3 ms·
> Personally, I would like to see an additional censure on Obama and all other executive, legislative, and judicial officials who abrogated their duty to protec
by fixxer 13y ago
> Personally, I would like to see an additional censure on Obama and all other executive, legislative, and judicial officials who abrogated their duty to protect the Constitution of the United States of America. It needs to be our harshest censure, to send a message to future administrations that secret coups will not be tolerated.
But, who will keep us safe!
If you want to see reform, you've got to start winning the hearts and minds of the American public and convince them the surveillance state is a bad thing. I think that is going to be a challenge. I know a lot of people who still say "I've got nothing to hide", etc. Truth is it takes very little to scare them into thinking the government needs to do everything in its power to protect them. Case in point, the Boston bombing, which was horrible (I'm not discounting it). But, have we seen any increase in regulatory pressure on fertilizer plants? I'm far more "worried" (=rationally aware of the risk) about the anhydrous ammonia plant on the other side of town.
There are approximately 10,000 federal statutes, many of which never get enforced because they are either too difficult or so completely asinine that nobody cares (http://tjshome.com/dumblaws.php http://tjshome.com/dumblaws.php). Just wait until the infrastructure gets to the point where it allows total information awareness on the general population and everything gets enforced. That is a bureaucrat's wet dream.
- javajosh 13y ago> winning the hearts and minds of the American public and convince them the surveillance state is a bad thing. Actually, no! While I agree it is a terrible thing, the even worse thing is that the surveillance state was created without the knowledge or consent of the public. That is, as bad as the first-order action was, the second-order precedent is far, far worse.
- fixxer 13y agoI don't understand your argument. I think you might have misread mine. I'm saying that in order to undo the surveillance state, you have to convince the general public that mass surveillance is bad. HN readers might realize it, but the average US citizen does not. BTW, "who will keep us safe" was sarcastic. Sorry if that wasn't obvious.