Christ, what an asshole
I donāt really see whatās wrong with this? Do we not want to settle the question of how much power spies should have?
If somebody in an ostensibly ārepresentativeā position ever says that a debate ācannot be allowed to run onā, a giant comedy hammer should immediately descend from the ceiling and squish them.
I realize that practice isā¦rather less nobleā¦ but debate isnāt actually a ālittle people making mouth noises and distracting Serious Authorities from Serious Businessā; itās, yāknow, what separates free societies from dictatorships with technocratic aspirations.
Itās perfectly possible to get lousy results from debate, of course; but if you lose sight of debateās value you simply arenāt in a position to not get lousy results.
The problem is in his (implicit; but not exactly covert) formulation of who will get to do the settling and how the settling will occur.
Yes, unlimited wrangling without any resolution is not the favored outcome. However, his position is āitās cute and all that people want to talk; but Iāve decided that what we are doing is just ducky; and itās time for them to admit that theyāve had their fun, shut up, and let me get back to doing what I want.ā
Thatās not a terribly satisfactory settlement. Thatās actual public debate being treated as a purely palliative sideshow, to be dropped as soon as it inconveniences the already-determined powers that be.
If we donāt let our spies violate our rights, they will loose their ability to effectively violate our rightsā¦ Is that the argument?
We have to give the US Republicans some competition, and fortunately we have not one but two political parties ready to stand up and be counted among the idiocracy. The sad thing is that there also sensible Conservatives, but they all seem to get driven gradually out of the government by the loonies - the political equivalent of Greshamās Law.
What a moron. Part of making people feel heard before going on and doing what you were going to do anyway is not telling them that is what you are doing. This guy doesnāt know how to machiavell (sic) right.
Kinder, gentler Thatcherism. In ye olde days heād just come out and say, āThere is no alternative!ā
Machiavelli is so 15th century.
Nerd Sniping is where its at.
āThe smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum ā even encourage the more critical and dissident views. That gives people the sense that thereās free thinking going on, while all the time the presuppositions of the system are being reinforced by the limits put on the range of the debate.ā
Talking about how stupid his comments are is the expected response. Because now youāre not talking about anything else.
Not if the answer is āall of it.ā
I was making a cynical comment about government "consultationā and āpublic debateā in general - when the government says we need āpublic debateā on something like Snowden they mean they need to wait a few news cycles before doing whatever they were going to do anyway.
But yes, Iām prone to criticize politicians I donāt agree with for their poor tactics as a way of putting them down, which doesnāt really contribute to anything and is getting tired (though I swear I was doing it before it was cool). Iām part of the angry cynical subculture that is functionally indistinguishable from the passive complacent subculture.
āI am quite clear that the ability to intercept ābulk communications dataā, to subject that metadata to electronic analysis and to seek to extract the tiny percentage of communications data that may be of any direct security interest, does not represent an enhancement of the agenciesā powers,ā he said."
Seems like he IS telling us what he is doing.
āthe ability to intercept ābulk communications dataā, to subject that metadata to electronic analysis and to seek to extract the tiny percentage of communications data that may be of any direct security interest, does not represent an enhancement of the agenciesā powers,ā he said."
Funny thing is, I actually agree with that statement, I just donāt see how he draws his preferred conclusion from it.
Philip Hammond has equated gay marriage with incest, so factor that into how seriously you take his point of view.
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
