[demallien]

I don't think that it's useful to be talking about Obama specifically. Before Obama there was Bush Jr, who was the sitting president when most of these programs were put in place. It should be clear now that it's not one specific President, or one specific party, but the whole political class that has been corrupted. Thinking things will get better at the next election will absolutely not help things, unless the issue du jour of the next election is privacy, and the new president chosen based on their commitment to privacy. Even then it's not sure whether such a President could successfully make meaningful change.

[mcv]

I lot of people were hoping Obama was the start of a new direction. I'm now hoping he'll be the last of the old direction. The big problem to solve is: how do you elect someone different? As long as the two parties get to decide who American can elect, democracy is a hollow gesture. And the media are all in the pocket of the main parties.

Honestly, it seems like only Al-Jazeera US might be the only independent news station.

[VLM]

"As long as the two parties get to decide who American can elect,"

No, its one set of political campaign donors, not two parties.

One set of donors, hires two competing PR firms masquerading as political parties, to implement two different messages aiming at the identical goal.

Its relatively effective and stable as a technology for social control. Its also effective at benefiting the people who are running it, which is obviously not the general public or humanity overall or the environment or pretty much anyone but a couple 1%ers.

[chalst]

One of the Wikileaks releases contained allegations that Qatar was leaning on Al-Jazeera:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/dec/05/wikileaks-cable...

[hobs]

Yep, most people would say Al-Jazeera is not biased on the topics we are speaking about, but everyone has a corporate master somewhere.

[chris_mahan]

see http://gulfnews.com/news/gulf/qatar/al-jazeera-turning-into-...

[hobs]

Thanks!

[dragonwriter]

> I lot of people were hoping Obama was the start of a new direction. I'm now hoping he'll be the last of the old direction.

As long as people are hoping for some politician to deliver them from government unaccountable to the people, its not going to happen.

> The big problem to solve is: how do you elect someone different?

Elections are important, but they aren't everything. More needs to be done to think about "how do we effectively hold those we do elect accountable".

> As long as the two parties get to decide who American can elect, democracy is a hollow gesture.

To the extent this is part of the problem, it is probably more tractable if you realize that it is a problem effecting many elections, isn't amenable to a quick one-step fix, and that elections to the Presidency aren't the best place to start.

[acheron]

"lot of people were hoping Obama was the start of a new direction"

Anyone who thought that wasn't paying attention, of course, but it's not like that's a new thing.

And it makes sense: it's not like your vote is actually going to do anything, so why bother paying attention? Just go vote if you remember, and pick the guy with the letter by his name that you voted for last time. (Can look up Ilya Somin's writings regarding "rational political ignorance" for more on that.)

[ams6110]

how do you elect someone different

Start by being intellectually curious about the person, who he is, what he has done on the past, what philosopies he is associated with. Quit labeling people who try to do this as wingnuts or racists or employing other logically fallacious arguments to try to shut down debate.