Slashdot Mirror

Huh? Erosion of Trust? Are you familiar with the Organized Labor movement in most countries? It's fraught with conflict and violence. I will give you an example of how things go.

Let me give you a quick refresher. Jan 29, 1933 Ford employs the use of Strike Breakers. http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1129&dat=19330130&id=z_8MAAAAIBAJ&sjid=YGkDAAAAIBAJ&pg=2487,5787301

in April, 1941 more violence with Ford.. http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=7-RfAAAAIBAJ&sjid=IgMGAAAAIBAJ&pg=4483,1409316&dq=ford+hires+strike&hl=en

PATCO workers in a sick out in 1970.. http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F10C14FD3E5A157493C5A9178FD85F448785F9

Organized labor exists because workers aren't happy with their working conditions. Unfortunately over the last 30 years with the decline in US manufacturing and with concerted efforts by companies to keep unions out, we're seeing a reduced influence by Unions in general. With growing wage disparity however, we'll probably see a resurgence in the movement. In fact, recently we've seen it with Walmart and McDonalds workers and it's been openly encouraged by the past few administrations. More and more states are pushing for Right to Work laws, which on the surface may seem good but that also makes workers more of a commodity by driving out unions, rather than a vital part of any organization.

So, when you say erosion of trust, I'd like to know exactly what era, or company you're talking about because when you work for somebody else, you're a cog in the machine and they'll do whatever they want with you within the definition of the law. If you're in a Right to Work state, you can get fired without cause so don't expect any kind of trust to be developed there.

While I don't agree with tracking employees, I think it's a natural problem we have with privacy. Privacy in this country is eroding faster than a sand castle at high tide and unless we start pushing on our elected officials to get legislation that protects us form these kinds of things, well companies will do all kinds of things that by lack of decree, they'll be able to do and you won't be able to stop it. Even in Norway, companies are using such novel ideas like bathroom alarms limiting you to 8 minutes per day.... Think of how that works for your rights and your trust with your employer.

And at least Carter has tried to make up for it, often acting as an envoy, or making sure that elections aren't rigged in third world countries.

He needs to check out elections in most US states and organizations that are helping to allow people to undermine the system.

http://dailycaller.com/2012/10/10/new-okeefe-video-obama-campaign-staffer-caught-helping-activist-vote-twice/
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/feb/19/ohio-poll-worker-who-admits-voting-twice-obama-may/
http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2012-09-14/news/bs-md-wendy-rosen-withdraws-20120910_1_wendy-rosen-maryland-democratic-party-general-election

And it's funny how the DOJ goes after states that try to enact voter ID laws because it will somehow disenfranchise voters. It's one person, one vote.

Actually no, the NSA doesn't have a free hand in the US. That is what so many of the stories have been about - have they been properly abiding by the limits? But you're thinking about Hong Kong? That is too funny, really. You'll pass on the possibility of US surveillance for a practical guarantee of Chinese government surveillance? As to Scandinavia, both Sweden and Finland have internet surveillance operations, not to mention Germany, France, UK, and plenty more in Europe. Canada does too. In fact they were just involved in a controversy about spying on Brazil. The Latin America police states? Go for it. I'm sure Venezuela would in no way spy on internet use by foreigners. So it looks like you're heading to the non-Cuban influenced parts of the Caribbean for the steady, reliable, "outside the bounds of law" and "beyond the reach of intelligence agency" internet server hosting or access. So, exactly what sort of low profile privacy intensive service are you planning? Nothing illegal or of interest to Interpol I'm sure. I suppose you could try Brazil or parts of Eastern Europe. Both are havens for cyber crime, but both also have intelligence agencies and corruption. Choices, choices.

The Obama administration is paranoid obsessive about controlling the press and spouting half-truths, and career journalists have branded Obama as the least accessable president they have ever encountered.

Sure they like to flout that Obama has conducted more interviews than any president before him. But Obama intentionally selects outlets where he can evade scrutiny. His "interviews" have largely been on entertainment shows. When preparing for the precious few press interviews, Obama selects journalists who are least likely to challenge him. The administration exploits social media and prepared videos/press releases to evade scrutiny. At his "press conferences" in the WH he abruptly leaves the podium after delivering his prepared statements to ignore journalists trying to confront him with questions. WH spokesman Jay Carney shows an evasive disposition that has resulted in increasing confrontation from an increasingly skeptical and frustrated press.

Obama has admitted that he intends to punish his political enemies. Intimidation, harassment, and retaliation are tools frequently deployed, witness the IRS singling out conservative groups and other federal agencies targetting businesses and individuals who have either criticized the administration or contributed funding to opposition movements. Dr. Ben Carson was endured his first ever IRS audit less than four months after delivering a speech critical of the administration, with a visibly steaming Obama sitting two seats away from him. The Rev Billy Graham was audited after he endorsed Mitt Romney during the 2012 campaign.

Obama had the mainstream press in his pocket until they learned of his betrayal when the DoJ ordered the search of phone records of Associated Press organizations. Their eyes were finally opened to the manipulations of the administration and they have turned on him. Not all of the news outlets have followed suit but they are changing their stripes one by one.

Obama (and Hillary) were disciples of Saul Alinsky, whose "Rules for Radicals" book encourages ad hominem tactics, deception, harassment, any means necessary to accomplish an agenda. Indeed, Saul Alinsky dedicated his book to Satan.

For those of you who voted for a new hope, you have no idea of the deception that was handed to you.

Except that 18 times over the last 7 months the House has REFUSED to appoint anyone to the committee to discuss it. Now who exactly isn't negotiating?

The President, that's who: http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/brenner-brief/2013/oct/1/government-shutdown-and-assigning-blame-claims-ver/

It is true that the Senate Republicans blocked Leader Reid from setting up a conference committee on the budget back in April of this year, after the Senate passed a budget in March. However, the reason for doing so was not simply because the GOP did not want a conference committee. The real reason is that President Obama refused at the time to take tax increases off the table, saying they were a must. Knowing that the Republicans did not support any type of tax increase, GOP leadership simply said that there was no reason for the conference committee given that a parameter was already set in place that the GOP could not accept. In reality, Obama was not allowing for any compromise, making a demand before the negotiations even began.

the majority wants it.

Try again: http://blogs.marketwatch.com/health-exchange/2013/09/16/majority-disapprove-obamacare-but-divided-on-whether-to-enact-survey/

I'm sorry but that's NOT how things are supposed to be done

And yet it's been done time and time again, by both parties (actually more often by Democratic Congresses).

This is clearly hostage taking tactics

Only if seen through partisan goggles. The Republicans want to meet in the middle. The Democrats think they can unilaterally define what the middle is and what people want (which is especially humorous considering the fact Obamcare was passed with a Democratic supermajority with zero Republican votes and very little public support).

The minority doesn't get to control the majority, or shouldn't, in a Democracy

Except that the Republicans ARE the majority in the House, you blithering idiot.

There are studies that claim that - http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/feb/10/scientists-suggest-beer-after-workout/

Various memorials and parks are being forcibly closed — despite it costing more to enforce the closures, than to keep the facilities operating (which may be why the same facilities remained in operation throughout all previous government-shutdowns). One ranger is quoted by a news paper: "We’ve been told to make life as difficult for people as we can. It’s disgusting."

Likewise, various government web-sites are displaying "we are closed" pages instead of the actual content. If, in fact, they had to be shut down due to lack of funds, the servers wouldn't be responding at all. That they do work (and promptly) means, their services are sabotaged by order of the Administration.

Obama may not be a very good Executive under normal circumstances, but he is certainly vicious... Or someone else in his close circle is...

They've reversed those policies as they weren't working. And you remember that power crisis California had a few years ago? It came about because it deregulated the power companies, and let them shut down operations for no reason, forcing California to buy power from out of state resources at premium rates.

Wrong..The rolling blackouts came because companies involved in supplying CA with energy were corruptly manipulating the markets. They decreased supply artificially in order to inflate prices causing a shortage that didn't exist. Enron was convicted of purposely flowing pipelines at half capacity claiming they were saving infrastructure costs. The deregulation allowed part of it to happen but it was only because of a partial deregulation that it could happen. Deregulation does not mean failure to enforce laws or carte blanche to defraud an entire state.

As for the leaving California for Texas, quite a few of the businesses are doing that and I'm sure quite a bit of the population is following. It might not be as much as the population replacements but it is happening.

http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-07-03/why-are-californias-businesses-disappearing

http://www.kcra.com/news/Two-dozen-companies-commit-to-leaving-California/-/11797728/18533954/-/ivlxudz/-/index.html

There are also several counties trying to secede from California. I guess the ultimate plan is to form a new state called Jefferson.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/sep/26/california-counties-vote-secede-golden-state/

They did that to an inn on the Blue Ridge Parkway in North Carolina.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/oct/4/blue-ridge-hotel-defies-park-service-shutdown/?utm_source=RSS_Feed&utm_medium=RSS

With some thorough research, I have discovered that yes, the news DIDN'T report that, only fundamentalist blogs whose next story was shape shifting reptilians creating the Obamacare Death Panels were reporting anything of the sort.

I'm sure you think you are doing thourough research. And in your fantasy land, it might be as good as it gets. In the real world, we have this thing called the internet and search engines. Now I will admit that my wording was slightly off as I was posting from my phone about stories piped to me by the news app on the phone and trying to do it from memory and the confusion could be your inability to intelligently discern the differences between what was reported, the phrasing I used, and what you want to think. Of course posting anonymously like that, I can only assume you were trying to deliberately mislead like Baghdad Bob was doing during the beginning of the Iraq war.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303492504579113781436540284.html

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/senior-admin-official-we-are-winningit-doesnt-really-matter-us-when-shutdown-ends_759185.html?nopager=1

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/oct/3/pruden-the-cheap-tricks-of-the-game/

BTW, whether you want to believe it or not, those are news sites. Just because they don't spout the narrative doesn't make them any less.

There's also a chain of privately managed campgrounds; again, NO Federal employees. They've been ordered to close - even though they've stayed open in previous "shutdowns".

http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2013/10/02/shutdown-white-house-ordering-privately-run-privately-funded-parks-to-close/

“It’s a cheap way to deal with the situation,” an angry Park Service ranger in Washington says of the harassment. “We’ve been told to make life as difficult for people as we can. It’s disgusting.”

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/oct/3/pruden-the-cheap-tricks-of-the-game/

Does anyone really believe the facilities they shut down are due to lack of funds?

No. The Washington Times reports:

The Park Service appears to be closing streets on mere whim and caprice. The rangers even closed the parking lot at Mount Vernon, where the plantation home of George Washington is a favorite tourist destination. That was after they barred the new World War II Memorial on the Mall to veterans of World War II. But the government does not own Mount Vernon; it is privately owned by the Mount Vernon Ladies' Association.
...
"It's a cheap way to deal with the situation," an angry Park Service ranger in Washington says of the harassment. "We've been told to make life as difficult for people as we can. It's disgusting."

Here you go:
CS Monitor, "Government shutdown: Offers that would reopen national parks rebuffed by Feds"
Washington Times (op-ed), "The cheap tricks of the game"

The CS Monitor's article has more meat: interestingly, the state of Arizona and local businesses near the Grand Canyon offered fund a reopening, but the Park Service refused. Local coverage at Grand Canyon News, "Tusayan businesses fight to reopen Grand Canyon National Park"

One message that may come of this shutdown is that some functions of the government currently ruled "non-essential" are of sufficient demand to states and private entities that they could well be administered without federal help, and that the states, municipalities, and private entities that value those functions would be better served by taking on responsibility for them rather than delegating them to the federal government, especially as the federal government has, through the vicissitudes of politics, become increasingly unreliable. It may be in the best economic interests for the Arizonans to push for control over their parks, which became federal properties back when the local population was lower and less able to administer that land and had less incentive to do so. Devolving the "non-essential" onto other bodies (as in the case of the Grand Canyon) or privatizing them (as the space program has been moving to do anyway) may prove a common-sense solution to meeting citizens' needs and reducing federal expenditure. The power federal politicians gain from being able to close down such functions, however, stands in the way of that.

It's not arbitrary, it's calculated to cause pain as a political move.

Obama Forcing Shut Down of Parks the Feds Don't Even Fund

Private Air Show Stopped Due to Government Shutdown

Obama Illegally Furloughing Civilian Defense Employees at STRATCOM

PRUDEN: The cheap tricks of the game

Monuments and memorials remained open during previous shutdown

Republicans press Obama to back FEMA funding bill as storm nears

There is plenty more.

The Senate isn't being useful, but at least they did vote on something today: "... the Senate also unanimously approved a measure deeming next week as National Chess Week."

Adam Habib was denied entrance in 2006.

Mr. Habib, a well-known South African scholar who has criticized the war in Iraq, was denied a visa by the U.S. government in a letter saying he âoeengaged in a terrorist activity,â an accusation Mr. Habib has vigorously denied.

Well, looking at the US deficit and debt, one could argue that the Tea Party might be loonies but at least it isn't their policy to spend their grandchildren's earnings.

It wasn't Bill Clinton's policy to spend his grandchildren's earnings either. He left office with the budget in balance.

It was George W. Bush's policy to spend that surplus on tax breaks for his billionaire friends, and then spend $3 trillion for a war in Iraq for the purpose of (what was it again?), most of which went to his no-bid contractors like Halliburton. Bush left us in debt that your grandchildren will be paying for.

The Tea Party is funded by the same loonies that got those no-bid contracts.

yeah man no bid contracts never go to Haliburton under Obama! He farts rainbows and rides a unicorn to work every day!

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/may/13/obamas-mounting-hypocrisy/

1 million, not a million million like my crap edit above implies, apologies. Citation below:

http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/steps-authentic-happiness-positive-psychology/2013/sep/26/crocodile-new-twist-old-drug-deadly-animal/

She should be: Top 10 Jane Fonda mistakes

> Only if you believe the bible is literally true. Which most believers do not.

Even if you don't believe the bible as literally true, you still have to believe at least in the genesis, the first sin and in a young earth. And that is the core that evolution disproves.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2004/feb/16/20040216-113955-2061r/?page=all

An ABC News poll released Sunday found that 61 percent of Americans believe the account of creation in the Bible’s book of Genesis is “literally true” rather than a story meant as a “lesson.”

Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2004/feb/16/20040216-113955-2061r/#ixzz2fTQ0VwdE
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

That is like saying that 61% believe in Zeus and Apollo and the Olympic Gods. And of course the religious power figures like reverend are happy about it.

> The bible can still be a holy document with important lessons if it's "only" a myth and not literal history

Like what? The bible is the most immoral book ever written. I would rate the book +18 only. It's full of murder, mass murder, rape, incests, immoral behaviour, and so on. It's a propaganda book of a death cult, with a failed dooms-day prophet.

> Only if you believe the bible is literally true. Which most believers do not.

Even if you don't believe the bible as literally true, you still have to believe at least in the genesis, the first sin and in a young earth. And that is the core that evolution disproves.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2004/feb/16/20040216-113955-2061r/?page=all

An ABC News poll released Sunday found that 61 percent of Americans believe the account of creation in the Bible’s book of Genesis is “literally true” rather than a story meant as a “lesson.”

Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2004/feb/16/20040216-113955-2061r/#ixzz2fTQ0VwdE
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

That is like saying that 61% believe in Zeus and Apollo and the Olympic Gods. And of course the religious power figures like reverend are happy about it.

> The bible can still be a holy document with important lessons if it's "only" a myth and not literal history

Like what? The bible is the most immoral book ever written. I would rate the book +18 only. It's full of murder, mass murder, rape, incests, immoral behaviour, and so on. It's a propaganda book of a death cult, with a failed dooms-day prophet.

Before directly answering your question I will point out that the allegations of Saudi involvement for Sarin based on the presented "evidence" is nonsense. As to your question....

Yes, pretty much - the Saudis couldn't "do" what Aum Shinrikyo did. They are two different types of events. The attack in Tokyo was a terrorist attack with hand-carried home-brew sarin (made by a group with over $1,000,000,000 in assets) used to attack people in a highly enclosed space (about the best possible environment for the success of their attack) and it only managed to kill 13 people*. That isn't very effective. The attack in Syria killed over 1,400 people in the open, and was delivered by artillery rockets, not by plastic bag. Killing people in those circumstances is much more difficult. The success of the Syrian attack points to much more sarin used in the attack, higher purity in the sarin used, which means much more sophisticated chemical agent processing, deliberate development of chemical agent rocket artillery warheads, and proper planning and weapons handling needed to build a lethal dose of the nerve gas chemical agent on the target under the specific weather conditions. All of those activities would potentially be detectable to intelligence operations, but there don't seem to be any indications of that regarding the Saudis and rebels. A shipment of chemical weapons is almost certainly going to be handled differently than ordinary high explosives, and will probably be detectable by intelligence operations, something which I haven't heard any indication of regarding the Saudis and rebels.

There do seem to be indications of the Assad regime handling such weapons though.

Here Is the Evidence the U.S. Has on a Syrian Chemical-Weapons Attack
Troops led by Assad’s brother likely to blame for chemical weapons, Syrian activists say

Highly effective chemical agent rocket warheads aren't something that are just tossed off the assembly line for plastic water bottles on alternate weeks. They are a highly specialized weapon with many highly specialized components. The Saudis have signed the treated banning them, and I thought it was common wisdom by many on Slashdot that every country on earth followed treaties without cheating except for the US. How could the Saudi's cheat?

* Al Qaida had planned attacks on the New York subway system but called them off because they weren't certain that they would kill enough people to maintain their reputation.

Same complaint, different year.

2013: 9/11 - 3,000 lost lives have caused us to spend trillions on wars. A fraction of that invested in additional medical research would have saved far more.
1951: 12/7 - 3,000 lost lives have caused us to spend billion on wars. A fraction of that invested in additional medical research would have saved far more.

Make the wrong decision on defense matters and you lose many, many more lives.

Al Qaeda bungles arms experiment

man...you're way off...

Anyone, Egyptian or not, that thought this was a "spy bird" for more than a second is an idiot.

"Army's new robot so realistic it gets attacked by hawks"
see for yourself: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jun/6/armys-new-robotic-bird-drone-so-realistic-it-gets-/

I call bullshit on you and everyone mocking these people.

They don't know what they are looking at for sure until they capture it...or what this article calls 'detaining'...it is obvious the news writers are mocking them and trying to use reverse propaganda.

Just reading the *two* articles I presented, that is evidence enough to any reasonable person that this is not dumb or paranoid just good sense.

Sure, these guys don't have our education! But they know implicitly where things are headed...

The Army admits to having very lifelike bird-drones...that's it

All the WMD went through the port of Rotterdam as scrap just ahead of or concurrent with the invasion.
Saddam didn't want to get caught with them.

http://archives.hawaiireporter.com/iraqi-wmd-components-found-in-rotterdam-scrapyard/
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2004/jun/10/20040610-103512-5542r/
http://www.scottdstrader.com/blog/ether_archives/000080.html
http://archive.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=3857

The reports weren't wrong, the invasion was just too slow. Your mainstream press at work again ignoring the facts so they wouldn't have to retrace their Bush Lied campaign in the middle of an election.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/may/6/syrian-rebels-used-sarin-nerve-gas-not-assads-regi/

Monday, May 6, 2013

Testimony from victims strongly suggests it was the rebels, not the Syrian government, that used Sarin nerve gas during a recent incident in the revolution-wracked nation, a senior U.N. diplomat said Monday.

Carla del Ponte, a member of the U.N. Independent International Commission of Inquiry on Syria, told Swiss TV there were âoestrong, concrete suspicions but not yet incontrovertible proof,â that rebels seeking to oust Syrian strongman Bashar al-Assad had used the nerve agent.

But she said her panel had not yet seen any evidence of Syrian government forces using chemical weapons, according to the BBC, but she added that more investigation was needed.

Damascus has recently facing growing Western accusations that its forces used such weapons, which President Obama has described as crossing a red line. But Ms. del Ponteâ(TM)s remarks may serve to shift the focus of international concern. [...]

If at first you don't succeed, try, try again.

And throw in a Miley Cyrus or two while you're at it, just to make sure nobody's paying attention when the Syrian President gets his 15 minutes of media air to explain how stupid the whole accusation is.

I believe it was the UN who reported that, actually.

I am an inveterate letter writer. I dislike sending e-mail to friends, preferring to commit my thoughts and comments to paper. It seems that this is the most secure form of communication available since I can take steps to ensure that the recipient knows that the envelope was not steamed open in transit. That leaves the photos the postal service has been taking of the front and back of every envelope going through the mail , and I can even sabotage that a bit by using phone a phony name and return address and an alias for the recipient. Even the letters I write to and receive from my correspondents in jails and prisons are more secure than my electronic communication. While everything I send and receive has been read first by the jail or prison staff, they're not going to be particularly interested in my political and religious ramblings. They're far more interested in things that affect the security of the jail or prison and the inmates, gang activity, and things of an obvious criminal nature. So, bring on the snail mail!

http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/robbins-report/2012/nov/10/florida-vote-twist-more-ballots-voters/

I'm beginning to think you're a troll, and your entire job is to prove ObamaCare is Constitutional, because you really suck at this. You just don't seem to be familiar with any actual facts.

Let's not get into delusional fantasies. I said no such thing, I said people are saying it and people are suing over it. But this brings up an interesting note. If what I said makes you think Obamacare is unconstitutional, then perhaps you should explore that Idea in and of itself as it is your idea.

Reconciliation happens with every bill that either House amends. It is the process by which the House approves Senate amendments, or vice versa. Reconciliation is not against the House rules, it is the House rules. It involves having both houses vote on the final, reconciled, proposal that their committee has come up with.

Reconciliation is a specific process- rule in the house pertaining to budgetary items. It involved removing amendments passed in one house that the other won't pass and pulls the bills together insomuch as they are the same as has been voted on. What you say is true in the generic sense of how legislation works, but has no meaning whatsoever at all when talking about this because the main difference is whether or not the two bills need to be voted on again after then have been reconciled. In the normal process, the new bill would need a vote. What happened here is the senate voted on one bill, the house voted on another, those separate and different bills passed, then the senate changed bills and instead of voting again, they removed the differences as if they had bother been passed. The house rules allow that to happen as long as it doesn't increase taxes or spending.

The rest of your comment is meaningless. It talks about before the bills currently called Obamacare was voted on, not what happened when the bills finally went to the president.

So the House proposed the mandate, it voted on it;s version of the mandate, and then it voted on the Senate version of the mandate. You ain't gonna convince a Court that ObamaCare is invalid because the House didn't vote on it.

read that link I posted.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/mar/31/obamacare-lawsuit-over-health-care-tax-will-test-c/?page=all

The European welfare state is unsustainable. It's unsustainable in the short run for the PIIGS, but also, with declining birth rates and rising debts, unsustainable even for Germany and other Northern European countries. Even the smallest nods towards austerity are greeted with riots. The only question is how much pain, economic collapse and hyperinflation happen on the way down.

Don't forget:

* The Obama Administration, no doubt with an eye to the 2014 elections, has announced that certain parts of the Affordable Care Act (a/k/a Obamacare) will simply be postponed until after the election. Nothing in the ACA gives this power to the Executive branch.

* President Obama attempted to make "bench" appointments when Congress was still in session. Months later, this one got shot down in the courts.

* The IRS went after political enemies of the Administration. There may or may not have been direct orders from President Obama. (I am not ruling out something along the lines of "Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?" instead of direct orders.) Not only is selective enforcement of the law illegal, but the IRS released confidential details of some conservative organizations to those organizations' political enemies, which is absolutely illegal with no possible wiggle room.

* Eric Holder's Department of Justice has a history of flouting the law.

I read an article that observed that one of the traditional checks on the power of government is the worry that, when the pendulum shifts and the other party is in power, that the other party might start taking advantage of any precedents you set. The article speculated that the Obama Administration isn't worried about this, as the mainstream media is solidly in Obama's pocket and yet implacably opposed to the Republicans. This leaves the Obama Administration free to do things that would get any Republican a firestorm of horrible publicity.

Fans of Bill Clinton, after the Monica Lewinsky scandal, used to chant "Bush Lied, People Died. Clinton Lied, Nobody Died." Remember that nobody died in the Watergate scandal, and think very hard about the Benghazi scandal. But the mainstream media isn't interested in Benghazi or any of the other scandals, any more than they have to be.

I'm not sure why I bothered to write this as somebody will mod it down to -1 really fast, rather than writing a rebuttal.

Top of page 3 and mid of page 2 of http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/aug/1/secrets-are-hard-to-keep-in-the-whole-wired-world/ Its like reaching out to a Nixon like silent majority of the contracting tech world.
The GCHQ did it with better pay, conditions, academic support and lots of expensive US tech in the 1970-80's. A real living wage and advancement.
The US gov seems to want to change the message back to a more positive debate vs the bitter people who cling to a 4th amendment subculture.

From:
http://www.afr.com/p/national/transcript_interview_with_former_KnS7JDIrw73GWlljxA7vdK
"I personally think Snowden is a very troubled, narcissistic young man who has done a very, very bad thing."
"ideological embrace of transparency as a virtue."
"Likewise, at what point does a cultural tendency towards transparency flip-over to become a deep threat inside your system?"
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/aug/1/secrets-are-hard-to-keep-in-the-whole-wired-world/
"“a romantic, absolute attachment to transparency; [a belief] that secrecy in any form is wrong.”
https://www.fas.org/irp/news/2006/01/hayden012306.html
"The great urban legend out there then was something called "Echelon""
"It is not a driftnet over Dearborn or Lackawanna or Freemont grabbing conversations that we then sort out by these alleged keyword searches or data-mining tools or other devices that so-called experts keep talking about."
"If FISA worked just as well, why wouldn't I use FISA? To save typing?
No. There is an operational impact here, and I have two paths in front of me, both of them lawful, one FISA, one the presidential -- the president's authorization.
And we go down this path because our operational judgment is it is much more effective."
Interesting how the press picks up on the "FISA statute itself says that it will be the exclusive means by which electronic surveillance may be pursued"
and is then told : "I'm not asserting anything. I'm asserting that NSA is doing its job."
http://freebeacon.com/china-military-preparing-for-peoples-war-in-cyberspace-space/
"Cyber warfare may truly be called a people’s warfare"
...cyber reconnaissance, jamming, and attack”—from space vehicles.

Actually, Hayden knows exactly what he's talking about.

And by all means, no one is thinking about ways to defeat the US.

His post is based on twisted history and ignoring inconvenient facts. Fortunately there are still people who remember and are willing to set the record straight. You may as well start reading them since they won't go away, inconvenient facts seldom do. In fact you may want to start reading from those sites anyway. If you believe the nonsense in his post you don't have enough diversity in your reading material, so it will do you good.

You may want to heed the words of Yoda, "Always in motion is the future." Si se puede! Then, Now

Viva Marco!, Viva Bobby!, Viva Nikki!, Viva Mia! , Viva Allen!

The lies about conservatives are starting to grow thin.

His post is based on twisted history and ignoring inconvenient facts. Fortunately there are still people who remember and are willing to set the record straight. You may as well start reading them since they won't go away, inconvenient facts seldom do. In fact you may want to start reading from those sites anyway. If you believe the nonsense in his post you don't have enough diversity in your reading material, so it will do you good.

You may want to heed the words of Yoda, "Always in motion is the future." Si se puede! Then, Now

Viva Marco!, Viva Bobby!, Viva Nikki!, Viva Mia! , Viva Allen!

The lies about conservatives are starting to grow thin.

We should have H1B Visas for lawyers and politicians. It would be amazing how quickly the program would be shut down then.

I doubt you could do anything about politicians. The legal profession is heading for trouble. It is getting harder and harder for lawyers for find a good job coming out of law school (with that massive debt), law school enrollments are dropping, law schools are laying off faculty. There are a lot of things feeding into that, including over selling of law degrees, computer and web based legal services, and off-shore legal work. Off shore accounting work is also increasing with the usual implications for accountants.

Law firms send case work overseas to boost efficiency - September 25, 2005

Guess which jobs are going abroad - February 25, 2004

If a tax preparer gets you an unexpected refund this year, you may have an accountant in India to thank. That's because accounting firms are joining the outsourcing trend established years ago by cost-conscious American manufacturers. In fact, companies in a number of unexpected industries are now sending work overseas. From scientific lab analysis to medical billing, the service-sector workforce has gone global. CPA firms are just one example. In the 2002 tax year, accounting firms sent some 25,000 tax returns to be completed by accountants in India. This year, that number is expected to quadruple. -- more

Australia is seeing a similar trend.

Get used to it: sending jobs overseas is the way of the future

Noting some key facts about the US terrorist watch list:

Terror watch list grows to 875,000

As of December 2012, a factsheet from the center states, TIDE contained over 875,000 entries. Each one represents a known or suspected terrorist and includes all their known aliases and spelling variations on their name, the official said.

Less than one percent, or fewer than 9,000, were Americans, including both citizens and legal permanent residents, he said, adding the center does not release exact numbers.

So if there are only 9,000 known or suspected terrorists in the US out of 310,000,000+ Americans, how much impact is that likely to have? I wouldn't necessarily expect terrorists to be highly connected to people outside of their purpose.

You seem to have skipped over some key data.

Terror watch list grows to 875,000

As of December 2012, a factsheet from the center states, TIDE contained over 875,000 entries. Each one represents a known or suspected terrorist and includes all their known aliases and spelling variations on their name, the official said.

Less than one percent, or fewer than 9,000, were Americans, including both citizens and legal permanent residents, he said, adding the center does not release exact numbers.

That is a pretty small portion of both the US and world populations.

If it's true that members of Congress are angry, that's favorable news! Maybe they can be persuaded to get off their butts and do something about this.

If you review the Washington Times article it looks like Congress is of a mind to pare things back.

Obama loses support for renewal of surveillance; NSA phone program will expire next year

The lawmaker who wrote the USA Patriot Act said Wednesday that, as it stands, the House will never renew the provisions that the Obama administration uses to collect Americans’ phone records, meaning the government’s surveillance program will be cut off some time next year.

Both Democrats and Republicans told top administration officials that they reject President Obama’s claim that the law allows the intelligence community to collect the phone numbers, time, date and duration of calls made by Americans, and they said Mr. Obama needs to change the way he is running the program if he wants to keep it intact.

If they do cut back on surveillance it will probably be OK, for a while. Of course it won't just be surveillance that has been cut back. The Obama administration keeps killing terrorists instead of capturing and interrogating them which means a significant loss of intelligence information, and is one of the notable differences between Presidents Obama and Bush. (The reason: Obama doesn't want to be stuck with more prisoners and the messiness of trials. He doesn't want to use military commissions and the Congress and electorate oppose criminal law trials in civilian courts.) Beyond that, the Snowden revelations have already had the effect of causing terrorists to change their communications methods to avoid surveillance thus reducing intelligence even more. The combination of all three factors may lead to a significant loss of intelligence information.

We'll see how it turns out. I won't be surprised if in the long run it turns out to be a riff on the old medical saw: The (intelligence) operations were a success, but the citizens died.

What worries me as much, or more, is that we have over 700,000 people on the terror watch list.

Nay, over 875,000.

That's larger that the populations of South Dakota, Alaska, North Dakota, D.C., Vermont, Wyoming, every US territory except Puerto Rico, and 35% of the countries and dependent territories in the world.

It's the data collection process and what is used with that data. With Data Mining techniques getting more sophisticated any tracking or automated data collection process, such as license plate scanners erode our privacy. Sure, if you have outstanding tickets or a warrant out for your arrest, an automated system for identifying your vehicle would be beneficial however we start casting bigger and bigger fishing nets and a lot of innocent fish get caught by the same net. How do you ensure that all that data for non-offenders gets removed or does it become another source of information that the government can use to track you? How often were you parked on this street? Oh we say you go over a bridge 50 times? It's a fine line that we cross in the names of efficiencies brought to bear to "reduce costs." There's already a report that the IRS has a system that allows state governments to access private information in the name of efficiency even though nobody in Congress has ever apparently approved such a system.

A drone does not yet have enough firepower to level 6 block by six block area,

The difference between a drone and a piloted plane is the control system. The fact that purpose-built drones lack facilities for a pilot is merely efficiency, and the effort required to retrofit a plane designed for a pilot with remote control apparatus.

The reason there aren't drones capable of dropping 6-block bombs, or city-buster bombs even, is that we haven't seen application for the technology, paired with security for the weapons systems.

Think about it... The advantages of drones over pure missiles are reconnaissance and loiter capability. If you're going to blow up 6 city blocks, it's not going to be a strike against a moving target; precision isn't so valuable, and you'll have done your homework (recon) beforehand.

In other news... the airforce is replacing pilots in other roles too.

I don't think there is a single person out there who would elect to go through with having a child with disabilities if they had any practical choice in the matter.

Ah! That's where you'd be wrong. People do choose to have children with DS. (And it's not about the $s)

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jul/9/hundreds-call-to-adopt-down-syndrome-baby-save-it-/

On topic: The path of least regret would have been single payer system, but we somehow ended up with a Republican profit-utopia called "Obamacare".

Infinity Imaginary mod points to you sir.

Infinity irony points to you, fellow poster.

It is often claimed that Obamacare is a Republican creation by way of the Heritage Foundation. In fact the Heritage plan was substantially different, and they figured out quite some time ago that plan was not a good idea, and they disowned it.

In fact, Obamacare was written by Democrats in Congress with help from a progressive think tank.

Center For American Progress President Shares Part In Obamacare: "I Helped Write The Bill"

Obamacare was passed in Congress on a straight party line vote.

House passes health-care reform bill without Republican votes

Obamacare was signed into law by President Obama.

So how is a law written by Democrats assisted by progressive think tanks, passed solely by Democrats, and signed into law by a Democrat President a "Republican" plan?

PRUDEN: Obamacare called ‘The fiasco for the ages’
Democrats' New Argument: It's A Good Thing That Obamacare Doubles Individual Health Insurance Premiums
Analysis: Obamacare to cost $2.6 trillion over first full decade

President Barack Obama promised his health-care law would cost approximately $900 billion over ten years when he first proposed it. Since then, the price tag has continued to climb. Total spending under the Affordable Care Act will reach $2.6 trillion over its first full decade, according to a Senate Budget Committee analysis, which was based on Congressional Budget Office estimates and growth rates.

It is said that success has many fathers but failure is an orphan. Trying to leave the Obamacare baby in a basket on the Republican's doorstep won't work. The bastard stepchild of Obamacare belongs to the Democrats.

That said, the better question is -- are we willing to allow the government to change its relationship with us, the citizens, and if so, what will be the new boundaries for such a change?

I think that question is in the process of being answered.

Linchpin for Obama’s plan to predict future leakers unproven

PRUDEN: Obamacare called ‘The fiasco for the ages’

If it had been single payer it wouldn't have passed. It barely had enough support as it was. The rewrites tended to be sweeteners to try to lure in more votes. The rewrites didn't fundamentally change the nature of the bill, the writing of which involved progressive think tanks.

Center For American Progress President Shares Part In Obamacare: "I Helped Write The Bill"

With the bill they passed, Democrats may have ended affordable, quality healthcare.

PRUDEN: Obamacare called ‘The fiasco for the ages’

Obamacare is a Republican idea. That's the reason that it's a byzantine maze of profiteering middlemen: Republicans love their corporate welfare.

Liberals originally wanted single-payer system like that found in most civilized countries.

I'm sorry, but I can't let you abuse history like that. The Affordable Care Act was written by Democrats and passed by Democrats, with little if any input from Republicans. It was Progressives that had input, not Republicans:

Center For American Progress President Shares Part In Obamacare: "I Helped Write The Bill"

The Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) was passed with only 1 Republican vote from the sources I see. 1 Republican in the House, and 0 in the Senate voted for it. The Democrats wrote it, the Democrats passed it, a Democrat President signed it, the Democrats own it from start to finish.. You can't legitimately blame this on Republicans in any way. It's time to grow up and own up.

Even if you want to associate the Republicans or conservatives with having shared the idea for it in some way in the past, there is an issue:

ObamaCare's Heritage

In that 11th Circuit appeal, which is almost certainly headed to the Supreme Court, the Justice Department cited Heritage as an authority in support of its position. Heritage responded with an amicus brief explaining that its view had changed:

If citations to policy papers were subject to the same rules as legal citations, then the Heritage position quoted by the Department of Justice would have a red flag indicating it had been reversed. . . . Heritage has stopped supporting any insurance mandate.

Heritage policy experts never supported an unqualified mandate like that in the PPACA [ObamaCare]. Their prior support for a qualified mandate was limited to catastrophic coverage (true insurance that is precisely what the PPACA forbids), coupled with tax relief for all families and other reforms that are conspicuously absent from the PPACA. Since then, a growing body of research has provided a strong basis to conclude that any government insurance mandate is not only unnecessary, but is a bad policy option. Moreover, Heritage's legal scholars have been consistent in explaining that the type of mandate in the PPACA is unconstitutional.

The Democrats still own it completely, much to their growing discomfort.

PRUDEN: Obamacare called ‘The fiasco for the ages’

I understand your attraction to the single payer model. It is true, they could have tried to go that way, but I don't think there was enough political support to do it. There are other ways they could have gone as well that might have been better than what they got. Instead Congress passed a bill on a pretty much party line vote that was whatever they could scrape off the wall in the hopes of just passing anything and then patching it up after it passed. I guess we'll find out what the consequences are.

PRUDEN: Obamacare called ‘The fiasco for the ages’

You might find some irony in this:

Richard Nixon -- the last great liberal

Nixon was not only a fervent supporter of the Clean Air Act, the first federal law designed to control air pollution on the national level; he also gave us the Environmental Protection Agency. The creation of the EPA represented an expansion of government that would face fierce opposition were it being debated today. The EPA is also one of the agencies on Capitol Hill that the business community most detests—along with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, which polices working conditions. OSHA is another Nixon creation.

Herbert Stein, chief economic adviser during the administrations of Nixon and Gerald Ford, once remarked: “Probably more new regulation was imposed on the economy during the Nixon administration than in any other presidency since the New Deal.”

How many remember that Nixon was a champion of affirmative action? “Incredible but true”, as Fortune magazine put it in 1994 when Nixon died, “It was the Nixonites that gave us employment quotas.” Though many credit John F. Kennedy or Lyndon Johnson with initiating affirmative action, it was rather Richard Nixon who first sanctioned formal goals and time frames to break barriers to minority employment.

Social Security benefits, a cornerstone of the Democratic Party platform, were also crucial to Nixon’s policies. He ushered in a minimum tax on the wealthy and supported a guaranteed income for all Americans, a move that would rile today’s Republicans to unprecedented heights.

And finally, consider health care: Nixon’s proposed reform would have required employers to buy health insurance for their employees and subsidize those who couldn’t afford it. Nixon’s version of national health care was a far more liberal concept than Bill Clinton’s or Barack Obama’s—and it failed because of Democratic opposition, not lack of support from Nixon’s own party. (Ted Kennedy later said that opposing Nixon’s health-care plan was one of his biggest political regrets.)

It sound like they aren't really making use of mandatory access control and labeling information. I would have expected that they would. Either that or Snowden bypassed the access controls, which should have thrown an audit alert. So maybe they aren't keeping up with log audits. Dealing with Mandatory Access Controls can be a pain, but it could reduce the opportunity for this sort of thing.

Then there is the vetting process:
NSA leaker Snowden’s clearance had ‘problems’; firm that vetted him under probe