Hacker News Reader

Comment by danenania | Hacker News Reader

"I'm not making excuses for Obama, but he's also up against the establishment."

Obama's not 'up against' the establishment. He is the establishment. After everything he's done, how on earth are people still ascribing good intentions to this guy?

View on HN

No, he is one small part of the establishment that will be gone in < 4 years. There are senators who have been there decades, there are senior management at government agencies who have been there decades. The president isn't powerless but he is very temporary and fighting against large entrenched organizations. Consider how hard it would be to be the CEO of Microsoft or IBM if everyone under you knew you were going to be in charge for at most 8 years.

Focusing on the president (small p, for the actual person) is the wrong conversation. The debate should focus on the President and the role and scope of the Executive. That requires more than educating the average voting citizen. It requires a public discussion of the moral and ethical pitfalls of a powerful Executive in context of world history. Even then, it misses the bulk of the issue. The masses elect and re-elect a legislature with <15% approval rating.

If you look at the 2012 presidential debate topics, it is mostly devoid of any real substantive insights into the candidates world view or ethics. This leaves the citizens to deduce disparate idealized versions of the candidate based on mostly trivial or momentary current event topics. Combined with the two party system, you get a citizenry with black and white goggles. The average person never has to think philosophically about how elected officials might steer the moral and ethical direction of the country.

He still could have chosen to use the bully pulpit to try to improve the situation. Instead he chose to maintain the status quo, specifically breaking a campaign promise. Worse, having been called out on it, he now whines, "But Congress said it was OK" as if that were some kind of justification. It's true that Obama doesn't have the power to singlehandedly change the situation. But he does have more influence than any other individual.

You make it seem as if keeping promises and good intentions are the same thing. How many lives is a promise worth?

I'd much rather have a politician that bas his plans on the latest known evidence, rather than blindly adhering to promises made. This isn't to suggest that this is what happened here, but frankly, it's too early to tell. Information is still being spilled day by day.

And for many of this, it isn't news. It's stuff we've known was going on for a long time. But shit, some whistleblower comes out and everyone suddenly becomes all for privacy, forgetting that countless times scaremongers and conspiracy theorists were shouted down.

This is what the American people voted for many times, not just in the presidential elections. And it didn't start with Obama.

So, until you can answer "How many lives is a promise worth?" you're simply playing arm chair politics. It's easy to get indignant and out of sorts when you don't have any responsibility.

That's not what I was getting at. I was suggesting that pointing the finger of blame at one person, and placing the onus on them - and asking them to resign is a little shortsighted. Expecting the problem to just vanish is merely wishful thinking.

Is he or is he not the establishment, that's probably another debate in itself.

I'm over the pond here, so I can't quite grok the American reaction to the recent news over this Prism stuff. I'd expect the Hacker news community to be pissed, but what's the general feeling over there?

what's the general feeling over there? Mostly people fall into two categories: ignorant or apathetic.

Either people watch too much national news, and don't really hear this story, or if they do know about it they don't believe it's that big of a deal.

Here in the midwest, "I have nothing to hide" is a popular comment.

There are all kinds of intellectual arguments against the "I have nothing to hide" excuse, but the argument itself is emotional - "I am a good person, bad things do not happen to good people."

We need examples, emotional heart-string tugging examples of good people who had something to hide and suffered because it was exposed. I don't have any off the top of my head, but perhaps someone has already realized this and started collecting them somewhere on the web?

http://americablog.com/2013/03/facebook-might-know-youre-gay...

One nice point raised in that article is the feeling of encroachment on personal space.

Going somewhat OT, sorry no concrete examples for you...

Like other's have said the thought that you are being watched is like being in a panopticon, or having God looking over your shoulder. Which might of course curb some people from doing wrong, but could stifle exploration and expression of our multiple personas on the web.

Some laws are easy to get on board with, others are not. You could kill your career with something like the exposure of drug taking.

There's the possibility of smear campaigns (if the data falls into the wrong hands). Did anyone hear about the news of the world police bribing scandal in the UK?

You might loose your job, if you are found to have certain political or organisational leanings.

You could find yourself the target of ethnic cleansing.

Those that have nothing to hide, probably feel right now that they are on the right side of the law. Perhaps you could identify 'criminals' by asking for a show of hands for those that 'have nothing to hide', and lock up the rest.

We all have a few skeletons in our closet, it might be nice to get these out there and seek repentence, but sadly some people are just not so tolerant, forgiving, or able to not pass judgment. And sometimes it's best to just bury these things.

Ithttp://americablog.com/2013/03/facebook-might-know-youre-gay...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com