But again: US gov. has double standards. When Snowden breaks a law, he will most likely be hung (or worse), but if members of Us agencies breaks hundred, thousands, even million times laws of human rights and the US constitution, they will be either promoted or get an automatic pardon from the president (as Obama did directly after election).
That stinks and is a SHAME for the whole "western world".
The U.S. has already declared that the death penalty is off the table...
And I support most of what Snowden has done for the reason that a true patriot upholds the letter of the Constitution, which does not hold true for a majority of the people in power. I would instead appeal to you that they should therefore be considered false patriots.
The world is often times more complex than "left" and "right".
It's fairly easy to condense simple matters into left or right biases but easier still when the purpose is to appease our tribal nature as a species (us versus them). Of course, the latter serves political interests quite nicely and in a manner that helps keep the coffers overflowing.
That's not to say that I don't treat some matters as black or white (I do because of my own biases--and when I do, I think I'm right :) ) but it bugs me more than it probably should whenever I see this notion repeated that anyone who shares my political persuasions must, by virtue of our "patriotism," secretly desire a police state. It seems to me that the police state and the true patriot ought to be at odds with each other. Perhaps my understanding is skewed, but I can't think of a patriot who would wish for fewer freedoms, excluding for a moment Orwellian-esque double-speak like the PATRIOT Act...
The problem isn't necessarily any one political group as much as it is to do with politicians. The majority of which have been so insulated inside the echo chamber that is Washington DC and so far detached from their constituency for so long that it seems they (and any agency you can imagine that they interact with) feel separate from--and probably above--oversight.
If I were in a real conspiratorial mood, I might suggest that the divisive nature of US politics is entirely intentional and serves to keep us apart so that we may not work together to toss the bums in power out onto the street.
Sadly, though, I think I've already said enough to invite trollish remarks so I ought to stop while I'm ahead. ;)
I think, names like "patriotism", "freedom", "homeland" or even "solidarity" are grandly misused by politicians today. I think, today politicians are just show-men of the real class in power. What should be decided, is not discussed openly, but by people that are not shown on cover pages. The task of the show-men is, to put the decisions (how bad they might be!) in some sound sounding words (like "Patriot Act") so that the masses will agree or at least don't disagree with the things that shall take their freedom, their work-power, their money, their land ... and give it to the new lords, which are no nobles.
And of course, left and right are also instrumented a lot. Because giving a clear "foe" is good to mobilize the own side (even for the wrong things).
I feel you hit the nail on the head right here.
While you state you're not from the United States, you have a clear understanding that a ridiculously large (and embarrassingly so) percent of our population doesn't possess. Not that it surprises me: My mum isn't from here, though she's now a naturalized citizen, and she has a far greater understanding of US politics than the natives!
But then, I also think there's a certain amount of similarity among politicians the world over, or as you stated "the real class in power."
To illustrate one particular sore point that meshes well with your description, many bills drafted by the US Congress are seldom these days drafted by politicians and are instead written by their staffers or, through lobbyists, by other entities that have a keen interest on influencing the bill's content. When former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi stated regarding the ACA that "We have to pass it before we can know what's in it," she wasn't joking. Many of us laughed, more still called her stupid, but she--perhaps unwittingly--provided an insight into Congress few of us are fortunate enough to experience. After all, of those who do read the bills or are instrumental in their construction, they effectively have free reign to inject what they wish. With partisan politics being such as it is, mobilizing your compatriots to vote on a bill isn't especially difficult.
I don't know what the solution is, because when you have laws fabricated by organizations with deep pockets who, by virtue of their expenditure can effectively select those who win elections, any attempt to effect change will be toothless.
Anyway, I deeply appreciate this conversation and would like to thank you for the exchange we've had. It certainly made my morning. :)
At least one law was brought to a downfall later by judges, because it was extremely unconstitutional -- and it came out, that it was pressed threw the parliament, so the politicians just did not know, what they did (or even don't wanted to).
Thanks, it was also a pleasure for me!
We've been seeing a frightening trend toward impenetrable, multi-thousand page bills pushed through Congress whose length is so intimidating and the time schedule so short that almost no one reads them. Then, once passed, everyone (including those who voted for it) get up in arms about the evils of special interests or how they simply didn't know some really bad part was in the very bill they passed. It's absurd. Hell, it'd almost make for good comedy if it didn't have real consequences.
There's a quote attributed to Mark Twain that goes something to the effect (in regards to US politics) "We have the best politicians money can buy."
I can only hope that it's bad behavior we haven't exported to Europe since I suspect it's the nature of the beast (special interest, lobbyists, you-scratch-my-back-I'll-scratch-yours). But I wouldn't be surprised if corrupt politicians in other countries looked at what we're doing here and decided to one-up us. ;)
Joking aside, though, there's something terribly, terribly wrong when it costs nearly a billion USD to run a successful campaign for president...
If I keep up with this line of thought, I'm liable to feel depressed! :D
I think, it's in best interest of the people in power, that the campaign is so costly. When you look at the presidents of the last decades (I don't know to much US history, to go back to far), they all where already millionaires when they where elected.
But you should better watch this one, I don't know if you know Lessig (I think, he is a real patriot): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mw2z9lV3W1g
In our country, the campaigns are less costly, but until anybody comes to the top of any major party, he must be inwardly corrupted already. I see it this way, that nearly no current leading politician in our country is not already totally corrupted by money and power. I think, Mark Twain had this one right, but I don't think, that it had to be exported, it seems to lay inside the human kind. I think it was already visible in the first republics like Rome. Maybe we are in a similar position today as in Caesars or even Neros time.
You should know, that some years ago, even in Europe, rich people started building places to live for millionaires -- apart and secure from the "plebs". They provide for times, when the 99% will no longer hold still. Of course, millionaires are only third class "rich" people in our world. Second class are billionaires.
But I believe you aren't talking about rednecks, but about Washington contractors and possibly a rather limited set of military/civilian special ops people.
As usual, one should be careful what one suggests to the media. For every fantasy Snowden shooter there are likely _scores_ of citizens who fantasize about doing the same thing or worse to those who put monitoring systems into place.
There is some possibility that pitchforks and torches might become de rigeur political dress in the near future. A true redneck would likely be in the crowd, torch in hand.
How courteous they are!