters of importance that have a public dialog going, why has this particular moldy old scandal been dug up and kept on the front page of CNN for weeks? Because somebody is keeping it there. You say that the Democrats stand to lose greatly from the NSA scandal. Not nearly as much as from the IRS debacle! They are terrified that if the IRS debacle stayed in the public consciousness, the Tea Party would be able to call a one month tax strike. That would cause a Social Security payment cycle to be delayed and destroy the DNP forever. Literally dedtroy, they would have the credibility of Whigs or Soviets afterwards. Hence the absolute desparation to plaster the news with anything, everything except IRS. We can also expect to see a parade of insane wars as distractions. Libya, Syria, who's next?
Daniel_Newby 13y ago
> And if you're seriously suggesting that we need even more access and control over information, ... We are rapidly approaching the day when anybody who wants a nuclear bomb can have one. I don't mean states, I mean disgruntled individuals. If a person can 3-D print one pistol, they can 3-D print a million pistols. If they can 3-D print a million pistols, they can 3-D print a million isotope separators. The total obsolescence of privacy is a given. Soon Total Information Awareness will not be a shadowy government conspiracy, it will be a mandate written into the Constitution. The only domestic intel question is whether it will be written by the planners or by the survivors.

skrebbel 13y ago

> I'm a registered independent Completely off topic, but what does this mean? (I'm not American). You register your political affiliation in the US? What for?

LoganCale 13y ago
Mostly to vote in primary elections, which occur within each party to vote for who will be nominated as that party's primary candidate.
- skrebbel 13y ago
  So where do you register as an independent? Not at the democratic or republican party offices, I imagine. Does it grant you rights to vote in primaries of all parties? Or none? If the latter, what's the point?
  - LoganCale 13y ago
    You have to be registered with the government as a voter in order to vote at all. When you register, you list your party affiliation. If it is one of the major parties, that information also adds you to the party's list of members, granting you the ability to vote in their primary elections. If you register as an independent (e.g. unaffiliated) voter, it depends on what state you're in, but sometimes you can vote in either primary and sometimes none at all. Note that there is also an Independent Party, which is different from lowercase independent, meaning no party affiliation at all.
    - skrebbel 13y ago
      wow. I thought democracy meant voting is anonymous. Scary! Thanks for the explanation
      - rdouble 13y ago
        Voting is anonymous. You register so you can receive the ballot.
      - LoganCale 13y ago
        The vote you place is anonymous. Your vote is not tied to your voter registration, but you have to prove that you have registered in order to place that vote.

Daniel_Newby 13y ago

> I find it strange to be accused of being manipulated by one party. Indeed. From your point of view, you have gathered plenty of information, weeded out the crap, and applied careful logic to the good information. From your point of view, you have come to solid conclusions about the NSA and you do not like them. Any thinking person sees the obvious contradictions between spying and democracy, right? But why did you spend all that effort on the NSA issue? Their domestic surveillance has been an open secret for decades. If we go back to the OSS and its precursors, for the better part of a century. Out of the universe of thousands of current issues, matters of importance that have a public dialog going, why has this particular moldy old scandal been dug up and kept on the front page of CNN for weeks? Because somebody is keeping it there. You say that the Democrats stand to lose greatly from the NSA scandal. Not nearly as much as from the IRS debacle! They are terrified that if the IRS debacle stayed in the public consciousness, the Tea Party would be able to call a one month tax strike. That would cause a Social Security payment cycle to be delayed and destroy the DNP forever. Literally dedtroy, they would have the credibility of Whigs or Soviets afterwards. Hence the absolute desparation to plaster the news with anything, everything except IRS. We can also expect to see a parade of insane wars as distractions. Libya, Syria, who's next?

Daniel_Newby 13y ago

> And if you're seriously suggesting that we need even more access and control over information, ... We are rapidly approaching the day when anybody who wants a nuclear bomb can have one. I don't mean states, I mean disgruntled individuals. If a person can 3-D print one pistol, they can 3-D print a million pistols. If they can 3-D print a million pistols, they can 3-D print a million isotope separators. The total obsolescence of privacy is a given. Soon Total Information Awareness will not be a shadowy government conspiracy, it will be a mandate written into the Constitution. The only domestic intel question is whether it will be written by the planners or by the survivors.