Slashdot Mirror
US Pressing Its Crackdown Against Leaks
NotSanguine writes with this quote from a NY Times article:
"The Justice Department shows no sign of rethinking its campaign to punish unauthorized disclosures to the news media, with five criminal cases so far under President Obama, compared with three under all previous presidents combined. This week, a grand jury in Virginia heard testimony in a continuing investigation of WikiLeaks, the antisecrecy group, a rare effort to prosecute those who publish secrets, rather than those who leak them. The string of cases reflects a broad belief across two administrations and in both parties in Congress that leaks have gotten out of hand, endangering intelligence agents and exposing American spying methods."
Smas imperialism through international socialist revolution! Reforge the Fourth International!
We will only know the true extent of bloody U.S. imperialism's crimes when the workers take power and finally bring the Pentagon mass-murderers, the CIA assassins, and their Wall Street patrons to justice.
UNITE with the Campaign for a Free Internet because today, our future begins with tomorrow!
Is paid for by the public, so is owned by the public. ( well so is classified, but there is a difference )
The government works for US, remember? Or at least that is how its supposed to work.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
LOL, is this the "American Freedom" I always heard so much about as a youth growing up in Eastern Europe just after the fall of Communism?
"Transparency and the rule of law will be the touchstones of this presidency" - President Barack Obama
The Justice Department shows no sign of rethinking its campaign to punish unauthorized disclosures to the news media,
I can't read the article as it seems to require some sort of login but this case isn't about punishing unauthorized disclosures TO the news media. It's about punishing unauthorized reporting of information BY the news media. Unless you think that Wikileaks isn't a medium for news, which it clearly is. Possibly the scariest element of this campaign is attempts to establish some news media as in some sense official and free and others as not.
"endangering intelligence agents and exposing American spying methods."
I would like someone to explain to me how the Thomas Drake case involved anything remotely resembling the endangerment of intelligence agents. Furthermore, the domestic spying he exposed was illegal. Exposing that is not a crime, and nobody should be 'worried' about 'exposing' crimes. Furthermore, he did not release any classified information, nor was he even charged with doing so.
I do not understand how the Kim case, has no relationship whatsoever to intelligence agents, nor spying. It is about educated guessing about North Korea's weapons testing. One time, in a single telephone conversation, with a reporter. Where is the 'intelligence agent' here? Where is the 'spying methods'?
The Manning case has almost nothing to do with spying methods, as far as we know. Otherwise, they probably would have charged him under 18 USC 798 - they didn't. They charged him with 34 other things. 3 of those charges relate to the Icleandic banking scandal - i do not understand how that has anything to do with spying methods nor with intelligence agents. Is every state department employee now an 'intelligence agent'?
The Leibowitz case - we have no idea what the details of the case are. Even the judge doesn't know the details of the case. Leibowitz plead out because they scared him. What little we know is that he found out the FBI was engaged in illegal activity related to signals intelligence work. Two guesses as to what that is.
I will admit, the Sterling case is about intelligence agents and spying methods. It is about how the CIA accidentally screwed up and gave Iran accurate nuclear weapons information instead of inaccurate information. Let me just ask you - do you think the public is better off knowing that, or not?
The Wikileaks case - well, please let me know when there is concrete evidence that any intelligence agents have been harmed by wikileaks. Some ambassadors have been harmed - then again, ambassadors are quite often simply the biggest campaign donors to the president. That's how ambassadorships work. If those people are 'intelligence agents', well, I have to wonder about the wisdom of making campaign donors into intelligence agents. Shouldn't we be picking professionals instead?
I also haven't seen anything yet about any wikileaks cables that reveal spying information. Gun camera footage is all over youtube, should all of those youtube users now be charged under the Espionage act too?
"Everything secret degenerates, even the administration of justice; nothing is safe that does not show how it can bear discussion and publicity." - Lord Acton. This is from the same guy that said, power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts, absolutely.
Government needs to be accountable.
If Putin gave such an order it was illegal, exposing a crime is not call for a death sentence. If Putin did not give such an order then the leak is merely slander and again, not worth of a death sentence.
Back in your cave, ugly troll, you shall have no tree fiddy here!!!
1) the US does whatever the hell it wants. it does not ask permission and it seeks out those who disagree for intent of harm.
2) this is not a disney movie, this life we all lead. the line between good and bad guys is often non-existent. stop thinking in binary fashion. the US isn't good and it isn't evil, its JUST ANOTHER COUNTRY run by rich white men who like to keep the power base the way it is (and pretty much has been).
3) we spy. they spy. everyone spies. not only that, but countries do not respect their own people and will spy on them. kids, learn this. be watchful of EVERYTHING you say or write or photo. this is now universal since all countries have latched onto this 'we control your life, entirely' mentality.
4) power corrupts and the more you give the government, the more they'll screw you over (now or later) with it. no such thing as 'temporary powers'. don't ever fall for THAT line again, please.
5) cops, judges, politicians, lawyers; those in authority are there because they are mentally unbalanced and have this need for control. the higher the position, the more corruptable the job is and the more 'attractive' it is to such sick people. beware of those in authority and realize WHY they seeked out those kinds of jobs. avoid dealing or interacting with these people in life, they are not your friends and not worth your friendship. they'll stab you at first chance if it suits them.
none of this is taught in schools (on purpose). we intentionally lie to our kids when we raise them. then, about teen age, they see the lies we have been telling them. problem is, we have already raised generations of people on pure lies who believe in this 'two party system' and that if you have done nothing wrong, (...). we have a lot of really dumb cattle walking around as human beings with a totally false idea of how the world really works.
start with truth about what our world is like. you can't fix things if you don't even see them for how they really are.
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
Is there anything more obvious -- as the world's oil supplies rapidly diminish -- than the fact that our prime objective is to remove Gaddafi and install a regime that is a far more reliable servant to Western oil interests, and that protecting civilians was the justifying pretext for this war, not the purpose?
Conflict in Libya: U.S. oil companies sit on sidelines as Gaddafi maintains hold
In late February 2008, Mulva was “summoned to Sirte for a half-hour ‘browbeating’” from Gaddafi, according to a U.S. State Department cable made available by WikiLeaks. Gaddafi “threatened to dramatically reduce Libya’s oil production and/or expel ... U.S. oil and gas companies,” the cable said.
Wikileaks was the source for these articles. If all cables get leaked, it is difficult for US to pursue its interests.
And more: U.S. Fought To Lower Minimum Wage In Haiti So Hanes And Levis Would Stay Cheap
People in the government who leak unauthorized information are people who have willfully disobeyed rules and procedures and display their own sense of self importance. This is not something to be encouraged, but something that must be prosecuted and punished because all the latest news of leakers has given the sense that this is somehow ok.
I think we must make them pay and pay hard.
So, if you uncovered classified documents proving Obama and Boehner were in cahoots running an underground pedophile ring staged out of the Lincoln Bedroom, you would just keep quiet?
Similar to the upcoming US election results
Then the old jokes start in strange new ways: :)
We have eedom of press, but not freedom after publication. A source, like an asset faces the Espionage Act or PATRIOT Act and its game over.
Expect to see the word "journalist" been used much less due to the little bit of legal cover it still provides.
Whistleblower protection "under seal" seems to be gone too now
You can talk about computers, sport, politicians, celebrities, just dont follow the money, source code, drugs or hint at lawyer written statements about next gen tombstone technology.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
LOL, so instead, you're going to vote for the party that's actively fighting against your well being? The President has been a pretty big disappointment in the area of civil liberties, but he's been a hell of a lot better than anybody we've had in the last 30 years in most other areas. Just look at do nothing Clinton and the huge smoking crater from 3 GOP Presidencies. Scarily enough, the current crop of GOP candidates are even less qualified to lead the country than either Bush was.
Strawman much?
Citation needed.
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramm–Leach–Bliley_Act
followed by
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troubled_Asset_Relief_Program
(The proof is in the pudding. The biggest white collar crime in the history of the world was bought and paid for. And damn, what a return...)
The US government is about as uncorrupted as you're going to get.
Really? Then why is the US ranked 22nd, just above Uruguay, in the Corruption Perceptions Index? Why has the *perceived* corruption in the US been declining steadily since the Index was created?
Corruption has always been part of US politics, but kept in check at least for appearances' sake. But since the Iran/Contra scandal, it appears that the concern over appearances has eroded. Now you have a situation where the corrupted know that there will always be one-quarter to one-third of the US population who will oppose any criticism of the US, like this AC here, so all the kleptocrats have to do is wrap themselves in a flag and cheer "GO USA!" and they have an automatic voting block that will also faithfully defend them in public forums from Meet the Press to /b/.
Corruption is happening here because of the belief by so many that, "it can't happen here!"
I can see the fnords!
This is bi-partisan because grabbing more power for the executive branch is bi-partisan. The book "Takeover" by Charlie Savage (also of the NYT) details much about how the Bush 2 administration worked to increase executive power, but also how it has been a tradition for a century before that - and persecution of whistleblowers is an important part of it.
Two stories from "Takeover" stuck with me.
One was the story of an ethics advisor for the Justice Dept, Jesslyn Radack. When John Walker Lindh, the "American Taliban", was charged with many counts that led to 20 years in jail, based almost entirely on his own statement given while duct-taped to a board, naked and blindfolded with an untreated bullet wound in his leg, Atty. Gen. Ashcroft stated publicly that while the statement was given without a lawyer present, that was fine since he did not have a lawyer at the time. Alas, Ms. Radack had already notified the FBI that Lindh's father had retained council for him and notified Justice, and that they should not interrogate him - they just did, anyway. And Radack had kept the E-mails, then sent them to a reporter. It was not in her mind at the time that this was "whistleblowing" she felt she was correcting erroneous statements; releasing the information was no crime at all, since it was unclassified. For this, she found herself:
* Fired, from the private law firm she worked for (they consulted to Justice)
* Subjected to a year-long criminal investigation, though no charges were ever filed, since she had committed no crime
* Referred to for "discipline" by the bar associations in all the states she was licensed to practice in, via a secret report that she was not allowed to see
* Placed on the "selectee" version of the no-fly list - meaning she was *always* "randomly selected" for full off-with-the-underwear search for every single flight.
Talk about a chilling effect. Thou Shalt Not Embarrass The Justice Department, even with the simple truth that it got excited and eager for a headline and made a mistake.
Just so that this isn't seen as partisan, the other story is about a democrat: Harry Truman. (Who also felt the whole Korean War(!) was strictly an executive branch decision, no congressional authorization needed ... take THAT, Libya protestors!) A major avoidance of government transparency is enabled by the "state secrets" privilege, in which the government can tell a court, "dismiss this lawsuit; to argue it, we'd have to reveal State Secrets". It's been used to shut down every lawsuit about torture and unlawful detention that came after 9/11. But there's no such privilege in the Constitution. It comes from a Supreme Court decision, "US vs. Reynolds", where the survivors of 3 civilian scientists killed in a B-29 bomber crash in Georgia, 1948, while doing missile research. The government argued that the judge had to dismiss the suit without even seeing the crash report himself, lest "secret electronics" be revealed, and it was upheld - then used about 60 times since. In 2000, the daughter of one of the victims found the crash report, declassified, on the Internet. It contained NOTHING about secret electronics - it contained proof that there had been negligent maintenance of the bomber, and negligent lack of training for the civilians on how to escape the aircraft. The government had used the claim to avoid embarrassment, not to mention losing a lawsuit.
As Charlie Savage summed it up, "The central case on which the State Secrets Privilege rests, then, was a fraud. The Truman administration had lied to the courts and gotten away with it."
So that's why you need whistleblowers. And that's why governments persecute them as ruthlessly as possible; it's about executive power, the effort to restore America to the status of having a King who is above the law - partly by exempting the executive from laws that the rest of us must obey, partly by ensuring that most of their lawbreaking is never revealed in the first place, so they don't have to fight for that exemption very often.
Here's a fixed link to the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, aka the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999.
I can see the fnords!
LOL, so instead, you're going to vote for the party that's actively fighting against your well being?
Did he say he was going to vote Republican? No.
There are other candidates, you know.
But the fact that most voters don't recognize third party candidates as legitimate is because the press won't. And the attitude that voting for such a candidate is "throwing your vote away" is the main reason we're stuck with this Coke vs. Pepsi two party system when what we really need right now is a drink of water.
I can see the fnords!
The transparency initiative of President Obama was a campaign lie. I remember him preaching the importance of transparency in government and having an open and accessible government. If the Obama Administration seeks to criminalize attempts to hold Obama to his campaign promise, then he simply pandered to the voting public. For the record, I am neither Democrat nor Republican, both are misguided and self-serving parties.
If only the administration put half the effort into punishing various people who broke US laws on surrveilance and torture that they're putting into punishing the people who let the American people find out about it.
Name your country and if it's anywhere in Europe, I can guarantee you we can dig up more corruption than in the US.
"A major avoidance of government transparency is enabled by the "state secrets" privilege, in which the government can tell a court, 'dismiss this lawsuit; to argue it, we'd have to reveal State Secrets'. "
However, just about a month or so ago, a Federal judge ruled that the government cannot do that. They can take measures to ensure that the public cannot see those 'secrets' in the course of a trial, but the government cannot withhold that information from the judge or jury.
Unfortunately, I do not have a citation for that decision. Maybe some person out there who is reading this has one.'
That's not a "straw man" argument. It's a valid question. A straw man argument presents a situation that appears to, but does not actually, bear on the subject at hand, then shoots it down. This person's question was perfectly relevant, valid, and directly bearing on the subject at hand. Therefore it is not a "straw man".
"The President has been a pretty big disappointment in the area of civil liberties, but he's been a hell of a lot better than anybody we've had in the last 30 years in most other areas."
Are you serious? Because if you are, I am curious to know where you get your news.
Bullshit.
When people in government or other position of power commit crimes, then cover these crimes up (or attempt to) under a guise of "national security", then the people who subsequently "leak unauthorized information" are patriots, true to the nature of the founding of this country and true to the PEOPLE of this nation. It must be encouraged, not prosecuted nor punished.
Contributing to the cover up invites nothing but corruption and tyranny.
Right, right, the US gov is less corrupt than, say, the Norwegian government.
Pull down that wool, American dreamer.
Bullshit. But nice try.
mis-spelling or typo.
what he meant is that the touchscreens will be transparent (ie, two way). you know, the ones that are due to be installed in citizens' homes. they already convinced us to carry cell phones with gps, cameras and mics and make it 'fun' for us to always have these on our person. the touchscreens in our homes will be 'sold' to us as another way to enjoy technology. the two-way versions will come later.
1984 was a training guide for these folks...
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
"All power tends to corrupt. Absolute power tends to corrupt absolutely." Acton, of course, didn't know about psychopaths and malignant narcissists. Neither class is "mentally weak and easily corruptible"; both seek power to use it for their own, corrupt ends. Acton, however, was referring to people who started out with good intentions. Interestingly, the Palin emails seem to suggest that she is one of those - initially she meant well but now seems to be on a full-blown narcissist power trip.
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
That was exciting to hear and I rushed to Google. I tried [ "state secrets privilege" ruling against ] as my search phrase.
Got nuthin' but the recent (May 2011) ruling that was still in favour of the SSP - but "narrowed" the grounds for using it. The one before that was the 9th circuit, Sept 2010, that the EFF described as
"Unfortunately, abdicating its responsibility is just what the Court did. It ordered summary dismissal of the complaint without allowing any discovery, or presentation of the public evidence or even a plan by the plaintiffs to litigate the case while respecting the necessary secrecy, something that has been regularly done in cases involving national security. "
so, I believe you're mis-remembering. Alas.
There are plenty of secretive (and thus corrupt) countries you can go to, scumbag. Get out of this one.
Great Intellect...
There essentially are no third parties. I'm sorry to say it, but you had best realize that now before doing more damage. First past the post is a two-party system. The only cases where a third party gets involved is local parties (ie, nationalist), and that only happens in Europe.
It might not be good, but it is a factual statement. In the US, not voting for someone is voting against.
Great Intellect...
"And WTF do previous presidents or GOP candidates have to do with it? Is your bar set that low?! If it is, then maybe voters like you are the problem."
It has to do with the current GOP candidates being far more extreme and far less beholden to the laws of reason than even the past ones.
Great Intellect...
Norway.
There are other candidates, you know.
That's the key, I think - as soon as Americans can learn to ignore the mainstream campaign spew (thus rendering large corporate support completely useless), it will start moving things back the other way.
If a person posts a so-called secret just how can they know the material is authentic and truly a national secret? After all, many times sources think they are handing you big deal types of information when in fact they are not. Since there is no verify the secrets phone number it seems that it is very much like the commercial truck driver not knowing what is in every box in the back of his truck. He only becomes guilty if he actually knows he carries illegal cargo. Mr. Manning is correct. It is a reporters job to report and spy type agencies jobs to keep information secret. The reporter carries no guilt.
I'm sorry, but that's not evidence of corruption. TARP was one of an extremely small number of options available. The others being nationalizing the banking industry or buying the toxic assets. The debate was done openly, and people knew who voted for what. Just because it wasn't wise and benefited corporate interests doesn't make it corruption. It makes it a poor decision, corruption is a completely different matter, even if the ultimate results are similar.
Believe it or not there's a lot of citizens out there that specifically vote for candidates that are friendly to big business, consequently, I'm not really sure how you can possibly regard those sorts of favors as corruption, when they're done above the board and the voters know about it.
As far as the Corruptions Perceptions Index, that's about perceptions of corruption, it's not about corruption. And even by that measure we're still one of the least corrupt governments in the world. That's your citation that's saying that.
That's one example. So, you're saying because we're not the least corrupt government in the world, that we can't be about as uncorrupted as they get? I'm sorry, but that's just not a valid counter point, and the ad hominem doesn't help your case.
There are some corruption problems in the US, but to paint the government as being extremely corrupt is just plain ignorant. If you don't believe me, just look at Italy, they've got severe corruption problems.
No, i am not saying that, i was merely pointing out to hedwards that the US government is not about as incorruptible as they get, indeed, quite far from it when compared to Scandinavian governments in general.
Contrasting the negative example of Italy against the US, to demonstrate that the US is not one of the most corrupt regimes, is surely, by your logic, as invalid as my citing Norway in the opposite light, to demonstrate that the US is not one of the least corrupt governments. However, you are right, citing one example in a group of many, as being more or less so, does not determine the absolute ranking of another member of that group.
However, i was not claiming that the US is one of the most corrupt governments, clearly far from it, i was merely pointing out that it was not the least, and (IMHO) not even one of the least.
Also, to an extent, some things are a matter of perspective. For example, i would see the power that lobbying groups have over US politics as corruption of the highest order. Why should interest groups with the most money have the most influence. I would like to see interest groups barred from contributing to political groups and, private meetings with politicians made illegal. Such interest groups should argue their cases, along side others, in a more public forum, where minutes are released and journalists present. I would also argue that the system of campaign financing in the US is corrupt, as it it just becomes a giant advertising campaign, where only big money can talk. I would like to see caps put on campaign spending and all such spending disclosed and monitored by and independent group. This way all political groups could compete on a more level playing field.
Granted these are not legally defined as corruption, yet. But, i would see them as instances of corruption, personally.
Where i would agree with you: my personal attack was rude; sorry to hedwards.
Oh right, you are hedwards. My apologies for being rude.
You are using your definition of "corruption" to validate your argument. What one man sees as normal another could see as corruption. The argument then devolves into determining what degree of corruption is necessary to support one sides arguments against the other. And there are already open forums, independent citizen groups, and the Freedom of Information Act. But the majority do not use these means when challenging government actions.
I still wish you had linked to those stories.
But you are correct, my memory was not serving me well. What I was unknowing referring to was the Drake Case, in which the government's bungled attempts to keep information secret nevertheless would have served to bias the jury against the defendant.
Somehow, I got that confused with another case in which the judge told the government (pre-trial) that they could use the established secrecy procedures to withhold confidential information from the public, but not from the judge and jury. However, the latter case was merely a pre-trial decision by the judge, I don't think it has the force of an actual trial decision. But I could be wrong. I still haven't found that story to check.
Sadly, the Drake case was settled on a misdemeanor charge, leaving the government open to try its redaction BS on the next hapless victim. We'll have to see how it turns out in the long run.
You are right, but i made my own definition clear and meant to give some examples of it. I wasnt saying they were the only instances of US corruption.
And, yes, there are open forums and what not, but i was saying that such a format should be used in a specific context where it is not currently.
Look up on Wikileaks (if it is still legal to even view it) about how we were covering up for a weapons company that was giving 9 year old boys as party favors to seal a deal in Afghanistan and the SAME company had done the SAME thing in Kosovo a decade before with 11 year old girls and we were STILL hiring them!
I'm sorry but if selling little kids as fucktoys just to seal a deal ain't corrupt enough for ya I don't know what is. The money and power have become so concentrated at the top frankly they don't give a shit what they do as long as the final outcome is even a few percentage more profits for them.
Anyone who think voting will actually change a damned thing obviously haven't been paying attention these past few decades or they would notice even with the country about to default on its debts raising the historically low taxes on the top 1% isn't even talked about seriously, as that would be biting the hand bribing them. We may be a little more subtle about our vicious evil, and mainly use brown people to subject this evil upon, but evil is evil and this government is about as evil as one can get without actually rolling the tanks.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
there's money interests:
...Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Iran.
What do these seven countries have in common? In the context of banking, one that sticks out is that none of them is listed among the 56 member banks of the Bank for International Settlements (BIS). That evidently puts them outside the long regulatory arm of the central bankers' central bank in Switzerland.
The most renegade of the lot could be Libya and Iraq, the two that have actually been attacked. Kenneth Schortgen Jr, writing on Examiner.com, noted that "[s]ix months before the US moved into Iraq to take down Saddam Hussein, the oil nation had made the move to accept euros instead of dollars for oil, and this became a threat to the global dominance of the dollar as the reserve currency, and its dominion as the petrodollar."
According to a Russian article titled "Bombing of Libya - Punishment for Ghaddafi for His Attempt to Refuse US Dollar", Gaddafi made a similarly bold move: he initiated a movement to refuse the dollar and the euro, and called on Arab and African nations to use a new currency instead, the gold dinar. Gaddafi suggested establishing a united African continent, with its 200 million people using this single currency.
http://atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/MD14Ak02.html
There's MUCH more in that article... an absolute must-read!
"The Justice Department shows no sign of rethinking its campaign to punish unauthorized disclosures to the news media, with five criminal cases so far under President Obama, compared with three under all previous presidents combined."
I thought BusHitler was the fascist not Obama (PBUH)! Could this story be some kind of Rovian conspiracy?
"The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old......They literally know nothing." - Ben Rhodes
Here's the good old US of A, the supposed proponents of liberty, freedom, etc.
Here is wikileaks, exposer of lies, horrible truths, a bastion for whistle blowers to go to when the powers that be are overwhelming and not in the favor of justice.
Lo and behold, the US of A is exposed by wikileaks. Observe the reaction. Instead of the issues exposed being the scandal, it's the source of how the information surfaced; wikileaks.
Observe the reaction from the US of A. The founder of wikileads is hounded down to the corners of the Earth after being in a "sex scandal". How convenient. The issues exposed aren't looked at, instead they want to kill the messenger and the whistle blower.
This makes me suspect one thing. They have LOTS MORE SECRETS TO HIDE and are TERRIFIED we will find out WTF they are doing.
How this should have played out is this: They should have quietly looked into their security practices. They should have owned up to and dealt publicly with any issue exposed. They could have smiled and said "Truth is a double edged sword", patted wikileaks on the head and went about their business as if they had some class. Secretly, they could keep tabs on wikileaks, as it obviously is proving to be interesting.
This reaction though, from both sides of the isle screams of GUILT. It screams "We have more shit hid and holy cow if you find out about it, you will fucking kill us all, forget elections. We have to nail this shit down fast even if we are exposed in the process."
Take the Red Pill.
In Holland we got far more parties then an American can count on his toes, even a Hillbilly. Do you think we are any better off?
Our current government is lead by the VVD, they are a liberal sorta right wing party often labelled as the party of business. They are supported by the CDA, a "christian" party, you got Christians in America right? Well, they are a lot like that. They lost pretty big in the last election, punished for their leader BakEllende who combined the wit of Bush with the charm of Blair. They still deliver a lot of the ministers, because they got a lot of experience! (Yes, they were in charge when the economy took a nosedive but surely that is good experience? If you want a captain for your ship, the captain of the Titanic surely comes first to mind?)
Those two parties do not have a majority. They are supported through an open marriage type agreement to the PVV. The PVV is mostly known for its anti-immigrant agenda. Some might think that makes it a right wing party. Problem is that almost ALL its other (claimed) policies it used to present itself during the elections are left-wing and then some. Against cut back on health-care, higher retirement age etc etc.
Recent elections of our senate only worsened things with those 3 now needing the support of a tiny Christian party (drunk on power) who have 1 seat but that is enough for a majority vote on some key issues in exchange ofcourse for a 1 man party to have a LOT of influence. So CDA, trashed in the election continues to rule supported by a party of 1 vote.... democracy in action!
But it gets worse. PVV hates the PvDA, a party 1 seat below the VVD. Their names mean "Part of Labour". Labour in dutch is Arbeid. The party has been blamed for being soft on immigrants, especially the Arab kind. Can you see a funny joke coming up? Yes, the leader of the PVV is fond of calling the PvDA, the "Party of the Arabs". Hilarious!
He blames the party for betraying its own people, once the PvDA was against immigrants taking away the job from dutch labourers and lowering the wages.
This is correct, the PvDA historically was NOT a fan of immigration.
So, the PVV, the party that HATES immigrants, HATES the party that wasagainst immigration. But who then let the immigrants in? Why, the CDA and VVD, they were in charge at the time and wanted the cheap labour and made sure the obstacles were as low as possible. No learning the language or intigrating in the culture. Turks were supposed to work on the assembly line and clean and then piss off again back home. Migrant labourers.
So, the PVV is fighting the party that fought the policy it hates and supports the parties that created the police it hates.
But it gets funnier, in exchange for thougher immigration laws the PVV is totally forgetting its left wing ideals.
But since the PVV can't always be counted up on for a vote, the VVD/CDA also must make deals with the opposition parties on non-pvv supported fronts.
The amount of back room deals is insane and impossible to follow for the average human BUT what is the alternative?
The people have voted and given the country an unworkable government. Do the people want socialism or capitalism? Do they want cheap cleaners or do they want the immigrants out? For instance, I said that the party of VVD is business right? Well, CDA is also strong among farmers. Farmers are also businessmen. Do they therefor support the anti-immigration policies of the parties they tend to vote for? Like kicking the polish migrant workers out? Who work the fields?
AHAH! No... caught in a bit of a split there. The crops need harvesting and only eastern europeans are willing to work hard enough for low enough wages and arrange their own transport on top of it.
But holland got unemployed (not that much but enough to replace all immigrants with ease), so do the left wing parties support forcing the unemployed to take up the jobs? Hell no. Does the right wing support making arrangements to make the jobs attractive to dutch loca
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
What about Meredith Attwell Baker, who was the FCC commissioner who approved the NBC Comcast merger, then became a lobbyist for Comcast? What about all the former Goldman Sachs people who are in charge of financial regulation? I guess it's only corruption if this is done in another country.
While I agree with your sentiment, your facts are not facts. They got into trouble for -lying-. Specifically, lying under oath, and lying on national news media.
Fuck you. Fuck you for pointing out the obvious truth, and qualifying it. Fuck you for adding another reason to just leave this country, in favor of some other place with a lesser political system, but one that gets better results.
You probably feel as saddened as angry about it all, just like me. Fuck us both for not being able to be sheep, and follow the herd while we can.
Yeah you know some times I really wish I was stupid, ya know? That I could just buy all the bullshit and jingoism and believe the Pravda level of garbage poured out every night that the majority believe, I really do. Sadly that is the curse of having a 156 IQ, you ask things like "aren't we supposed to be the good guys?" and "Why is America attacking some third world shithole that couldn't hit us with a map and a GPS unit?" or "Why are we being told how wonderful everything is when all around me people are losing their homes (and frankly I wouldn't be surprised if I end up losing my mom's house when I put her in the home, but I just can't make ends meet as it is, much less with her house payments on top) and all the factories and jobs are being sent overseas as fast as the corps can move them?"
Well maybe when I've lost it all I'll drive over to my GF's house and she can say fuck this and come with me or I can go alone. I have this dream of just getting rid of everything and pointing my Ranger south and driving until I run out of money and wherever I am in South America is where I'll lay my head. Just take my acoustic bass and sing "illegal alien" by Genesis with a tin cup for tourists and enjoy the heat. I'm sure they'd enjoy the irony of an American being the illegal alien for once. Frankly it couldn't be worse than the misery and slow death I see around me, where everyone is working themselves into their graves and never getting an inch ahead.
How fucking sad that this is what became of the country my grandpa fought the Nazis for, man he must be spinning like a top right about now. There is no way in hell orders or not he would put up with scum selling little kids like that, they'd meet an untimely war event if you know what I mean. The fact that we would deal with such vile pieces of absolute dogshit and then have is our only concern how to cover their crimes up? Makes me fucking sick. I see all these pricks like Haliburton and Goldman Sachs causing misery and destruction while reaping ever larger checks and I have to wonder if Whedon wasn't a little close to the bone with that "Wolfram and Hart" bit, because frankly if these vile animals aren't concentrated evil I don't know what is. What was it they said about the Nazis? The "banality of evil" I believe? Because now I understand what they meant. Evil these days doesn't carry a gun, it carries a fountain pen and roams the halls of power having martini lunches while deciding which group they can make suffer for another couple of percentage points.
And yes it makes me just as fucking sick and disgusted, but sadly I am smart enough to see that no matter what you do or how involved you are justice only is for the wealthy, and the only change they'll allow is the change from your pockets into their bank accounts. We are the whore of Babylon, flaunting our wealth and power while everyone hates us.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
He mea pôrangi tênei.
"What in the name of Fats Waller is that?"
"A four-foot prune."
"The US government is about as uncorrupted as you're going to get."
"we're still one of the least corrupt governments in the world."
Nice goalpost moving there.
What modern Obelix would say today? Of course, "Those crazy Americans!".
Aren't you cute little crackpot.
What modern Obelix would say today? Of course, "Those crazy Americans!".