We can if you want, as I said, I think even if you only look at classified government whistleblowers, I think it's easily a net benefit for this country.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
PoliGAF 2013 |OT2| Worth 77% of OT1
- Thread starter The Librarian
- Start date
- Status
ClassyPenguin
Banned
True, but I don't think Snowden was a hero for it in this case. I don't want to see him treated like Manning, though.
I'm not particularly concerned about his heroism, and I'm not even saying that every leak no matter what is justified and that no leaker should ever be punished.
I do however think that the administration reaction to him (and other whistleblowers) damage this country much more that the actual leaks.
Historically, we had significantly more cases of the government using secrecy to abuse its power than leaks causing harm to this country security.
I personally hate programs like PRISM, I don't think this country faces threats that justify them, but even in the abstract, I'd rather err on the side of transparency.
The woman holding on to her has the right idea :-D
Wendy is currently a star . . . but Kirk Watson, Wendy Davis, Leticia Van de Putte and Royce West (the guy to the left, the woman to the right, and the guy to the right of Wendy) deserve some serious props. Without them them, the filibuster would have failed. I was annoyed every time I read an article saying Wendy "single-handedly" beat the law. I'm sure she wouldn't like that phrasing either.
eBay Huckster
Member
CHEEZMO;67614091 said:
There's me, but I don't really post too often about policy.
ClassyPenguin
Banned
Don't get me wrong, I am all for transparency. Almost to EV levels, but I also know the difference on how the world works and how it should. I think the FISA court and things like drone strikes should be published under the Freedom of Information Act.
I am glad he leaked the information that he did, but since seeing his interviews, the man strikes me as um, dumb. And that's just reading his words and Greenwald's. I really don't care what anyone else says, but the way he comes off and his logic, his way of thinking comes off as someone who just has a grudge and nothing more.
Like I said before, I don't think the majority feels wronged. I think maybe fifteen years ago, even just after 9/11 this would have been the big story, but now, after Google, Facebook and Twitter, I just don't think people care that their data is being collected because by using those services, we give that out voluntarily.
I am glad he leaked the information that he did, but since seeing his interviews, the man strikes me as um, dumb. And that's just reading his words and Greenwald's. I really don't care what anyone else says, but the way he comes off and his logic, his way of thinking comes off as someone who just has a grudge and nothing more.
Like I said before, I don't think the majority feels wronged. I think maybe fifteen years ago, even just after 9/11 this would have been the big story, but now, after Google, Facebook and Twitter, I just don't think people care that their data is being collected because by using those services, we give that out voluntarily.
http://articles.washingtonpost.com/...t-member-hillary-rodham-clinton-facebook-page
A fellow gaffer in a chat room thinks this should indicate that Hillary is not running.
What say you, PoliGAF?
A fellow gaffer in a chat room thinks this should indicate that Hillary is not running.
What say you, PoliGAF?
There was this thread.CHEEZMO;67614091 said:
zero shift
Banned
What's the difference between communism and anarchism?
She's not running for president until she's running for president.
ClassyPenguin
Banned
They're almost opposites? Communism entails full State control or rather in Marxist terms, full equal control of autonomy which:
Anarchism, means the individual over the entity. This is why Capitalism and Anarchism intercept so much and why libertarians value the individual. Anarcho-communism gets a bit more muddy.
From my, undereducated understanding at least.
You mean Marx's definition of communism?
Very little, mostly it's about the way you get to it.
zero shift
Banned
What are the two ways?
Marx is not exactly coherent on those things (and I'm not a Marxist) but it's generally should go through socialism.
Anarchism generally (though again, there are many flavors of anarchism) goes stateless much sooner.
zero shift
Banned
Outside of Spain. Anarchism has never really took off. Its always been about Communism. I wonder why Communism was the far left route most nations chose (even prior Soviet dominance).
ClassyPenguin
Banned
It was the umbrella term of progressivism. Before all that Soviet stuff was well-known about.
Labor movements, social welfare, equal treatment was all being bankrolled by Party dues in the States.
Communism according to Marx is stateless, plus it can only come after superabundance, no one had tried it, not one could've tried it.
Though again, I'm not a Marxist.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
This debate is probably the most we've gotten into political philosophy that I've seen at least.
TheHeretic
Banned
They should cut Snowden loose, he did legitimate whistle blowing in revealing a Government program people should at least know in the abstract. As for the program, I have no problem with Governments using big data analysis for counter terrorism. Compared to other counterterrorism programs it's downright sensible. It does move into the domain of big brother but that really depends on the application. I myself work develop big data systems as my career of choice, the idea that one particular persons activities can be viewed is just counter to how these things work.
ClassyPenguin
Banned
Yeah, but he did flee to countries, even tough HK and the Russian airport isn't strictly evidence, the intention is there. Why flee at all? Why not arm yourself publicly in the States, the country which felt that wronged you, in order to the right.
My guess is because what they did to Bradly Manning.
TheHeretic
Banned
He should have siphoned the relevant data out over time and sent it to journalists encrypted without revealing himself. I doubt they would have ever found him. He's done this all wrong and going down in a blaze of glory isn't a smart move.
Maybe you're right, but had he done it I'm pretty sure that the people who are now calling him a traitor for running out of the country would've called him coward for not coming forward.
Angry Fork
Member
And if he did come forward, was arrested, tortured, put in solitary, sexually harassed etc. they'd say he deserved it like they do Manning. They're not interested in justice or any moral high ground they just want this guy caught and dealt with however the state feels like they should be dealt with.
And they will forever remain quiet on the torturers of the Bush admin that Obama refused to go after because "we should look forward not backwards." They have no foot to stand on except irrational flag waving excuses and Stalinist arguments justifying authoritarianism.
History will vindicate all of these brave people and years from now the clowns supporting the state at this moment will have to hide the opinions they used to hold for fear of embarrassment and ridicule.
eBay Huckster
Member
yeah, while i've been attacking snowden on the grounds that he's a paulist nutjob
i ultimately agree with what he did, because how the hell else is state authority going to see any kind of limits?
i ultimately agree with what he did, because how the hell else is state authority going to see any kind of limits?
cooljeanius
Member
I was part of that... He called me a "little jerk" when I asked him about it when he came to my high school...
The Librarian
Banned
If you're looking for a 2012 Mitt Romney campaign retrospective, this book seems like a good place to start.
It confirms what we already knew: Mitt Romney genuinely believed he was going to win.
Also, Chris Christie really does have a temper. But we already knew that too.
It confirms what we already knew: Mitt Romney genuinely believed he was going to win.
By the time Election Day approached, Romney was confident he was going to win, as was widely reported. But Balz adds another gem to the story line: Vice presidential nominee Paul Ryan was even more confident.
Also, Chris Christie really does have a temper. But we already knew that too.
The Republican National Convention, Balz reports, was chaotic. Christie threatened to drop an F-bomb during his primetime speech if organizers cut down his introduction video by three minutes (they were nervous about getting everything done by 11 p.m.). Organizers relented. Meanwhile, Clint Eastwood's primetime address to an empty chair caught Romney's team completely off guard -- which one Romney adviser confirmed to The Huffington Post.
Yeah, for me the Snowden issue is three wrapped into one: the role and lawfulness of whistleblowers, and the distinction of where disclosure helps versus harms; the constitutionality or ethics of the NSA's monitoring activities, and whether this is a "liberty/security" imbalance; and Snowden's motives himself and how he has willfully placed himself at the center of this story.
Precisely. Snowden sounds and acts like a tool, which partially discredits his cause. His martyrdom is entirely of his own making; if I had thought he was doing it out of something more altruistic it wouldn't bother me as much, but... well I imagine everyone here has seen his urbane IRC comments, etc.
The constitutionality thing to me is a bit of a moot point, because the main issue is that nothing the NSA was doing was wrong under the relevant surveillance acts. Those need to get repealed and stiffer protocols need to be made on what you do with data after investigations, etc. Frankly considering the total number of people we've lost to terrorist attacks, I'm willing to roll the dice on having them perform their duties without the massive snooping (I imagine a sensible foreign policy would help reduce the motivation too, but that's another issue.)
Finally there's the whistleblowing. There's no doubt that "going to the public" with concerns, after you've attempted to deal with the system, is probably going to get more of a reaction; elected and unelected officials feeling pressure from scrutiny is a good thing and generally greases the cogs. But there is actually a reason for "national security" concerns, as overused as that mantra is, and the entire way Snowden went about the disclosures (foreign media, leaving the country preemptively and disclosing his identity) make me feel slimy about it.
I see the Bradley Manning connections come up time and time again, but I think it's tin foil suspicion to say the same thing would have happened to Snowden. He's a private citizen versus a guy in the army; you definitely don't want to be the latter in a disciplinary setting.
Precisely. Snowden sounds and acts like a tool, which partially discredits his cause. His martyrdom is entirely of his own making; if I had thought he was doing it out of something more altruistic it wouldn't bother me as much, but... well I imagine everyone here has seen his urbane IRC comments, etc.
The constitutionality thing to me is a bit of a moot point, because the main issue is that nothing the NSA was doing was wrong under the relevant surveillance acts. Those need to get repealed and stiffer protocols need to be made on what you do with data after investigations, etc. Frankly considering the total number of people we've lost to terrorist attacks, I'm willing to roll the dice on having them perform their duties without the massive snooping (I imagine a sensible foreign policy would help reduce the motivation too, but that's another issue.)
Finally there's the whistleblowing. There's no doubt that "going to the public" with concerns, after you've attempted to deal with the system, is probably going to get more of a reaction; elected and unelected officials feeling pressure from scrutiny is a good thing and generally greases the cogs. But there is actually a reason for "national security" concerns, as overused as that mantra is, and the entire way Snowden went about the disclosures (foreign media, leaving the country preemptively and disclosing his identity) make me feel slimy about it.
I see the Bradley Manning connections come up time and time again, but I think it's tin foil suspicion to say the same thing would have happened to Snowden. He's a private citizen versus a guy in the army; you definitely don't want to be the latter in a disciplinary setting.
I can talk about communism. Karl Marx was originally an economist and philosopher. He thought that the society, since the beginning, is divided into two main castes: the proletarians* (worker who only own their hands to work and their children**) and the "rich people" (the bosses, those who own the production means). He said that there is a fight between these two, because "rich people" ( or bourgeois capitalist) tend to exploit the proletarians. The Industrial Revolution in Europe permited technological progress, we saw the apparition of factories and mass production but the condition of the proletarians became unbearable: their tasks were exhausting, they had to work in the rhythm of machines like machines, they could not educate themself, etc.
The final goal of marxism (and not socialism, because it can mean a lot of things) is to reach the end of this unfair relationship by destroying castes; there would be no State at the end because, for him, it is always led by the bourgeois; people would organized themself alone, electing people for their localities; there we see similarities with anarchism (In the global idea).
But before that, there must be a revolution where will ermege a powerful but temporary State (led by proletarians) that will end the property era and begin the collectivist one: nationalisation (all the private firms belong to the State, the "people"), planning (the system wants results, they fix some objectives, like production rate, and they must meet it at the end of the year), culture and education (the worker, the human being must improve his mind and understand what's around. In fact, communist regimes, like cuba or USSR, have or had a pretty strong school institution). Work is essential in Marx's philosophy, he thought that a human being has to work to develop himself. That's why there is always all this focus on the Worker and the Industry (the good one, not the capitalist one
).The issue is that communism require a well developed proletarian caste to be effective. Marx didn't imagine Russia as the model, but UK and France where there were thinkers and well organized trade unions. If there is not enough maturity in the proletarian caste, there are important risks of abuses.
Now Socialism: the real socialism is a different approach to marxism. The point is that they are trying to reach equality by reforms in a democratic system (communism is not democratic). There is no revolution. But Socialism is kind of dead ideologically, parties don't refer anymore to marxism because equality and social improvement is difficult to support in a liberal economical context, it is now social democracy (social capitalism, lol)
Personnally, I am kinda socialist (marxist), French stuff you know.
*That's a 19th century concept, but we can universalize it to all the poor workers.
**Except slaves I guess.
Edit: Very interesting stuff, Karl Marx also predicted that there would be a revolution anyway, or a big end at least. I explain myself: as economist he saw that capitalism was a very bad system that tend to create inequalities and pauperization phenomenons that will make it collapse from itself. Who could buy that this insane way of life could last eternally? Some yolo thinkers like Adam Smith?
Ignatz Mouse
Banned
That would suggest that the statement was written for him by somebody who was trained in British English rather than American English.
The Librarian
Banned
"We're free! Freeeeeeeeeee!"
The GOP chairman of the state Senate rules committee, Sen. Tom Apodaca, said he would move quickly to pass a voter ID law that Republicans say would bolster the integrity of the balloting process. GOP leaders also began engineering an end to the state's early voting, Sunday voting and same-day registration provisions, all popular with black voters. Civil rights groups say the moves are designed to restrict poll access by blacks, who vote reliably Democratic.
...
Apodaca said the previous requirements for federal preclearance caused "legal headaches" in passing such measures as voter ID in response to legitimate concerns over voter fraud. It's time, he told reporters, to bring the Voting Rights Act "into this century, not the last century."
...
The new moves by state officials to adopt ID requirements and other changes in the voting laws can have a critical impact on black voting strength, civil rights leaders say. Blacks represented 22% of North Carolina's registered voters in 2012 but accounted for 34% of voters without a driver's license or state-issued ID this year, according to Democracy North Carolina, a liberal advocacy group. The group says blacks in 2012 made up 29% of early voters and 34% of same-day registration voters.
...
Apodaca said the previous requirements for federal preclearance caused "legal headaches" in passing such measures as voter ID in response to legitimate concerns over voter fraud. It's time, he told reporters, to bring the Voting Rights Act "into this century, not the last century."
...
The new moves by state officials to adopt ID requirements and other changes in the voting laws can have a critical impact on black voting strength, civil rights leaders say. Blacks represented 22% of North Carolina's registered voters in 2012 but accounted for 34% of voters without a driver's license or state-issued ID this year, according to Democracy North Carolina, a liberal advocacy group. The group says blacks in 2012 made up 29% of early voters and 34% of same-day registration voters.
Frank the Great
Banned
Hopefully it backfires on them just like it did in 2012. Unbelievable. Voter ID they can at least sell as an attempt to reduce fraud (even if the fraud is non-existent), but ending early voting and getting rid of voting on Sundays is brazenly racially motivated. Good job SCOTUS.
Also, on an unrelated note, I just realized something ironic. SCOTUS's conservative wing upheld Indiana's Voter ID law even though Indiana had produced zero evidence of voter fraud, but they struck down the VRA because there was not enough evidence that the coverage formula should still be applicable. Just another instance of the conservative Justices picking and choosing which Constitutional provisions to place more importance on based on their political leanings. Actually, that's unfair, because the VRA decision wasn't based on the Constitution.
Also, on an unrelated note, I just realized something ironic. SCOTUS's conservative wing upheld Indiana's Voter ID law even though Indiana had produced zero evidence of voter fraud, but they struck down the VRA because there was not enough evidence that the coverage formula should still be applicable. Just another instance of the conservative Justices picking and choosing which Constitutional provisions to place more importance on based on their political leanings. Actually, that's unfair, because the VRA decision wasn't based on the Constitution.
I don't get it though... the VRA isn't stopping poorly planned voter ID, well, i guess it stopped it early, but any kind of disenfranchising voter id will go to SCOTUS before too long. State courts stopped voter id last election, it will not be approved for the next election either.
Its a shame the democrats will wait until next year to politicize the new VRA coverage formula when I think its a fight that no one in the GOP wants leading up to an election, and could be passed earlier if proper focus was put upon it
Its a shame the democrats will wait until next year to politicize the new VRA coverage formula when I think its a fight that no one in the GOP wants leading up to an election, and could be passed earlier if proper focus was put upon it
jamesinclair
Banned
Remember that video out of the wall street journal last month that put the Onion to shame?
Theeeyre baaaaaaack.
Some insight into how the media sees the world from their glass box in the sky. And why if you give the WSJ money you're a terrorist.
Note: Send her to the loony bin. A study last week revealed that cyclists stop at lights 94% of the time.
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2013/06/dorothy-rabinowitz-lets-loose.html
Americas elite.
Theeeyre baaaaaaack.
Some insight into how the media sees the world from their glass box in the sky. And why if you give the WSJ money you're a terrorist.
Note: Send her to the loony bin. A study last week revealed that cyclists stop at lights 94% of the time.
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2013/06/dorothy-rabinowitz-lets-loose.html
Americas elite.
I think they do, but they figure that since they're never going to get African-Americans to vote for them in large numbers they're better off disenfranchising them as much as possible. These sorts of laws have always been generally against low-income voters, it just happens that blacks make up a huge part of that demo and they're willing to lose some other votes in the service of a larger goal.
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
The final goal of marxism (and not socialism, because it can mean a lot of things) is to reach the end of this unfair relationship by destroying castes; there would be no State at the end because, for him, it is always led by the bourgeois; people would organized themself alone, electing people for their localities; there we see similarities with anarchism (In the global idea).
But before that, there must be a revolution where will ermege a powerful but temporary State (led by proletarians) that will end the property era and begin the collectivist one: nationalisation (all the private firms belong to the State, the "people"), planning (the system wants results, they fix some objectives, like production rate, and they must meet it at the end of the year), culture and education (the worker, the human being must improve his mind and understand what's around. In fact, communist regimes, like cuba or USSR, have or had a pretty strong school institution). Work is essential in Marx's philosophy, he thought that a human being has to work to develop himself. That's why there is always all this focus on the Worker and the Industry (the good one, not the capitalist one
Yeah, I love Marx, I think he was brilliant in a lot of ways, but this is where I usually end up disagreeing with him. I believe that the State is an emergent development of basically any population of sufficient size and that if you do successfully abolish it, even after the described revolution and temporary period of a strong State, eventually another State will arise and it might be the foundation for such a caste system all over again. Hence why I'm more in the "lets get to a state that is controlled by the people" area.
Of course even that is complicated when we get to things like the meaning of "control" and the problems of information management and why direct democracy is terrible, etc etc.
TacticalFox88
Banned
Is anyone else in that period of their lives where they lose faith in humanity one day, and in the very next it gets restored?
Fuck me. I need to stay off social media.
Fuck me. I need to stay off social media.
Ignatz Mouse
Banned
The problem with all "pure" political theories is that the argue for some sort of statis or endpoint, which is never going to happen.
There is no end.
There is no end.
RoninChaos
Member
I'll probably grab the book when it hits bargain bin. Definitely interested in it.
PhoenixDark
Banned
So who will play Mitt Romney in HBO's Game Change 2: Electric Boogalo?
NYCmetsfan
Banned
Yup that's exactly it.......
And that argument in the last paragraph sounds like something the soviet union would have said or anti-capitalists in the 20th century. Never really worked out.
The problem with you're characterization of people that any disagreement they have is because they love authoritarianism and are closest stalinists is you turn them away from wanting to work with you even when they agree on certain points. Its all or nothing.
Chait was mentioning this in regards to greenwald I think it fits perfectly with many on the board as well.
PhoenixDark
Banned
http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/poll-texas-governorship-still-long-shot-for-wendy
Well we can put that to rest (shocking I know). Can't wait for Kos' reaction.
The problem with Marx is that he rejected the early first generation socialism approach of small scale experimentation and empiricism in general for a rather dogmatic and rationalistic (not in the conversational sense of being rational, but in the philosophical sense) and in all honesty, kinda half baked theory, it had some great ideas, especially in regards of analyzing society through class, but you read enough Marx, you'll see he wasn't even all that consistent.
Society is complicated, humans are complicated, you're not going to get it tight the first time, especially from your writing desk.
Also, this is as good as chance as ever to post my favorite web comic ever (again) -
Society is complicated, humans are complicated, you're not going to get it tight the first time, especially from your writing desk.
Also, this is as good as chance as ever to post my favorite web comic ever (again) -
smokeandmirrors
Banned
I took a philosophy class on social critics (including Marx) and I remember a discussion just on this topic. It seems that Marx never said it was the final step in history for humankind, but the ideal one. That in and of itself makes it a decent cover, since he never explicitly says what may happen after that (as history tends to go in some what resembling cycles) and basically throws his hands up and says "we don't know what will happen". I vaguely remember this happening a few times, and as Chichikov pointed out, this would lead to a couple issues. Though he along with Adam Smith were the most important thinkers on Capitalism.
Though I've been a bit removed, so I may be confusing that with some neo-Marxist thought and criticism of traditional Marxism. *shrug*
Avon Barksdale
Member
Jesus could run as a Democrat in Texas and still lose by double-digits.
Frank the Great
Banned
I like Marx's perspectives on history. I think it is really helpful to view many historic events, and even current events, as class struggles, as opposed to the tendency of some to inflate the ability of individuals to change history.
His political philosophy is valuable for its critiques of capitalism, but he doesn't really prescribe any solutions. As far as his predictions go, I think he really underestimated the ability of the ruling classes to "buy off" the workers with some easy concessions (see; Weimar Republic, New Deal, etc.) I just don't think he is relevant any more in terms of his theory of politics.
His political philosophy is valuable for its critiques of capitalism, but he doesn't really prescribe any solutions. As far as his predictions go, I think he really underestimated the ability of the ruling classes to "buy off" the workers with some easy concessions (see; Weimar Republic, New Deal, etc.) I just don't think he is relevant any more in terms of his theory of politics.
I think it could be possible to have a society without State, I think it's all about education. People would: know how the world works, be mature enough, and understand that the only way equality and joy are really ensured is by local investment. I definitely think that State is just a big baby-sitter, but in the actual context it's necessary. It's not about more liberties but more education.
The problem with Marx is that he rejected the early first generation socialism approach of small scale experimentation and empiricism in general for a rather dogmatic and rationalistic (not in the conversational sense of being rational, but in the philosophical sense) and in all honesty, kinda half baked theory, it had some great ideas, especially in regards of analyzing society through class, but you read enough Marx, you'll see he wasn't even all that consistent.
Society is complicated, humans are complicated, you're not going to get it tight the first time, especially from your writing desk.
Also, this is as good as chance as ever to post my favorite web comic ever (again) -
Yeah, he didn't really helped people to follow his ideal. But german philosophers were abstract as fuck at the time: good at the bottom but impraticable.
- Status