No, we aren't powerless. That's why these people are so relentless in their intimidation and pursuit of more power. If they thought we were powerless, they wouldn't bother. They are afraid, and they should be. The tide can turn quickly.

I don't think the ability to dispense fear and intimidation around the world at will is a show of fear.

Our biggest hope is this becomes a national issue for the next election so we at least have the opportunity to elect the leader who respects our constitutional rights the most.

And which one will that be? The "democrat" or the "republican"?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zTJ0qYR6YFo

I think that a candidate who was not afraid to make the "security state" a campaign issue, and the massive government encroachment in so many other aspects of our lives, and was able to explain the issues and his or her positions without sounding like he was regurgitating focus-group tested talking points, would do quite well in the current climate.

Or it may be that the average person still doesn't care. People who really don't care don't vote though, so all you really have to do is reach the people who are in any way paying attention.

So voting for a politician that takes advantage of a strategic opening by promising things he/she likely has no intention whatsoever of following through on is going to fix the police state? I mean, the administration's positions throughout this entire NSA scandal have been diametrically opposed to promises and assurances that Obama made while campaigning. Until you solve the problem of politician trustworthiness, then you have no hope of fixing systemic problems stemming from lack of trustworthiness among government officials. And make no mistake, you have to trust a politician that promises in his campaign to limit his own power.

Perhaps structural changes in the way politicians are elected and retain office would have some positive long term effects. I imagine if it was possible to hold a direct-vote referendum on the current sitting president mid-term would hold their feet to the fire at least a little bit. Also, prohibiting advertising by political campaigns (TV, print, all of it) coupled with state-sponsored, mandetory debates between presidential candidates might force a real debate about real issues.

And assuming we agreed that those changes would be beneficial to the political system, how might we go about achieving those reforms?

Well, that's the big question isn't it? Perhaps Larry Lessig will make end roads on the campaign finance issue, though I'm not holding my breath. The thing is that basically these sort of structural reforms will be difficult to institute without a broad movement that replaces scads of incumbents with independents unified on these issues. The current campaign finance rules heavily favor incumbents (aka current legislators), and so narrow, lukewarm political sentiment will yield nothing but lip service. I mean, it's hard to get incumbents to put that ladder back down after they've intentionally pulled it up behind them. It's a difficult problem, and I'm pessimistic on the prospect of it being solved when so few people seem to have the attention span to even see the problem. It's much easier to get outraged at narrow concrete issues than weightier abstract issues like campaign finance.

Not clear yet, if its a national issue each side can make their position known and back it up with planned reforms.

The one thing that is clear is that we shouldn't expect change under an Obama administration.

As I've said before, you won't see any review of this until after troops are fully withdrawn from Afghanistan, at which point a review of the AUMF and Patriot act become far more likely.

Are you really that naive as to expect change under the next democrat|republican administrations?

You've confused hope with naivety, where there is none.

Election time is the best time for reform, i.e. where the democratic process has the most influence.

Wasn't Obama the 'hope' candidate?

I agree that hope is better than despair but hope seems to be a bit of a tarnished word after the last 4+ years.

And this time around, let's hope we are a bit more curious about the "change" we are voting for.

Voting for a very small set of preselected candidates, endorsed by either wing of the elite party and mass media has zero chance of changing anything.

The primaries.

we are in a serious democracy crisys right now all over the world, because the politics doesnt represent us anymore.. not now.. and dont thinks things changes that much only by "voting the other guy".

if people dont really pressure for a immediate change in laws, its a illusion that by exchanging parties in power they will change their behavior..

they had made us believe there were only 3 powers in democracy.. but the truth is there are only 1 real power.. and thats the one that comes from the people.. the other 3 ones, are just institutionalized..

its in times like these, people must show this power in action in a way that make the institutions fear the people power..

they made it in the french revolution, they made it in the arab spring.. they are making it here in brazil..

in brazil now they are just listening, and doing what they are told to.. dont know what will become of all of this.. but it is working..

people must stand.. its the only way against distopic and schizophrenic governments

Huh? The UK doesn't have a constitution. Or are you talking about the European Convention of Human Rights.

Maybe it can still turn, but definitely not quickly. It will take a huge amount of effort and blood to take the power away from the sociopath banksters and their puppet politicians, military and media.

IMHO it is very unlikely as very few people in the developed countries today care about political power and modern weapons, like drones and PRISM, are very anti-democratic in nature.

It's easy to come up with a monocausal explanation of all that's wrong in today's society. But that doesn't correspond to reality, and propagating it does nothing but encourage people to build strategies on false premises.

Those "sociopath banksters" might have a long list of sins and villainies, but that doesn't mean that they're the ones at fault here. Oppression is a system, not a rational order directed by a single person or group. I would not be surprised if a poll of your "banksters" revealed a far higher level of personal support for civil liberties than the average citizen. There's no reason to suppose that they want or have any interest in living in a world where the State can seize and steal the property of someone with no trial or opportunity for appeal.

This is an excellent example of newspeak - looks and sounds like speech, but completely lacks meaning.

At least history shows us that all totalitarian governments have indeed been stopped at some point. However, history also tells us they really don't like speedbumps on their route to getting to that point.

It looks pretty democratic to me. Where are the large protests ?