I would note that they temporarily extended it three months so they could debate it then since it was running up against a hard deadline. They could have just made them go on for ever...or 6 years.
Yeah, because heaven forbid they actually expire. There could be a terrorist attack any second now!
The three sections that Obama extended: -Authorize court-approved roving wiretaps that permit surveillance on multiple phones. -Allow court-approved seizure of records and property in anti-terrorism operations. -Permit surveillance against a so-called lone wolf, a non-U.S. citizen engaged in terrorism who may not be part of a recognized terrorist group.
I can't imagine why they would want these powers just after they take Bin Laden down and a few months after and why politically voting down a measure at that exact moment might be troublesome.
I haven't read this but figured this would be a good resource for the conversation.
Cute, but hear what Senate Intelligence Committee member Sen. Ron Wyden said on the Senate floor the other day.
“The fact is that anyone can read the plain text of the Patriot Act, and yet many members of Congress have no idea how the law is being secretly interpreted by the executive branch, because that interpretation is classified." “It’s almost as if there were two Patriot Acts, and many members of Congress have not read the one that matters." “Our constituents, of course, are totally in the dark. Members of the public have no access to the secret legal interpretations, so they have no idea what their government believes the law actually means."
So I'm going to make this argument in a very pragmatic non-idealist Scott speaking. So note as I make this argument this is only one of several opinions I have on this subject.
I was against passing the Patriot act and still feel parts need to be removed and others definitely need oversight attached. However, the argument I made back in the day is once you give the executive branch this power, it would be nearly impossible to remove this power because anyone responsible would be blamed horribly for any future terrorist attacks. So here we are at a point years later and the powers come up for renewal. Of course they are going to be renewed, no one in their right mind is going to give up a tool once they have access to it. Small amounts of ideologically drive people in safe seats will vote against it to be seen as independent. Knowing that their no vote will not damage the overall party if something terrible is to happen. If there was to be another attack by terrorists, which ever party was responsible for taking away those powers (most likely the democrats) would be tossed quickly out of power and replaced with something far more authoritarian. This of course is the danger that people who warned against these security measures said would happen and now we are here. Stuck in a rock and a hard place. You can say that we have all spineless politicians all you want, but to see the path this would then lead us down is kind of scary, the US already has enough of a security paranoia. We don't hear the stories of the "villains" caught using some of the surveillance methods the patriot act allows. We were pushed into a similar hard place with Iraq, once we were there and dissolved their army and security force we were stuck. That's why government should always think long term before they make rash decisions, alas, that's not how it works... We take too long with things like Healthcare and move too quick for overwrought security measures and military actions.
I was reading an article on that statement Ron Wyden was saying and they most experts think he was referring to the governments ability to tap into phone GPS.
Anyhow, as you can see. I can't really say "FUCK THIS PARTY OR ANOTHER" because it's easy to see why most decisions ESPECIALLY on security and foreign policy are hard to over turn in a republic. So call me cynical or a sell out but this is the way it works in our country the only way to stop things like this is to make sure they are not put in place or when they are they are placed with proper oversight and protections.
This is a great quote which sums up a great deal of what is wrong with popular American politics:
Snickering readers in New York or Los Angeles might be tempted by all of this to conclude that Bachmann is uniquely crazy. But in fact, such tales by Bachmann work precisely because there are a great many people in America just like Bachmann, people who believe that God tells them what condiments to put on their hamburgers, who can't tell the difference between Soviet Communism and a Stafford loan, but can certainly tell the difference between being mocked and being taken seriously. When you laugh at Michele Bachmann for going on MSNBC and blurting out that the moon is made of red communist cheese, these people don't learn that she is wrong. What they learn is that you're a dick, that they hate you more than ever, and that they're even more determined now to support anyone who promises not to laugh at their own visions and fantasies.
Wait, the choices are either endorsing their insanity or passively allowing them to (insanely) rule you? That's what "dodging the bullet" gets me?
Well no the article said that joking and ridicule just made them more hardcore, so you hoped that there was a minority of people like that and someone like Palin wouldn't be elected almost stubbornly by conservatives. I.E. Enough smart people to "Dodge the bullet".
Um, there is a third option. You don't have to ridicule someone in order to correct their misstatements. You can do it politely and respectfully. Granted, the more insane the statement is, the harder it is to be nice about it.
Um, there is a third option. You don't have to ridicule someone in order to correct their misstatements. You can do it politely and respectfully. Granted, the more insane the statement is, the harder it is to be nice about it.
It wasn't Obama's policies that got him elected (even if that's why you personally voted for him) it was shit like this:
Elections in America are won and lost based on charisma and rhetoric, not policy and reality. Simply assuming that lies and dilutions are just mistakes that can be negated by offering the correct information is the very reason why Liberals are bad at popular politics. Liberals want to be correct. Most people just want to feel like their on the right side and will vote for the guy who wins the argument, regardless of how that argument is won.
politicians are sophists, regardless of political creed. They're sophists because rhetoric works.
Remember when Obama suggested that buildings should have white roofs to make cooling them less costly? And even though that's true it sounds dumb and people said he was dumb?
And remember when Palin said that Arab oil dependency could be solved if the gov. allowed oil companies to drill off the cost of Alaska and shouted "Drill Baby, Drill"? And even though its false it sounded decisive and bold and people chanted "Drill Baby, Drill"?
Obama ended up winning the election but there's never been a "Paint the Roofs White" Bill because even though it would work, it would make him look dumb and cost him votes.
By and large, we believe what we want to believe because we want to believe it.
But I can accept for the time being that a larger proportion of liberals pay more attention to facts than do conservatives. OK, fine. The problem is that you can find and spin facts to support almost any position. So unless you can find unbiased facts, your support is going to be stacked in your favor. And unbiased facts - well, those are hard to find, and it takes a long time and a lot of money to do proper scientific research.
The problem is that humans are animals with strong survival instincts, and we are increasingly exposed to information that challenges our preconceived notions of how things "ought" to be. When this happens, we intensify our own beliefs, rather than change them, because we instinctively perceive change to be a form of threat. And we all do it. Even me. Me, the guy who's a moral nihilist, who doesn't believe that there's a "right" way to do fucking anything. I still cling tenaciously to beliefs even in the face of opposing evidence. I'm sure I do it far less often than almost anyone, and I actively work against the instinct to do it, but even then, I still do it.
Simply assuming that lies and dilutions are just mistakes that can be negated by offering the correct information is the very reason why Liberals are bad at popular politics.
I'm not saying we assume that everyone will listen to the corrections. However, ridiculing people and acting like jerkoffs is going to alienate the ones who won't listen anyway. If they're not going to learn either way, then why bother caring about that group? Go for the people who are genuinely able to think about things, even if only a little. You are MUCH more likely to get their consideration by acting civil and intelligent. Sure, you need charisma too. But the ONLY people you are going to impress by acting like a huge douche to the opposition are the people who already agree with you. It doesn't help your cause.
Also, just because we believe morals are relative doesn't mean we don't have our own set of them. Pete, I know for a FACT this applies to you. For instance, you were completely baffled and incoherent for a long time when I asked you WHY genocide was wrong because you so fundamentally believe that it JUST IS.
For instance, you were completely baffled and incoherent for a long time when I asked you WHY genocide was wrong because you so fundamentally believe that it JUST IS.
I wasn't completely baffled, I was blindsided. :P But yes, it took me a while to figure out why I thought the way I did. I don't seriously claim otherwise. In fact, I've been agreeing with you this whole time.
ETA: Alternative proposal: Eugenic regimen.
See, now, these are the sorts of statements - like pictures of your junk - that will surface in 10 years and wreck your political career.
Comments
EDIT: Also, it's a four year extension.
I can't imagine why they would want these powers just after they take Bin Laden down and a few months after and why politically voting down a measure at that exact moment might be troublesome. Eh, Your right.
I haven't read this but figured this would be a good resource for the conversation. Justice department on the myths of the patriot act
\\Heh, I'm going to devils advocate this thing until I'm a freaking republican :-p
I was against passing the Patriot act and still feel parts need to be removed and others definitely need oversight attached. However, the argument I made back in the day is once you give the executive branch this power, it would be nearly impossible to remove this power because anyone responsible would be blamed horribly for any future terrorist attacks. So here we are at a point years later and the powers come up for renewal. Of course they are going to be renewed, no one in their right mind is going to give up a tool once they have access to it. Small amounts of ideologically drive people in safe seats will vote against it to be seen as independent. Knowing that their no vote will not damage the overall party if something terrible is to happen. If there was to be another attack by terrorists, which ever party was responsible for taking away those powers (most likely the democrats) would be tossed quickly out of power and replaced with something far more authoritarian. This of course is the danger that people who warned against these security measures said would happen and now we are here. Stuck in a rock and a hard place. You can say that we have all spineless politicians all you want, but to see the path this would then lead us down is kind of scary, the US already has enough of a security paranoia. We don't hear the stories of the "villains" caught using some of the surveillance methods the patriot act allows. We were pushed into a similar hard place with Iraq, once we were there and dissolved their army and security force we were stuck. That's why government should always think long term before they make rash decisions, alas, that's not how it works... We take too long with things like Healthcare and move too quick for overwrought security measures and military actions.
I was reading an article on that statement Ron Wyden was saying and they most experts think he was referring to the governments ability to tap into phone GPS.
Anyhow, as you can see. I can't really say "FUCK THIS PARTY OR ANOTHER" because it's easy to see why most decisions ESPECIALLY on security and foreign policy are hard to over turn in a republic. So call me cynical or a sell out but this is the way it works in our country the only way to stop things like this is to make sure they are not put in place or when they are they are placed with proper oversight and protections.
I kind of wish I was just being funny, but the pace of change will be glacial until something pushes the comfortable and apathetic into action.
This is a great quote which sums up a great deal of what is wrong with popular American politics:
Except that in this country, we allow dinner tables to vote.
Elections in America are won and lost based on charisma and rhetoric, not policy and reality. Simply assuming that lies and dilutions are just mistakes that can be negated by offering the correct information is the very reason why Liberals are bad at popular politics. Liberals want to be correct. Most people just want to feel like their on the right side and will vote for the guy who wins the argument, regardless of how that argument is won.
Remember when Obama suggested that buildings should have white roofs to make cooling them less costly? And even though that's true it sounds dumb and people said he was dumb?
And remember when Palin said that Arab oil dependency could be solved if the gov. allowed oil companies to drill off the cost of Alaska and shouted "Drill Baby, Drill"? And even though its false it sounded decisive and bold and people chanted "Drill Baby, Drill"?
Obama ended up winning the election but there's never been a "Paint the Roofs White" Bill because even though it would work, it would make him look dumb and cost him votes.
By and large, we believe what we want to believe because we want to believe it.
But I can accept for the time being that a larger proportion of liberals pay more attention to facts than do conservatives. OK, fine. The problem is that you can find and spin facts to support almost any position. So unless you can find unbiased facts, your support is going to be stacked in your favor. And unbiased facts - well, those are hard to find, and it takes a long time and a lot of money to do proper scientific research.
The problem is that humans are animals with strong survival instincts, and we are increasingly exposed to information that challenges our preconceived notions of how things "ought" to be. When this happens, we intensify our own beliefs, rather than change them, because we instinctively perceive change to be a form of threat. And we all do it. Even me. Me, the guy who's a moral nihilist, who doesn't believe that there's a "right" way to do fucking anything. I still cling tenaciously to beliefs even in the face of opposing evidence. I'm sure I do it far less often than almost anyone, and I actively work against the instinct to do it, but even then, I still do it.
I work with chemists who believe in homeopathy.
There is no hope.
Rhetorical Flim-Flam Man, AWAAAYYYYYY.....
Also, just because we believe morals are relative doesn't mean we don't have our own set of them. Pete, I know for a FACT this applies to you. For instance, you were completely baffled and incoherent for a long time when I asked you WHY genocide was wrong because you so fundamentally believe that it JUST IS.
ETA: Alternative proposal: Eugenic regimen.