A) I have a graduate degree in Education, which incorporates a heavy dosage of Psychology. While not a practicing Psychologist, I do know a thing or two about it. As I've heard the phrase go in the UK (pardon if this is wrong), YOU don't have to tell ME about sucking eggs.
B) Telling me my world view is wrong--CLASSIC. I've not reciprocated the same insult, so I'll just leave it at that. I think you need some diversity training.
C) Who says I refuse to consider your research? I have indeed already bookmarked it for later reading. I consider your viewpoints to be interesting. I find your zealotry to be off-putting. Just because you are a zealot, however, doesn't disqualify what you are saying, because I have an open mind.
I never SAID selfishness is GOOD or fair, just that it exists. To call it sociopathic is a bit harsh, because selfishness exists on a continuum. Sense of fairness is not ingrained, rather, indoctrinated through our schools, churches, societal norms, cub-scouts, whatever. Left without social input, their is no automatic fairness gene or human nature that makes humans want to be fair...it is learned behavior. Therefore, your simplification of "all humans want to be fair" is just silly, because obviously not all do, as wonderfully demonstrated by the existence of rich people and trickle down economics.
Do you include screwing over others in your definition of 'taking care of your own' and 'doing whatever you can to improve yourself and your situation? Yes. Yes I do. If it comes down to me, or the next guy, I'm gonna pick me every time. THAT'S human nature. It's also built-in behaviorism (egocentrism), studied and verified by 100 years of behaviorist theory. So, no, it seems "fairness" is NOT necessarily the one and only humanist force at play here, even as much as you'd like it to be.
But since you were baiting me into that response, I'll elaborate at what I mean by "I take care of myself and my own". I, and ONLY I made myself stay in college and work 30 hours a week when my parents couldn't afford it. I and ONLY I joined the US Military so I could earn the benefits I enjoy today (free grad school and zero-money down home loan). I worry about MY job, my wife's job and my children's schools, NOT my neighbors income or the homework of my neighbor's kids. Get it yet? If everyone would stop worrying about their neighbors, and take care of their own damned issues, there would only be the most petty people alive worrying about everyone else. The world isn't fair. The sooner people realize that, the better off we'll ALL be.
Now to be fair (pun intended), I'm probably more charitable than most people, because I can afford to be. What I am not, however, is somebody who will forgo my family's financial security for somebody else whom I don't even know.
Look, I get it. You are a touchy-feely guy that is driven by a concept of equality. Good for you...there's nothing wrong with that. I find my fairness in a sense of strong justice, which probably puts us at odds. What I DON'T do is pretend that my world-view is the one and only way that is far superior to other slashdotters' views. I hear your case, I can agree or disagree, but I don't tell you you are wrong (unless you are factually incorrect). You are not wrong, nor have I said so. You just see the world differently. Try to see things from another perspective.
Relax! I didn't say any of what you find abominable. I didn't say the wealthy create their OWN wealth, but by definition, they create wealth that gets circulated around our economy (unfairly or not, I don't really care). I also said that these aren't necessarily my personal opinions, just what those who believe that stuff espouse.
Personally I don't care about "fair". I take care of my own, as I expect everyone else on this planet to do. I do everything I can to improve myself and my situation. If only more people did that, this issue of "fair" would be a non-one.
Yeah, I was afraid of a lengthy, involved, rehashed 80s economics argument. I was simply stating what I've heard from people who believe the trickle-down theory (not necessarily my personal beliefs) that the difference in the concept of "redistribution", is that one party (wealthy) is actually creating the wealth that is to be redistributed, and the other party (poor) are not creating anything, and only receiving. That's all I'm saying, so I'll step away from the side-arguments now.
Redistribution to the wealthy? They are the ones creating the wealth, that gets redistributed to those who have done nothing. I think incentives are great, to the rich OR to the poor, but what you are describing as redistribution to the rich is merely that...incentive.
Your rant is so far off from anything I've posted I don't know where to start. I'll simply summarize by saying:
Article Four protects against unreasonable searches and seizures. Granted, no problems there. However, there are provisions...
EO12333, FISA 1978, USSID 18 put limitations on electronic surveillance of US citizens, IN SUPPORT of Article Four of the Constitution. These documents provide the required OVERSIGHT to assure your tin-foil scenario of treason doesn't occur. They also happen to outline those few instances where security trumps rights. Don't attack me because I didn't write any of these documents. If you don't like them, do something about it.
In addition, you can throw in the US Patriot Act, passed by Congress (not George Bush, to get this back to the topic on-hand). I've thus avoided it, because, for the 14th time, it's not my area of expertise, and I don't pretend to be an expert in something I'm not (yeah, I must be new here).
All four of these documents provide the balance that is required in maintaining Security while at the same time safeguarding civil liberties.
Since most of you want to ONLY talk about the Constitution, you might want to start on Section II of the paper, which discusses all FOUR elements that form the Legal framework of this discussion. It appears that the "Supreme Law of the Land" has some friends, and most slashdotters don't care to recognize them.
1- You would go to jail for failing to follow the guidelines in USSID 18. What's your point again?
2- That is one of the reasons I said that popular opinion is often wrong.
3- I have not confirmed any belief that I think the Constitution is irrelevant, only that the directives that I live with every day exist, and that most people are unaware of them, thus making public opinion wrong, a lot of the time. I have confirmed that there are laws and rules and guidelines and directives that exist in EVERY industry that require no understanding whatsoever of the Constitution. Please, don't put words in my mouth. USSID 18 provides clear cases ("exceptions") of when and how it is LEGAL to collect on US Persons, period, full-stop. If it isn't Constitutional, then do something about it. As much as I personally disagree with blanket authority given to the AG (especially when said AG is appointed by the President), it is not my place to determine the constitutionality of it all.
4- You can't get some of the documents, because, gasp, they are protected by classification guidelines and exempt from declassification. Tell us more what you don't know.
5- Again, your ignorance is not my problem. Show me where I said I work for the NSA, because I don't, nor did I say I do.
6- Taco is not a Government agency governed by the Intelligence Oversight as outlined in USSID 18. Therefore, I would trust Taco about as far as I could throw him.
"Quietly" infers that the slashdot crowd should get credit, where no credit is due, as if our overwhelming numbers and sheer pressure forced Apple to change. Unfortunately, in the real world, we are such an insignificant demographic, that any changes are thus labelled as being done "quietly".
Don't be fooled, the issue of Constitutionality comes up all the time in discussion. In my field, there is no room for us to make constitutional judgments and it isn't our job to teach the Constitution or Government. The fact that Congress writes laws is completely irrelevant to being an Intelligence Professional. We follow OUR directives or we go to jail. If they are unconstitutional, let them be challenged in court.
ALL I'm saying is that most people are completely unaware of provisions in our government (USSID 18, for example) that exist, REGARDLESS of the slashdot crowd's undying catch-all "but the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land!" cop-out. Yes, the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land, but I highly doubt that even 1% of slashdot users are Constitutional lawyers. So, like the guy who thinks I'm a fuckwad, I could care less what slashdot users THINK the laws are because they took a Civics class in high school. USSID 18, a provision, allows for EXCEPTIONS to that supreme law, as I've clearly stated, with citations, and with what I hope is an adequate enough appeal to authority with expertise in the matter at hand (i.e., NOT constitutional law, as I haven't even pretended to go down that path, even though many of you have tried to throw my that direction).
I didn't go into the actual rules, because first I had to convince the slashdot crowd that such powers are indeed already in place. But now you can read them for yourself, as you apparently already have. With certain provisions, the Attorney General can approve collection against US Persons, regardless what everyone else here thinks about the US Constitution and other distractions brought into the conversation.
In as much as there is a Uniform Code of Military Justice governing military members, there is also a United States Signals Intelligence Directive governing intelligence community members. So yes, the NSA writes laws that govern the legality of things to do with Signals Intelligence. I've said it two or three times already, I'm not a constitutional expert or even a government expert, so no, I don't know if it is solely "congress's job". I'm an expert in the field of intelligence and an educator, so I know what I know. If you must get into the weeds, technically the USSID is only a directive, and probably not a "law" in the sense you are inferring. It still means if you break it, you go to jail, however.
I don't disagree. The Prius is an awful car, regardless of what its fuel source is. Still, it gets twice as much MPG as most gas cars like it, so there's always that for people who care about that kind of stuff.
That is the correct (albeit older, redacted) document. I would say that you aren't understanding what you are reading if you think what I'm saying isn't supported by the document. There's a reason we teach this document and don't just have people read it.
4.1 tells us that the Attorney General can approve collectionagainst US Persons. 5.4 further outlines the rules regarding processing non-foreign communication (i.e. US Persons) and exceptions.
In any case, I don't see how anything I've said DOESN'T jibe with 4.1 or 5.4
No, my argument is that I teach USSID 18 and I don't teach the Constitution. I don't know that the USSID 18 overrides anything. Has it ever been challenged on a constitutional basis? Probably. But I presume it has passed constitutionality if it has, because it's STILL IN PLACE.
Thankfully, you guys are following up on this stuff and changing your tune (slightly).
No, no and no. If the President wants to eavesdrop on you and your mom, and he gets legal written permission from the Attorney General, he can legally do so. Not to include the exceptions to this rule, which I haven't even mentioned yet, including threats of death or destruction to US persons or facilities.
While I appreciate the concern on everyones part regarding our Constitutional rights, you guys just don't know (cough,don't agree with, cough) the rules that are in place.
There is no evidence that Saddam Hussein possessed WMD. Yes, you are correct. There is no evidence that Saddam Hussein ever used chemical weapons against Iranians or against Kurds in Northern Iraq.
Except NONE of the intel used as substantiated intelligence information actually came from the CIA. If you were paying attention, the intelligence that was declassified and shared with the US public was straight from NSA sources.
Then there's a whole 'nother conversation lost on most anti-bush slashdotters, and that is the concept of levels of information. Intelligence Information is a level of information that is barely above "information" (which is right above "data". ABOVE Intel Information is Intelligence, followed by the most vetted, Actionable Intelligence. MOST of the intel that was declassified was of the Actionable Intelligence type, even if it was flawed. You can't NOT act in the face of Actionable Intelligence (hence the name) even if it turns out to have been wrong.
Your post is a lie--specifically ones that exist to fortify your pre-existing biases. I work in the industry. We all told Bush (and Cheney) things we believed to be true that turned out to be not always true, not true at all, sometimes true, totally true, grossly exaggerated for some Intel dork's career progression, deception, and myriad of problems that have been identified and mostly corrected. To infer that Bush/Cheney went to war for any other reason is borderline treason. Or if you do believe that, you'll have to substantiate those claims a little better than you have in the past 7 years.
Slashdot Mirror
B) Telling me my world view is wrong--CLASSIC. I've not reciprocated the same insult, so I'll just leave it at that. I think you need some diversity training.
C) Who says I refuse to consider your research? I have indeed already bookmarked it for later reading. I consider your viewpoints to be interesting. I find your zealotry to be off-putting. Just because you are a zealot, however, doesn't disqualify what you are saying, because I have an open mind.
I never SAID selfishness is GOOD or fair, just that it exists. To call it sociopathic is a bit harsh, because selfishness exists on a continuum. Sense of fairness is not ingrained, rather, indoctrinated through our schools, churches, societal norms, cub-scouts, whatever. Left without social input, their is no automatic fairness gene or human nature that makes humans want to be fair...it is learned behavior. Therefore, your simplification of "all humans want to be fair" is just silly, because obviously not all do, as wonderfully demonstrated by the existence of rich people and trickle down economics.
I thought McCain took the initiative in inventing the Internet?
But since you were baiting me into that response, I'll elaborate at what I mean by "I take care of myself and my own". I, and ONLY I made myself stay in college and work 30 hours a week when my parents couldn't afford it. I and ONLY I joined the US Military so I could earn the benefits I enjoy today (free grad school and zero-money down home loan). I worry about MY job, my wife's job and my children's schools, NOT my neighbors income or the homework of my neighbor's kids. Get it yet? If everyone would stop worrying about their neighbors, and take care of their own damned issues, there would only be the most petty people alive worrying about everyone else. The world isn't fair. The sooner people realize that, the better off we'll ALL be.
Now to be fair (pun intended), I'm probably more charitable than most people, because I can afford to be. What I am not, however, is somebody who will forgo my family's financial security for somebody else whom I don't even know.
Look, I get it. You are a touchy-feely guy that is driven by a concept of equality. Good for you...there's nothing wrong with that. I find my fairness in a sense of strong justice, which probably puts us at odds. What I DON'T do is pretend that my world-view is the one and only way that is far superior to other slashdotters' views. I hear your case, I can agree or disagree, but I don't tell you you are wrong (unless you are factually incorrect). You are not wrong, nor have I said so. You just see the world differently. Try to see things from another perspective.
Personally I don't care about "fair". I take care of my own, as I expect everyone else on this planet to do. I do everything I can to improve myself and my situation. If only more people did that, this issue of "fair" would be a non-one.
Yeah, I was afraid of a lengthy, involved, rehashed 80s economics argument. I was simply stating what I've heard from people who believe the trickle-down theory (not necessarily my personal beliefs) that the difference in the concept of "redistribution", is that one party (wealthy) is actually creating the wealth that is to be redistributed, and the other party (poor) are not creating anything, and only receiving. That's all I'm saying, so I'll step away from the side-arguments now.
Redistribution to the wealthy? They are the ones creating the wealth, that gets redistributed to those who have done nothing. I think incentives are great, to the rich OR to the poor, but what you are describing as redistribution to the rich is merely that...incentive.
Article Four protects against unreasonable searches and seizures. Granted, no problems there. However, there are provisions...
EO12333, FISA 1978, USSID 18 put limitations on electronic surveillance of US citizens, IN SUPPORT of Article Four of the Constitution. These documents provide the required OVERSIGHT to assure your tin-foil scenario of treason doesn't occur. They also happen to outline those few instances where security trumps rights. Don't attack me because I didn't write any of these documents. If you don't like them, do something about it.
In addition, you can throw in the US Patriot Act, passed by Congress (not George Bush, to get this back to the topic on-hand). I've thus avoided it, because, for the 14th time, it's not my area of expertise, and I don't pretend to be an expert in something I'm not (yeah, I must be new here).
All four of these documents provide the balance that is required in maintaining Security while at the same time safeguarding civil liberties.
http://iilj.org/documents/Jordan-47_BC_L_Rev_000.pdf
Since most of you want to ONLY talk about the Constitution, you might want to start on Section II of the paper, which discusses all FOUR elements that form the Legal framework of this discussion. It appears that the "Supreme Law of the Land" has some friends, and most slashdotters don't care to recognize them.
2- That is one of the reasons I said that popular opinion is often wrong.
3- I have not confirmed any belief that I think the Constitution is irrelevant, only that the directives that I live with every day exist, and that most people are unaware of them, thus making public opinion wrong, a lot of the time. I have confirmed that there are laws and rules and guidelines and directives that exist in EVERY industry that require no understanding whatsoever of the Constitution. Please, don't put words in my mouth. USSID 18 provides clear cases ("exceptions") of when and how it is LEGAL to collect on US Persons, period, full-stop. If it isn't Constitutional, then do something about it. As much as I personally disagree with blanket authority given to the AG (especially when said AG is appointed by the President), it is not my place to determine the constitutionality of it all.
4- You can't get some of the documents, because, gasp, they are protected by classification guidelines and exempt from declassification. Tell us more what you don't know.
5- Again, your ignorance is not my problem. Show me where I said I work for the NSA, because I don't, nor did I say I do.
6- Taco is not a Government agency governed by the Intelligence Oversight as outlined in USSID 18. Therefore, I would trust Taco about as far as I could throw him.
"Quietly" infers that the slashdot crowd should get credit, where no credit is due, as if our overwhelming numbers and sheer pressure forced Apple to change. Unfortunately, in the real world, we are such an insignificant demographic, that any changes are thus labelled as being done "quietly".
Modded insightful? I found it to be funny as hell! Thanks for the good chuckle this morning.
ALL I'm saying is that most people are completely unaware of provisions in our government (USSID 18, for example) that exist, REGARDLESS of the slashdot crowd's undying catch-all "but the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land!" cop-out. Yes, the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land, but I highly doubt that even 1% of slashdot users are Constitutional lawyers. So, like the guy who thinks I'm a fuckwad, I could care less what slashdot users THINK the laws are because they took a Civics class in high school. USSID 18, a provision, allows for EXCEPTIONS to that supreme law, as I've clearly stated, with citations, and with what I hope is an adequate enough appeal to authority with expertise in the matter at hand (i.e., NOT constitutional law, as I haven't even pretended to go down that path, even though many of you have tried to throw my that direction).
I didn't go into the actual rules, because first I had to convince the slashdot crowd that such powers are indeed already in place. But now you can read them for yourself, as you apparently already have. With certain provisions, the Attorney General can approve collection against US Persons, regardless what everyone else here thinks about the US Constitution and other distractions brought into the conversation.
In as much as there is a Uniform Code of Military Justice governing military members, there is also a United States Signals Intelligence Directive governing intelligence community members. So yes, the NSA writes laws that govern the legality of things to do with Signals Intelligence. I've said it two or three times already, I'm not a constitutional expert or even a government expert, so no, I don't know if it is solely "congress's job". I'm an expert in the field of intelligence and an educator, so I know what I know. If you must get into the weeds, technically the USSID is only a directive, and probably not a "law" in the sense you are inferring. It still means if you break it, you go to jail, however.
I don't disagree. The Prius is an awful car, regardless of what its fuel source is. Still, it gets twice as much MPG as most gas cars like it, so there's always that for people who care about that kind of stuff.
4.1 tells us that the Attorney General can approve collectionagainst US Persons. 5.4 further outlines the rules regarding processing non-foreign communication (i.e. US Persons) and exceptions.
In any case, I don't see how anything I've said DOESN'T jibe with 4.1 or 5.4
Thankfully, you guys are following up on this stuff and changing your tune (slightly).
While I appreciate the concern on everyones part regarding our Constitutional rights, you guys just don't know (cough,don't agree with, cough) the rules that are in place.
I don't think he's a smug sob either, I'm just saying that's what his words caused to many people, rightfully or wrongfully so.
Then there's a whole 'nother conversation lost on most anti-bush slashdotters, and that is the concept of levels of information. Intelligence Information is a level of information that is barely above "information" (which is right above "data". ABOVE Intel Information is Intelligence, followed by the most vetted, Actionable Intelligence. MOST of the intel that was declassified was of the Actionable Intelligence type, even if it was flawed. You can't NOT act in the face of Actionable Intelligence (hence the name) even if it turns out to have been wrong.
Your post is a lie--specifically ones that exist to fortify your pre-existing biases. I work in the industry. We all told Bush (and Cheney) things we believed to be true that turned out to be not always true, not true at all, sometimes true, totally true, grossly exaggerated for some Intel dork's career progression, deception, and myriad of problems that have been identified and mostly corrected. To infer that Bush/Cheney went to war for any other reason is borderline treason. Or if you do believe that, you'll have to substantiate those claims a little better than you have in the past 7 years.
citing "antiwar.com"...Priceless. I don't even have to click the link to know it has no credibility.