How to trap a whistleblower • Hacker News Board

Re: How to trap a whistleblower

#101

Post by saraid216 » Sun, Aug 18, 2013, 6:20 PM UTC

danenania wrote: post #9

pcunite wrote: post #5

Obama could have been special. The symbol, the icon for an America forgiven of its past and now authoring hope for future people of all races. Perhaps it was power that corrupted him or maybe it was his close advisors that stymied his original purer motives. I remember feeling so proud that we had a black President. I knew he was human, I know that skin color does not matter, but it was hard to not hope that given wh…

Another explanation that I sadly believe to be much more realistic is that Obama never had pure motives. He was just playing the game (as any candidate must to win the support of either establishment party), and he took many millions of hopeful people along for the ride. It's important for people who believed in Obama's rhetoric to stop making excuses and realize that they were conned. Fool me once, shame on you...

> Another explanation that I sadly believe to be much more realistic is that Obama never had pure motives.

FYI, no one has pure motives past the age of 10. There are only people who delude themselves into thinking their motives are pure.

Re: How to trap a whistleblower

#102

Post by mikeash » Sun, Aug 18, 2013, 6:21 PM UTC

richardjordan wrote: post #99

mikeash wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even with a changed voting system, I don't think it's going to change much. The reality is that the average American is frightened of terrorism and wants the government to protect them. The average American believes in "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear." The average American is still in a Cold War mindset and thinks that we need a massive military and intelligence apparatus to avoid being invaded…

So I think this is actually not true. The average American isn't really frightened of terrorism. They don't pay attention and just want decisions made by someone else. They are comfortable when those decisions are framed in simplistic Manichaean terms because it demands little thought.

I think we may be in agreement. I don't think Americans are deeply frightened of terrorism in the sense that it keeps them awake at night, causes them to be unable to carry out daily activities, etc. However, I think they buy into the narrative pushed by media and government that terrorism is a significant threat and one that we should be concerned about. This is not really the fault of media and government, however, because it ends up as a feedback loop. Government and media amplify the fears of the populace, which then feeds back into the public as a whole. I think that breaking the public away from paying attention to the "This common household product could be killing you, details at 11!" style of TV news is key.

Re: How to trap a whistleblower

#103

Post by protomyth » Sun, Aug 18, 2013, 6:23 PM UTC

superuser2 wrote: post #96

protomyth wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Obama could have been special." I have a honest question, did you read his voting record, see what bills he had wrote / sponsored / co-sponsored, or listen to his podcast[1] before deciding he was worth your hope for that symbol? The media narrative for both sides is smoke and mirrors. The only real truth is what the do in legislation. 1) Yes, he had one as a US Senator.

What they do in legislation isn't the full story, either. People vote against bills that sound like good ideas because there's something nasty subtly buried inside them. People vote for bad bills to collect votes for good ones. Someone who kept a pristine voting record would not actually get anything done.

Yes, the legislative system is has its game, but sponsorship and co-sponsorship tells a lot. Most legislators tell folks what their vote meant and most bill titles are fantasy. You need to look deeper than the soundbite to determine what the legislative record means.

Re: How to trap a whistleblower

#104

Post by crusso » Sun, Aug 18, 2013, 6:25 PM UTC

LanceH wrote: post #26

crusso wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. 1. They're in power and "but the government lied first" is not going to hold up in court if you're accused of perjury, lying to a police officer, etc. 2. There's something to be said for taking the higher ground. Long after people forget who started it, having a culture that doesn't value honesty hurts everyone.

That's a practical reason, not a moral reason.

Morals are there for practical reasons. Otherwise they're just random.

Re: How to trap a whistleblower

#105

Post by saraid216 » Sun, Aug 18, 2013, 6:25 PM UTC

zzzeek wrote: post #33

crusso wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm all for welcoming more people to the Don't Trust Obama club, but let's be honest here. Many of us saw his flaws long before this NSA scandal, which he and his minions now lump in with the set of "phony scandals". Voting for someone because of their race is every damned bit as bad as voting against someone because of their race. Maybe you folks who are surprised by the recent change in your attitude toward our Pre…

the alternative was mccain/palin. In the primaries, Hillary was the alternative. Second time around it was Romney. None of these candidates would have had any substantive differences on these particular issues and on almost every other issue would have been far worse. Single issue voting is just as naive as believing rhetoric at face value. we absolutely need to protest Obama's actions in this area but as far as voti…

Our current voting system is a conservative wet dream. It's designed so that you're voting against every other party, so you're not trying to advance a platform, but rather trying to prevent the onset of a worse one.

It's not our voting system that needs to be radically changed. It's the extent to which we rely on representatives to hold power for us. It's the 21st century; why don't we have tools to collaboratively write legislation?

Re: How to trap a whistleblower

#106

Post by wpietri » Sun, Aug 18, 2013, 6:28 PM UTC

graycat wrote: post #31

My guess is that much of Obama's political strategy is mostly just to pretend. So, there he sees a public issue and says something, just something, just says it, to defuse the issue and, then, counts on (1) the mainstream media not getting into the details of what is wrong with the fantasy statement, (2) the voters being busy with other things, and (3) soon something else in the headlines. Except for the fantasy stat…

Another possible interpretation on the security stuff is that he's just being outmaneuvered by the people working for him. Most of his information on these topics comes from people inside the security bureaucracy or the security industry (if that's indeed a difference). And those people are lifers; the top ones have seen a number of presidents come and go.

This is Obama's first time as an executive of anything substantial, and I don't think he's ever been a bureaucrat. The US faces some significant threats, and there's plenty more that can be made to look significant. He could sincerely believe that he's striking the right balance between security and liberty. And the political situation, which does not encourage democrats to do anything that increases the risk of terrorist action.

I'm deeply disappointed with this, but personally I'm inclined to apply Hanlon's Razor here. Of course, I also tend to apply it to Bush, who I still think was well-meaning and generally sincere, but incurious and somewhat hapless. Trying to run a country with 3 pounds of meat is an impossible task, so "disappointed" is basically the top end of my scale.

Re: How to trap a whistleblower

#107

Post by danenania » Sun, Aug 18, 2013, 6:57 PM UTC

saraid216 wrote: post #101

danenania wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Another explanation that I sadly believe to be much more realistic is that Obama never had pure motives. He was just playing the game (as any candidate must to win the support of either establishment party), and he took many millions of hopeful people along for the ride. It's important for people who believed in Obama's rhetoric to stop making excuses and realize that they were conned. Fool me once, shame on you...

> Another explanation that I sadly believe to be much more realistic is that Obama never had pure motives. FYI, no one has pure motives past the age of 10. There are only people who delude themselves into thinking their motives are pure.

Not speaking of a tremendously high bar for purity here. I would have settled for someone who didn't think it was ok to kill and imprison people without trial, psychologically torture whistleblowers, and attempt to spy on the digital communications of everyone on the planet.

Re: How to trap a whistleblower

#108

Post by pcunite » Sun, Aug 18, 2013, 7:32 PM UTC

eplanit wrote: post #30

pcunite wrote: post #5

Obama could have been special. The symbol, the icon for an America forgiven of its past and now authoring hope for future people of all races. Perhaps it was power that corrupted him or maybe it was his close advisors that stymied his original purer motives. I remember feeling so proud that we had a black President. I knew he was human, I know that skin color does not matter, but it was hard to not hope that given wh…

"Perhaps it was power that corrupted him or maybe it was his close advisors that stymied his original purer motives." ...so, his purity, innocence, and honesty was corrupted from the outside, by others? Did he not choose and hire his own advisors? Isn't this like blaming Cheney for everything Bush did? "he could understand what was wrong with the world ... and maybe fix it." Obama the Messiah? What U.S. President cou…

Quote: "So, let's revert back to racist treatment? This statement of yours is what drove me to the keyboard this early in the morning."

Forgive me, I only meant to say that he was supposed to help injustice, a world he claims to have come from. Now, he "sits in the front seat" so to speak and makes a mockery of what Rosa Parks endured. She really created change.

Re: How to trap a whistleblower

#109

Post by icecreampain » Sun, Aug 18, 2013, 8:48 PM UTC

acgourley wrote: post #86

icecreampain wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your mistake was believing that (1) there was a choice and (2) the _two_ choices actually differed in any meaningful way. Both parties have the same masters.

I hear that a lot, but I'm curious who these masters are. And if you say "corporations" I'd like to know which ones you suspect.

I am unable to say. The name of the group, or groups, controlling both the government and corporations is unimportant. Call it the illuminati or the jews or whatever. All I know is that money is an extremely good reason for the super rich to create groups that help them continue be super rich.

The idealist in me died when he realized that even large, powerful governments can be undermined and destroyed by this controlling group (or the group's controlling group). If they can topple countries, like they have done several times in the past, then what kind of resistance can a lowly normal pose offer?

None. I've learned to just keep my nose to the grindstone, make money for myself and ignore the rest of the world. It's easiest that way.

Re: How to trap a whistleblower

#110

Post by crazygringo » Sun, Aug 18, 2013, 8:50 PM UTC

The thing that confuses me the most, is that Obama used to come across as extremely intelligent, with nuanced understanding of the issues at hand. In his writing and in his speeches, he had no equal, and he was very much a "straight talker", and even on issues you disagreed with him on, you felt that he understood your side (and all sides) of the argument genuinely.

But over the past year, he's practically gone full retard. I'm not even talking about on a policy level -- I'm just talking about his communications, period. On the Snowden issue he's shown zero leadership, zero sense of understanding or sympathizing with Americans' concerns... and all this coming from a former constitutional-law scholar, it's just BIZARRE.

Obviously my faith in Obama has rapidly dwindled, but more than that, I'm just left confused. Why can't the man even communicate anymore?