`Congress intervened by passing the FISA Amendments Act which, in part, granted “retroactive immunity” to the telecommunications carriers for their involvement in the NSA spying programs. This massive grant of immunity for past violations of multiple state and federal laws protecting communications privacy was unprecedented.`
But yes, he was also a personal hero to me before I met him in real life, and we should absolutely still be talking about the things he uncovered and what happened to them afterward. Please do tell those stories, too.
[0]https://goldengatebirdalliance.org/blog-posts/wild-ly-succes...
Man up and remove those splitters, cables, show us the drawings, reports and PPT slides!
R.I.P. Mark
Reminds me of George Carlins words, “ It’s never gonna get any better. Don’t look for it. Be happy with what you got.”
It's not at all surprising that Congress would indemnify people for, more or less, doing what Congress authorized them to do. If we don't like it, we could consider, maybe not voting the same people into that Congress. Over. And over. And over. And over. And over. And over.
A full 24 Senators and 63 Representatives have held their seats for over 36 years. That's not what you'd expect of a citizenship that was actually upset about being spied upon by their government.
This is a feature, not a bug. The system is architected, when something is controversial, default to no motion.
I doubt this. I'd also be interested to see if those people actually know, on any real level, what the NSA was actually doing.
> If we don't like it, we could consider, maybe not voting the same people into that Congress. Over. And over. And over. And over. And over. And over.
They so reliably do the opposite of what people want and yet continue to win. You don't find this at all odd and you put it down to lack of consideration on the part of the electorate.
> That's not what you'd expect of a citizenship that was actually upset about being spied upon by their government.
The joys of being old enough to remember the Church Committee, The House Select Committee on Assassinations, The JFK Records Review Board. PEOPLE ARE CLEARLY NOT OKAY WITH THIS. Yet those who carry water for the deep state are unimpeded by this. Please see this, or at least, don't repeat simple falsehoods about the electorate.
It's like coming across a drowning man and laughing in his face about his predicament.
Nobody needs to fake election results when Americans just don't show up to vote. It's a disquietingly under-informed and apathetic electorate.
This is not completely true[0]. I'd also give the advice that you shouldn't take a "nationwide" average to mean much of anything. The wikipedia article shows wide variation across the states which is true for almost any statistic you can think of.
> actually vote in primaries
Bernie voters might give you a hint as to why. I guess this is the problem Mayor Pete's "shadow" app was meant to solve. It honestly seems like parties don't genuinely like people voting in primaries. The person who's "turn" it is might lose.
> elections that actually have the most impact
Unfortunately we're talking about the legislature here because they write the laws in question and are the proper party to wage your grievances against. Have you ever looked into how competitive those primaries actually are? Anyways this is why I vote for Greens and Libertarians. Then they might stand a chance of cracking 5% and getting recognized fully by the Federal Election Commission.
> Americans just don't show up to vote.
All evidence to the contrary. What they don't do is vote in senate elections. There districts with as low as 25% voter turn out. Which means you only need 12% of the eligible population to turn out for you to secure your seat. So you're right. No need to cheat. Just be arbitrary and capricious to the point that busy and worried people no longer feel that using their time in the voting booth can actually change something.
> It's a disquietingly under-informed and apathetic electorate.
As always, back to where this conversation starts, who should bear the responsibility for this? I don't think blaming the electorate itself brings you anywhere other than helping to chase people further away from an important civil institution.
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_turnout_in_United_States...
Unfortunately, in a representative democracy, the people. It's right there in the Constitution, first three words.
Then _immediately_ after you get Section 1: "All legislative powers herin granted shall be vested in a congress of the United States." Which, by the way, prior to the 17th amendment, the Senate was selected directly by the states. Then again immediately after that you get a set of limitations as to who can be admitted to this congress. You'll also note that as citizens we have absolutely no voice in the operation of this congress, the selection of it's bills, nor in the voting on them.
No, in a representative /republican/ democracy, it's the representatives that are first and foremost responsible. The most I can do is offer my input on who those people should be every 2 years, so I certainly bear some, but it's inane to suggest that the current outcome is the fault of the electorate. In particular when billions of dollars are spent every year on campaigns and advertising.
Your idea is austere and unhelpful to a broken and corrupted system. I'd like to develop a notion of jurisprudence that helps the people out of their predicament, not points the finger blamefully at them.
I don't know who else's fault it can be but the electorate when they saw how the current President operates and re-elected him. To say nothing of re-electing the same Congress over and over despite that body having a sub-30% approval rating.
... and if the people don't hold the responsibility, what would you recommend the people do? I'm not sure what "a notion of jurisprudence" means in this context: are you suggesting replacing he power-at-a-distance of an unpopular legislature with rule by nine unelected life-appointed officials and their underlings?
The United States has elevated voter suppression to an art form. Last minute polling relocations, inadequate polling locations, unreasonable ID requirements, unreasonable registration requirements, “accidental” voter roll purges. It’s not easy to vote here. And it’s especially hard if you are in a group the incumbents don’t like.
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_Rights_Act_of_1965.
If those in power cared about our opinions it would be a national holiday and we’d vote by mail.
The bulk of it is that voters don't show up. We had the most turnout for any Presidential election in 2020, when people were literally quarantining to escape a plague... Turnout was around 66%. Evidence suggests that (at least in modern times) the way to get Americans to vote is to so constrain them that they can't do anything else with their time on election day.
In 2020 voting by mail was widely expanded because of the pandemic. In 2024 it was rolled back. It was easier to vote in 2020 than it was in 2024.
I wouldn’t describe voting in 2020 as constrained. More like enabled. It’s the closest we’ve ever been to a voting holiday.
Americans get distracted. That's the big secret. We're such a generally satisfied, busy, and entertained group of humans that we literally can't be arsed to go pull the one lever that is most politically powerful every time we get a chance to pull it. Some people are actively marginalized. Most of us just don't bother to read the one-pager on the county website and then show up in the fourteen-ish hours set aside to do the thing (let alone try to, say, actively study the candidates or the on-ballot issues).
I literally had a young man confide in me day of election in 2016 that he was voting for Trump because he liked him on the TV show. That's your American voter, when they show up at all.
I don’t find extrapolating a single anecdote to the entire population a compelling argument.
I'd love to give you some hard data on this in modern times, but AFAICT no polls are even asking questions as simple and obvious as "When did you first hear of Donald Trump?" or "Do you trust an actor more than a politician?"
Why does it matter if people trust politicians who were actors more than politicians who weren’t actors? They’re all still politicians when they run.
You’re promoting an extremely negative, defeatist, unsubstantiated opinion and frankly it’s depressing.
Trump in 2016 was able to use his lack of political history as a selling point; with no history of service in office, he'd had no scandals in office. Clinton's long political career worked against her in public perception.
I personally believe that there's some benefit to political expertise and demonstrated history of good choices and good leadership; the American electorate doesn't seem to value these things when they reject a career politician for someone with no track record in the highest elected office... And then reelect him in similar circumstances.
> It's depressing
We're in the second term of President Trump with a Congress that has carried a sub-30% approval rate for decades. I'm not going to be able to offer many optimistic observations about America's Federal elected offices... Or the people who elect them. It is entirely possible the American Experiment ends in this generation with the conclusion that Americans had a good thing going until they lost the tools to successfully self-govern.
I would welcome counter-evidence that didn't fail the conspiracy theory test.