"I have solved this political dilemma in a very direct way: I don't vote. On Election Day, I stay home. I firmly believe that if you vote, you have no right to complain. Now, some people like to twist that around. They say, 'If you don't vote, you have no right to complain,' but where's the logic in that? If you vote, and you elect dishonest, incompetent politicians, and they get into office and screw everything up, you are responsible for what they have done. You voted them in. You caused the problem. You have no right to complain. I, on the other hand, who did not vote -- who did not even leave the house on Election Day -- am in no way responsible for that these politicians have done and have every right to complain about the mess that you created." - George Carlin
The question is not so much whether you vote (most people will) but what you vote for.
The U.S. system of government is deeply rooted in an English common law and constitutional framework. In its U.S. variant, it became a constitutional republic, with the broad idea being that power within the government is divided by design so as to help prevent its abuse. That means a federal system premised on the legal principle that governmental power resides by default elsewhere than with the centralized authority - meaning, the federal authority is strictly limited to the powers expressly granted to it by the constitution, as implemented through three branches of government (executive, legislative, judicial) that check and balance each other even with respect to the limited power resident within that federal authority. Any power not expressly granted to the federal authority belongs to the states and to the people. On top of it all, the very notion of government as a compact derived from the foundational principle that it is the individual, not the state, that has inalienable rights that cannot be impaired by any government, no matter how benign its stated motives or noble its stated goals. All in all, this began as a bottom-up system with a tremendous respect for the rights of the individual and a tremendous distrust for the power of the state.
While that was the theory, the practice did not often match and major faults such as the slave system and the legally sanctioned taking of lands from the "pagan" residents who preceded the European migrants led to many convulsions by which, in time, the federal authority itself - which had often been the cause of the abuses - came to be seen as the cure for the problems and therefore came to be seen as an authority that should be given broad, largely unchecked, and very vague grants of power with which to accomplish its newly-defined goals. Couple this with the move from a formerly isolationist America (Monroe Doctrine, etc.) to one that saw its role in the world as that of an exporter of democracy and defender of a democratic system of government around the globe, and you perforce have a massive further expansion of centralized authority via the build up of a massive military, in contrast to the time of George Washington where even the very idea of having a standing army was hugely controversial and defense was handled mostly by loosely formed militias organized by the colonies and then the states.
And so, two-plus centuries later, you have a system in which modern conservatives ask for virtually unlimited authority by which to achieve largely military aims and by which modern liberals ask for virtually unlimited authority by which to achieve social aims. With that massive build up of federal power, we all wake up one day and find that the central government has become rather full of itself, arrogant, and unaccountable, with those in charge - of either of the major parties - now quite comfortable with the idea that the rights of the individual are far subservient to those of the state, at least as seen by those in charge. And we all wonder how this happened.
I see this as a system that is wildly out of control in its expansionist aims at the expense of the individual and, given the historical arc, don't hold out a lot of hope that the problem can be reversed unless people's thinking changes significantly.
Yes, by all means vote, but do vote with discernment and with a sharp eye to those who would protect the rights of the individual and not based on the cliches of the day regarding the modern political parties. Maybe that will in time help to turn it around. In any case, that is how I see it.
Carlin was a great comedian and I'm a big fan but I'm not about to agree with this simply because the late great George Carlin said it. This is totally backwards and you have to do some mental gymnastics to believe it. In the end, this is what it is, a joke.
If you don't vote you have done nothing to even try to elect someone who you, in good faith, believe will do what you deem the right thing. Yeah, politicians are fucjing scum a lot of the time and lie to the point where its easier to trust the devil himself rather than a politican. That said, totally dismissing the system as one big huge scam is the lazy, cheap, and easy way out of your duty as a citizen. It's a total copout that lets you feel superior but in reality makes you completely inneffectual. The electorate may or may not have much power but it still has some. Voting is just one method of exercising your will over your government. It's important but we also need to be active in lobbying our government in other ways too.
Those in power want you not to vote. To take on this "I don't vote because its a sham" mentality is to play right into their little game. When enough people fall for it that's when it becomes a reality. I'd say its close to being a reality but it isn't too late to turn the tide. It's going to take some time which requires patience, something Americans don't have much of.
If you vote you always have the right to complain. If your guy loses you get to complain about how the other guy would've done things differently. If your guys wins and doesn't fulfill all his promises you still get to complain about how you were sold a bill of goods. If you don't vote, you're still entitled to complain but I personally won't take you as seriously because you haven't tried to affect change. This is supposed to be government for by and of the people but if you believe that Carlin joke (its a JOKE by the way) then it will no longer be that.
George Carlin is (was) a right fool. The whole problem is that people don't have enough control over the government. Not voting only allows those who would have control over you to have more power. Even a protest vote or a third party vote is worth more than no vote.
Sorry, I strongly disagree. The people are not responsible for the actions of their representatives. That's the same logic that terrorists use to rationalize their attacking innocent civilians. It's also the same sort of "with us or against us" kind of thinking that he criticized Bush for.
At least voters are trying. They're trying to make the best of what they have. These people with day jobs, barely scraping by to support a family, take the time out of their day to try to make the country better instead of giving up and going home to avoid blame, like Carlin. And then he criticizes them. That irritates me.
Great, so he has solved his own problem of feeling responsible for what politicians do if he elects them. Now the only problem left is what politicians do.
I hate that attitude so much. Abstaining from voting is just lazy, it's not activism, in fact it's inactivism. You don't have to vote for the two major parties, if you can't find a candidate you like then at least show up and vote for yourself.
You have NO right to complain if you didn't vote. Not voting causes cronies like Obama to get in office. It was obvious from the start that Obama was going to multiple all of the evil Bush policies. By not voting you consented to that happening.
Nobody I've voted for in a Federal election has ever won that election. I often vote for third-party candidates with the knowledge that they have as good as zero chance of winning, but sometimes I vote for major-party candidates who seem mostly reasonable. None of them have ever won either.
I disagree, that's blaming the wrong people. The voters don't necessarily create any mess. In one way or another some politician will get into office, and sometimes people just have to choose between the lesser of the evils available.
If you don't vote there's nothing distinguishing your non-vote from that of an apathetic non-voter. At least go and vote for a non-Republicrat, or even just write in your own name...
Not to vote is a free choice, but with this you exclude yourself from the democratic process. You become a bystander and then indeed have no right to complain.
Look at Facebook, for instance. I'm seeing splinter social networks that generally rip off its UI so they can develop their special interest via their particular domain name. Let's look at a pessimistic utopia where Developer == Plumber: everything eventually becomes decentralized because of the dividing and conquering of the digital laborer. In an optimistic utopia where Developer == Artisan: everything eventually becomes decentralized because each small team or developer group manages some autonomous function of digital society.
None of this national stuff really matters unless we're talking about a Nation-state divided. In which cases, we're talking the worst case scenario, and any pretense that rational debate will absolve these architectural problems of "the State" fails to acknowledge the already unfit architecture of the State, wherein direct action is necessary.
'The unfitness of the object may cause one to overlook the unfitness of the means.'
"Because if we are willing to work for it, and fight for it, and believe in it, then I am absolutely certain that generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless; this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal; this was the moment when we ended a war and secured our nation and restored our image as the last, best hope on earth. "
But you didn't work on it, Mr. President. Just like your preceding, you established a corrupt administration hell-bent upon restriction of freedom and secrecy. You are no better than Bush, and regardless of what party differences both of you had, you are one and the same behind the scenes.
"and restored our image as the last, best hope on earth."
No joke. These are not idle words.
I grew up in Eastern Europe looking up to the great US of A, where hippies stopped a war and abolished the draft, where people can sue the government and win, where privacy and human rights are enshrined in the Constitution, which more than 200 hundred years ago prompted other nations to adopt something similar many years later.
Then the 9/11 came. Fast forward a decade and it looks like all those great achievements went to the toilet. Sorry, I can't help but feel that the Americans have let the world down, and the terrorists have won.
It's so easy from the outside to simply say things like this with absolutely no first-hand knowledge.
Maybe he did just say those things at election time and doesn't truly care. But assuming that to be the case for certain is lazy thinking.
The discussion I want to have is, what else could make a person who is dead-set against surveillance turn around so drastically once in office? What did he see, what did he come up against? Right or wrong, what scared him?
Unfortunately, we never have that discussion. Politicians are all just simple liars, it's as easy at that, there is no nuance to even remotely consider, blah blah.
Yeah, there's a very real difference between the collection of metadata and actually recording phone conversations and text messages. Both leave a bad taste in my mouth, but conflating the two is dangerous and dishonest.
I agree with you. But on (B) I'm not sure the people listening would have expected one great big warrant covering all the people in the country.
It is important to be specific and accurate with claims made so that the culprits can't just pick one inaccurate claim and deny that loudly and repeatedly while ignoring the things that they actually have done.
No, it's not, you're apparently just not fully aware of what's going on.
They don't only have access to phone records; they also have access to our communications, and they have had that access for at least the last 6 years without a warrant, not even one from a FISA court.
"My job this morning is to be so persuasive...that a light will shine through that window, a beam of light will come down upon you, you will experience an epiphany, and you will suddenly realize that you must go to the polls and vote for Barack,"
In other words, say whatever needs to be said to get elected. Worry about the details later. Or not.
"You can’t vote for a Messiah and not expect a theocracy."
And if this was a joke, the only reason it is funny is because so many have treated him like a Messiah. Of course, when he was saying in all seriousness things like "This was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal" the confusion is understandable....
It's almost as if he's speaking to a cult. Might as well have said something along the lines of "Obama is the savior of the US. Let him into your heart and soul and you will know it to be true. Go forth and vote!"
Even someone on reddit pointed out that these phone taps aren't warrantless wiretaps. First, the FISA court has given a warrant for broad information gathering (whether you agree with it or not). Second, they're only taking metadata. In addition, it seems controversial whether these tactics were targeted to domestic calls at all. Just saying.
Why is it not possible to prosecute politicians for fraud or at least sue them in a court of law for making fraudulent claims, possibly via a class action suit? If an advertiser promised that their product does X when it obviously does not, then that is essentially fraud, and I have the right to sue on those grounds because I paid for their services with my money. In the case of politicians, I give them votes based on their promises. If they try to carry out those promises and fail in good faith that is one thing, but if I give them my vote based on their promises and they don't make a good-faith effort to carry out those promises then they basically committed fraud.
The narrow legal answer is: false advertising regulations generally only apply to commercial trade which doesn't include elections; wider fraud offences are (unlike false advertising) not strict liability so would require you to prove that they knew the representation was false at the time it was made (as opposed to just changing their mind later), which is difficult, and in any case it's unclear that a court would consider a vote to be a gain of money/property; there's no unilateral contract here as there's no objective intent to create binding legal relations with every voter in the country; and administrative law concepts of legitimate expectations don't apply to manifesto/pre-election political promises per R (Wheeler) v PM. (That's all for English law, but I imagine the concepts are similar in the US).
The wider answer is: laws are made by politicians. They're not going to pass laws that would make them liable for lying to win elections.
The Office of the President of the United States is controlled my the machinery of government. At this point, the person you put in there does one thing that we need to pay attention to: appoint judges. Everything else is just nuance of a system so entrenched, even the staunchest Green Party candidate would have problems doing anything he/she claimed as a candidate. Once the person is elected, "realism" kicks in, and the person is merely a guide on an already sailing ship.
It's cute that this surprises anyone. Someone who's not an egomaniac psychopath has about has much chances to win a presidential election as an average person has to win a gold medal in the olympics.
The oddest thing about this is that people seem totally fine that corporations control all of their personal data (and use it to develop new revenue streams), but if the government gets that data (that already exists), then there's a serious problem. What?
Here is the rub, if government does nothing and we get attacked people will complain. If government steps up and works to prevent an attack, people complain.
The problem is US started so many fights with other states (just to bring "their democracy") that now they are facing a big amount of guerrilla-not-centralized terrorism that they have to sacrifice freedom to have security. And for more time US keep this type of political, for more they will have to give up on a lot of rights his population have now. I already see new patriot acts-like caming.
I have a problem with the article and title on 2 levels. 1) It identifies a "bad" guy. In a two party system the other party is the "bad" guy no matter how or whom signed legislation into law. If you identify yourself as a democrat or republican, then you are part of the problem. It's unrealistic to think that you'll ever agree with a single person on all issues let alone an entire political group. 2) It does not address the real problem. We have a problem with add-ons in legislation that have absolutely nothing to do with the essence or spirit of the bill. These egregious actions occur all the time, no matter who is in charge. We need to rid our political system of money and lobbyists. Oh, and by the way, a bill that probably mostly affects tech companies, the Immigration Bill, contains the authority to create a biometric database. Note "authority to create" and not "setup a database". News outlets are mincing words.
I dont understand why more United States citizens aren't voting for the underdogs. In the last election, it was possible for the greens to "win" . If you want to protest, instead of not voting, vote for the least likely to win. It makes a statistical analysis of the "protest votes" possible.. Under some (eg, normal curves) statistical models, you assume that the non-sampled closely resemble the sampled (with some level of confidence). By not voting you're basically saying "dont worry, I am very much like the 'norm'" . By voting for the underdog you're helping to elucidate the fact that you are not represented by the main parties.
While I am not a fan of what's been going on in our security sector, and I don't think Obama is living up to the spirit in which he campaigned on this issue (amongst others), it's worth noting that there's an easy weasel way out here: collecting records that would have been generated anyway after the fact is not a "wiretap".
While I am uncomfortable with some of the choices around the wiretapping of the Fox News reporter, I was pleased to note that they had obtained a warrant in that case.
At some level this has to bring up the issue of voting age into the fold. I'm sorry but I know few 18 year olds who could be trusted to run their lives, much less make sensible, informed and intelligent voting decisions. They simply don't have enough education and life experience to understand what they are voting for.
Is there an argument for producing better vote quality by raising the minimum voting age to somewhere in the 24 to 30 range?
When thinking about the end game of NSA surveillance it is useful to think of the NSA as a tech company with no need to be profitable, almost no legal constraints, the best connections to the biggest corporations (enforced by the power of law with the urgency of national security) and de facto unlimited funds for hardware and top talent.
Total information awareness is their goal, and they will succeed.
Perhaps he learned something in the last 4 years that persuaded him to allow these things? Or perhaps the president is actually not so powerful as to overturn laws and policies passed by congress?
Maybe we should be raging at congress for allowing these things in the first place? In secret hearings and committees with closed doors?
When election campaign advisers are making a "list of promises to make" they never considered with possibility of fulfillment, but focusing on a percentage of electorate which could be "taped" by such and such promise.))
[+] [-] edw519|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] grellas|12 years ago|reply
The U.S. system of government is deeply rooted in an English common law and constitutional framework. In its U.S. variant, it became a constitutional republic, with the broad idea being that power within the government is divided by design so as to help prevent its abuse. That means a federal system premised on the legal principle that governmental power resides by default elsewhere than with the centralized authority - meaning, the federal authority is strictly limited to the powers expressly granted to it by the constitution, as implemented through three branches of government (executive, legislative, judicial) that check and balance each other even with respect to the limited power resident within that federal authority. Any power not expressly granted to the federal authority belongs to the states and to the people. On top of it all, the very notion of government as a compact derived from the foundational principle that it is the individual, not the state, that has inalienable rights that cannot be impaired by any government, no matter how benign its stated motives or noble its stated goals. All in all, this began as a bottom-up system with a tremendous respect for the rights of the individual and a tremendous distrust for the power of the state.
While that was the theory, the practice did not often match and major faults such as the slave system and the legally sanctioned taking of lands from the "pagan" residents who preceded the European migrants led to many convulsions by which, in time, the federal authority itself - which had often been the cause of the abuses - came to be seen as the cure for the problems and therefore came to be seen as an authority that should be given broad, largely unchecked, and very vague grants of power with which to accomplish its newly-defined goals. Couple this with the move from a formerly isolationist America (Monroe Doctrine, etc.) to one that saw its role in the world as that of an exporter of democracy and defender of a democratic system of government around the globe, and you perforce have a massive further expansion of centralized authority via the build up of a massive military, in contrast to the time of George Washington where even the very idea of having a standing army was hugely controversial and defense was handled mostly by loosely formed militias organized by the colonies and then the states.
And so, two-plus centuries later, you have a system in which modern conservatives ask for virtually unlimited authority by which to achieve largely military aims and by which modern liberals ask for virtually unlimited authority by which to achieve social aims. With that massive build up of federal power, we all wake up one day and find that the central government has become rather full of itself, arrogant, and unaccountable, with those in charge - of either of the major parties - now quite comfortable with the idea that the rights of the individual are far subservient to those of the state, at least as seen by those in charge. And we all wonder how this happened.
I see this as a system that is wildly out of control in its expansionist aims at the expense of the individual and, given the historical arc, don't hold out a lot of hope that the problem can be reversed unless people's thinking changes significantly.
Yes, by all means vote, but do vote with discernment and with a sharp eye to those who would protect the rights of the individual and not based on the cliches of the day regarding the modern political parties. Maybe that will in time help to turn it around. In any case, that is how I see it.
[+] [-] bpatrianakos|12 years ago|reply
If you don't vote you have done nothing to even try to elect someone who you, in good faith, believe will do what you deem the right thing. Yeah, politicians are fucjing scum a lot of the time and lie to the point where its easier to trust the devil himself rather than a politican. That said, totally dismissing the system as one big huge scam is the lazy, cheap, and easy way out of your duty as a citizen. It's a total copout that lets you feel superior but in reality makes you completely inneffectual. The electorate may or may not have much power but it still has some. Voting is just one method of exercising your will over your government. It's important but we also need to be active in lobbying our government in other ways too.
Those in power want you not to vote. To take on this "I don't vote because its a sham" mentality is to play right into their little game. When enough people fall for it that's when it becomes a reality. I'd say its close to being a reality but it isn't too late to turn the tide. It's going to take some time which requires patience, something Americans don't have much of.
If you vote you always have the right to complain. If your guy loses you get to complain about how the other guy would've done things differently. If your guys wins and doesn't fulfill all his promises you still get to complain about how you were sold a bill of goods. If you don't vote, you're still entitled to complain but I personally won't take you as seriously because you haven't tried to affect change. This is supposed to be government for by and of the people but if you believe that Carlin joke (its a JOKE by the way) then it will no longer be that.
[+] [-] astine|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lallysingh|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] joering2|12 years ago|reply
You are not solving the problem you just ignoring it. And I am not sure what's worse...
[+] [-] cle|12 years ago|reply
At least voters are trying. They're trying to make the best of what they have. These people with day jobs, barely scraping by to support a family, take the time out of their day to try to make the country better instead of giving up and going home to avoid blame, like Carlin. And then he criticizes them. That irritates me.
[+] [-] fauigerzigerk|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mizcheif_k|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] natmaster|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Zak|12 years ago|reply
Nobody I've voted for in a Federal election has ever won that election. I often vote for third-party candidates with the knowledge that they have as good as zero chance of winning, but sometimes I vote for major-party candidates who seem mostly reasonable. None of them have ever won either.
[+] [-] lbebber|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] night815|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tlrobinson|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hawkharris|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] micah63|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] znowi|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] flexd|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Kabacaru|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] wittysense|12 years ago|reply
"It's the cities, Stupid."
Look at Facebook, for instance. I'm seeing splinter social networks that generally rip off its UI so they can develop their special interest via their particular domain name. Let's look at a pessimistic utopia where Developer == Plumber: everything eventually becomes decentralized because of the dividing and conquering of the digital laborer. In an optimistic utopia where Developer == Artisan: everything eventually becomes decentralized because each small team or developer group manages some autonomous function of digital society.
None of this national stuff really matters unless we're talking about a Nation-state divided. In which cases, we're talking the worst case scenario, and any pretense that rational debate will absolve these architectural problems of "the State" fails to acknowledge the already unfit architecture of the State, wherein direct action is necessary.
'The unfitness of the object may cause one to overlook the unfitness of the means.'
[+] [-] unknown|12 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] kunai|12 years ago|reply
But you didn't work on it, Mr. President. Just like your preceding, you established a corrupt administration hell-bent upon restriction of freedom and secrecy. You are no better than Bush, and regardless of what party differences both of you had, you are one and the same behind the scenes.
You just don't give a fuck.
[+] [-] geoka9|12 years ago|reply
No joke. These are not idle words.
I grew up in Eastern Europe looking up to the great US of A, where hippies stopped a war and abolished the draft, where people can sue the government and win, where privacy and human rights are enshrined in the Constitution, which more than 200 hundred years ago prompted other nations to adopt something similar many years later.
Then the 9/11 came. Fast forward a decade and it looks like all those great achievements went to the toilet. Sorry, I can't help but feel that the Americans have let the world down, and the terrorists have won.
[+] [-] Legion|12 years ago|reply
Maybe he did just say those things at election time and doesn't truly care. But assuming that to be the case for certain is lazy thinking.
The discussion I want to have is, what else could make a person who is dead-set against surveillance turn around so drastically once in office? What did he see, what did he come up against? Right or wrong, what scared him?
Unfortunately, we never have that discussion. Politicians are all just simple liars, it's as easy at that, there is no nuance to even remotely consider, blah blah.
[+] [-] jbindel|12 years ago|reply
A) Phone records are not wiretaps. B) They weren't warrantless.
However, secret warrants can be misused, and gathering data on domestic calls needs further scrutiny than this collection of every call.
[+] [-] ahoy|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] arh68|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] josephlord|12 years ago|reply
It is important to be specific and accurate with claims made so that the culprits can't just pick one inaccurate claim and deny that loudly and repeatedly while ignoring the things that they actually have done.
[+] [-] notdrunkatall|12 years ago|reply
They don't only have access to phone records; they also have access to our communications, and they have had that access for at least the last 6 years without a warrant, not even one from a FISA court.
[+] [-] freyr|12 years ago|reply
In other words, say whatever needs to be said to get elected. Worry about the details later. Or not.
[+] [-] hga|12 years ago|reply
"You can’t vote for a Messiah and not expect a theocracy."
And if this was a joke, the only reason it is funny is because so many have treated him like a Messiah. Of course, when he was saying in all seriousness things like "This was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal" the confusion is understandable....
[+] [-] bluetooth|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bjustin|12 years ago|reply
That said, dragnet surveillance of US citizens is still heinous.
[+] [-] daughart|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] malandrew|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] SEMW|12 years ago|reply
The narrow legal answer is: false advertising regulations generally only apply to commercial trade which doesn't include elections; wider fraud offences are (unlike false advertising) not strict liability so would require you to prove that they knew the representation was false at the time it was made (as opposed to just changing their mind later), which is difficult, and in any case it's unclear that a court would consider a vote to be a gain of money/property; there's no unilateral contract here as there's no objective intent to create binding legal relations with every voter in the country; and administrative law concepts of legitimate expectations don't apply to manifesto/pre-election political promises per R (Wheeler) v PM. (That's all for English law, but I imagine the concepts are similar in the US).
The wider answer is: laws are made by politicians. They're not going to pass laws that would make them liable for lying to win elections.
[+] [-] lr|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] murbard2|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jmagoon|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] o0-0o|12 years ago|reply
...on what will happen if we elect him POTUS.
[+] [-] codex|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] RedneckBob|12 years ago|reply
Where is the balance?
[+] [-] yulaow|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] veritas20|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] anonymuzz|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dllthomas|12 years ago|reply
While I am uncomfortable with some of the choices around the wiretapping of the Fox News reporter, I was pleased to note that they had obtained a warrant in that case.
[+] [-] robomartin|12 years ago|reply
Is there an argument for producing better vote quality by raising the minimum voting age to somewhere in the 24 to 30 range?
[+] [-] willholloway|12 years ago|reply
Total information awareness is their goal, and they will succeed.
[+] [-] jvanderbot|12 years ago|reply
Maybe we should be raging at congress for allowing these things in the first place? In secret hearings and committees with closed doors?
[+] [-] dschiptsov|12 years ago|reply