I care about the claim it was Clinton that was always my objection. If you are withdrawing that then we can talk information sharing.
America has always had a "Democracy in Athens, tyranny abroad" policy. I don't want to see our tyranny abroad imported. If that makes our counter intelligence less effectual, prior to 9/11 that was a reasonable choice. Today we seem to have much more blowback threats so I can see going further down the road. But I don't think these things were "mistakes" they were complex judgement calls with lots of plusses and minuses.
Contempt requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Further the court needs to show that punishment is having a coercive effect, unlike in normal criminal action. So yes they do need to prove you know or have the encryption key. But proof is not absolute.
As for the money and divorce.... in general that sort of thing is rare. I think you are thinking of H. Beatty Chadwick whom the courts all find was disobeying the court. Basically he did 14 years for stealing $2.5m. That is within our norms as a society.
. The two provisions that I am referring to are the downsizing of the CIA and the data barrier between the FBI and the CIA which was put in place during those years.
The data barrier between the CIA and FBI always existed. The OSI and OCI were part of the intelligence directorate in the war department. The FBI reported to the attorney general. The USA has always, and still does separate domestic and foreign agencies. There is more cooperation and communication since the 9/11. But Americans have always been hesitant to allow much. Clinton doesn't deserve particular blame there, he didn't do anything.
In terms of the CIA, there was a drop off but the cold war cleanup was happening. Most of the Bush-41 happened early.
There is no huge cutting of the CIA, relative to what was happening generally to defense. I guess you can argue that Clinton was not particularly focused on intelligence, but no president since Kennedy had been huge on the CIA until Bush-43.
That's true. Compelling the suspect interferes with the case. Compelling 3rd parties does not. But in the case of encryption there are no 3rd parties. And yes they err on the side of not compelling. Leaning is very different than an absolute prohibition.
Of course there were better possible safety standards in the 19th century. That's when most of the dam improvement happened in the North East. Most of what is done to make structures safe today was possible then.
As far as the National Weather Service organizing a mass evacuation. No, they didn't have that capability.
First off the US is a net importer. There is an investment in US bonds. If we were net exporting, like we were in the 1960s then you could argue that people aren't investing here. The fact is people are perfectly content to invest, about $2b a day per day every day in the USA. That's why we are having such a large trade problem. People need to export to us to get the currency to invest here.
You obviously have an interest in economics. You need to stop talking in rhetoric and read standard econ 102 macro economics books about stuff like flow of funds.
they are saving/investing in other countries, where they see better money
No they aren't. They are saving/investing in the USA. You may not like that fact, those are the facts. That is why we have 3% interest rates people are desperately fleeing other economies to put their wealth in our fiat money. We have an excess of savings in dollars not a lack of it.
What's behind US Treasury bond?
The full faith and credit of the United States. Government assets in the $50t range (federal lands...). Private assets several times that which it can tax. The world's largest military by far. That's what is behind it if we had hard money.
But we don't. So on top of all that, it is denominated in a fiat currency which the government can create at will in unlimited quantities.
You seem to be under common misconception that a weak currency is somehow good for the economy. That's nonsense. Weak currency is terrible for the economy, because people move their real investment capital out of weak currency, and they move it into stronger currency
That can't be happening. Think about it. You are arguing as the price of something goes down the demand will decrease. You are absolutely right that a weak currency means investment is moving out of the country. Which is opposite of what is happening today.
You need to decide if you like capital inflows or outflows. You seem to be against both.
I can think of examples like BofA, Countrywide and BAC vs. MGIC of this, but I think you are oversimplifying.
But that's two large companies suing each other over lots of money and exact terms of a contract. I guess what I'm not seeing is what this has to do with libertarianism. Libertarians, regular Republicans and Democrats would all handle the same way.... courts resolve contract disputes. There isn't really any battle in the American system about the issue of how large companies handle insurance complaints.
I was making a case regarding FEMA and its benefits for private americans.
As an aside we didn't cover losses from insurance when we bailed out the banks. If banks had been nationalized (which they weren't) the federal government could of and would have gone after those insurance claims.
Well insurance companies refusing to pay valid claims is unfortunately a bad part of a for profit insurance system rather than the older system of mutual insurance. The problem with mutual insurance is it is quite difficult to raise capital and they got outcompeted by for profit insurance companies. In theory this would be a great place for the government to intervene planting seed money....
That being said the US has a pretty strict regulatory system over insurance companies and a court system. Insurance companies that pull nonsense have gotten slapped hard. I agree we had inadequate regulation given the for profit nature of insurance.
As for insured mortgages. Mortgage insurance protects the bank not the individual and in general most of those claims were paid. I'm not sure what you mean.
I don't know your insurance policy but in the USA flood is handled differently than wind. If the damage is a result of water that's a separate policy. If your argument is that the federal / state regulatory system for insurance is bad, the solution is a good regulatory system. Democrats today are the party of better regulation and I think have a track record over the last few decades consistent with that.
As for private charities, we had better private charities with more capabilities in the 19th century. They failed at these sorts of disasters and had to rely on states and local governments which also were terrible.
As for the National Guard, national guard troops aren't trained in hurricane infrastructure. They provide easily available labor which is unskilled. Any kind of state conscription would accomplish the same thing. The problem is a lack of appropriate skilled and experienced people.
Well first off, Bush gutted FEMA. FEMA under Clinton there were no such incidents. But even with gutten FEMA nothing remotely like that happened in New Orleans. New Orleans was bad, but not even close to Galveston 1900.
If FEMA had existed in the 19th century the safety standards on costal property would have been higher. If FEMA had existed in the 19th century evacuation procedures would have been used. If FEMA had existed in the 19th century you would have had people who had dealt with disaster areas conducting the clean up.
It sounds like you want a much less feature rich and more debugged product. There really aren't feature rich high quality Linux desktop environments. Linux desktops are mainly just trying to keep up with mainstream products in terms of features.
It's false of-course. It doesn't matter what the debt is 'denominated' in,
Sure it does. Owing 1 billion corn flakes is less debt than owing a billion bars of gold. The rest of your stuff is about inflation. The government can do what they want with currency, like create a new one for the population.
But at the time US was still a productive country, those wars were still not fought on debt.
A currency account surplus is the flip side of a trade deficit. What you seem to mean by "productive" was we were a net exporter then. Yes we were. And if our currency drops like a stone as you predict above we'll be a net exporter again. You can't argue that running a low currency that leads to exports is bad one paragraph and then in this one argue it was a gold age and thus foreign wars shouldn't count. You can support strong money and wanting an overly strong currency, like we have nor, or you can support an export driven economy. You can't support both.
so gold means nothing. Does USD mean anything? People are looking a way out of that currency (and other currencies) and we are seeing gold becoming de-facto money, that's what it means.
Really that's what we are seeing? The vast majority of the means of production globally like say 99.9% are controlled by fiat currencies. Gold isn't being used as a medium of exchange almost anywhere. The Swiss Franc one of the last gold currencies dropped off.
I'll agree that gold has had a nice run. At the absolute height of gold's value all the world's gold was worth $1.5t or about 2.5% of the value of the world's fiat currencies. The gold derivative market is in the hundreds of billions, not the hundreds of trillions. Gold is not a de-facto money. It is a collectors item. Just look at real data.
As to Fort Knox and Fed - when was the last real audit of all of that?
Of their physical holdings? Daily audits to the best of my knowledge.
I can respect an individual who took on the major intelligence agencies and won. He's done leaks on thousands of other topics as well.
If he holds a couple back to save his life, I think he's being wise not dishonorable. In real life people are often confronted with unpleasant choices.
First of all the country isn't lost. But if by "saving the country" you mean increasing employment, that doesn't require serious pain. It requires government created demand. We have extremely low interest rates and a demand shortfall. Do the obvious thing and the problem goes away.
I like Ron Paul. I voted for him in '88, my first vote.
That being said, yeah he is a kook. I think an honest assessment of the types of society he advocates is horrifying. For example in his district this is what libertarianism really looked like in the 1900 Galveston hurricane:
The dead bodies were so numerous that burying them all was not possible. The dead were initially weighted down and dumped at sea, but when the gulf currents washed many of the bodies back onto the beach, a new solution was needed. Funeral pyres were set up wherever the dead were found and burned for weeks after the storm. The authorities passed out free whiskey to sustain the distraught men conscripted for the gruesome work of collecting and burning the dead.
That's what life without FEMA looked like. His ideas on the gold standard are incredibly destructive, the government having the ability to control economic activity has been a huge net positive, including this case where it has softened the blow considerably. The loss is unquestionably worth it.
He's doing a lot to popularize libertarian economics and his move to, along with Lew Rockwell, create paleolibertarianism was brilliant. But libertarianism needs to answer serious critiques if it wants to be the governing philosophy of the United States.
It was foolish ever to chain them. That didn't happen until the Clinton Administration
Huh? Most of the chaining of the CIA happened under the Ford administration, with some under Carter. Clinton did very little to change US intelligence posture.
The US debt is 100% denominated in a fiat currency 100% under the control of the government. You use the debt to argue government weakness in a profound sense.
-- the wars are long and getting longer,
As opposed to the decades of the cold war, the problems with Cuba and Vietnam?
-- Iran and India are now trading oil for gold
If gold implies strength then between Fort Knox and Federal Reserve bank of NY we have tons of strength. Besides gold doesn't mean much of anything.
Of course it is. There hasn't been a nuclear war yet. That doesn't mean one won't happen. A small number of nuclear weapons is far less of a deterrent than is commonly believed. Heck think about how many wars the US has had to fight and that was when it has had thousands of weapons with excellent guidance and delivery systems.
When George Bush was president and the US was getting iffy on the whole NPT regime Europe was critical. The policy of the European governments, and the population by and large is that the NPT is a key component to world peace. If you disagree, convince your population of that.
so does Russia, Britain, France, Israel and North Korea. they don't go around insisting that their laws apply to foreign firms with foreign data in foreign sovereignties.
Actually both France and Germany have tried to apply their hate crime statutes to business and organizations in the United States. Virtually every country in the world has aimed to apply their gun control laws in the United States. Israel was decades ago one of the main proponents of universal jurisdiction.
The US is not alone in wanting more international law. Arguably the US is one of the countries least interested in these complex international relationships.
Yes but filing a false charge to mislead the court or overcharging is a good way to get the whole case dismissed. The real problem in our system is:
file a false charge against A to get discovery use that discovery to get a warrant against B as part of the investigation against A drop the charge against A go after B
The way they got a porno director here in the US who operated in California, was to order his product in Georgia and have them ship it there. BAM! Georgia claims jurisdiction and the guy goes to jail.
In all fairness this was used in the 19th century with birth control information. The case law was settled. If you ship to states you need to obey those state's laws. Evil Angel never should have directly shipped their product outside of California themselves, and instead had a distributor handle distribution. Once they engaged in a commercial transaction in Georgia.... yeah they are subject to Georgia law.
And the same way foreign companies should have US companies do their business in the US and not do business directly. Most companies already have foreign subsidiaries for these reasons. And for data they need to have the subsidiary have limited access.
Just because the morons who pushed it claimed to be "conservative" and/or are generally viewed as being "right wing" doesn't mean that it's true.
No actually it does make it true. There is a thing called the conservative movement there are politicians who run as conservatives and there is a generally agreed upon definition of conservative. I understand you want to argue that conservatives should believe what you believe, but they don't.
In 2006 when the Patriot act came up for renewal 65% of Republican voters supported it, while 25% of dems and 33% of independents did. ( http://www.people-press.org/2011/02/15/public-remains-divided-over-the-patriot-act/ ). This is not corrupt politicians, this is politicians accurately reflecting the fascist tendencies of their voters.
Slashdot Mirror
I care about the claim it was Clinton that was always my objection. If you are withdrawing that then we can talk information sharing.
America has always had a "Democracy in Athens, tyranny abroad" policy. I don't want to see our tyranny abroad imported. If that makes our counter intelligence less effectual, prior to 9/11 that was a reasonable choice. Today we seem to have much more blowback threats so I can see going further down the road. But I don't think these things were "mistakes" they were complex judgement calls with lots of plusses and minuses.
Contempt requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Further the court needs to show that punishment is having a coercive effect, unlike in normal criminal action. So yes they do need to prove you know or have the encryption key. But proof is not absolute.
As for the money and divorce.... in general that sort of thing is rare. I think you are thinking of H. Beatty Chadwick whom the courts all find was disobeying the court. Basically he did 14 years for stealing $2.5m. That is within our norms as a society.
The data barrier between the CIA and FBI always existed. The OSI and OCI were part of the intelligence directorate in the war department. The FBI reported to the attorney general. The USA has always, and still does separate domestic and foreign agencies. There is more cooperation and communication since the 9/11. But Americans have always been hesitant to allow much. Clinton doesn't deserve particular blame there, he didn't do anything.
In terms of the CIA, there was a drop off but the cold war cleanup was happening. Most of the Bush-41 happened early.
http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRxknWPOP4m371QHlbS6Y6yNzU5lUym7dbLyXylpubB3whZ0M6m
There is no huge cutting of the CIA, relative to what was happening generally to defense. I guess you can argue that Clinton was not particularly focused on intelligence, but no president since Kennedy had been huge on the CIA until Bush-43.
That's true. Compelling the suspect interferes with the case. Compelling 3rd parties does not. But in the case of encryption there are no 3rd parties. And yes they err on the side of not compelling. Leaning is very different than an absolute prohibition.
Of course there were better possible safety standards in the 19th century. That's when most of the dam improvement happened in the North East. Most of what is done to make structures safe today was possible then.
As far as the National Weather Service organizing a mass evacuation. No, they didn't have that capability.
First off the US is a net importer. There is an investment in US bonds. If we were net exporting, like we were in the 1960s then you could argue that people aren't investing here. The fact is people are perfectly content to invest, about $2b a day per day every day in the USA. That's why we are having such a large trade problem. People need to export to us to get the currency to invest here.
You obviously have an interest in economics. You need to stop talking in rhetoric and read standard econ 102 macro economics books about stuff like flow of funds.
No they aren't. They are saving/investing in the USA. You may not like that fact, those are the facts. That is why we have 3% interest rates people are desperately fleeing other economies to put their wealth in our fiat money. We have an excess of savings in dollars not a lack of it.
The full faith and credit of the United States. Government assets in the $50t range (federal lands...). Private assets several times that which it can tax. The world's largest military by far. That's what is behind it if we had hard money.
But we don't. So on top of all that, it is denominated in a fiat currency which the government can create at will in unlimited quantities.
That can't be happening. Think about it. You are arguing as the price of something goes down the demand will decrease. You are absolutely right that a weak currency means investment is moving out of the country. Which is opposite of what is happening today.
You need to decide if you like capital inflows or outflows. You seem to be against both.
I can think of examples like BofA, Countrywide and BAC vs. MGIC of this, but I think you are oversimplifying.
But that's two large companies suing each other over lots of money and exact terms of a contract. I guess what I'm not seeing is what this has to do with libertarianism. Libertarians, regular Republicans and Democrats would all handle the same way.... courts resolve contract disputes. There isn't really any battle in the American system about the issue of how large companies handle insurance complaints.
I was making a case regarding FEMA and its benefits for private americans.
As an aside we didn't cover losses from insurance when we bailed out the banks. If banks had been nationalized (which they weren't) the federal government could of and would have gone after those insurance claims.
Well insurance companies refusing to pay valid claims is unfortunately a bad part of a for profit insurance system rather than the older system of mutual insurance. The problem with mutual insurance is it is quite difficult to raise capital and they got outcompeted by for profit insurance companies. In theory this would be a great place for the government to intervene planting seed money....
That being said the US has a pretty strict regulatory system over insurance companies and a court system. Insurance companies that pull nonsense have gotten slapped hard. I agree we had inadequate regulation given the for profit nature of insurance.
As for insured mortgages. Mortgage insurance protects the bank not the individual and in general most of those claims were paid. I'm not sure what you mean.
Logo was invented in 1967. Apple Logo was a fairly standard Logo.
I don't know your insurance policy but in the USA flood is handled differently than wind. If the damage is a result of water that's a separate policy. If your argument is that the federal / state regulatory system for insurance is bad, the solution is a good regulatory system. Democrats today are the party of better regulation and I think have a track record over the last few decades consistent with that.
As for private charities, we had better private charities with more capabilities in the 19th century. They failed at these sorts of disasters and had to rely on states and local governments which also were terrible.
As for the National Guard, national guard troops aren't trained in hurricane infrastructure. They provide easily available labor which is unskilled. Any kind of state conscription would accomplish the same thing. The problem is a lack of appropriate skilled and experienced people.
Well first off, Bush gutted FEMA. FEMA under Clinton there were no such incidents. But even with gutten FEMA nothing remotely like that happened in New Orleans. New Orleans was bad, but not even close to Galveston 1900.
Yes all of the above.
If FEMA had existed in the 19th century the safety standards on costal property would have been higher.
If FEMA had existed in the 19th century evacuation procedures would have been used.
If FEMA had existed in the 19th century you would have had people who had dealt with disaster areas conducting the clean up.
It sounds like you want a much less feature rich and more debugged product. There really aren't feature rich high quality Linux desktop environments. Linux desktops are mainly just trying to keep up with mainstream products in terms of features.
Sure it does. Owing 1 billion corn flakes is less debt than owing a billion bars of gold. The rest of your stuff is about inflation. The government can do what they want with currency, like create a new one for the population.
A currency account surplus is the flip side of a trade deficit. What you seem to mean by "productive" was we were a net exporter then. Yes we were. And if our currency drops like a stone as you predict above we'll be a net exporter again. You can't argue that running a low currency that leads to exports is bad one paragraph and then in this one argue it was a gold age and thus foreign wars shouldn't count. You can support strong money and wanting an overly strong currency, like we have nor, or you can support an export driven economy. You can't support both.
Really that's what we are seeing? The vast majority of the means of production globally like say 99.9% are controlled by fiat currencies. Gold isn't being used as a medium of exchange almost anywhere. The Swiss Franc one of the last gold currencies dropped off.
I'll agree that gold has had a nice run. At the absolute height of gold's value all the world's gold was worth $1.5t or about 2.5% of the value of the world's fiat currencies. The gold derivative market is in the hundreds of billions, not the hundreds of trillions. Gold is not a de-facto money. It is a collectors item. Just look at real data.
Of their physical holdings? Daily audits to the best of my knowledge.
I can respect an individual who took on the major intelligence agencies and won. He's done leaks on thousands of other topics as well.
If he holds a couple back to save his life, I think he's being wise not dishonorable. In real life people are often confronted with unpleasant choices.
First of all the country isn't lost. But if by "saving the country" you mean increasing employment, that doesn't require serious pain. It requires government created demand. We have extremely low interest rates and a demand shortfall. Do the obvious thing and the problem goes away.
I like Ron Paul. I voted for him in '88, my first vote.
That being said, yeah he is a kook. I think an honest assessment of the types of society he advocates is horrifying. For example in his district this is what libertarianism really looked like in the 1900 Galveston hurricane:
That's what life without FEMA looked like. His ideas on the gold standard are incredibly destructive, the government having the ability to control economic activity has been a huge net positive, including this case where it has softened the blow considerably. The loss is unquestionably worth it.
He's doing a lot to popularize libertarian economics and his move to, along with Lew Rockwell, create paleolibertarianism was brilliant. But libertarianism needs to answer serious critiques if it wants to be the governing philosophy of the United States.
Huh? Most of the chaining of the CIA happened under the Ford administration, with some under Carter. Clinton did very little to change US intelligence posture.
This libertarian rant is a bit off.
-- The US debt is bigger than ever,
The US debt is 100% denominated in a fiat currency 100% under the control of the government. You use the debt to argue government weakness in a profound sense.
-- the wars are long and getting longer,
As opposed to the decades of the cold war, the problems with Cuba and Vietnam?
-- Iran and India are now trading oil for gold
If gold implies strength then between Fort Knox and Federal Reserve bank of NY we have tons of strength. Besides gold doesn't mean much of anything.
Etc..
Of course it is. There hasn't been a nuclear war yet. That doesn't mean one won't happen. A small number of nuclear weapons is far less of a deterrent than is commonly believed. Heck think about how many wars the US has had to fight and that was when it has had thousands of weapons with excellent guidance and delivery systems.
When George Bush was president and the US was getting iffy on the whole NPT regime Europe was critical. The policy of the European governments, and the population by and large is that the NPT is a key component to world peace. If you disagree, convince your population of that.
Actually both France and Germany have tried to apply their hate crime statutes to business and organizations in the United States. Virtually every country in the world has aimed to apply their gun control laws in the United States. Israel was decades ago one of the main proponents of universal jurisdiction.
The US is not alone in wanting more international law. Arguably the US is one of the countries least interested in these complex international relationships.
Yes but filing a false charge to mislead the court or overcharging is a good way to get the whole case dismissed. The real problem in our system is:
file a false charge against A to get discovery
use that discovery to get a warrant against B as part of the investigation against A
drop the charge against A
go after B
In all fairness this was used in the 19th century with birth control information. The case law was settled. If you ship to states you need to obey those state's laws. Evil Angel never should have directly shipped their product outside of California themselves, and instead had a distributor handle distribution. Once they engaged in a commercial transaction in Georgia .... yeah they are subject to Georgia law.
And the same way foreign companies should have US companies do their business in the US and not do business directly. Most companies already have foreign subsidiaries for these reasons. And for data they need to have the subsidiary have limited access.
No actually it does make it true. There is a thing called the conservative movement there are politicians who run as conservatives and there is a generally agreed upon definition of conservative. I understand you want to argue that conservatives should believe what you believe, but they don't.
In 2006 when the Patriot act came up for renewal 65% of Republican voters supported it, while 25% of dems and 33% of independents did. ( http://www.people-press.org/2011/02/15/public-remains-divided-over-the-patriot-act/ ). This is not corrupt politicians, this is politicians accurately reflecting the fascist tendencies of their voters.