Slashdot Mirror
Electronic Burglary in the Senate
earthworm2 writes "The Boston Globe is reporting that Republicans on the Senate judiciary committee have spied on confidential Democratic files for a year, studying their strategies and passing on the juicy bits to the media."
Didn't a republican president resign over things like this? How much do you want to bet we'll just roll over and tollerate this, rather than procecuting the people responsible.
It's okay to spend $$44 million dollars on a multi year witch hunt to find nothing more than a stain on a dress. Why can't we spend the same amount to investigate THIS administration, and the cronies in the congress who support them?
But this is slashdot. A slashdoter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber!
Trespassing? Perhaps. Spying? That's a stretch. But BURGLARY?? This looks more to me like Michael once again using inflammatory headlines to push his well-known anti-Republican agenda on the readers of Slashdot.
Mod me down if you don't like what I'm suggesting, but really folks, think about it for a minute.
As the extent to which Democratic communications were monitored came into sharper focus, Republicans yesterday offered a new defense. They said that in the summer of 2002, their computer technician informed his Democratic counterpart of the glitch, but Democrats did nothing to fix the problem.
... they get caught with both hands in the honey pot.
While it sounds like the Dems' tech guy is missing his distro of Clue, I wonder... what if he/she left the backdoor open on purpose?
Here's a scenario:
1. Repo tech tells Demo tech about security problem.
2. Demo tech realizes that any security breach could bite the Repos in the butt if discovered.
3. Optional: Tech tells Demo leadership about the plan.
4. Demo tech keeps an eye on traffic through the breach, letting the Repos pull info until...
5.
Step 3 is optional because it assumes cluefulness on the part of political leadership, which I wouldn't want to assume. But there are some tech-savvy members of Congress (surely!) who might understand the honeypot concept.
Stressed? Me? Of course not. Stress is what a rubber band feels before it breaks, silly.
In DC, this is called `Business As Usual`.
Skip from this incident of Republicans spying back to the years during the Clinton White House, wherein the FBI was found to have pulled confidential files on tons of prominent Republicans and provided that information (quite illegally).
Quick link to info on Filegate
Quick summary for people who don't remember 1998: "[There was a] class action suit on behalf of the more than 900 Bush and Reagan appointees and possibly others whose FBI files were unlawfully obtained by the Clinton White House. Louis Freeh, Director of the FBI, has admitted that there was an "egregious violation of privacy without justification."
It goes around, it comes around, Watergate wasn't the first time, and this isn't the last time.
Politics.
feh.
In the US, however, doesn't this make them terrorists and entitled to a free, one way, all expenses paid trip to Cuba?
The Patriot Act also says that hacking is an act of domestic terrorism.
Oh, the conundrum!
The REAL jabber has the user id: 13196
What you do today will cost you a day of your life
In contrast to the false impression given by the quote above, more than a dozen, well-qualified Clinton nominees had to wait over 500 days to be confirmed, including nine who waited over 700 days, four who waited over 900 days, two who waited over 1,000 days, and one, Richard Paez, who waited 1,520 days from nomination to confirmation.
Though honestly, I'd like to know what this "glitch" is. Sounds like someone had a rootkit, and the tech didn't patch windows.
-Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat
A technician hired by the new judiciary chairman, Patrick Leahy, Democrat of Vermont, apparently made a mistake that allowed anyone to access newly created accounts on a Judiciary Committee server shared by both parties -- even though the accounts were supposed to restrict access only to those with the right password.
Does this mean the party that controls the senate gets to hire the technician who manages the servers? Am i the only one who sees a problem with that?
It strikes me as ironic (in the scary, not-very-funny-at-all sense) that it's the judiciary committee that got caught breaking the law, violating ethics, and spying on their counterparts.
We're supposed to trust these people with judicial nominees?
Is it just me, or does this sound an aweful low like Watergate, electronic style?
In US, you can easily buy enough major firearms to wipe out your neighbourhood but a few little fireworks are banned.
It is a shame the article didn't go into any technical details about what kind of servers these were.
I'll give you one guess what i think it is.
Funny that this makes it on the news. Where was /. a few years back?
having knowingly accessed a computer without authorization or exceeding authorized access
intentionally accesses a computer without authorization or exceeds authorized access, and thereby obtains information from any department or agency of the United States
intentionally, without authorization to access any nonpublic computer of a department or agency of the United States, accesses such a computer of that department or agency that is exclusively for the use of the Government of the United States or, in the case of a computer not exclusively for such use, is used by or for the Government of the United States and such conduct affects that use by or for the Government of the United States
knowingly and with intent to defraud, accesses a protected computer without authorization, or exceeds authorized access, and by means of such conduct furthers the intended fraud and obtains anything of value, unless the object of the fraud and the thing obtained consists only of the use of the computer and the value of such use is not more than $5,000 in any 1-year period
knowingly and with intent to defraud traffics (as defined in section 1029) in any password or similar information through which a computer may be accessed without authorization, if such computer is used by or for the Government of the United States
Though the Republicans claimed that the information was accesible through a "glitch," exploiting such a glitch to obtain private memos is still breaking the law.
Now, I doubt this will ever end up in a trial of any sort, but if it does, and (as is most likely) the case is dropped, couldn't people accused of hacking a gov't computer use this hypothetical case as part of their defense argument? By ignoring their own laws, the US gov't will eventually dig itself into a hole it can't get out of.
"GOP committee staff exploited a computer glitch that allowed them to access restricted Democratic communications without a password".
DMCA Violation!!!!!
The only reason we have the rights we have is that people just like us died to gain those rights. -- Cheerio Boy
Still, I've lived for brief periods of time in towns where nobody locks their doors. I don't think it's dumb at all that this is treaspassing; most people wouldn't care if you randomly wandered in for a friendly chat, but they have the right to toss you out if you're being a bastard, and a right to their privacy.
This is one of those classic things that looks sneaky but within the usual beltway rules, until everyone finds out about it. Some smart guy figures out how to pull a fast one without thinking through the consequences. But this is a lot bigger than a simple dirty trick. It looks like numerous criminal laws were broken, although IANAL.
I just remember Watergate. The story simmered in the background through the summer and fall of 1972. Few people paid much attention to it. In 1973, the thing suddenly went critical and took out a major chunk of the Republican leadership over the next year and a half. The major crimes in Watergate happened during that quiet period in late 1972. But the scandal ripped the lid off a festering pool of nastiness with all kinds of secondary consequences. Guys like Agnew got nailed for things completely unrelated, but without the scandal, they never would have been investigated. If this blows up, watch for a lot of other things (Haliburton?) to suddenly show up on the law-enforcement agendas.
Define "deal with". A Libertairian government would only go so far as to prevent them from infringing on the individual liberties of others.
I vote, I write letters, they work for me. Anyone who believes otherwise is likely misinformed and prone to believing conspiracy theories.
Food not Bombs is a nice platitude but it breaks down when you notice that the Bombees are usually well fed
If I find the master key to a building, does that give me the right to rummage through people's offices? Or if someone forgets to lock their door, should I then be able to rummage through their office?
And if the Republicans are hackers doesn't that mean we should be supporting them??Well I suppose I could instead vote based on issues and agendas, but what the heck.
And from the article:
Manuel Miranda....now is the chief judicial nominee adviser in the Senate majority leader's office...argued that the only wrongdoing was on the part of the Democrats -- both for the content of their memos, and for their negligence in placing them where they could be seen.
You mean, somewhere where Mr. Miranda shouldn't have been able to look, but did anyway?
I Am My Own Worst Enemy
You might want to check out this quote from http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200305/050803.html a source as unbiased as Orrin Hatch, the source of your quote.
Nearly 60 Clinton nominees were not given hearings and/or votes, and others were filibustered or waited years to get their hearings.
At the time Democrats took over leadership of the Judiciary Committee in the summer of 2001, Democrats inherited 110 vacancies, and 40 additional vacancies occurred while Democrats were in charge. The Democratic Senate confirmed 100 Bush judicial nominees - 17 circuit and 83 district - in only 17 months. Presumably, nearly all 100 confirmed by the Democratic-led Senate were pro-life, conservative Republican nominees. The Democratic pace was faster and fairer than Republicans' pace since their slowdown began in 1996. Last year (2002) was the best single year (in terms of numbers of judicial nominees confirmed) since 1994.
First off read the article, the Demos go on to say "no harm no foul" since the documents aren't "owned" by anyone and are not official govt business. They even put the blame on their own admin.
A few other things to clear up: This was not a "glitch," instead it was a simple permissions issue where certain security policies were not implemented properly or at all.
Second: If a document is readable, people will read it. Right wrong or otherwise I don't really see what the big deal is. These people are supposed to running our fscking country not trading dirty secrets about how to screw the president out of a judicial nominee.
Sure the people who weren't supposed to have access should have said somthing, but by the same token I can say the admin should have double checked to make sure they didn't have access.
If the honeypot theory is correct, and Demos knew the documents weren't secure whey would they allow stupid shit like "hes a latino" go there in the first place. If anything they would place false documents there and make he republicans look bad when they come out with all these lies and rumors.
In my opinion this doesn't even hurt the republicans credibility...so what if they were seeing stuff they weren't meant to see...the shit found more than makes up for any "ethical" issues involved. I say we pass a law that anything written, typed, or electronicly produced by any of our governmental representatives (that isn't top secret or national security) should be made public within 24hours of its creation.
Its time our government was held responsible for all the BS it creates.
Apple free since 1990!
The truely disgusting part about all of this is that the "Liberally-biased media" (in the eyes of Fox News and all the Conservative pundits) probably won't even pick up on this -- think we'll be seeing this on CNN or MSNBC anytime soon? I doubt it. Imagine the uproar if the Dems got caught doing something like this....
Actually, the "liberal media" roasted and lambasted the Clinton administration for several similar actions, including TravelGate. Not that anything ever came of it, though. That is the problem. Politicians have been spying on each other forever. In this country, burglary, computer crime, and leaking of confidential information is perfectly alright as long as it is done by politicians to their enemies.
In the history of this country only one president and one staffer ever got into ANY real trouble over something like this, and then only because they made powerful enemies themselves and the public became afraid of the extent to which they had pushed their agenda. At the time, and at many opportunities since (especially seing as the staffer now is a powerful talk radio DJ) they have pointed out that others went even further than they did and with regularity. Until all sides are willing to stop engaging in such shenanighans and therefore opening themselves up to mutual prosecution, and perpetrators start truly being punished, we will continue to have this sort of thing blighting our system of government.
That's bullshit. I agree it was wrong, but where's the consistency when it comes to anybody else.. diebold, the MS halloween memos... all supposed to be internal memos that were leaked.
We all cheered then, didn't we?
Stupid sexy Flanders.
John Stockwell, former CIA agent, described the phenomenon of a "soft file". He had been a field agent, in half a dozen field offices, for his first decade or so in the CIA. His final field post being in Vietnam, just prior to the fall of the South.
Following his return from Vietnam he got a plum post, back in HQ, co-ordinating the CIA's 1975 Angola efforts.
This was during a period when the CIA was starting to get a lot of Congressional scrutiny. And the response to this was the destruction of a lot of official files -- together with the creation of unofficial "soft files". Since the soft files had no official existence they couldn't be subject to a normal subpoena ro FOIA request. The drawback to them was that your colleagues could only request a copy of them through word of mouth. But this drawback was worth living with if the contents would destroy your career, if subjected to outside scrutiny.
Should CIA employees keep soft files -- whose intent is to cover their tracks and deceive the American public? In my opinion absolutely not. CIA employees are supposed to carry out policies, not make them.
Is it then okay for Politicians to keep soft files? I dunno.
Or have we decided as a country that we should provide political parties with information technology at public expense that the people have no right to access?
The problem with a libertarian government is that power-hungry individuals can erode its libertarianism without ever disturbing the facade of its libertarianism - which is exactly what we've got here in the USA. Think about it - who ensures that the government's power to abuse its powers is limited, besides the government itself? No matter how many checks and balances you throw in, eventually power will erode through them and connect all the little pieces into a byzantine monster. Then it's time for another revolution.
We're about 20 years overdue.
-Hentai [in vita non pacem est]
But I bet more than a few of the republicans who accessed the open files are probabably ones that have recommended long prison terms for 'hackers'.
And I really hope that This Manual Miranda wasn't the Chief Judicial Nominee...
No, I don't trust in god. He'll have to pay up front, like everybody else.
In this day and age, responsible file protection on the part of our elected officials is mandatory. I realize that's a loaded remark, but no matter how you slice it, something has to change within our Congressional offices and infrastructure. Either someone hacked protected files or someone failed to protect files that should have been protected. I have general administrative access on our LAN and even I occasionally stumble across files I can't access. There are multiple levels of security for all things digital and either someone is misusing them or neglecting there use. Is their a third alternative?
Soap Box:
I too am disturbed by this revelation.
But, if negligence is a factor (on either side), or some level of corruption, or misrepresentation of the people, then let us use our tricameral system to resolve it. Otherwise we are guilty of doing nothing but whipping up yet another impotent hysteria-of-the-moment using mass media. Take them to court. Elect new representatives. Our system of government is designed to be manipulated by the citizenry, intending to enact the will of a majority while protecting the rights of minorities. Problem is that the majority don't participate. The only ones doing the manipulating are an ambitious minority, some championing worthy causes, others power hungry and greedy, perhaps even rotten to the core, but all an ambitious minority just the same.
Judging from the relevant federal code (helpfully posted below), there does appear to be *some* chance that the Republican senators broke the law, by exceeding their authorized access to the files which, although were not "property" of the government, were stored on a government computer.
On the slim chance that any of the Republican senators are prosecuted, how much would you like to bet that they get off with a reprimand and a slap on the wrist?
Now, if the janitor in that office had been caught paging through the Dems' (or the Repubs') confidential memos, you can be sure he would have been prosecuted as a computer criminal. Judges are getting more heavy-handed as of late, and it's becoming increasingly more popular to invoke the Patriot Act in cases of computer crime. There's a very good chance that our poor janitor would have been tried, and convicted, as a terrorist.
But, because the criminals in this case are rich, powerful, important white men with many friends in government, they'll likely get off scot free.
I say: give these slandering, pandering, filibustering, dirty-bird legislators a taste of their own medicine! Let them be tried under the inappropriately harsh laws that snuck into the books under THEIR noses. It'll never happen of course, but it sure would be nice.
As to who "ruined" President Clinton's presidency.
President Clinton would have been embarrassed, but not impeached, had he simply told the truth during his testimony in a sexual harassment case against him. Telling the truth would have likely cost him money, and some dignity, but far less than he ended up paying as a result of his misdeeds, and subsequent attempts to cover them up.
I seem to remember reading something recently about Ireland pushing an electronic voting system for the EU with no paper trail. Sounds like just as big a joke over there to me, only it affects over 12 countries directly.
I just remember Watergate. .... Guys like Agnew got nailed for things completely unrelated, but without the scandal, they never would have been investigated. If this blows up, watch for a lot of other things (Haliburton?) to suddenly show up on the law-enforcement agendas.
Didja know that Rumsfeld was a member of Nixon's cabinet?
"Director of the Office of Economic Opportunity, Assistant to the President, and a member of the President's Cabinet (1969-1970); and, as Counsellor to the President, Director of the Economic Stabilization Program, and a member of the President's Cabinet (1971-1972)."
- Source
The Rumsfeld-Cheney-Nixon connection is also interesting:
"When President Richard M. Nixon selected Rumsfeld as White House counselor in 1970, Cheney joined him as his deputy. In August 1974, Gerald Ford assumed the presidency and asked Rumsfeld to be his chief of staff. Rumsfeld immediately sought out Cheney."
- Source
Rumsfeld never got press as a major Watergate player. But this is interesting:
"Rumsfeld was not entirely divorced from Nixon's political operations. There is no sign that he was involved in any of the illegalities of Watergate, but he was willing to offer Nixon other help of a not particularly exalted nature--some dirt on political enemies, some covert ties with a prominent pollster. The Nixon tapes reveal that Rumsfeld often worked with and was a special favorite of John Mitchell and Charles Colson, Nixon's roughest political operators, who viewed Rumsfeld as savvier than other White House aides."
- Source
Mitchell was an obstructor of justice, and Colson was a hatchet man. Rummy was close with those guys? Must be sweet to have a resume like that -- fits right in with the Bush administration.
-kgj
-kgj
I am on the Blue side of the isle. As an honest man, have taken issue with Rep beheavor even since becoming aware of my own consience.
/.'rs feel if a system isn't protected that it's a license to walk right in. We often blame "STUPID" administrators for their own problems, taking pride in that our systems have been "secured".
What bothers me most is that the victoms have been blamed:
"There appears to have been no hacking, no stealing, and no violation of any Senate rule," Miranda said. "Stealing assumes a property right and there is no property right to a government document. . . . These documents are not covered under the Senate disclosure rule because they are not official business and, to the extent they were disclosed, they were disclosed inadvertently by negligent [Democratic] staff."
I know many
Sometimes I leave to go to the market and forget to lock the front door to my house. I no more expect to come home to someone going through my belongings as the next person would. And I would not and will not accept personal blame for the intruders behavour. The intruder is wrong, at fault and is to blame. The intruder is the scum, I am but forgetful.
I wouldn't care at this point if Micky Mouse won the Democratic nomination, I still wouldn't vote for Bush and his NeoCons.
To keep this post more on topic... I do NOT agree that because their system was vunerable, that they are the parties responsible for the disclosure. This is so Orwellian. War is Peace, Freedom is Occupation and now... this. Stealing is Ownership?
Actually, I think the revolution did come to completion with the assassinations (JFK, MLK, etc.) in the 1960s. We still call it the USA, but it's not the same country it was before WWII. Eisenhower warned us about the "military industrial complex" or whatever you call it but we were already down that course. WWII, that great battle we won for freedom, well it also gave us an economy that requires both husband and wife to work. Women working was, for industrialists, an "added value" of WWII because now you get labor from both members of the team but you pay them each half. Women pitched in to save Democracy and got screwed by Capital. Nobody seems to recognize this.
What we're waiting for now is the counterrevolution, and that won't happen until the dollar tanks. Give it about twenty years, or not depending on how things go. We're so intertwined economically with the rest of the world that a marked crash in the US, while devastating for us, might harm our enemies more than they'd like to admit. How is China gonna stay afloat if America can't afford to buy Chinese goods at good old American Wal-Mart?
Honestly I'm not so claer on how things might change. I guess I'm expecting a big WMD-style war; either that or something like Mad Cow Disease to dramatically thin our numbers.
I remember several years ago when they ruled against "fusion candidates," that is, a candidate endorsed by more that one party (multiple third parties) could not appear on the ballot.
The decision pretty much ensured a Democratic/Republican monopoly forever, essentially codifying the two party system we are stuck with today.
For those that would die defending it, Freedom
has a sweet taste that the protected will never know.
Interesting. That's not the impression I got when I had to read The Federalist Papers. The way I understood it, they wanted *at least* two parties, but preferably more. Of course, that was back in high school, so maybe I read it wrong.
I think two parties seems to be the equilibrium position. Third parties are usually created because of some fundamental disagreement within a party. Because these disagreements are often caused by hot issues just before an election, they usually fade within a few years, and the party disintegrates. (Many many examples through America's short history). This self-cleaning aspect of the party system means that you'll return to the initial number of parties within a fairly small time period. That exlains why we still have two parties, but it doesn't explain why we have two parties.
The only thing I can come up with is that so many political issues are black and white. There's no real middle ground on issues like healtcare, welfare, defense. Especially things like abortion. They're yes or no questions. So the parties each pick a side, and people follow accordingly.
Of course they ruled against it. The justices weren't members of a third party. : ) It's simple self-preservation. The parties will work together to preserve the status quo. Had all the justices been members of a third party, the decision would have gone the other way.
Basically, we have a two party system because we already have two parties, and no third party has created the inertia necessary to compete with the major parties for a significant length of time.
>> "Reagan era deficits = Bush era deficits"
>Any economist will tell you that deficit spending is a standard prctice for the govt. to get out of a recession. It worked for Reagan and looks like it's working for Bush as well.
And I suppose you practice this in real life? When your income does not meet your desires or obligations, you just "work" an additional 20% onto you income?
Are you for real? This isn't "charging" an emergency car repair -- this is OUTRIGHT THEFT. It's designed to bankrupt the government enough that the voters will DEMAND cutbacks in government spending for services they WANT RIGHT NOW.
Putting aside for a moment the greater good of the USA, this is quite clever.
If you create debt, you help the loan-shark banks. Wow!! Another investment opportunity.
Now what to do with the debts, accruing interest:
choice a) Cut spending. Oh wait, we need to defend oil pipelines, prop up Israel and Pakistan, fight a senseless drug war (a war that finances not fights terrorism). Oh yeah, and occasionally funds schools.
choice b) Raise taxes.
Never an option. If we do, make sure to stick it to the middle class, so they'll rightly demand relief.
choice c) Don't address the issue. Not my fucking problem. I'm from Texas and I hate The Federal Gubbamint (oh wait, Bush left Texas in a right mess also... yet managed to get millions of state dollars to pork out his private baseball team).
Borrowing small amounts of money make sense -- supplimenting your income with it is FOOLISH... unless you're motivated by the fact you can stick another generation with the bill. That's STEALING. I really, really wish there were a hell so republicans could burn in it.
Republicans do care about fighting terrorism.
Disclaimer: The following is half joke - sadly it's only half.
It's just beyond their imagination that someone other than them could do a decent job at it. So when somebody makes the president look bad, and may even endager their continued power, that person risks the success of the war on terror. I would cite Bush's coments in the State of the Union speach suggesting that not reelecting him would effectively give up on the war on terror. Discouraging behavior that could cause a loss of Rupublican power must be done at any cost, even one that presents a set back to the war.
Spying on Democrats is a natural and proper course of action then. It's almost a shame the CIA won't do it for you.
Much more important is solidifying your base. You know that most Americans won't notice a judge being appointed without approval from the senate, especially if you announce it friday afternoon. You do know that the not discussed part of the Republican base that would appreciate an appointment of an argueably racist judge to a federal bench on the weekend of Martin Luther King day would appreicate that action and be sure to vote. Karl Rove was sitting in his office and got to put a check next to his todo list item: "Secure the racist vote."
I could continue to rant at this point, but I won't. Clinton was a good president, and would have been great if he didn't act so stupidly. He at least half deserved to be impeached. His behavior embarassed his office and interferred with the progress he was making on many fronts.
But folks, it's time to stop calling Bush a liar. It's just not fair. To be a liar, you have to actually understand what you're talking about.
There are a number of "Libertarian" splinter parties that all lean (or claim to) the same way. Sure, one answer is for the LP to reincorporate the splinter groups, but fusion candidates allowed for an option short of direct unification. (Not that it would have changed anything... .5% is not much different from .6%.)
My objection to the SC decision was simply that there are no provisions for party politics in the Constitution whatsoever, much less a two-party system.
It is not within the government's delegated powers to determine how political parties choose their candidates, nor is it within there powers to prevent a candidate from representing more than one party.
SC Justices are supposed to above party politics (How's that for idealistic naivete?), but short of that, they have nothing to fear from the decisions they make either way... They're appointed for life (That's one of the SC's checks against the Executive and Legislative branches, that they can't be fired for invalidating goofy laws passed by the Congress, or signed into law by the President.).
Democrats and Republicans at the time were pleased with the decision (naturally), and quotes were to the effect of:
"This is a victory for America, helping to preserve our Two-party system."
My point is "what two-party system?" The two-party system is simply what we're used to, but it's not established by the Constitution. It's happenstance, and an unfortunate one at that.
For those that would die defending it, Freedom
has a sweet taste that the protected will never know.
More lies perpetuating as fact:
You allege the White House cosigned loans. In addition to not having the constitutional power to do so, they also did not do so. You allege that an article shows how far Clinton's Pals were using influence to help their buisness budies - but they didn't, beucase Rubin was not working in the White House and he got rebuffed by actual Clinton appointees.
Whitewater was not baseless - the Clintons were defrauded, and then we were defrauded.
I'm the best IRC client ever.
Don't be sorry. Off-topic discussions are the lifeblood of Slashdot. Well, at least they are for me. I care a lot more about the underlying social and political issues than the minutiae of some snippet of code.
That is a good point about paying-for-two, since one essentially couldn't work.
Slavery had the same drawback -- it was very costly to actually own slaves, since you had to provide them food, shelter, and you might actually want to provide them health care too, in order to protect your investment. Employing the working poor was actually cheaper; there was not all the overhead. (I'm talking about American slavery here, and I guess it's pretty obviuos that I'm no expert.) It's the same reason we see employers use contractors at a high hourly rate rather than bring employees on board and then have to pay for benefits and such.
I don't really have a point any more. Let's see if I can find one. By doubling the labor pool, which is basically what bringing women into the labor force did, we've certainly become wealthier on paper. But is it healthy? Does sending little Timmy off to day-care make society a better place? It's made us richer, and unfortunately that seems to be the only metric. "Family Values" have certainly morphed into something completely different than they were fifty or a hundred years ago, with the rise of the nuclear family and the existence of this thing called "teenagers" who in previous generations would simply be workers or making babies at the age today's kids are downloading MP3s. So I guess "progress" has its pros and cons. I think a lot of the "family values" movement (the Jerry Fallwell style) stems from the fact that the busting up of the core husband-wife division of labor has opened the floodgates of change. If it is not writ in stone than a man is the breadwinner and a woman the homemaker, then why does it even need to be a man and a woman? If both are equal in the labor force, why not two men or two women together? If men and women are interchangeable as units of economic utility, that is a huge change which will reverberate throughout society for generations. And in a captial system, where economics and the creation of wealth is ultimately where the rubber meets the road, it portends a vast restructuring of the society, and a LOT of inertia to overcome.
Thank you for your insightful post. It gives me plenty to think about.
I COMPLETELY disagree with your view. Yes, I feel strongly about it too...
What you are proposing is not democracy. You are proposing some sort of an elitist system. I'm not sure what but it is something new, that's for sure.
If you support an egalitarian view of democracy, EVERYONE should have the same access. That's what democracy is. One should NOT have to spend their own time on the electoral process. That's not how *I* want it--and that's not how most people want it either. One should not be forced to support the electoral system just because they want the vote counted. You are proposing exactly that.
As far as the hacking thing is concerned, it is totally irrelevant how many crackers are Democrats, and how many are Republican. It is also irrelevant how many are socialists, or how many are fascists, or how many are anarchists. The point is that the electoral system should not be TAMPERED with. Modifying the system alters the system and it won't be fair anymore. If your idea of electoral politics is to have a war between all the different ideologies, that's fine. But most people don't want that happening. The last thing we need are some fascist hackers taking on some anarchists, or whatever.
The system should be fair and clean. And one should not have to "volunteer" their time on it. If you are spening time on politics, that's your choice. But you should not be rewarded more than others. If you do get rewarded (I'm sure you do) then you are manipulating the electoral system. The perfect system, to me as well as most others I imagine, will be the opposite of what you propose. Namely, a system where there is ZERO influence or "volunteering by citizens" as possible.
Sivaram Vealuthapillai
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Seeking the meaning of life... @slashdot of all places
While I don't disagree with your comment, I am reminded of that line from the movie Johnny Mnemonic. I think it was one that Henry Rollins got to say: "If you're not a consumer, you're mentally ill!"
For sure, you can sit on welfare and get your food stamps, and lead the zero-earner lifestyle. But simple things like owning a home are extremely hard to pull off without the financial strength of two.
You've overstated the case about the "needs" of modern life. If your TV is destroyed in an earthquake, FEMA will grant you the money for a new one. Because a TV is a necessity of modern life (think emergency communications). So is a fridge. But 30 years ago, a TV wasn't covered. The things you mention as "fake needs" are slowly creeping their way into governmentally-approved needs. (School vouchers anyone?)
And don't get me started on the suburbs/lack of mass transit. Truly one of the great American failures of the latter half of the 20th century. However, this is the bed we've made.
One thing I just thought of is the 40-hour work week. Maybe a reason we need two earners in a modern family is because those two are working less.
Everything I say is pure speculation... so it's speculation answering speculation :)
:) ) that believe in time travel from a scientific point of view). Kip mentions how Lev Davidovich Landau made up the theory of neutron core to keep himself from being executed by Stalin (there was a purge to eliminate "enemies of the state" (which pretty much meant ANYONE that Stalin didn't like)). Just like how Landau made up the neutron core to save himself, Iraqi scientists would have made up stuff to keep themselves safe. Saddam in all likelihood never knew how far the programs really were.
:( ).
1) Saddam had a WMD development program, but it was all on computer, on the drawing board, as it were.
Iraq probably had a WMD program but it was probably concentrated on chemical weapons. I don't think they really had a program for nuclear weapons (at least nothing substantial or well developed).
2) Saddam lied to his military. Each general thought the next one over had CW, even though his own unit did not.
I think it would be the other way around. The Iraqi scietists lied to Saddam. Saddam wouldn't have known about the technology and the science behind it. He would just rely on this scientists. In situations like these (dictatorships), the scientists fabricate stuff to keep themselves alive. I'm reading Black Holes and Time Warps by Kip Thorne (THE definitive book on time travel for non-scientists--highly recommended to those (like me
On top of that, it should be noted that most of the "information" that USA used came from the Ahmed Chalabi and the Iraqi National Congress. Chalabi's goal was always to take over Iraq and run it by himself, which he seems to have done (although the proposed "democratic" elections might get in his way). Who knows how much of this was fabricated? It is quite plausible that a lot of the information was fabricated.
3) Saddam had made covert threats. This was meant to stave off both an Iranian invasion and a Shiite rebellion.
True but the threats weren't really directed against the Shiites or the Iranians. It was directed at other countries (particularly Saudi Arabia and Isreal). Iran has never had any intention to invade Iraq; the Shiites are not going to be scared by WMD (what diference would that make? He was already using chemical weapons and that was doing the "job" just fine
4) Interestingly, Iraq didn't lie very much in their arms assessment they gave to the UN.
They didn't lie because they had nothing to lie about. The UN destroyed nearly all of his weapons and various other techniques (like sanctions, boycotts by other governments, close minotoring of Iraqi money) meant that he couldn't get the equipment. To show you how badly Iraq was, it didn't even have a fully functioning airforce. They apparently couldn't get parts and repair their MIG planes. I don't think a single Iraqi jet did a sortie (i.e. bomb) or intercept US planes during the Iraqi War (aka Gulf War II). There was nothing to lie about because he didn't have anything.
5) Hans Blix said he could finish inspections in six months.
He never really said that. He said that inspections could uncover WMD. He never gave a time frame. THe UN generally doesn't give time frames on anything (including combating malaria, peacekeeping missions, eliminating poverty, etc--no time frames in any of these, other than stated hopeful goals).
6) Bush knew that if Blix didn't find WMD, there was no way in hell he'd get the votes for war. Considering how conservatives have been clamoring for the overthrow of Saddam for YEARS, I don't think this is surprising or unsubstantiated. O'Neill + PNAC make a pretty convincing argument on their own.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Seeking the meaning of life... @slashdot of all places
From the article:
A technician hired by the new judiciary chairman, Patrick Leahy, Democrat of Vermont, apparently made a mistake that allowed anyone to access newly created accounts on a Judiciary Committee server shared by both parties -- even though the accounts were supposed to restrict access only to those with the right password.
It existed, it was documented, and it was ignored.
If that's true, why is it only Republicans who stooped to using and distributing files from this backdoor? According to the statement above, the files for both parties were available to everyone.
It doesn't make it any more ethical, just because it was easy.