[loopholeclosed]

> In a meta sense I'm curious why you had to create a new account just to post this

Events led me to conclude that using the same account consistently was a bad idea from an employment standpoint. It has nothing to do with this. It is just what I do now. Hell, the password for this account should be easy to guess if you start with the letter a and work your way to the right.

> You cannot see a tree grow, but it does. And many people cannot see that our system of governing is working, but it does. As long as you take the long view, it will. Believe that you are a helpless pawn and all is lost, and it won't.

It is my belief that wealthy people can (usually) get away with passing whatever crap they want through Congress.

The only tool I have at my disposal is point out when this happens and hope people get outraged enough to do something. I'm confused why you view that with a belief that I'm helpless?

P.s. Given that I basically gave away the password, this is the last time I'll use the account.

[ChuckMcM]

   > It is my belief that wealthy people can (usually) 
   > get away with passing whatever crap they want 
   > through Congress.

And you will get a lot of reinforcement of that belief from a variety of sources. That said, the belief doesn't preclude non-wealthy people from getting away with passing whatever crap they want, it just says "People who engage with Congress, (usually) get away with passing what ever crap they want."

If you are wondering how to "engage with Congress" the easy way is during election season but you can also visit them in Washington or at their office in your district. While some districts are quite gerrymandered by their nature the local office is often within driving distance. They also host fund raisers and that while there are some expensive ones, there are also cheap ones (like $25 or $50 a "plate") since every dollar counts in a war chest. You can meet their staff at these (often quite accessible) and if you're at all reasonable develop something of a "relationship" with your elected representative. And even if you dislike their point of view until the next go-round they are your representative.

If you talk with other donors at the event you may find other donors who share your point of view on a particular issue and with some persuasion you may be able to develop a coalition of donors who think like you do, bringing even more attention to your issues.

Politics is people, and it is always local. You don't need to be wealthy to get access, you just need to be reasonable.

[loopholeclosed]

> They also host fund raisers and that while there are some expensive ones, there are also cheap ones (like $25 or $50 a "plate") since every dollar counts in a war chest.

For a household making above the median, this might be viable.

You do have to admit people who have large families, single earner households due to disabled SO, etc. are going to have trouble justifying the expense of spending $200 a year "networking" in political circles.

[ChuckMcM]

Are you saying that you cannot represent the interests of those people? And I am not sure where you computed $200, one fund raiser is one fundraiser, no additional donation required.

If a homeless man says to you, "Mr. Loop, I am homeless and a veteran, and an alcoholic, and a deadbeat father, I deserve help from the government I fought for." You would tell him, "Well good luck with that." Or would you say, "I will see about getting your requirements heard."

The point is why is it "their" problem that they can't talk to the government effectively? Aren't they also citizens in this land?

I completely agree that for people who, for what ever reason, are unable to participate in the governance of the country, will be unable, by their very circumstance, to affect change. And you may very well be a member of that group. But if you are not, is there any reason that you couldn't be their voice if you chose to?

The way our system works is you get out what you put in. And there are people who are unable to put in, but there are also people who can put in for them and serve as their "influence" in the bigger picture. People and even the news media will tell you that they don't exist, and that the world is full of corruption and greed. That sells more newspapers I guess. But have you met your city council? Talked with them? Your county supervisors? If you haven't because you've been told it won't make a difference you have been lied to. And you can put that lie to the test by seeking those people out and putting yourself out there to help.

Yes, there are people with bogus motives in office. And there are good people in office. You can't really tell who is who without talking to them though. And when you find the bogus ones and get them removed, well that helps everyone.

And, as I started this conversation, it takes time. And there are set backs, and sometimes the bozos win one. But you take the long view, the commitment that you will continue to push for a better version of the world. You may find more support than you expect.

[loopholeclosed]

Upon further reflection, maybe I should just keep using it.

Demonstrating that multiple people could have access to the account makes an excellent case for plausible deniability. In the right circumstances a court could compel HN to distinguish between these users (or at least, prove that the "multiple" aspect is a fiction), but the existence of doubt minimalizes the professional risk. This feels like about the right level of security for unpopular political meta-comments of this sort.

[loopholeclosed]

Ah, but are we paranoid or in possession of multiple personalities?

Then again, the risk of a court is never really a risk. This is perfectly legal. :P

[loopholeclosed]

>Ah, but are we paranoid or in possession of multiple personalities?

Maybe for the former, the latter is true without a doubt.

[gandalfu]

So you claim!

[loopholeclosed]

I agree with them. Whoever they happen to be!