
Obama's NSA speech reflects American apathy - pierre-renaux
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-echochambers-25787468
======
coldcode
Not so much apathy but a lack of any way to change things. We get exactly two
choices and both suck (in slightly different ways) plus media that tries to
play up differences than don't make any difference. No one wants a revolution
which these days is generally an exercise in self destruction. So what can you
do to create change? The politicians like Obama know this only too well, the
system is designed and supported to make real change unlikely or even
impossible. For all we will ever know both parties collude to keep the system
in place.

~~~
wprl
Guys, guys... stop giving credence to the myth that we have to keep voting for
one of the corrupted parties that control the federal government. Yes, you
will be stepping forward into a lonely political area, but you can and should
vote for one of the other parties that haven't yet proved to be corrupt.

~~~
AnthonyMouse
It's not a myth. It's mathematics. We have a winner take all voting system
("first past the post") which means a vote (or ten thousand votes) for a third
party who doesn't win is exactly the same mathematically as that number of
votes going to the major party candidate _least like_ the third party
candidate, because that candidate's strongest opponent is the one who would
have had those votes in the alternative, and the winner is defined as the
candidate with more votes than the candidate than the second most votes. The
candidate with the third most votes is totally irrelevant until they cease to
be the candidate with the third most votes. And they can't do that, because
the incentives don't work -- if a candidate from e.g. the Green party could
actually win an election, the Democrats would just run that candidate on their
ticket, and likewise with the Libertarians and the Republicans. Because
running two viable candidates who agree on 80% of the issues against a
candidate from the other major party is friendly fire -- if you have a
district with 60% left-leaning voters and you run a viable Green candidate
against a Democrat and a Republican, the two left-leaning candidates split the
left-leaning vote and give the win to the Republican. Viable would-be third
party candidates are well aware of this, which is why there are no viable
third party candidates -- they have an overwhelming incentive to join a major
party as soon as they achieve viability.

This is _not_ an insurmountable problem, you're just solving it in the wrong
place. If you want a "third party" candidate to win then what you need is for
that candidate to win a major party's primary. What is necessary is for people
to stop voting for parties whatsoever and vote for candidates instead.

~~~
betterunix
Third party votes are how we punish major parties. Case in point:

"if a candidate from e.g. the Green party could actually win an election, the
Democrats would just run that candidate on their ticket"

If the Democrats are drifting too far to the right (i.e. the situation we have
right now), then liberals need to vote third party -- until the Democrats get
their act together.

~~~
AnthonyMouse
Except that it doesn't work. Think about what a Democrat has to do to win if a
Green candidate is taking 5% of the vote. The Democrat now has 45% of the vote
against a Republican with 50%. If they move to the left to take the Green
candidate's voters, the Democrat will stay at 45% and leave 55% to the
Republican because moving to the left costs the Democrat votes from the
middle. What the Democrats would have to do is move _to the right_ , so that
they take 10% from the Republican by losing 10% to the Green and end up
winning with 40% Republican, 45% Democrat and 15% Green.

------
transfire
We are apathetic, b/c we are tired. It doesn't seem to matter how much we
complain or protest anymore, most issues only seem get worse. Fact is, there
is almost no accountability to the people any longer. And the powers that be
know it. Worse, they have the general population divided so strongly between
right and left that it almost seems like a civil war is on the verge of
breaking out. Again, the powers that be know it --they actually encourage it
so they can use it to do whatever they want. How much longer can we go on this
way?

I'm half a mind to say we just end the charade, dissolve the federal
government and replace it with a simple joint economic and security treaty
between the states.

~~~
thisiswrong
>We are apathetic, b/c we are tired.

No. Americans are apathetic because they are one of the most brainwashed
peoples of the planet [1], perhaps after North Koreans. There are exceptions
to this and some few Americans are very enlightened indeed.

>They have the general population divided so strongly between right and left
that it almost seems like a civil war is on the verge of breaking out.

Yes - divide and rule. Think Iraq, Syria, Egypt, Libya, Nigeria(...). The same
sociopaths that run US politics, own the banks, and energy giants have always
thrived by creating inner conflicts within exploitable countries [2].
Meanwhile the people fight themselves instead of pushing out the imperialists.

Those that run the USA are clearly preparing for an internal civil war [3].
How it will happen and when - who knows. But i can sure tell you that the
amount of US flags behind Obama in his most recent NSA speech was alarming and
resembled some Nazi era nationalist/fascist appeal. Scary.

[1]
[http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/01/26/1182220/-Research-S...](http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/01/26/1182220/-Research-
Study-Explains-How-U-S-Media-Brainwashes-The-Public) [2]
[http://www.globalresearch.ca/us-imperialism-and-iraqs-
descen...](http://www.globalresearch.ca/us-imperialism-and-iraqs-descent-into-
civil-war/5364322) [3] [http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/10/06/homeland-
security-pr...](http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/10/06/homeland-security-
preparing-for-massive-civil-war/)

~~~
damon_c
You're right. This is indeed an alarming number of flags.

[http://www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat/2014/01/17/obama_nsa_spe...](http://www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat/2014/01/17/obama_nsa_speech_the_unretouched_photos.html)

------
rwmj
Hang on, 48% support it and 47% are against it, and that represents apathy?

There was an interview on Radio 4 a few days ago (can't find it right now,
still looking) where the head of the UK committee which oversees GCHQ tried an
interesting approach. He didn't defend GCHQ at all, but said that basically no
one in the UK really cared about this issue so we should do nothing. The
strategy seems to be to atomize the opposition (it "happens on the internet"
therefore it's not real or quantifiable), ie. divide and conquer.

------
f_salmon
And most of all, I can't believe he didn't just burst into endless laughs
during his speech. I mean, did he really just say all that while NOT thinking
"y'all some stupid mofos"?

Seriously. How can anyone take the US serious anymore.

~~~
xradionut
It's not stupidity for everyone, it's just that every recourse outside of
violence has been captured or gamed by those truly in power in the US. Plus
the media has been captured 99.9999 percent.

And it's not bad enough for the US public to support violence, plus violence
would be futile anyway against the military, no matter the number of private
firearms. The elite are just waiting for enough automation in society so they
can "cull" the masses they consider worthless.

~~~
kiba
_It 's not stupidity for everyone, it's just that every recourse outside of
violence has been captured or gamed by those truly in power in the US._

As opposed to their elected officials telling and giving them what they want
to hear? Circus and breads are not empty words, you know.

 _Plus the media has been captured 99.9999 percent._

As opposed to the media reflecting what the people want to hear?

------
ivanca
This "apathy" will bring consequences far worst than the spying itself; before
long corporations will be able to trade and black mail using the information
collected by NSA.

Call me tinfoil hat or whatever, but corporations always grab as much power as
they are allowed (heck! many have been affiliated with paramilitary groups),
so it will be just a natural step when american corporations start
blackmailing and racketing international politicians in order to force the
approval of laws on their behalf.

Plus all the other benefits that a mass surveillance can bring: Learning
secrets from the international competition, learning about deals before they
happen (some kind of insider trading far worse than anything we have seen so
far)

------
deletes
Didn't find any link at the site. Here is the speech( I think it is the one
the article is referring to):
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p4MKm2uFqVQ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p4MKm2uFqVQ)

------
MisterWebz
The Europeans care just as much or even less than the Americans. They're being
told that there are no privacy protections in place for foreigners, yet, as
far as I'm aware, there has been no significant decrease in Facebook or Google
traffic.

If the tech giants were genuinely fearing loss of customers or users, Obama's
NSA speech would have been drastically different.

------
ck2
Speech summary: If you like your privacy, you can keep it.

------
vectorsys
_There 's also the fact that liberals - the ideological faction most likely to
protest these programs - have been reluctant to criticise a president from
their own party._

That's not true, but not surprising coming from the bbc. The BBC needs to
differentiate between leftists and liberals. Leftist regimes throughout
history have always been for surveillance.

Surveillance isn't just tapping lines. It's also forced government mandates of
the individual that are effective in knowing what you're up to.

