He even inspired Snowden to expose the illegal mass surveillance programs. IIRC Snowden reached a breaking point when James Clapper, then director of national intelligence, lied under oath to Congress when pressed about domestic surveillance by senator Wyden.
It's sad we don't hear more about people like this in positions of power.
The entire time period of the Bush admin is a microcosm for unresolved issues of today: Voting machines, government over reach and spying, security, encryption, copyright, bad behavior by corporate entities (M$ has a cohort).
That said, I also think things happen way before the first term. It requires consent of the Party to get on the ballot and hundreds of millions of dollars, increasingly trending towards billions, to run a campaign with a chance of winning, because in a democracy it's quite self evident that the person who spends the most money, must be the better person. Results don't lie!
And on top of all of this, if you aren't shaping up to be who the Party wants, then the completely independent, free, and honest media will demonize you. And even if this doesn't destroy you in the eyes of your own supporters, it'll rile up your opponent's base enough as they race to vote (for somebody they also don't even particularly care for) because if they don't, then you might win! That cannot be allowed to happen as it would obviously be the literal end of the world.
This is why it's ever more important for social media to be controlled, lest somebody angle-shoot around the traditional path to success - the media. If somebody's gaining traction on social media, then he's saying things that disagree with the powers that be. Since he's disagreeing with the powers that be, he is spreading misinformation by definition, so he must be censored. For our safety.
I would like to ask you a serious question: do you not think it is extremely weird that so many people will at least sometimes[1] agree that "democracy" is essentially fake, but then at other times take quite literally the opposite stance...praising it, defending it, singing its virtues, etc? Granted, it is theoretically possible that each individual is 100% consistent at all times, and I am simply observing people who are on different sides of the argument, but now and then I'll check into someone's post history and find evidence that pretty soundly rules that out (subjectivity noted).
A standard response to this is something along the lines of "Oh, that's people just being X (dumb, etc)", but I do not believe that is an even remotely accurate description of what is really going on. But for even more irony: on one hand, most people tend to think democracy, governance, and all the things downstream of it (ie: their literal experience here on Earth) is a very big deal (the passionate debate over what exactly the events of January 6 "were" is a prime example), yet it is almost impossible to get anyone to engage in a highly serious conversation about just what the fuck is going on here on Planet Earth, 2023. It is as if there is some sort of a yet to be discovered phenomenon in play.
Do you think I might be crazy? I very often genuinely feel like I am living in The Truman Show.
[1] I feel like this is a crucially important detail that is rarely investigated or even contemplated.
That's a very interesting observation that deserves much more thought that I can give in a quick reply.
But I think one major issue is that we're living through an obvious inflection point in history. When the US was competing against the USSR, we achieved numerous objectively incredible things. For but one example, we went from having never put a single man in orbit in 1962, to putting a man on the Moon, in 7 years! In modern times, with modern tech and knowledge, we struggle to replicate what was done 60 years ago.
And so I am exceptionally critical of our systems in modern times, but also look at them with glowing fondness at what they have achieved in the past. But socially we rarely distinguish between the two - Democracy is Democracy. And so this can appear to be cognitive dissonance when one loathes 'current democracy' yet holds dear 'classical democracy.' And I think many people also feel similarly, even if they may not actually even realize it.
But back to the inflection point, for the past ~80 years, and especially the past 30, the US has reigned relatively supreme owing to a large technological edge driving a large economic edge. But now China is equalizing technologically which is also driving their economy upward. It's already the largest in the world PPP adjusted, and will soon enough also be the largest in nominal terms as well. A country of 340 million simply will never be able to compete against a country of 1.4 billion. So they are set to become the world hegemon.
What will that mean? Well historically they've always been relatively insular, even when going through periods of great power, and I don't really expect that to change. In the early 15th century they were, by far, the greatest maritime power yet one does not find Chinese colonies in the Americas, India, Africa, or pretty much anywhere. But on the other hand, I think this change does scare many people, because what if China becomes the new US and just starts trying to put its tendrils into everything and turn everywhere into little clones of the Chinese political system?
And fear is a such a strong driver of irrationality, the same reason people continually vote for people they don't like. I think this fear tends to cause a sort of rally around the flag effect, where people can see that this flag is one they scarcely recognize, let alone truly love, yet it looks far less scary than the one they don't know at all. Drive that fear of the unknown into people, which our political types thrive at, and the people will come racing back, not entirely dissimilar to a woman in an abusive relationship.
I still feel this is not even scratching the surface, but it's at least a first effort! It's such an interesting question that one could easily write several books on the topic. And in the future, people looking back, probably will do exactly that!
This is all well and good, but I sincerely believe that it does not address the question: why are humans, including the genuinely much smarter than average folks here on HN, unable to have a very serious discussion about ~~whether~~ the degree to which "democracy" in the US (or Western countries in general), is fake?
I believe it is very fair to say that it is not a question of whether it is fake(!) at all (as a binary), but a question of how fake is it, and in what specific ways?
And yes, I can certainly appreciate why people would have an aversion to this, and the various other "just so" memes that are trotted out when the topic comes up, but the question remains: why is NO ONE capable of taking this topic very seriously?
I'd expect in this exact case the answer might be easier. It's because fake has an ambiguous meaning. It includes everything from the gamut of completely absurd such as elections aren't even actually happening, to the improbable but possible such as elections being rigged, to the self evident such as the people being elected, and their subsequent actions taken, being completely unrepresentative of the people or their interests.
And while all these topics (and many more) can be encompassed by 'fake', they all are quite radically different.
The problem is that society has been exceptionally divided, again owing to fear politics. And so even if an election was rigged, the people that benefited from it would basically demand a level of evidence that would never exist, even in cases of rigging. And by contrast, those that suffered from it would take the slightest irregularity as undeniable evidence of their rightness. And so it's quite unlikely that either side could ever reach a burden of proof that the other side would be happy with.
I think an important point in general is that democracy is what people think it is. If people think elections are fair or a viable means to change their political fate, then they're going to act accordingly, and vice versa if they don't. So personally I think having as absurdly transparent and open a system is critical. Irregularities and oddities should be publicly emphasized across the aisle so (1) everybody can discuss things and be on the same page, and (2) they can be remedied and not repeated.
> I think an important point in general is that democracy is what people think it is.
I think you hit the nail on the head here - and, it doesn't apply only to democracy, it applies to everything. It's funny, because lots of people also know this, yet do nothing about it.
> If people think elections are fair or a viable means to change their political fate, then they're going to act accordingly, and vice versa if they don't.
Where "acting accordingly" is usually ~behaving on social media in the corresponding manner.
Gosh, I wonder why it seems like humanity has little control over its fate.
Penalties for whom? Clapper was bound by conflicting laws requiring both honesty and secrecy. This problem goes all the way to the root of government and legal system.
There are ways to respond to a question without violating secrecy and being dishonest. It’s like pleading the fifth, there are situations where it is acceptable to not tell the whole truth because it is counter to a law or personal right. In those instances the person needs to explicitly proclaim the basis in which they are obscuring the answer. Giving untruthful, absolute answers about the non-existence of something is inconsistent with the above.
Nine times out of ten, when there's a news piece about a senator advocating for privacy and constitutional rights with regards to tech, it's senator Wyden. He's on the senate intelligence committee and has a decent track record of getting shit done with bipartisan support, so he's not just virtue signaling for votes either (not to mention that he's basically unbeatable in state election with all the support he has in Oregon). He's 74 years old, I do hope someone will step up and carry the torch when he retires. It's a losing battle but it's still important that we have someone who is competent and well respected to fight it for us.
I know it's the Oregonian in me and getting to meet him as a kid where he spent a decent amount of time with my class, but he strikes me as a senator that Oregon can be proud of. I might not agree with him on everything, but in my personal opinion, he's advocating and pushing for change on what he personally believes in. Makes me wish my current senator was more like that.
> he's advocating and pushing for change on what he personally believes in
That's certainly a step above many of the grifters we have in government, but it's also not necessarily a good thing. People can truly believe in stuff that's harmful or flat out wrong.
Gosh I am so happy to have like the best senator in the senate next to Bernie Sanders in Oregon.
Oregon is an extremely based state. Y'all crap on PDX but the reality is that we have more freedom and less tyranny here than in any other state in the nation, and possibly in the world. PDX is "bad" because it's one of the only places in the world that hated the cops enough to actually muzzle them - and not living in fear of the boot is worth needing to deal with homeless people.
Want to smoke weed? Check (lowest prices in the world). Want to do psychedelics? (functionally legalized) Check. Want to shoot guns? (relatively lax gun laws for a blue state) Check. Want to not be spied on? As check as Ron Wyden can make it!
The tyranny of the masses is still a tyranny. I'd personally like to move to a state where all smoking, but at least weed smoking, is illegal. I really don't like second hand smoke, especially when it smells and hangs as much as weed smoke does.
It's already not legal to smoke in public for weed and in most places for cigarettes. Frankly I don't think outright prohibition addresses that any better than the existing system. Nor do I see how having bodily autonomy is necessarily a tyranny of the masses.
In all seriousness, Utah sounds like your ideal so long as you stay outside of Salt Lake City. I'm glad to no longer be a resident
Not enough trees. Nor enough employment in my non-remoteable field.
Public smoking is a concern, but the smoke will leak even if smoked inside of a home. With edibles and inhalers I don't understand why people thought it was a good idea to legalize marijuana smoking.
> Nor do I see how having bodily autonomy is necessarily a tyranny of the masses.
Generalizing the principle of the swinging your fists near someone else's nose saying.
Being able to smell from the outside that someone is smoking inside their home is not "second hand smoking". You'd need to be in the same room as them to get the necessary level of exposure.
When did the goalposts move from 'smelling cannabis in the air should be banned' to 'prolonged second hand smoke in the same room at cannabis dispensary levels has an effect on your blood vessels if you're a mouse'?
I don't agree with that. If blasting music can be a matter for legislation (nuisance laws and the like), then so can bothering people around you with the reek of smoking weed.
I recently visited Manhattan and walked many miles touring it. The smell was in many places, with people smoking out in public. It is offensive and rude.
If you take one of the world's most popular pastimes that personally, and want it legislated against on that basis, I have no time for your arguments.
Like - Manhattan. Yeah, you're gonna smell cannabis in Manhattan. It doesn't matter the tiniest bit what the laws are; you're gonna smell it. It's not something to take as a personal insult, and it's wild you insist that it is.
Anyway, weren't we talking about a serious issue? Like, is this why Americans are ok with all the domestic spying - they're too worried about sniffing a reefer on the wind? Ugh.
> If you take one of the world's most popular pastimes that personally, and want it legislated against on that basis, I have no time for your arguments.
Many popular activities are expected to be done where they do not impact others. In my local park, a man was arrested for masturbating in public, certainly a popular activity.
> It doesn't matter the tiniest bit what the laws are; you're gonna smell it.
Over the course of the last few decades, I smell it more in Manhattan and in many other places where it has been legalized. Apparently laws do matter. Not that I want any laws against it. I would just prefer that people not be assholes about it.
I did not interpret such sociopathic behavior as a "personal insult".
As for the more serious issue, I did not take the thread here. I replied to your comment, "OP is complaining that he might get a whiff coming from his neighbors house." I pointed out that one does not need to enter someone's house in order to be forced to inhale their smoke.
> Your sense of smell is subjective, and not a good reason for legislation.
You do understand that many tort suits, and outright laws, are over subjective harms, right? (trash in neighbors yards, loud sounds late at night, smells from chemical industries, etcetera) That laws such as disability protection laws exist?
https://www.wyden.senate.gov/issues/secret-law
https://www.wyden.senate.gov/news/press-releases/wyden-colle...
https://www.wyden.senate.gov/news/press-releases/wyden-intro...
https://www.wyden.senate.gov/priorities/gps-act
https://www.wyden.senate.gov/news/press-releases/wyden-relea...