6 ms·

While searching for a non-paywalled version, I stumbled on this gem from 9 years ago.. http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-05-10-nsa_x.htm http

by kefs 12y ago

While searching for a non-paywalled version, I stumbled on this gem from 9 years ago.. http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-05-10-nsa_x.htm http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-05-10-ns...

disposition2 12y ago
The reactions on the left are gems as well, especially since most of those quoted voted for retroactive immunity for the telecoms only a short time later [1]. 1 - https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/110-2008/s20 https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/110-2008/s20
- discardorama 12y ago
  In Washington, "left" and "right" are two sides of the same coin. The only difference is who they pay lipservice to: the left to the "poor", and the right to the "rich". Aside from this lipservice, they are both the same. Resolve to vote for someone not from the "(D)" or "(R)" side of the spectrum. It's time we got third parties in there.
  - mullingitover 12y ago
    It's a nice sentiment but the two party system is dominant by design. It's a feature that always emerges from winner take all voting systems.
    - xnull1guest 12y ago
      Time for a proportional representation clause.
    - prawn 12y ago
      You just need two-party preferred voting so that you can vote first for a niche representative if you wish and preference a major party. In Australia, for example, it allows parties outside the two majors to have some influence, which I think is healthy.
      - vidarh 12y ago
        Without proper proportional representation, a huge proportion people are still left with representation they actively disagree with.
    - vidarh 12y ago
      While that is often the case, it is not necessarily the case. Look at France for a counter-example. The downside is that the French "solution" was/is for the parties to enter into extensive election alliances to prevent splitting their potential voters, so it's an ugly workaround for a broken system, and you still get horrible distortions but it still better represents the actual views of the electorate.
  - eutectic 12y ago
    Obama gave us meaningful healthcare reform, bringing insurance to millions of people, brought financial reform, and avoided the crippling austerity that European countries have imposed. It would be silly to say that a Republican president would have been 'the same' just because Democrats have a shitty record on civil liberties.
    - CamperBob2 12y ago
      Actually, your example proves the very point you're arguing against. Obamacare is just a refinement of Romney's health care strategy in Massachusetts. If Romney had been elected instead, we'd have seen something very similar put into place, and the Democrats would have dutifully screamed bloody murder about it. Everyone in Washington privately agrees that something has to be done, and even on the key aspects of the required solution and timeline. But to keep the two-party illusion alive, they alternate between taking credit for it and blaming the people who actually do it. It's all just a show (specifically, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ralph_Wolf_and_Sam_Sheepdog http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ralph_Wolf_and_Sam_Sheepdog ).
gluczywo 12y ago
So we should have had this discussion in 2006... I'm wondering if this is a failure of journalism or a failure of democracy.
- xnull1guest 12y ago
  James Risen tried to publish it in 2004 but the Times fell to government pressure and refused to make the information public until over a year later (only because Risen threatened to tarnish their image over it); when the Times did publish it but buried under other stories. So... both.

by kefs 12y ago

disposition2 12y ago

The reactions on the left are gems as well, especially since most of those quoted voted for retroactive immunity for the telecoms only a short time later [1]. 1 - https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/110-2008/s20 https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/110-2008/s20

discardorama 12y ago
In Washington, "left" and "right" are two sides of the same coin. The only difference is who they pay lipservice to: the left to the "poor", and the right to the "rich". Aside from this lipservice, they are both the same. Resolve to vote for someone not from the "(D)" or "(R)" side of the spectrum. It's time we got third parties in there.
- mullingitover 12y ago
  It's a nice sentiment but the two party system is dominant by design. It's a feature that always emerges from winner take all voting systems.
  - xnull1guest 12y ago
    Time for a proportional representation clause.
  - prawn 12y ago
    You just need two-party preferred voting so that you can vote first for a niche representative if you wish and preference a major party. In Australia, for example, it allows parties outside the two majors to have some influence, which I think is healthy.
    - vidarh 12y ago
      Without proper proportional representation, a huge proportion people are still left with representation they actively disagree with.
  - vidarh 12y ago
    While that is often the case, it is not necessarily the case. Look at France for a counter-example. The downside is that the French "solution" was/is for the parties to enter into extensive election alliances to prevent splitting their potential voters, so it's an ugly workaround for a broken system, and you still get horrible distortions but it still better represents the actual views of the electorate.
- eutectic 12y ago
  Obama gave us meaningful healthcare reform, bringing insurance to millions of people, brought financial reform, and avoided the crippling austerity that European countries have imposed. It would be silly to say that a Republican president would have been 'the same' just because Democrats have a shitty record on civil liberties.
  - CamperBob2 12y ago
    Actually, your example proves the very point you're arguing against. Obamacare is just a refinement of Romney's health care strategy in Massachusetts. If Romney had been elected instead, we'd have seen something very similar put into place, and the Democrats would have dutifully screamed bloody murder about it. Everyone in Washington privately agrees that something has to be done, and even on the key aspects of the required solution and timeline. But to keep the two-party illusion alive, they alternate between taking credit for it and blaming the people who actually do it. It's all just a show (specifically, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ralph_Wolf_and_Sam_Sheepdog http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ralph_Wolf_and_Sam_Sheepdog ).

gluczywo 12y ago

So we should have had this discussion in 2006... I'm wondering if this is a failure of journalism or a failure of democracy.

xnull1guest 12y ago
James Risen tried to publish it in 2004 but the Times fell to government pressure and refused to make the information public until over a year later (only because Risen threatened to tarnish their image over it); when the Times did publish it but buried under other stories. So... both.