RSN: Cliff Kincaid recently had a National Press Club conference where he called for resurrection of the Congressional internal security committees along the lines of the House Un-American Activities Committee. Would you support recreation of such committees?
King: I would. Something similar. If we called it the House Un-American Activities Committee, that would be lighting up the history of McCarthy in a way that wouldn't be necessary, although I am often quoted as saying "McCarthy was a hero for America." He was. He was right far more times than he was wrong. It is a historical fact. But I would submit a different committee name so that we don't have to deal with the history, and move forward. I think that is a good process and I would support it.
My inner cynic isn't surprised by this, but that little hopeful light that typically keeps the cynic in check is flickering out.
(Nota bene: Under SOPA, RSN could take down Hacker News for this comment, no?)
The irony is that if SOPA passes, Rep. Steve King's experience "surfing the internet" to "kill time" would likely be significantly less interesting with less content available to view/read.
So, does anyone here honestly believe we owe these clowns anything?
How many of you in meetings with a VC tweet about being bored and surfing for cats with cheeseburgers?
How many of you would keep an employee who did this during an engineering meeting?
How many of you would keep working at a job when your boss ignores you so they can check their fantasy football teams?
The only funny (morbidly, blackly funny) part of this is that that wasn't what stopped the debate--it was a finicky rule about choice of language, some pieces of which date back over a century and a half.
Folks, these are the people running the US. These are the people who have a monopoly on force, and who claim the moral highground to do with you what they will for the nation.
I ask myself this question all the time. My answer is that I try to enact as much dissent as possible in small ways, including HN comments. This is not a satisfactory answer, though.
Even among HN readers there are a lot of people who are still very pro-establishment in the sense that they wholeheartedly defend the NY Times, major political parties, etc. This is part of the same youthful optimism that leads people to do startups... the idea that they will soon be part of the establishment so they might as well defend it now for karma.
How many of you would keep an employee who did this during an engineering meeting?
My issue would be that they couldn't be polite to their colleagues, not that their being bored by someone speaking means they're doing a bad job.
In this case, the politicians aren't supposed to love each other, they're from different parties. Yes, you want them to be able to work together, but saying that one person is boring you doesn't mean you aren't able to do your job and make the decisions you're there to make.
I think a committee meeting in the House is quite a different environment than an "engineering meeting". While King's tweet was obviously not offered in a respectful attitude, I don't think that's something that should be sufficiently problematic to stop real "important business". I find it interesting that this comment focuses on the impropriety of King's tweet instead of the impropriety of making a fuss about this, though obviously both are applicable to your main point that the people in charge are grossly incompetent.
The completely honest answer to your question is that I'm not willing to start killing people. Seriously, no troll.
I understand that the popularity contest driven plutocracy we currently operate under will never create a sane government. This is not because voting doesn't "work" - I am not suggesting conspiracy here. But affluent societies don't give a shit. On the whole, so long as you feed, clothe, house, protect, and entertain your electorate, you can do whatever you please, and your power will likely not be challenged. My vote does not, and never will, count, when I am vastly outnumbered by the votes of people so comfortable in their lives that they don't bother with silly things like political introspection.
So, my only alternative is to participate in the only historically viable means of effecting meaningful change: a violent overthrow of the system. I am not willing to do this. That is why I don't "do something".
For those Americans on HN born before the 90s, have American politicians always been this petty and ignorant?
It seems like for since Obama elected the entire opposition party has tried to do everything in their power to oppose anything that the party in power has come up with. And when Democrats and GOP do agree on something, it's bills like SOPA and NDAA.
It seems like for since Obama elected the entire opposition party has tried to do everything in their power to oppose anything
It hasn't been forever, but certainly much longer than Obama's term. I believe that it was under GWB that the stonewalling through threatened filibusters, and refusal to fill judicial appointments, really heated up. Obviously that was spearheaded by the Democrats, by which we can see that both parties can be petulant and petty.
Politians are petty and ignorant in general pretty much world wide. Look at broadcasts at other countries political procedures and you'll see name calling, witty speeches and so on.
Sadly, my Google-fu is failing me. I believe it was a This American Life episode which looked into partisan politics, and how the majority tries to stomp all over the minority at all times. When the tables are turned, the exact same thing happens again. It's always happened, and the politicians know it. They treat the minority opposition terribly, knowing full well that they may be on the on the receiving end of such treatment in only a few years. It's simply seen as the way things are done.
I think Smith was the leading sponsor of the bill, but that most of the text was actually written by staffers who have since become lobbyists. That aside, I think it would be kind of unreasonable to ask that committee chairs not introduce bills in the areas covered by their committees -- after all, they're supposed to be come policy experts in those topics, right? ;)
Are you aware of particular things that Smith has done using the powers of his chair which seemed inappropriate? Listening to the coverage yesterday, it seemed like he wasn't suppressing debate or anything; there's little need given the overwhelming support the bill has on the committee. However, Lofgren and others repeatedly argued that hearings were required to get the opinions of technical experts ... and I might guess the chair has authority in convening such hearings?
This brings up an interesting idea, however. Now that twitter is such a big part of election campaigning, etc, couldn't twitter give an example of the perils of blocking free speech by blocking the twitter accounts of any Representatives that vote pro-SOPA?
It could send a message: "Politicians, if you are so eager to block and censor internet activity, we are happy to show you first hand what it can do, starting with your re-election bid".
In fairness, the break for the parliamentarian to be consulted was shorter than the forced complete reading of the manager's amendment at the beginning of the session. And I think both sides had already acknowledged that the markup session would likely last days, and quite possibly need to be resumed in January.
The American political machine blows my mind. There are some big problems on the horizon, and these problems will require cooperation (or at least a little capitulation). Let's hope they figure it out.
I apologize in advance for the emotional and vague speech but the American democracy is an apparatus built to aimlessly move some rusty wheels and clatter about just nosily enough to give off the appearance of some kind of work being done. I believe there are people in politics genuinely interested in solving problems and making the country better for the majority of its citizens, but these people are helplessly stuck in this perpetual, over-complicated, irrelevant machine designed to fool the eye and distract us just long enough for someone, somewhere to shovel as much money and power into the right pile.
The most dreadful thing is that this is a system we are selling all over the world, and more often than not forcing it on people quite literally at gunpoint. But as long as enough Americans are more or less content with their lives and happy enough with their social/economic status the machine will keep on working.
interrupted the steady flow of amendments that critics were offering to SOPA, which were being merrily defeated one after another by the pro-SOPA majority on the committee.
Does anyone have a complete list of these "pro-SOPA majority" handy?
Am I the only one that thinks someone bored by debate and process behind the passage of a bill (and childishly bragging about it) should be allowed (nay, encouraged) to spend their time elsewhere. Preferrably as far from Congress as possible?
Anyone else think it's interesting that Rep. Steve King complained about being bored by using the very thing that this debate is trying to restrict? These guys kill me.
[+] [-] jen_h|14 years ago|reply
http://www.rightsidenews.com/2010120612252/us/politics-and-e...
Choice bit:
RSN: Cliff Kincaid recently had a National Press Club conference where he called for resurrection of the Congressional internal security committees along the lines of the House Un-American Activities Committee. Would you support recreation of such committees?
King: I would. Something similar. If we called it the House Un-American Activities Committee, that would be lighting up the history of McCarthy in a way that wouldn't be necessary, although I am often quoted as saying "McCarthy was a hero for America." He was. He was right far more times than he was wrong. It is a historical fact. But I would submit a different committee name so that we don't have to deal with the history, and move forward. I think that is a good process and I would support it.
My inner cynic isn't surprised by this, but that little hopeful light that typically keeps the cynic in check is flickering out.
(Nota bene: Under SOPA, RSN could take down Hacker News for this comment, no?)
[+] [-] jsherry|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] angersock|14 years ago|reply
How many of you in meetings with a VC tweet about being bored and surfing for cats with cheeseburgers?
How many of you would keep an employee who did this during an engineering meeting?
How many of you would keep working at a job when your boss ignores you so they can check their fantasy football teams?
The only funny (morbidly, blackly funny) part of this is that that wasn't what stopped the debate--it was a finicky rule about choice of language, some pieces of which date back over a century and a half.
Folks, these are the people running the US. These are the people who have a monopoly on force, and who claim the moral highground to do with you what they will for the nation.
Why the fuck aren't you doing something?
[+] [-] grandalf|14 years ago|reply
Even among HN readers there are a lot of people who are still very pro-establishment in the sense that they wholeheartedly defend the NY Times, major political parties, etc. This is part of the same youthful optimism that leads people to do startups... the idea that they will soon be part of the establishment so they might as well defend it now for karma.
What do you think we should all be doing?
[+] [-] corin_|14 years ago|reply
My issue would be that they couldn't be polite to their colleagues, not that their being bored by someone speaking means they're doing a bad job.
In this case, the politicians aren't supposed to love each other, they're from different parties. Yes, you want them to be able to work together, but saying that one person is boring you doesn't mean you aren't able to do your job and make the decisions you're there to make.
[+] [-] cookiecaper|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rabidsnail|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] earbitscom|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jquery|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] synnik|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] davidhansen|14 years ago|reply
I understand that the popularity contest driven plutocracy we currently operate under will never create a sane government. This is not because voting doesn't "work" - I am not suggesting conspiracy here. But affluent societies don't give a shit. On the whole, so long as you feed, clothe, house, protect, and entertain your electorate, you can do whatever you please, and your power will likely not be challenged. My vote does not, and never will, count, when I am vastly outnumbered by the votes of people so comfortable in their lives that they don't bother with silly things like political introspection.
So, my only alternative is to participate in the only historically viable means of effecting meaningful change: a violent overthrow of the system. I am not willing to do this. That is why I don't "do something".
[+] [-] zht|14 years ago|reply
It seems like for since Obama elected the entire opposition party has tried to do everything in their power to oppose anything that the party in power has come up with. And when Democrats and GOP do agree on something, it's bills like SOPA and NDAA.
[+] [-] CWuestefeld|14 years ago|reply
It hasn't been forever, but certainly much longer than Obama's term. I believe that it was under GWB that the stonewalling through threatened filibusters, and refusal to fill judicial appointments, really heated up. Obviously that was spearheaded by the Democrats, by which we can see that both parties can be petulant and petty.
[+] [-] dugmartin|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mahyarm|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|14 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] jquery|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] georgieporgie|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dglassan|14 years ago|reply
Didn't Lamar Smith write SOPA? And he's the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee overhearing this debate? How is this ok?
[+] [-] abeppu|14 years ago|reply
Are you aware of particular things that Smith has done using the powers of his chair which seemed inappropriate? Listening to the coverage yesterday, it seemed like he wasn't suppressing debate or anything; there's little need given the overwhelming support the bill has on the committee. However, Lofgren and others repeatedly argued that hearings were required to get the opinions of technical experts ... and I might guess the chair has authority in convening such hearings?
[+] [-] sunchild|14 years ago|reply
Also, is there anything more boring than a tweet declaring boredom?
[+] [-] sclera|14 years ago|reply
It could send a message: "Politicians, if you are so eager to block and censor internet activity, we are happy to show you first hand what it can do, starting with your re-election bid".
[+] [-] timjahn|14 years ago|reply
I'm lucky to be an American. But lately, our government is a real embarrassment.
[+] [-] abeppu|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tatsuke95|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mladenkovacevic|14 years ago|reply
The most dreadful thing is that this is a system we are selling all over the world, and more often than not forcing it on people quite literally at gunpoint. But as long as enough Americans are more or less content with their lives and happy enough with their social/economic status the machine will keep on working.
[+] [-] ck2|14 years ago|reply
Does anyone have a complete list of these "pro-SOPA majority" handy?
[+] [-] unknown|14 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] jaysonelliot|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] darrikmazey|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jacoblyles|14 years ago|reply
Google - put your best brains on hacking the lobbying system. The world needs you.
[+] [-] jennyjitters|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nextparadigms|14 years ago|reply
http://www.keepthewebopen.com/sopa
[+] [-] lurker17|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hastur|14 years ago|reply
And who are the retards that vote it up?
Please, make sure you also vote, when Fox reports that a Congressman farted with his mic on.
[+] [-] unknown|14 years ago|reply
[deleted]