Slashdot Mirror

Costa Gavras was a self proclaimed Communist

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

As Jeane Kirkpatrick pointed out anti Communist regimes tended to be authoritarian - if you didn't get involved in politics they'd mostly leave you alone. Communist regimes tended to be totalitarian - they wanted to reformat the culture.

https://www.commentarymagazine...

Surely it is now beyond reasonable doubt that the present governments of Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos are much more repressive than those of the despised previous rulers; that the government of the People's Republic of China is more repressive than that of Taiwan, that North Korea is more repressive than South Korea, and so forth. This is the most important lesson of Vietnam and Cambodia. It is not new but it is a gruesome reminder of harsh facts.

From time to time a truly bestial ruler can come to power in either type of autocracy--Idi Amin, Papa Doc Duvalier, Joseph Stalin, Pol Pot are examples--but neither type regularly produces such moral monsters (though democracy regularly prevents their accession to power). There are, however, systemic differences between traditional and revolutionary autocracies that have a predictable effect on their degree of repressiveness. Generally speaking, traditional autocrats tolerate social inequities, brutality, and poverty while revolutionary autocracies create them.

Traditional autocrats leave in place existing allocations of wealth, power, status, and other re- sources which in most traditional societies favor an affluent few and maintain masses in poverty. But they worship traditional gods and observe traditional taboos. They do not disturb the habitual rhythms of work and leisure, habitual places of residence, habitual patterns of family and personal relations. Because the miseries of traditional life are familiar, they are bearable to ordinary people who, growing up in the society, learn to cope, as children born to untouchables in India acquire the skills and attitudes necessary for survival in the miserable roles they are destined to fill. Such societies create no refugees.

Precisely the opposite is true of revolutionary Communist regimes. They create refugees by the million because they claim jurisdiction over the whole life of the society and make demands for change that so violate internalized values and habits that inhabitants flee by the tens of thousands in the remarkable expectation that their attitudes, values, and goals will "fit" better in a foreign country than in their native land.

The former deputy chairman of Vietnam's National Assembly from 1976 to his defection early in August 1979, Hoang Van Hoan, described recently the impact of Vietnam's ongoing revolution on that country's more than one million Chinese inhabitants:

They have been expelled from places they have lived in for generations. They have been dispossessed of virtually all possessions--their lands, their houses. They have been driven into areas called new economic zones, but they have not been given any aid. How can they eke out a living in such conditions reclaiming new land? They gradually die for a number of reasons--diseases, the hard life. They also die of humiliation.

It is not only the Chinese who have suffered in Southeast Asia since the "liberation," and it is not only in Vietnam that the Chinese suffer. By the end of 1978 more than six million refugees had fled countries ruled by Marxist governments. In spite of walls, fences, guns, and sharks, the steady stream of people fleeing revolutionary utopias continues..

There is a damning, contrast between the number of refugees created by Marxist regimes and those created by other autocracies: more than a million Cubans have left their homeland since Castro's rise (one refugee for every nine inhabitants) as compared to about 35,00

As Pauline Kael famously said about President Nixon in the 1972 election:

I live in a rather special world. I only know one person who voted for Nixon. Where they are I don’t know. They’re outside my ken. But sometimes when I’m in a theater I can feel them.

Most of the rest of the US does not live anywhere near to the world we see in the world, especially in the Bay area. Totally disconnected - and, at least politically, a massive echo chamber. Diversity in tech tends to only apply to gender, race, and religion - not political beliefs or socioeconomic status.

Now? The right wing have always accused the ACLU of having a liberal bias.

And you think that is "odd"?

The ACLU’s Communist, Atheist Roots
The ACLU’s untold Stalinist heritage

They aren't quite as bad as they started, but they still are trying to drive American society towards its vision, which is very different than that of the Founders.

Then again, I'm not sure there is anything they haven't accused of having a liberal bias.

I'm curious, have you even investigated to see if there might be anything to it?

Survey: 7 percent of reporters identify as Republican
Republicans’ media bias claims boosted by scarcity of right-leaning journalists

Survey shocker: Liberal profs admit they’d discriminate against conservatives in hiring, advancement
Moving Further to the Left

Lawyers are more liberal than general population, study finds; what about judges?

Do you think we need to cover unions? Civil servants?

And if you have the curiosity, you might find a surprise or two, or three.

Some places to find new perspectives:
National Review
Weekly Standard
Commentary
Reason
Instapundit
Dennis Prager / Prager U
Hugh Hewitt

Proof you are wrong, sir: Hugo Chávez won all his elections fair and square, according not just to himself but to former US president Jimmy Carter, who was quoted saying "Venezuela probably has the most excellent voting system that I have ever known".

...

BULLSHIT

Academics' Study Backs Fraud Claim In Chavez Election

Two Venezuelan academics claim to have found statistical evidence of fraud in last month's referendum on President Hugo Chavez, fueling the opposition's claims of a rigged vote and raising the possibility that despite Mr. Chavez's victory, the country's tense standoff will continue.

The claims were made Sunday by Ricardo Hausmann, a professor at Harvard University's John F. Kennedy School of Government and former chief economist at the Inter-American Development Bank, and Roberto Rigobon, a professor of applied economics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology's Sloan School of Management.

The pair issued a report that tried to measure the possibility that the vote was clean using two separate analyses of the official results. In both cases, they said, the chances of a clean vote were less than one in 100.

...

The study compared the votes obtained by the opposition during the recall vote with the signatures gathered in November 2003 requesting the referendum. For the recounted votes, the correlation between the number of "yes" votes matched the 2003 petition numbers at a rate that was 10% higher than in the ballot boxes that weren't recounted. They calculate the probability of this taking place by chance at less than 1%.

The government's sample recount "was not a random sample, and I can say that with 99% confidence," Mr. Hausmann said in a telephone interview.

The academics used another technique to look for suspicious patterns in the results, using the 2003 petition and an exit poll on the day of the vote as a vague measure of a voter's intention. Because both measures are imperfect for different reasons, the academics argued, the measures should make different mistakes in predicting the final result.

But the academics found that each method had similar margins of error when compared with the official results, something that would happen only one in 100 times without fraud, they argued.

Fool.

Proof you are wrong, sir: Hugo Chávez won all his elections fair and square, according not just to himself but to former US president Jimmy Carter, who was quoted saying "Venezuela probably has the most excellent voting system that I have ever known".

Chávez' opposition, instead, organised riots, a coup against him, and he was so magnanimous as not to have them sentenced to death (which is undoubtedly what would be done in case anything remotely similar were to occur in the US; it's called treason).

Just because you don't like his policies, his attitude or his inept successor does not make the man a dictator. And by the way there are still elections scheduled in Venezuela, and it is likely Maduro is going to lose.

I cannot attest for the accuracy as I didn't look into any of the sources:

http://www.redstate.com/aarong...
https://www.commentarymagazine...
http://lwv.org/blog/georgia-ex... (indicates it was people listed in the wrong district/going to the wrong district)
https://www.truthorfiction.com... (some claims true, most false, but the true ones are very interesting)

Thus, if the charge that Israel's hold on the territories is illegal is based on the charge of theft from its previous owners, Jordan's own illegitimacy on matters of legal title and its subsequent withdrawal from the fray makes that legal case a losing one. Well before Jordan's renunciation, Eugene Rostow, former dean of Yale Law School and undersecretary of state for political affairs in 1967 during the Six-Day War, argued that the West Bank should be considered "unallocated territory," once part of the Ottoman Empire. From this perspective, Israel, rather than simply "a belligerent occupant," had the status of a "claimant to the territory."

https://www.commentarymagazine.com/articles/the-illegal-settlements-myth/

So. If Obama was for Keystone the Republicans would be against it?

If Obama enforced the border the Republicans would be against it?

If Obama used Executive Privilege to relinquish Federal lands and give them back to the states the Republicans would be against it?

I don't think so.

However the Democrats passed Obamacare - how's it gone for them since then?

Pretty fucking bad:

Democrats have sacrificed a lot for ObamaCare. The party that rode two anti-GOP waves to unqualified power has been decimated. In 2009, Democrats controlled 62 of 99 legislative chambers, 29 governorships, and substantial majorities in both chambers of Congress. Today, the GOP controls 70 percent of all legislative chambers and 32 governorships. Nearly half the population of the United States lives under total Republican control. In the Congress, Republican majorities in the lower chamber appear nearly impossible to oust in this decade and the project of retaking the Senate in 2016 now seems a daunting task despite the number of exposed GOP members in traditionally Democratic states. If Democrats were to lose the presidency in 2017, they would no longer be able to avoid taking stock of the full scale of the party’s decimation. Obama’s hold on the White HoOuse has masked the scope of the party’s truncation.

Who votes Democrat other than sheltered white liberals and the "gimme free stuff!" crowd?

Anyone holding a security clearance is subject to periodic reinvestigation.

so, clapper was investigated and found to be guilty of lying to congress? when does his sentence in prison start?

look, if you want to be taken seriously here on slash, you have to stop YOUR lying.

Let's review what I wrote:

Anyone holding a security clearance is subject to periodic reinvestigation. Things are stricter at actual intelligence agencies, including the use of polygraphs. (Spare me the discussion on them.)

And here is evidence:

Periodic Reinvestigations

The whole thing about Clapper is you trying to put words in my mouth, and falsely claiming that I'm a liar. You seem to be providing evidence that you have an integrity problem.

Tell you what, I'll throw you a bone on the Clapper thing since you can't be bothered to come to a deeper undersanding of Wyden's underhanded dealing on your own.

Clapper and Wyden: Scenes from a Sandbagging
Wyden’s Stunt Was Congress at its Worst

`

I assume you're intelligent enough to read and interpret a broadcast schedule?

Have you been observant enough to see the problems at MSNBC and CNN?

In its State of the News Media: An Annual Report on American Journalism, Pew details, among other interesting tidbits the percentages of news reporting and opinion on the three biggest cable news channels. According to the study, the breakdown of MSNBC shows that a whopping 85 percent of its airtime is taken up with opinion, compared to 55 percent of the time on Fox and 45 percent of CNN’s air. -- Why Liberals Still Detest Fox News
 

Are you talking about the studies that show men who work longer hours in the same field as women get paid more?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/re...

http://www.commentarymagazine....

http://mediamatters.org/video/...

Even if all that were true he still wouldn't be as bad as Carter

http://www.commentarymagazine....

The foreign policy of the Carter administration fails not for lack of good intentions but for lack of realism about the nature of traditional versus revolutionary autocracies and the relation of each to the American national interest. Only intellectual fashion and the tyranny of Right/Left thinking prevent intelligent men of good will from perceiving the facts that traditional authoritarian governments are less repressive than revolutionary autocracies, that they are more susceptible of liberalization, and that they are more compatible with U.S. interests. The evidence on all these points is clear enough.

Surely it is now beyond reasonable doubt that the present governments of Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos are much more repressive than those of the despised previous rulers; that the government of the People's Republic of China is more repressive than that of Taiwan, that North Korea is more repressive than South Korea, and so forth. This is the most important lesson of Vietnam and Cambodia. It is not new but it is a gruesome reminder of harsh facts.

Carter took a hard line with traditional US allies but a very soft one with traditional US enemies. The end result was predictably that US enemies gained and US allies lost. The problem was that those US enemies were actually even more repressive than the most dubious of the US's allies. Khomeini was worse than the Shah. The PRC was worse than the ROC.

Two things. First, the actual misconduct was on the part of Senator Wyden.

Second, the "LOVEINT" issue is misconduct, not an approved NSA action. The people that engage in that are subject to discipline, which generally means they lose their job and security clearance. That has a significant negative impact on their career options.

That wasn't really a good fix.

Wyden’s Stunt Was Congress at its Worst

Get ready for the dirt to be spilled on Darrell Issa, Ted Poe, Paul Broun, Doug Collins, Walter Jones and Alan Grayson. What's the over/under on child porn?

No, it won't be them. The "dirt," for anyone paying attention, belongs to Wyden.

Quick question what about the General who lied through his teeth when questioned by Congress and the Senate?

It wasn't what you think.

Wyden’s Stunt Was Congress at its Worst

Snowden did not lie, he just uncovered what was the truth.

You have the basic question wrong. Snowden revealed classified information. It isn't a question of true or false, it is a question of who is legally allowed to see it. He compromised American intelligence operations, and those of allied nations. Snowden broke trust, and people are confused about it.

The problem is the NSA was too zealous in its gathering techniques.

Snowden arrogantly undermined democratic principles and acted like a vigilante.

You might be overstating things a bit.

Wyden’s Stunt Was Congress at its Worst

Congress and Wyden knew the truth. If they did, as disclosed in closed door sessions and confidential reports, how can there have in fact been a genuine damaging lie?

Wyden, who was already well briefed on PRISM and other intelligence operations, already knew the answer to the question when he asked it. But he also knew that it would have been inappropriate, if not illegal, for Clapper to answer the question honestly since doing so would have required him to publicly reveal highly classified information that ought not to be made available to America’s enemies. Wyden’s purpose wasn’t to shed light but to merely embarrass Clapper and the administration. -- Wyden’s Stunt Was Congress at its Worst

It takes a special form of dyslexia to not understand what was going on.

Wyden, who was already well briefed on PRISM and other intelligence operations, already knew the answer to the question when he asked it. But he also knew that it would have been inappropriate, if not illegal, for Clapper to answer the question honestly since doing so would have required him to publicly reveal highly classified information that ought not to be made available to America’s enemies. Wyden’s purpose wasn’t to shed light but to merely embarrass Clapper and the administration.

Actually there is very little doubt that it was and is legal since every time the NSA actions have been tested in court in which a final judgment has been issued the NSA has won. People dispute the relevance to national security, but that doesn't really apply to the question of legality. It has been known for some time that most of the disrupted plots have been overseas. This Belgian plot may have been one of them.

You're also mistaken about the question of Wyden and Clapper. If you bothered to actually read the whole thing you know that Wyden almost certainly knew the truth as disclosed in closed door sessions and confidential reports. What he did was try to improperly trick or maneuver Clapper into disclosing classified information publicly. Can it really be said to be lying if Congress and the Congressman in question knew the actual truth from that same organization as it was disclosed in closed session? I don't think so.

Wyden, who was already well briefed on PRISM and other intelligence operations, already knew the answer to the question when he asked it. But he also knew that it would have been inappropriate, if not illegal, for Clapper to answer the question honestly since doing so would have required him to publicly reveal highly classified information that ought not to be made available to America’s enemies. Wyden’s purpose wasn’t to shed light but to merely embarrass Clapper and the administration. -- Wyden’s Stunt Was Congress at its Worst

You aren't really answering the real questions there, but are embracing Wyden's shabby behavior.

You seem to know dick, and plenty about it already. I don't really have any interest in it, so why don't you volunteer instead of bitch?

Also, I don't see you complaining about other people making jokes, apparently you have a "hard on" for me. You should do something about that, and I'm still not interested.

I will toss you a bone though.

It isn't really clear that they did in fact lie to Congress.

Well, uh... The NSA has already shown a willingness to lie to Congress, what does he expect? They're an equal opportunity usurper.

I take it you refer to Senator Wyden's stunt?

Commentary: Wyden’s Stunt Was Congress at its Worst

So you are totally skipping over the whole "lying to congress" thing as if its inconsequential?

That wasn't "lying to Congress," that was a stunt by a Senator Wyden . The record is clear that Congress was informed.

Wyden’s Stunt Was Congress at its Worst

Snowden may have pulled the curtain away to reveal what was suspected with regards to who spies on who, but in doing so he also showed that the intelligence services were out of control and arrogant in their stance.

The intelligence agencies are performing the mission given to them by Congress & the President, and are seeking information requested by other parts of the government. At best Snowden is a vigilante that overthrows the rule of law governing the intelligence agencies and has already caused immense damage to the US intelligence effort. At worst he may be the most damaging spy ever in US history.

General Benedict Arnold only offered to give away one fort, Snowden has stolen the "keys to the kingdom" and is on track to severely damage US intelligence for decades to come. The view of Britain's spymaster in the colonies, Major Beckwith, was that ''Washington did not really outfight the British; he simply outspied us!'' Had Snowden acted in the 1770s Washington would not have been able to outspy the British, the practically certain outcome of that would have been for the Colonists to lose their fight. Had the Colonists lost their fight it is quite likely that Washington, Franklin, Madison, Jefferson, et. al would have been hung, and the Constitution of the United States with the Bill of Rights would never have been written. Make your choice, cheer Snowden, or cheer the Constitution, you can't cheer both. Snowden's very acts strike against the Constitution itself and the principles of democratic, representative government.
'
Now as is the custom, I must receive my -1 flamebait/-1 troll moderations since my worlds must not be seen or debated in a free society.

Some supplemental reading to the above.

I think the first thing to consider is that many claims are made, but not all hold up under examination. They would prefer to not have to say anything, it is the nature of their job. To understand some of the theater going on you may want to read this.

NSA's director James Clapper, when testified, under oath, to the Congressional Oversight Committee, LIED.

Was it a "lie," or a cover story for something that should never have been asked in open session, and about which the Congress had already been properly notified? I guess we'll find out.... maybe.

Wyden’s Stunt Was Congress at its Worst

Because all members of Congress have complete knowledge of what the NSA is doing? The NSA chief is held accountable for lying to Congress? Neither of those two things are true, so you are untruthful at best.

It is often the case that all members of Congress are not equally informed. In some cases, to their shame, virtually none of them are as was the case in passing Obamacare. But it is far from clear that the NSA chief actually lied to Congress since we don't know what was said behind closed doors. We only know that some Congressmen are willing to engage in theatrics.

Wyden’s Stunt Was Congress at its Worst

I agree that some aspects of the Constitution have been abused to increase Federal power, especially the commerce clause. I would like to see at least some of that being rolled back.

I'm not sure what you are referring to in regards to the first Gulf War - the one in 1991? What do you think was lied about there?

This is why what JFK said was so very important. "The very idea of secrecy in a free and democratic society is repugnant." Secrets beget more secrets, and things begin to escalate in order to protect the secrets, and the secrets that protected the secret.

You distort JFK's message, or at least leave out some very important parts that are relevant today. Perhaps it has been too long since you read it. I suggest you read the whole thing, but I've included a portion below. It says something quite different than you suggest with your snippet as noted by the Miller Center's side note, "President Kennedy speaks at the Waldorf-Astoria Hotel in New York City before the American Newspaper Publishers Association. Kennedy asks the press for their cooperation in fighting Communism by applying the same standards for publishing sensitive materials in the current Cold War that they would apply in an officially declared war."

President and the Press" Speech (April 27, 1961)

But I do ask every publisher, every editor, and every newsman in the nation to reexamine his own standards, and to recognize the nature of our country's peril. In time of war, the government and the press have customarily joined in an effort, based largely on self-discipline, to prevent unauthorized disclosures to the enemy. In time of "clear and present danger," the courts have held that even the privileged rights of the First Amendment must yield to the public's need for national security.

Today no war has been declared—and however fierce the struggle may be—it may never be declared in the traditional fashion. Our way of life is under attack. Those who make themselves our enemy are advancing around the globe. The survival of our friends is in danger. And yet no war has been declared, no borders have been crossed by marching troops, no missiles have been fired.

  If the press is awaiting a declaration of war before it imposes the self-discipline of combat conditions, then I can only say that no war ever posed a greater threat to our security. If you are awaiting a finding of "clear and present danger," then I can only say that the danger has never been more clear and its presence has never been more imminent.

  It requires a change in outlook, a change in tactics, a change in missions—by the government, by the people, by every businessman or labor leader, and by every newspaper. For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies primarily on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence—on infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation instead of free choice, on guerrillas by night instead of armies by day. It is a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific and political operations.

Why hasn't he gotten in trouble legally? Probably because Congress had already been informed of the truth, and Wyden asked a highly inappropriate question in an inappropriate place as a form of grandstanding.

Wyden’s Stunt Was Congress at its Worst

The question Wyden asked is only inappropriate if the programs Clapper was being asked about should have legitimately been classified. If the programs themselves are being protected under the national security act inappropriately, then there is no issue. The simple fact is that one of two things is at play here, and the courts /congress will likely have to sort it out in the weeks and months to come.

Option 1: The national security act did in fact allow for the programs which clapper was asked to speak about, in which case, clapper was prohibited, by law from speaking about it. In that case, the national security act itself is demonstrably unconstitutional, and needs to be / hopefully will be struck down as such.

Option 2: (the more likely option) The NSA's programs extended beyond the authority granted by the national security act, and as such, no national security protections should have been afforded to Wydens questioning. Under this scenario, there is no question that Clappers responsibility was to fully disclose the programs in accordance with the will of congress, although, ironically, it may have been in Clappers best interests to plead the fifth... All in all, Clappers choice to lie to congress was about the dumbest thing he could have chosen to do, but it is in keeping with an agency that believes itself to be above congress, above the law, and most dangerously, above the constitution of the United States of America.

I'm really curious what other US citizen could directly and provably lie to congress, and not be arrested and indited for it, like J. Clapper?

Why has he not gotten in trouble legally yet?

Why hasn't he gotten in trouble legally? Probably because Congress had already been informed of the truth, and Wyden asked a highly inappropriate question in an inappropriate place as a form of grandstanding.

Wyden’s Stunt Was Congress at its Worst

lol...how clueless.

"non-profit" hospitals abound in the U.S, yet they still charge almost the exact same rates as your evil "for-profit" ones. They all use a pricing sheet called the "chargemaster" that they guard zealously.

non-profits still have to pay salaries to retain talent, pay utilities etc etc.

"No wonder MD Anderson’s operating profit in 2010 was $531 million on revenues of $2.05 billion. That’s a 26-percent profit margin, unheard of in any service industry other than hospitals. Being a “non-profit” organization, it pays no income taxes." http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2013/08/01/why-non-profit-hospitals-are-so-profitable/

the "non-profit" tag is pretty much nothing but a "feel-good" marketing gimmick to assuage socialistic-types.

Is that the actual problem? Or is it something else? Keep in mind that the Congress operates in both open session for matters for the general public, and closed session to deal with confidential matters such as classified information.

Wyden’s Stunt Was Congress at its Worst

... though I have little sympathy for Clapper, whose policy positions on the Islamist threat are highly questionable, lumping him together with Holder would not be fair. Far from being an honest probe into what the government was doing, it’s actually yet another example of how congressional grandstanding does the country little good. Wyden, who was already well briefed on PRISM and other intelligence operations, already knew the answer to the question when he asked it. But he also knew that it would have been inappropriate, if not illegal, for Clapper to answer the question honestly since doing so would have required him to publicly reveal highly classified information that ought not to be made available to America’s enemies. Wyden’s purpose wasn’t to shed light but to merely embarrass Clapper and the administration.

Edward Snowden’s leak about the existence and purpose of PRISM made sure that Wyden’s questioning of Clapper would become a major story, thus giving the Oregon senator the prize he sought. As the clip of Clapper’s lie is shown in a seemingly endless loop on the cable news stations, Wyden is back in the spotlight posturing about the need for “straight talk” from the administration. But the senator, who has carefully built up a reputation as a sober advocate of civil liberties, is the one who is being disingenuous, not Clapper.

You, like many people, have been played as part of political showmanship.

The Actual Pauline Kael Quote—Not As Bad, and Worse

The clearest example of the bizarrely naive quality of hermetic liberal provincialism was attributed to the New Yorker film critic Pauline Kael almost 40 years ago, and has been discussed in right-wing circles ever since. It went something like this: “I can’t believe Nixon won. I don’t know anyone who voted for him.” ... more

The Actual Pauline Kael Quote—Not As Bad, and Worse

The clearest example of the bizarrely naive quality of hermetic liberal provincialism was attributed to the New Yorker film critic Pauline Kael almost 40 years ago, and has been discussed in right-wing circles ever since. It went something like this: “I can’t believe Nixon won. I don’t know anyone who voted for him.” ... more

Aside from base assumptions, what makes you believe that Snowden entered employment with the NSA with the intent to release data he was exposed to?

Because he said that.

Snowden to newspaper: I took contractor job to gather evidence

Also, what gives you the impression that he has an interest backing him

He did manage to steal an enormous amount of wide ranging data in only 90 days of employment, don't you think?

Who Helped Snowden Steal State Secrets?

In my opinion, the fact that the US gov't has hunted him so furiously and has taken the exact opposite approach that they mandate regarding any other nation's political refugees ...

He isn't a political refuge. He stole national defense secrets and has revealed a few of them. Nobody really knows what he is doing with the rest of them.

Charles Moore: Snowden is a traitor - The beneficiaries of his betrayal are not civil liberties, but those who wish to embarrass us.

Snowden leaks give edge to U.S. rivals, officials say - Russia, China and terrorism suspects have altered how they communicate to evade U.S. detection, current and former U.S. intelligence officials say.

Snowden’s Nuclear War on Intelligence

Geoffrey Ingersoll: It's Now Clear That Russian Intelligence Speaks For Edward Snowden

Implying Obama hasn't taken care of business?

He's been getting so much done, he's had time to comment on a trial in Florida! Forget about the IRS, Syria, Benghazi, Fast and Furious (fuck everyone involved in this), NSA unconstitutional domestic spying, keeping tax cuts, patriot act garbage. There is a long list of issues that really need to be addressed in this country, and we're too busy squabbling about little shit.

He averted an econopocalypse. There were not runs on the banks. FDIC didn't come into play. The stock market bounced back, if not the job market.

The whole thing began because of pressure from the government on the banks. In addition, 290,000 fewer people were counted as unemployed because they were not actively looking for work. That drop in those seeking jobs was the reason the unemployment rate fell to 7.6%, the lowest since December 2008. Second Largest Employer In America Is Temp Agency. And the stock market? Is not a bastion for the American middleclass.

He ramped down our military action in Iraq and Afghanistan. In such a way that was a non-newsworthy event. This is a SLAM DUNK.

Not according to the facts. All because of this due to the military industrial complex not to mention the deaths of thousands, for what, freedom?

But all in all he's got shit done. Despite the massive resistance he's facing from the Republicans.

Fuck all the partisan posturing. What's the narrative when he had a democrat majority in the senate and House? Why don't we take an objective look at what both of the hands are doing to for the body they're attached to?

You're making the same mistake as many "SNOWDEN CAN NEVER GET A JOB" guys.

The thing is that USA is not the world and the secrets spilled were about american activities against the world - what the opinion inside USA is about the matter doesn't matter for the rest of the world all that much.

Assange not having committed anything inside USA shouldn't have anything to do with american populations opinion polls. It's as meaningful as committing polls in south Syria if they approve of Obama's social security politics.

for most of the world Snowden didn't commit treason - quite the opposite, since he revealed an on going crime that is being committed against most of the world(locally nsa is committing crimes all over the world - no matter if it is legal for them to do so from american perspective - this is why they're shitting their pants because the whole extradition system might grind to a total halt if countries hacked by nsa started asking extradition for the "legal" government sponsored hackers and people who committed conspiracy with them to do so).

The real shitstorm is that those NSA operatives have as much reason to be extradited as Assange and Snowden have.

$5000 ... is not nearly enough to cover being known as an evil traitor everyone in the world. His reputation is now destroyed and is essentially unemployable in any company or organization that cares about its own image.

I think you significantly overstate the support for Assange and his activities. Living in a bubble with do that to you.

Poll: Americans say WikiLeaks harmed public interest; most want Assange arrested - December 14, 2010

The American public is highly critical of the recent release of confidential U.S. diplomatic cables on the WikiLeaks Web site and would support the arrest of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange by U.S. authorities, a new Washington Post-ABC News poll finds.

Most of those polled - 68 percent - say the WikiLeaks' exposure of government documents about the State Department and U.S. diplomacy harms the public interest. Nearly as many - 59 percent - say the U.S. government should arrest Assange and charge him with a crime for releasing the diplomatic cables.

World opinion is more favorable, but also split.

$5000 ... is not nearly enough to cover being known as an evil traitor everyone in the world. His reputation is now destroyed and is essentially unemployable in any company or organization that cares about its own image.

I think you significantly overstate the support for Assange and his activities. Living in a bubble with do that to you.

Poll: Americans say WikiLeaks harmed public interest; most want Assange arrested - December 14, 2010

The American public is highly critical of the recent release of confidential U.S. diplomatic cables on the WikiLeaks Web site and would support the arrest of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange by U.S. authorities, a new Washington Post-ABC News poll finds.

Most of those polled - 68 percent - say the WikiLeaks' exposure of government documents about the State Department and U.S. diplomacy harms the public interest. Nearly as many - 59 percent - say the U.S. government should arrest Assange and charge him with a crime for releasing the diplomatic cables.

World opinion is more favorable, but also split.

The ever dreaded "conspiracy to prevent terrorism."

Your line of thinking isn't far off from "John Birch land."

Goldwater, the John Birch Society, and Me

“How would you define the Birch fallacy?” Jay Hall asked.

“The fallacy,” I said, “is the assumption that you can infer subjective intention from objective consequence: we lost China to the Communists, therefore the President of the United States and the Secretary of State wished China to go to the Communists.”

And the IRS was not politically targeting conservative groups.

Just to make sure everyone understands that is sarcasm:

Lawmakers say IRS targeted dozens more conservative groups than initially believed
A Frequent Visitor to the White House
Enemies List: IRS Wanted Names of Tea Party Members
What's going on between the IRS and True the Vote?
Criticism of IRS grows amid allegations of targeting beyond Tea Party
The IRS’s Tea-Party Targeting

No problem. With an audience that is both international and prone to being "nose to the grindstone" for long periods of time, you can't always make assumptions. It is a pity though that the "Newspaper of Record" can best be characterized with sarcastic irony in terms of its coverage, as you point out. It brings this to mind. Have a great week.
 

You know, until that happened, you'd just be a tin-foil hat wearer, without a shred of credibility to you. Actually, you still are. But thanks to the colossal mistake of a couple of people in the IRS and Obama's total and complete inability to deal with a scandal, that singular act has managed to make the tinfoil hat crowd look more credible than the government.

Well, you know what, okay. Out of the thousands of times Obama and the "rabid liberals" have gotten it right, after six years of constant, sustained, unending attempts by the Republicans to find something, anything, to sink Obama even if it means repeatedly punching themselves in the face (Comeon guys, with all the major issues out there, your party platform for the previous four years has been trying to ensure Obama didn't get re-elected. Petty much?)... I suppose yes, with that much scrutiny eventually something had to pan out.

So take this one, singular victory. Have it, it's yours. You can feel righteous for a bit now -- you have a right to be upset

Well, that's mighty white of you. You are indeed a generous spirit.

True Scandal - A tea-party group ... gets attention from the IRS—and the FBI, OSHA, and the ATF.
The IRS Fiasco Is Only The Tip Of The Iceberg
A Frequent Visitor to the White House

...Douglas Shulman, Commissioner from 2008 to 2012, during the Obama administration, visited the White House 118 times just in 2010 and 2011. His successor, Steven Miller, also visited “numerous” times.

Lawmakers say IRS targeted dozens more conservative groups than initially believed

The IRS targeting of conservative groups is far broader than first reported, with nearly 500 organizations singled out for additional scrutiny, according to two lawmakers briefed by the agency

IRS Admits Targeting “Tea Party” Groups
The New Nixon This time, the press cheered as the IRS investigated the president's opponents.
Tea party groups call IRS process 'nightmare'
IRS approved liberal groups while Tea Party in limbo
Curious IRS Timing - Did the tax agency also target groups that support Israel?
Obamacare + IRS = gangster government
7 Questions That The IRS Inappropriately Asked Of Tea Party Groups
The IRS’s Tea-Party Targeting - An apology, but no explanation
Did The IRS Try To Swing Election To Obama?

Jon Stewart and Steven Colbert

It may have worked for you for a long time but the world is slowly awakening to just how evil the behaviour of Israel is.

Given your views, you should probably hope that the world isn't awakening to evil behavior, otherwise the there some unexpected drubbings that are going to be handed out.

Palestinians Celebrate after Brutal Murder of Fogel Family
The Jews Were Brought to Palestine for the Great Massacre
Palestinian Myth Machine
Fighting the Lies Harder Than Fighting the War
Goldstone: You Cannon Undo a Slander
The European Left and Its Trouble With Jews
Why the al-Dura Blood Libel Still Matters

Yes, much of the world joins to condemn Israel, often based on lies, but either passes in silence over true horrors of the genuine mass murdering regimes in the Middle East, or actually defends the real butchers.

Hama 1982 – The Syrian massacre you never heard about
Commentary: Remembering Iraq's mass graves

What happened to Iraq's 'human shields'?

If Israel was only as evil as Iraq or Syria, the Paelstinians would have disappeared into mass graves long ago. That clearly hasn't happened.

Government slaughter of civilians should be everyone's problem.

It is a long standing problem in Syria.

Hama 1982 – The Syrian massacre you never heard about

In 1982 the Syrian government killed 30,000 – 40,000 of its own citizens. Assad leveled an entire city with an air bombardment followed by artillery and tank fire. Why? They were anti Baath party, and apparently in 1982 in Syria that was a death sentence

CAUTION: Graphic descriptions of atrocities in the article

You can take that caution seriously if you are of delicate constitution. The SS didn't really have anything on the Syrian army.

Hama makes an interesting counterpoint to the frequent claims of massacre or genocide made against Israel by various Arab groups and their allies. Those claims generally prove to be false, misleading, or exaggerated, once exposed to scrutiny.

Have a Rotten Eggroll, Mr. Goldstone
Fighting the Lies Harder Than Fighting the War - Israel does not "deliberately" target civilians.
Palestinian Myth Machine

No, they aren't far right wing. And if you can't tell the difference between the neo-Nazi Stormfront and the Daily Beast, you need a depot level recalibration of your political sensibilities - something is fundamentally broken, malfunctioning, or miscalibrated. I understand from the far left the distance between them may seem to vanish, but it is a trick of perspective, they aren't even close... at all.

I'll get you started: In lieu of anything else, think of the difference between the Greens and Pol Pot's regime and apply. (And I think this is a generous narrowing of the difference.)

One other thing you might keep in mind: In American politics, the right did something the left has never been willing to do - drive out the dangerous fringe. Actual Nazis and neo-Nazis (including Stormfront), generally fringe nut cases in the United States in the last 75 years*, have not been, and are not part of the right in America. They are an offshoot of progressive & socialist politics. (Hence the Socialist in National Socialist.) Who Is 'Fascist'?

You might benefit from occasionally indulging in material from a viewpoint that challenges your views from a center-right perspective, and no, that doesn't include EDL or Stormfront. Since you comment regularly on American politics, some examples might include: National Review, The Weekly Standard, Commentary. You might try some reading on the first link in the previous post as well.

*Overlooking the regrettable and long gone German American Bund organization that had a hold in the German-American immigrant community for a time.

No, they aren't far right wing. And if you can't tell the difference between the neo-Nazi Stormfront and the Daily Beast, you need a depot level recalibration of your political sensibilities - something is fundamentally broken, malfunctioning, or miscalibrated. I understand from the far left the distance between them may seem to vanish, but it is a trick of perspective, they aren't even close... at all.

I'll get you started: In lieu of anything else, think of the difference between the Greens and Pol Pot's regime and apply. (And I think this is a generous narrowing of the difference.)

One other thing you might keep in mind: In American politics, the right did something the left has never been willing to do - drive out the dangerous fringe. Actual Nazis and neo-Nazis (including Stormfront), generally fringe nut cases in the United States in the last 75 years*, have not been, and are not part of the right in America. They are an offshoot of progressive & socialist politics. (Hence the Socialist in National Socialist.) Who Is 'Fascist'?

You might benefit from occasionally indulging in material from a viewpoint that challenges your views from a center-right perspective, and no, that doesn't include EDL or Stormfront. Since you comment regularly on American politics, some examples might include: National Review, The Weekly Standard, Commentary. You might try some reading on the first link in the previous post as well.

*Overlooking the regrettable and long gone German American Bund organization that had a hold in the German-American immigrant community for a time.

Can we get rid of the brainless AC posts already? They're all shoot-from-the-lip ignoramuses like this asshole.

I'm an Obamatron, but I can't abide the Huffpost. So I learned about this fiasco from Newser, which linked a conservative web site which linked John Ekdahl's blog. John's a Romney volunteer, and his scathing description of Orca is informed by his day job as a web developer. And the there's Pudge, who helped design Slashdot, and who I presume voted for Romney, unless he considers him too liberal.

So obviously there's no absence of IT talent on the right side of the aisle. What is missing is administrative judgment by Romney himself, who obviously bought some IT snakeoil from somebody, and has generally managed to find total clowns to run his campaign.

People keep telling me about this brilliant guy named Mitt Romney who had a brilliant academic career (MBA and JD from Harvard), did well as a management consultant and equity capitalist, and accomplished great things as Governor of MA, even though the other party controlled the legislature. But I just don't see how that can be the same guy!

When a snake oil salesman gets burned by the snake oil he purchased-- there's only one word for that: Karma...

Can we get rid of the brainless AC posts already? They're all shoot-from-the-lip ignoramuses like this asshole.

I'm an Obamatron, but I can't abide the Huffpost. So I learned about this fiasco from Newser, which linked a conservative web site which linked John Ekdahl's blog. John's a Romney volunteer, and his scathing description of Orca is informed by his day job as a web developer. And the there's Pudge, who helped design Slashdot, and who I presume voted for Romney, unless he considers him too liberal.

So obviously there's no absence of IT talent on the right side of the aisle. What is missing is administrative judgment by Romney himself, who obviously bought some IT snakeoil from somebody, and has generally managed to find total clowns to run his campaign.

People keep telling me about this brilliant guy named Mitt Romney who had a brilliant academic career (MBA and JD from Harvard), did well as a management consultant and equity capitalist, and accomplished great things as Governor of MA, even though the other party controlled the legislature. But I just don't see how that can be the same guy!

It takes generations to remove hate from a culture, but it only takes a few years to generate it.

Assuming it ever really leaves. . .

The Full-Blown Return of Anti-Semitism in Europe
The New Anti-Semitism
Is Toulouse the Future of Europe?

If you dont think hate is being generated here in the USA by "news channel talk show hosts" or "radio talk show hosts", then you havent been paying attention.

The problem is bigger than you think.

True global warming "believers" don't believe, they looked at the available evidence and weighed the opinions of experts and came to a conclusion based on facts and consensus.

I'm afraid your wrong on a number of counts.

First, most global warming believers probably hold that belief because that is what teacher said, or that is what they read in the paper, or on the web, and not through an independent review of data, papers, and reports. Although scientists and engineers may find the hard data more approachable, I expect that most of them are still at a casual level of familiarity with the material, not truly informed, let alone expert.

Second, there is something approaching consensus among scientists that the earth has gotten warmer in some measure. That doesn't mean that the data is not without disputes and controversies, including but not limited to data normalization techniques, sources, and transparency.

Third, it is trivially proven that there is no genuine consensus among scientists that the warming is caused by humanity, or what to do about it. There is at best a preponderance of opinion among scientists that it is caused by humanity. It isn't necessarily clear how strongly those views are held.

Now, this is before we consider the troubling revelations of Climategate.

ClimateGate: The Fix is In
Peer Pressure
Peer-Review Thuggery
Scientists Behaving Badly
Without candour, we can't trust climate science
Leaked Emails Raise Questions About NYT’s ClimateGate Coverage

Climategate 2.0

Last week, 5,000 files of private email correspondence among several of the world's top climate scientists were anonymously leaked onto the Internet. Like the first "climategate" leak of 2009, the latest release shows top scientists in the field fudging data, conspiring to bully and silence opponents, and displaying far less certainty about the reliability of anthropogenic global warming theory in private than they ever admit in public.

Climategate 2.0: Fresh trove of embarrassing emails

Analysis There was always an element of tragedy in the first “Climategate” emails, as scientists were under pressure to tell a story that the physical evidence couldn’t support – and that the scientists were reluctant to acknowledge in public. The new email archive, already dubbed “Climategate 2.0”, is much larger than the first, and provides an abundance of context for those earlier changes.

“I can’t overstate the HUGE amount of political interest in the project as a message that the Government can give on climate change to help them tell their story,” a civil servant wrote to Phil Jones in 2009. “They want the story to be a very strong one and don’t want to be made to look foolish.”

Having elevated global warming to the most dramatic, urgent and over-riding issue of the day, bureaucrats, NGOs, politicians and funding agencies demanded that the scientists must keep the whole bandwagon rolling. I