Linux is also fine for the headless box in the closet performing server functionality or providing a console environment (yeah, its still useful for some thing). Sometimes I have cpu intensive console jobs that will be running for days at a time and I'd rather not be running them on a laptop. Such headless boxes are generally an old PC that's been retired from development use.
Why is this a surprise to anyone? Why would a company that is at its heart a targeted advertising company that collects vast amounts of information on you, records web searches, records web sites visited, scans your emails, collects location data, photographs your home and business front and back that faces a road, etc... not be expected to be an incredible resource to law enforcement just as they are an incredible resource to advertisers. Sure the advertisers don't get your name or IP but advertisers don't have judges available to tell the company to provide such personally identifiable info.
Google practices a two sided market strategy. On one side they offer free services (search, email, maps, etc) to users in return for collecting info. On the other side they monetize that info through targeted advertising, delivering ads. They do not provide personally identifiable information to advertisers because that would destroy their business model, they need to be the gatekeeper between advertisers and users so they can collect their fee.
If ever the phrase "users are the product not the customer" ever applied it applies to Google. But hey, they have a friendly motto "do no evil", and they are not a three letter government agency so its all OK right?
It constantly amazes me that the japenese don't appear to harbor extreme hatred to all americans.
I know I would if they had nuked my country for whatever reason.
First, the nukes were such a small percentage of casualties. Civilians don't really distinguish between being nuked, firebombed or starved to death.
Secondly, you don't understand the perspective of the Japanese people at the time. After the war they quickly came to understand the truth about the magnitude of the lies their militarist government had told them, manipulated them into war. The Japanese public had a incredible turn of opinion against their former leaders. Many genuinely grew to like General MacArthur during the occupation. Having spent so much time in Asia earlier in his career he was one of the few generals who understood their culture and perspective on the world and was well equipped to co-opt that perspective.
Little things he did had a vast impact. When he first landed in Japan and went into Tokyo for the first time he allowed Japanese troops to line the streets on his route and provide security. He had minimal US security on that drive. The public noted that, was surprised at such "civilized" behavior by the American military. It didn't make sense, it didn't match what they had been told. Plus as people came home and told their stories of interactions with Americans even on the battlefield, the anger at the former government grew. In one documentary I recall a Japanese Army Nurse describing how Japanese soldiers on Okinawa gave them hand grenades to commit suicide with. Hers was a dud and failed to detonate when she tried to use it at a later date. She was wounded by mortars and when an American solder approached her, drew his knife, she expected to be raped and tortured and killed as all the American barbarian soldiers would do such things. She was absolutely shocked when he used the knife to cut open her pants near her wound and began to sanitize and bandage her wound before he moved on to another injured person. As she watched the Americans she began to realize she had been lied to, that they weren't barbarians. She had literally been told that some American soldiers were cannibals. Seeing victorious Americans act in humane and civilized ways was a complete shock to many Japanese given what they had been told for so many years. This had a huge impact on the post-war occupation. Probably the wisest, although most likely a quite unjust thing, that MacArthur did was to allow the emperor to live and continue on in a ceremonial role.
Its not that simple. Letting the war continue for a fraction of a year longer would most likely have resulted in far greater casualties due to disease and famine. These are the real historical killers in time of war, not enemy action. Even a naval blockade with no continued naval or air offensive against the home islands would probably have led to far greater casualties. Now consider a more plausible scenario with a continued naval and air offensive in preparation for an amphibious invasion, vastly increased casualties beyond a simple blockade now. The Tokyo firebombing seems to have had greater casualties than Hiroshima. In the cruel, insane mathematics of war the atomic bombing probably saved lives by ending the war sooner and beginning the humanitarian relief sooner. Even if the war came to an end before an amphibious invasion.
The Soviet attack on the mainland of Asia was of little consequence. The Soviets did not possess the ability to launch a large scale amphibious attack on the Japanese home islands. The millions of Japanese troops on the Asian mainland could not be returned to the Japanese home islands for its defense due to the US Naval dominance of the sea. The threat against the home islands was entirely US, either invasion or blockade and famine.
We can argue about what diplomats might have thought and might have wanted and might have secretly made inquiries about... however these diplomats lived in fear of the militarists learning of their opinions and actions which would have resulted in immediate execution. Surrender was only possible for one and only one reason, the emperor decided so. And even after he decided so the militarists assaulted the imperial palace to rescue the emperor from the "lies" of these "traitors", and to capture the emperor's message to the Japanese people announcing the surrender.
There is quite a bit of whitewashing and revisionism among Japanese sources. They often downplay the "ground truth" of the militarists control of the situation up to the moment of the Japanese people hearing the surrender broadcast of the emperor.
except that the American government wanted an empire.
America at the end of WWII could have almost trivially conquered the world. It had an intact industrial base, unmolested population and was producing an atom bomb a month. What other power could have stood up to that? It could have done so for many years after the end of the war.
Absolutely false. The US had a population and military very tired of war. One of the motivations for the atomic bombings was to get the war over with as soon as possible. Public support was getting more and more difficult, raising money through bond sales more and more difficult. There was fear of mutiny among some veterans who had fought in the European theatre when transferred to Asia for the invasion of Japan. They feared sending some units home to the US for retraining and reequipping so they were to go east from Europe to Asia. There was a real possibility that the Japanese militarist plan to inflict sufficient casualties upon the US to get the US to abandon unconditional surrender might work. The US public was getting closer and closer to the idea of abandoning unconditional surrender.
The US public would never have supported an attempt at conquest after Germany and Japan's surrender. As for the troops, they only thought of going home, and going home meant going through Berlin or Tokyo. That was the "deal" they had signed up under. Its lunacy to think they'd just go along with conquering additional lands.
Cue the millennials' halfwitted observation that the bombs were "unjust"...
I wonder how many such millennials are here today because their great-grandfather did not have to be part of an invasion of the Japanese home islands.
And I wonder how many of their "Japanese friends" are only here because the war ended without such an invasion, without a famine inducing blockade that was one alternative to invasion, etc.
And before you start the "they were about to surrender" meme... a few diplomats were interested in surrender. Diplomats who lived in fear of their beliefs coming to the attention of the militarists who would have promptly executed them for treason. Keep in mind that it was **ONLY** the emperors decision that enabled surrender. Even after that decision militarists assaulted the imperial palace to rescue to emperor from the "treasonous" advisors who were "lying" to him, to find and destroy the audio recording the emperor made to announce the surrender to the Japanese people, etc. The surrender nearly did not happen even after the god-like emperor made the decision. After the first atomic bombing the militarists were training troops/civilians to wear white sheets to protect them from the flash of this new weapon. The films of this looked like a friggin KKK training exercise. To the day of the surrender, the militarists, the people effectively running the country, thought they could inflict so many casualties on the Americans that they could negotiate a peace treaty. The suicide planes and boats were ready, the chemical weapons were targeted on landing beaches, school kids were learning to thrust a bamboo spear at americans, etc. Its is only the emperor's voice on the radio, speaking directly to the people, announcing the surrender, that ended this insanity. And the emperor did not make the decision until after the atomic bombs. He specifically cited these new weapons in his announcement.
In the twisted insane mathematics of war, the atomic bombs probably saved lives. We killed far greater numbers of people in the convention firebombing of Japan.
Yeah, how did that impeachment of Bill Clinton for lying to congress about a blow job work out for you, anti-Clinton partisans?
The impeachment was about lying in court, to a judge, while under oath; not about lying to congress. Clinton surrendered his license to practice law as part of the plea agreement.
It continues to amaze me that people keep repeating this easily proven false talking point. The date/time something is stamped 'classified' is irrelevant! Plenty of content was 'born' classified or so obvious that it was regardless of marking.
The constitution has this little clause called ex post facto. Look it up.
Actually look at the last sentence, the one you deleted, I restored it for your convenience. Its not ex post facto if its 'born' classified. One example of 'born' classified is info from a private conversation with a head of state or ambassador. As Secretary of State Clinton was explicitly trained on what sort of info is 'born' classified and that any lack of markings on classified material does not change its status. Explicitly trained on this!
And, if we're wishing for unicorns, creating a third house of congress that is chosen completely at random from each state (in my mind's eye, I see them as only being able to debate and vote on laws) keeps in check the power brokers.
I think that sort of might have been the original intended role of the House or Representatives. But yeah, populate it like the draft. If they can force you to serve in the military for a few years in the national interest they could force you to serve in Congress for two in the national interest. Of course, like the military there should probably be some induction screening. A basic training / boot camp of sorts. Perhaps more reading comprehension and math skills, less pull ups.
Exactly. I'm very surprised we haven't used statistical information to cut down on rent seeking behavior. Useless middlemen must wield far more power than those that desire an efficient, equitable market.
The problem with that theory is that we are essentially replacing the existing private middlemen with government middlemen. Any time the government offers a service or benefit it comes with strings attach. The government can't resist doing so. Engaging in some sort of social engineering for "your own good". Want government housing, then your behavior must conform to these government requirements. There will still be middlemen, there will still be management, they will merely be government ones looking not for a profit but to enforce compliance with whatever the social engineering "its good for you" idea of the day is. Actually that's a bad metaphor, it implies one idea is replaced with another, this is government we're talking about... the ideas don't get replaced, they just stack new on top of old, they rarely go away.
It will most likely just give government new avenues of control with inevitably lead to new avenues of government corruption. Congress can not resist meddling with these avenues of control, either for their well intended social engineering or political payback to friends and enemies, as we see in today's tax code. The tax code probably being the greatest delivery vehicle with respect to influence buying and corruption.
And yet, the happiest people in the world are in countries where taxes are high and the governments are 'involved' :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Your analysis is quite superficial. A caveat you should have learned in Econ 101: "all other things being equal". In other words things are very different between the US and those top ranking countries. Perhaps one of those factors you are failing to consider is the corruption of the government, again, ponder the corruption that our tax code enables. Do those other countries have such a comparably complicated tax code that is a massive vehicle for political paybacks and punishment, do they rely more on a VAT, etc.
Government employees are unionized in the US. They often block attempts to put unemployed people to work performing some service for the government or community.
Community colleges here in the US are quite useful. In most states they are extremely inexpensive and are multi-mission. They offer some 2-year degrees, provide general ed classes that are transferrable to 4-year universities, and they have vocational training and certification. So they rehabilitate people who didn't quite prepare themselves for the university in high school and train people for white collar (ex. 2 year accounting degree) and blue collar (ex. welding, heating and air conditioning, etc certifications) jobs.
Numerous people have looked at the math, which you obviously haven't, and I suggested that we let the other countries that want to try it to do it first, then learn from their mistakes.
There is a huge gaping hole that should be plain to anyone who took econ 101. The above lacks the caveat, all other things being equal. Reality is they are not. The unique conditions of a country, or a state for that matter have a heavy influence on what can work and what will not. That is why various national one-size-fits-all plans accomplish little, while local plans that consider local conditions have a better chance.
For example Hawaii can have a generous social system because of direct taxation of tourists and indirect taxation on the spending of tourists. Alaska can be generous because of taxation on the oil industry. Other states lack these windfalls and can't learn much from Hawaii or Alaska, all other things not being equal.
At one time all the math said, flying was impossible.
Actually I thought it merely said human powered flight was impossible. Which was mathematically true until the recent inventions of some very lightweight exotic materials.
I have a suggestion, rather than everyone sitting around drawing conclusions out of their asses, lets see what actually happens when someone tries it.
Its been tried, Imperial Rome, free bread and free circuses. Republic Rome and its work ethic and civic responsibility ethic (I have a duty to contribute to my society, to defend my society, etc) worked better.
FWIW Cincinnatus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
"... forcing him to sell most of his lands and retire to a small farm, where he and his family were able to subsist on the work of his hands... A group of senators were sent to tell Cincinnatus that he had been nominated dictator. According to Livy, the senators found Cincinnatus while he was plowing on his farm... Cincinnatus then went to the Roman popular assembly and issued an order to the effect that every man of military age should report to the Campus Martius—the Field of Mars, god of war—by the end of the day... Once the army assembled, Cincinnatus took them to fight the Aequi at the Battle of Mons Algidus. Cincinnatus led the infantry in person,... After this, the war ended and Cincinnatus disbanded his army. He then resigned his dictatorship and returned to his farm, a mere fifteen days after he had been nominated dictator."
... governments are at least hypothetically responsive to the voter...
No more than businesses are hypothetically responsive to the buyers of their products and services.
But really, this is total paranoia. All housing, even privately owned housing, has rules attached to it.
You seem quite ignorant of the nature of government strings. For example in various government housing projects people with criminal backgrounds are not allowed to stay overnight. Fathers are literally forced to be separated from their children because of the unintended consequences some political failed to consider. And as I suggested earlier, government failures tend to be quite persistent and continue year after year. This overnight problem has been recognized a largely counterproductive for decades.
Exactly. I'm very surprised we haven't used statistical information to cut down on rent seeking behavior. Useless middlemen must wield far more power than those that desire an efficient, equitable market.
The problem with that theory is that we are essentially replacing the existing private middlemen with government middlemen. Any time the government offers a service or benefit it comes with strings attach. The government can't resist doing so. Engaging in some sort of social engineering for "your own good". Want government housing, then your behavior must conform to these government requirements. There will still be middlemen, there will still be management, they will merely be government ones looking not for a profit but to enforce compliance with whatever the social engineering "its good for you" idea of the day is. Actually that's a bad metaphor, it implies one idea is replaced with another, this is government we're talking about... the ideas don't get replaced, they just stack new on top of old, they rarely go away.
It will most likely just give government new avenues of control with inevitably lead to new avenues of government corruption. Congress can not resist meddling with these avenues of control, either for their well intended social engineering or political payback to friends and enemies, as we see in today's tax code. The tax code probably being the greatest delivery vehicle with respect to influence buying and corruption.
I have many failures but interpreting this point is not one of them.
Sadly, it seems to be the case.:-)
... Cracking the terrorist's phone is up to the agency...
The policy we are actually talking about: the FBI asking Congress to ban strong cell phone encryption. In other words telling Apple they can't make a phone that is too secure. Which is basically the FBI asking Congress for a new tool. The President could say no, you don't get such a tool.
Didn't he tell the DEA to stop raiding medical marijuana facilities in states where it's legal, and the DEA kept right on doing it anyway? Not even the president can keep federal law enforcement in check these days.
You missed a very important point that I hoped to make clear. The President can not tell an agency to not enforce a **law**. He can tell an agency not to pursue a **policy**.
Those DEA raids are enforcing federal *law* not some agency policy.
The FBI asking Congress to ban cell phone encryption is a *policy*. The FBI can be told don't ask for that. Congress can be told, ignore what they asked for. The President just needs to pick up that phone and pen he likes to talk about.
If the President dislikes an FBI *policy* he tells the AG to stop doing that, the AG tells the FBI to stop doing that, the FBI then stops doing that.
LMFTFY:
If the President dislikes an FBI *policy* he tells the AG to stop doing that, the AG tells the FBI to stop doing that, the FBI then shares with the President selected excerpts from their files that the President would really prefer didn't end up in the hands of GOP legislators or the press.
Nope, that has not been true since 2012. As the President said back then, its his last election and he never has to face the voters again, and as a result he'll have more "flexibility" on issues after the election.
Tell me again about how Obama is all in-support of the FBI and weaker consumer encryption?
The FBI is under the President's control. The Attorney General answers to the President. The FBI answers to the Attorney General (AG).
If the President dislikes an FBI *policy* he tells the AG to stop doing that, the AG tells the FBI to stop doing that, the FBI then stops doing that.
The President can not tell the FBI what laws to enforce or not enforce but he can sure as hell can tell them what policies to pursue or not pursue. He has his pen and can write an executive order to the FBI.
Actually they are. For example Warren Buffet, while saying his taxes should be raised in political venues, in real life dodges taxes. He is dodging inheritance taxes by transferring money to the Gates foundation. Why? Because he thinks Bill and Melinda can more effectively use his money to address social issues than the government, that they will do more "good" per dollar.
And he (W.B.) would be the first to vote to made the "dodges" illegal. But that said, nothing W.B. did by giving money to the Gates foundation would, or should, ever become illegal. Sending a chunk of your wealth to a charity isn't something I would think we could ever want to ban....
An act being perfectly legal and common does not change the fact that it is hypocritical when it goes against publicly professed beliefs. A trust to avoid probate taxes, compensation that avoids incomes taxes, all perfectly legal but hypocritical. If he's so concerned that he pays a lower rate than his secretary than take a check rather than more exotic compensations, but no, his pocketbook trumps his statements about fairness.
For example Warren Buffet, while saying his taxes should be raised in political venues, in real life dodges taxes.
They are two different things. Paying more tax as a individual achieves very little. People are all willing to give more if they know everyone else is doing it too.
That is just rationalizing the hypocrisy, explaining it. That the actions are legal, rational, etc does not alter the fact they are hypocritical.
Your argument has a tragedy of the common problem.
You missed the other response. To get you up to speed:
Which side of the road you currently drive on is not optional, its not an avoidable regulation. Paying the inheritance tax in the US is effectively optional given how easy it is to avoid.
Likewise, going for more exotic compensation rather than a simple paycheck that would have you pay the same tax rate as your secretary is also optional.
Your logical failure is that economics does not negate hypocrisy. That an action is legal or rational does not change the fact that it conflicts with beliefs. There is often a cost to being true to one's beliefs.
In public every supermarket owner was opposing the regulation. In private - every one of them were hoping it would pass, and secretly funding the campaigns of the politicians pushing it.
This is hypocritical. Its telling the audience what they want to here, something often considered a type of lying. Its political, its public relations... its compromising one's beliefs for economic gain. That it is a quite rational course of action does not change this.
The only way to pay fair taxes as a rich person - is if everybody else is forced to do it as well. If you do it by yourself, not only will it not achieve much but it will put that person at a distinct competitive disadvantage which will rapidly force him out of business.
That is quite the false equivalence. A rich person paying taxes is not subject to the same competitive pressures as a business. Warren could pay himself with a check rather than more exotic compensation so that he pays the same percentage of taxes as his secretary. This would not harm his business, only his personal wealth. Warren could have his wealth transferred upon his death to the Gates foundation through mechanisms that are still subject to taxation, rather than trusts that are designed to avoid taxation. Again, it only affects him personally, does no harm to his business.
So it's perfectly reasonable (and not at all hypocritical) to hold that "all rich people should be fairly taxed" without holding that "I alone should pay fair taxes".
Again, reasonable/rational/common/economic/etc do not invalidate hypocrisy. They merely explain the motivation behind hypocrisy. They rationalize it.
We are not discussing the annual contributions. One of his tax dodges is transferring wealth upon his death to the Gates foundation via mechanisms such as trusts to avoid taxation. Another dodge not previously mentioned would be his compensation, he elects more "exotic" compensation to avoid taxation. He could pay the same percentage as his secretary if he wanted to by being paid by a simple check.
Again, that such financial engineering is legal and common for the wealthy is irrelevant. Hypocrisy is about to live according to one's beliefs, and to do so often has a cost. Avoiding that cost is fine, just don't hypocritically speak otherwise unless willing to be acknowledged as such.
Slashdot Mirror
Linux is also fine for the headless box in the closet performing server functionality or providing a console environment (yeah, its still useful for some thing). Sometimes I have cpu intensive console jobs that will be running for days at a time and I'd rather not be running them on a laptop. Such headless boxes are generally an old PC that's been retired from development use.
Why is this a surprise to anyone? Why would a company that is at its heart a targeted advertising company that collects vast amounts of information on you, records web searches, records web sites visited, scans your emails, collects location data, photographs your home and business front and back that faces a road, etc ... not be expected to be an incredible resource to law enforcement just as they are an incredible resource to advertisers. Sure the advertisers don't get your name or IP but advertisers don't have judges available to tell the company to provide such personally identifiable info.
Google practices a two sided market strategy. On one side they offer free services (search, email, maps, etc) to users in return for collecting info. On the other side they monetize that info through targeted advertising, delivering ads. They do not provide personally identifiable information to advertisers because that would destroy their business model, they need to be the gatekeeper between advertisers and users so they can collect their fee.
If ever the phrase "users are the product not the customer" ever applied it applies to Google. But hey, they have a friendly motto "do no evil", and they are not a three letter government agency so its all OK right?
It constantly amazes me that the japenese don't appear to harbor extreme hatred to all americans. I know I would if they had nuked my country for whatever reason.
First, the nukes were such a small percentage of casualties. Civilians don't really distinguish between being nuked, firebombed or starved to death.
Secondly, you don't understand the perspective of the Japanese people at the time. After the war they quickly came to understand the truth about the magnitude of the lies their militarist government had told them, manipulated them into war. The Japanese public had a incredible turn of opinion against their former leaders. Many genuinely grew to like General MacArthur during the occupation. Having spent so much time in Asia earlier in his career he was one of the few generals who understood their culture and perspective on the world and was well equipped to co-opt that perspective.
Little things he did had a vast impact. When he first landed in Japan and went into Tokyo for the first time he allowed Japanese troops to line the streets on his route and provide security. He had minimal US security on that drive. The public noted that, was surprised at such "civilized" behavior by the American military. It didn't make sense, it didn't match what they had been told. Plus as people came home and told their stories of interactions with Americans even on the battlefield, the anger at the former government grew. In one documentary I recall a Japanese Army Nurse describing how Japanese soldiers on Okinawa gave them hand grenades to commit suicide with. Hers was a dud and failed to detonate when she tried to use it at a later date. She was wounded by mortars and when an American solder approached her, drew his knife, she expected to be raped and tortured and killed as all the American barbarian soldiers would do such things. She was absolutely shocked when he used the knife to cut open her pants near her wound and began to sanitize and bandage her wound before he moved on to another injured person. As she watched the Americans she began to realize she had been lied to, that they weren't barbarians. She had literally been told that some American soldiers were cannibals. Seeing victorious Americans act in humane and civilized ways was a complete shock to many Japanese given what they had been told for so many years. This had a huge impact on the post-war occupation. Probably the wisest, although most likely a quite unjust thing, that MacArthur did was to allow the emperor to live and continue on in a ceremonial role.
Its not that simple. Letting the war continue for a fraction of a year longer would most likely have resulted in far greater casualties due to disease and famine. These are the real historical killers in time of war, not enemy action. Even a naval blockade with no continued naval or air offensive against the home islands would probably have led to far greater casualties. Now consider a more plausible scenario with a continued naval and air offensive in preparation for an amphibious invasion, vastly increased casualties beyond a simple blockade now. The Tokyo firebombing seems to have had greater casualties than Hiroshima. In the cruel, insane mathematics of war the atomic bombing probably saved lives by ending the war sooner and beginning the humanitarian relief sooner. Even if the war came to an end before an amphibious invasion.
The Soviet attack on the mainland of Asia was of little consequence. The Soviets did not possess the ability to launch a large scale amphibious attack on the Japanese home islands. The millions of Japanese troops on the Asian mainland could not be returned to the Japanese home islands for its defense due to the US Naval dominance of the sea. The threat against the home islands was entirely US, either invasion or blockade and famine.
... however these diplomats lived in fear of the militarists learning of their opinions and actions which would have resulted in immediate execution. Surrender was only possible for one and only one reason, the emperor decided so. And even after he decided so the militarists assaulted the imperial palace to rescue the emperor from the "lies" of these "traitors", and to capture the emperor's message to the Japanese people announcing the surrender.
We can argue about what diplomats might have thought and might have wanted and might have secretly made inquiries about
There is quite a bit of whitewashing and revisionism among Japanese sources. They often downplay the "ground truth" of the militarists control of the situation up to the moment of the Japanese people hearing the surrender broadcast of the emperor.
except that the American government wanted an empire.
America at the end of WWII could have almost trivially conquered the world. It had an intact industrial base, unmolested population and was producing an atom bomb a month. What other power could have stood up to that? It could have done so for many years after the end of the war.
Absolutely false. The US had a population and military very tired of war. One of the motivations for the atomic bombings was to get the war over with as soon as possible. Public support was getting more and more difficult, raising money through bond sales more and more difficult. There was fear of mutiny among some veterans who had fought in the European theatre when transferred to Asia for the invasion of Japan. They feared sending some units home to the US for retraining and reequipping so they were to go east from Europe to Asia. There was a real possibility that the Japanese militarist plan to inflict sufficient casualties upon the US to get the US to abandon unconditional surrender might work. The US public was getting closer and closer to the idea of abandoning unconditional surrender.
The US public would never have supported an attempt at conquest after Germany and Japan's surrender. As for the troops, they only thought of going home, and going home meant going through Berlin or Tokyo. That was the "deal" they had signed up under. Its lunacy to think they'd just go along with conquering additional lands.
Cue the millennials' halfwitted observation that the bombs were "unjust" ...
I wonder how many such millennials are here today because their great-grandfather did not have to be part of an invasion of the Japanese home islands.
... a few diplomats were interested in surrender. Diplomats who lived in fear of their beliefs coming to the attention of the militarists who would have promptly executed them for treason. Keep in mind that it was **ONLY** the emperors decision that enabled surrender. Even after that decision militarists assaulted the imperial palace to rescue to emperor from the "treasonous" advisors who were "lying" to him, to find and destroy the audio recording the emperor made to announce the surrender to the Japanese people, etc. The surrender nearly did not happen even after the god-like emperor made the decision. After the first atomic bombing the militarists were training troops/civilians to wear white sheets to protect them from the flash of this new weapon. The films of this looked like a friggin KKK training exercise. To the day of the surrender, the militarists, the people effectively running the country, thought they could inflict so many casualties on the Americans that they could negotiate a peace treaty. The suicide planes and boats were ready, the chemical weapons were targeted on landing beaches, school kids were learning to thrust a bamboo spear at americans, etc. Its is only the emperor's voice on the radio, speaking directly to the people, announcing the surrender, that ended this insanity. And the emperor did not make the decision until after the atomic bombs. He specifically cited these new weapons in his announcement.
And I wonder how many of their "Japanese friends" are only here because the war ended without such an invasion, without a famine inducing blockade that was one alternative to invasion, etc.
And before you start the "they were about to surrender" meme
In the twisted insane mathematics of war, the atomic bombs probably saved lives. We killed far greater numbers of people in the convention firebombing of Japan.
Yeah, how did that impeachment of Bill Clinton for lying to congress about a blow job work out for you, anti-Clinton partisans?
The impeachment was about lying in court, to a judge, while under oath; not about lying to congress. Clinton surrendered his license to practice law as part of the plea agreement.
The constitution has this little clause called ex post facto. Look it up.
Actually look at the last sentence, the one you deleted, I restored it for your convenience. Its not ex post facto if its 'born' classified. One example of 'born' classified is info from a private conversation with a head of state or ambassador. As Secretary of State Clinton was explicitly trained on what sort of info is 'born' classified and that any lack of markings on classified material does not change its status. Explicitly trained on this!
And, if we're wishing for unicorns, creating a third house of congress that is chosen completely at random from each state (in my mind's eye, I see them as only being able to debate and vote on laws) keeps in check the power brokers.
I think that sort of might have been the original intended role of the House or Representatives. But yeah, populate it like the draft. If they can force you to serve in the military for a few years in the national interest they could force you to serve in Congress for two in the national interest. Of course, like the military there should probably be some induction screening. A basic training / boot camp of sorts. Perhaps more reading comprehension and math skills, less pull ups.
Exactly. I'm very surprised we haven't used statistical information to cut down on rent seeking behavior. Useless middlemen must wield far more power than those that desire an efficient, equitable market.
The problem with that theory is that we are essentially replacing the existing private middlemen with government middlemen. Any time the government offers a service or benefit it comes with strings attach. The government can't resist doing so. Engaging in some sort of social engineering for "your own good". Want government housing, then your behavior must conform to these government requirements. There will still be middlemen, there will still be management, they will merely be government ones looking not for a profit but to enforce compliance with whatever the social engineering "its good for you" idea of the day is. Actually that's a bad metaphor, it implies one idea is replaced with another, this is government we're talking about ... the ideas don't get replaced, they just stack new on top of old, they rarely go away.
It will most likely just give government new avenues of control with inevitably lead to new avenues of government corruption. Congress can not resist meddling with these avenues of control, either for their well intended social engineering or political payback to friends and enemies, as we see in today's tax code. The tax code probably being the greatest delivery vehicle with respect to influence buying and corruption.
And yet, the happiest people in the world are in countries where taxes are high and the governments are 'involved' : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Your analysis is quite superficial. A caveat you should have learned in Econ 101: "all other things being equal". In other words things are very different between the US and those top ranking countries. Perhaps one of those factors you are failing to consider is the corruption of the government, again, ponder the corruption that our tax code enables. Do those other countries have such a comparably complicated tax code that is a massive vehicle for political paybacks and punishment, do they rely more on a VAT, etc.
Government employees are unionized in the US. They often block attempts to put unemployed people to work performing some service for the government or community.
Community colleges here in the US are quite useful. In most states they are extremely inexpensive and are multi-mission. They offer some 2-year degrees, provide general ed classes that are transferrable to 4-year universities, and they have vocational training and certification. So they rehabilitate people who didn't quite prepare themselves for the university in high school and train people for white collar (ex. 2 year accounting degree) and blue collar (ex. welding, heating and air conditioning, etc certifications) jobs.
Numerous people have looked at the math, which you obviously haven't, and I suggested that we let the other countries that want to try it to do it first, then learn from their mistakes.
There is a huge gaping hole that should be plain to anyone who took econ 101. The above lacks the caveat, all other things being equal. Reality is they are not. The unique conditions of a country, or a state for that matter have a heavy influence on what can work and what will not. That is why various national one-size-fits-all plans accomplish little, while local plans that consider local conditions have a better chance.
For example Hawaii can have a generous social system because of direct taxation of tourists and indirect taxation on the spending of tourists. Alaska can be generous because of taxation on the oil industry. Other states lack these windfalls and can't learn much from Hawaii or Alaska, all other things not being equal.
At one time all the math said, flying was impossible.
Actually I thought it merely said human powered flight was impossible. Which was mathematically true until the recent inventions of some very lightweight exotic materials.
I have a suggestion, rather than everyone sitting around drawing conclusions out of their asses, lets see what actually happens when someone tries it.
Its been tried, Imperial Rome, free bread and free circuses. Republic Rome and its work ethic and civic responsibility ethic (I have a duty to contribute to my society, to defend my society, etc) worked better.
... A group of senators were sent to tell Cincinnatus that he had been nominated dictator. According to Livy, the senators found Cincinnatus while he was plowing on his farm ... Cincinnatus then went to the Roman popular assembly and issued an order to the effect that every man of military age should report to the Campus Martius—the Field of Mars, god of war—by the end of the day ... Once the army assembled, Cincinnatus took them to fight the Aequi at the Battle of Mons Algidus. Cincinnatus led the infantry in person, ... After this, the war ended and Cincinnatus disbanded his army. He then resigned his dictatorship and returned to his farm, a mere fifteen days after he had been nominated dictator."
FWIW Cincinnatus
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
"... forcing him to sell most of his lands and retire to a small farm, where he and his family were able to subsist on the work of his hands
... governments are at least hypothetically responsive to the voter ...
No more than businesses are hypothetically responsive to the buyers of their products and services.
But really, this is total paranoia. All housing, even privately owned housing, has rules attached to it.
You seem quite ignorant of the nature of government strings. For example in various government housing projects people with criminal backgrounds are not allowed to stay overnight. Fathers are literally forced to be separated from their children because of the unintended consequences some political failed to consider. And as I suggested earlier, government failures tend to be quite persistent and continue year after year. This overnight problem has been recognized a largely counterproductive for decades.
Exactly. I'm very surprised we haven't used statistical information to cut down on rent seeking behavior. Useless middlemen must wield far more power than those that desire an efficient, equitable market.
The problem with that theory is that we are essentially replacing the existing private middlemen with government middlemen. Any time the government offers a service or benefit it comes with strings attach. The government can't resist doing so. Engaging in some sort of social engineering for "your own good". Want government housing, then your behavior must conform to these government requirements. There will still be middlemen, there will still be management, they will merely be government ones looking not for a profit but to enforce compliance with whatever the social engineering "its good for you" idea of the day is. Actually that's a bad metaphor, it implies one idea is replaced with another, this is government we're talking about ... the ideas don't get replaced, they just stack new on top of old, they rarely go away.
It will most likely just give government new avenues of control with inevitably lead to new avenues of government corruption. Congress can not resist meddling with these avenues of control, either for their well intended social engineering or political payback to friends and enemies, as we see in today's tax code. The tax code probably being the greatest delivery vehicle with respect to influence buying and corruption.
I have many failures but interpreting this point is not one of them.
Sadly, it seems to be the case. :-)
... Cracking the terrorist's phone is up to the agency ...
The policy we are actually talking about: the FBI asking Congress to ban strong cell phone encryption. In other words telling Apple they can't make a phone that is too secure. Which is basically the FBI asking Congress for a new tool. The President could say no, you don't get such a tool.
Didn't he tell the DEA to stop raiding medical marijuana facilities in states where it's legal, and the DEA kept right on doing it anyway? Not even the president can keep federal law enforcement in check these days.
You missed a very important point that I hoped to make clear. The President can not tell an agency to not enforce a **law**. He can tell an agency not to pursue a **policy**.
Those DEA raids are enforcing federal *law* not some agency policy.
The FBI asking Congress to ban cell phone encryption is a *policy*. The FBI can be told don't ask for that. Congress can be told, ignore what they asked for. The President just needs to pick up that phone and pen he likes to talk about.
If the President dislikes an FBI *policy* he tells the AG to stop doing that, the AG tells the FBI to stop doing that, the FBI then stops doing that.
LMFTFY: If the President dislikes an FBI *policy* he tells the AG to stop doing that, the AG tells the FBI to stop doing that, the FBI then shares with the President selected excerpts from their files that the President would really prefer didn't end up in the hands of GOP legislators or the press.
Nope, that has not been true since 2012. As the President said back then, its his last election and he never has to face the voters again, and as a result he'll have more "flexibility" on issues after the election.
Tell me again about how Obama is all in-support of the FBI and weaker consumer encryption?
The FBI is under the President's control. The Attorney General answers to the President. The FBI answers to the Attorney General (AG).
If the President dislikes an FBI *policy* he tells the AG to stop doing that, the AG tells the FBI to stop doing that, the FBI then stops doing that.
The President can not tell the FBI what laws to enforce or not enforce but he can sure as hell can tell them what policies to pursue or not pursue. He has his pen and can write an executive order to the FBI.
They are not hypocrites.
Actually they are. For example Warren Buffet, while saying his taxes should be raised in political venues, in real life dodges taxes. He is dodging inheritance taxes by transferring money to the Gates foundation. Why? Because he thinks Bill and Melinda can more effectively use his money to address social issues than the government, that they will do more "good" per dollar.
And he (W.B.) would be the first to vote to made the "dodges" illegal. But that said, nothing W.B. did by giving money to the Gates foundation would, or should, ever become illegal. Sending a chunk of your wealth to a charity isn't something I would think we could ever want to ban....
An act being perfectly legal and common does not change the fact that it is hypocritical when it goes against publicly professed beliefs. A trust to avoid probate taxes, compensation that avoids incomes taxes, all perfectly legal but hypocritical. If he's so concerned that he pays a lower rate than his secretary than take a check rather than more exotic compensations, but no, his pocketbook trumps his statements about fairness.
For example Warren Buffet, while saying his taxes should be raised in political venues, in real life dodges taxes.
They are two different things. Paying more tax as a individual achieves very little. People are all willing to give more if they know everyone else is doing it too.
That is just rationalizing the hypocrisy, explaining it. That the actions are legal, rational, etc does not alter the fact they are hypocritical.
Your argument has a tragedy of the common problem.
its a good analogy, you're just a fool.
You missed the other response. To get you up to speed:
Which side of the road you currently drive on is not optional, its not an avoidable regulation. Paying the inheritance tax in the US is effectively optional given how easy it is to avoid.
Likewise, going for more exotic compensation rather than a simple paycheck that would have you pay the same tax rate as your secretary is also optional.
In public every supermarket owner was opposing the regulation. In private - every one of them were hoping it would pass, and secretly funding the campaigns of the politicians pushing it.
This is hypocritical. Its telling the audience what they want to here, something often considered a type of lying. Its political, its public relations ... its compromising one's beliefs for economic gain. That it is a quite rational course of action does not change this.
The only way to pay fair taxes as a rich person - is if everybody else is forced to do it as well. If you do it by yourself, not only will it not achieve much but it will put that person at a distinct competitive disadvantage which will rapidly force him out of business.
That is quite the false equivalence. A rich person paying taxes is not subject to the same competitive pressures as a business. Warren could pay himself with a check rather than more exotic compensation so that he pays the same percentage of taxes as his secretary. This would not harm his business, only his personal wealth. Warren could have his wealth transferred upon his death to the Gates foundation through mechanisms that are still subject to taxation, rather than trusts that are designed to avoid taxation. Again, it only affects him personally, does no harm to his business.
So it's perfectly reasonable (and not at all hypocritical) to hold that "all rich people should be fairly taxed" without holding that "I alone should pay fair taxes".
Again, reasonable/rational/common/economic/etc do not invalidate hypocrisy. They merely explain the motivation behind hypocrisy. They rationalize it.
We are not discussing the annual contributions. One of his tax dodges is transferring wealth upon his death to the Gates foundation via mechanisms such as trusts to avoid taxation. Another dodge not previously mentioned would be his compensation, he elects more "exotic" compensation to avoid taxation. He could pay the same percentage as his secretary if he wanted to by being paid by a simple check.
Again, that such financial engineering is legal and common for the wealthy is irrelevant. Hypocrisy is about to live according to one's beliefs, and to do so often has a cost. Avoiding that cost is fine, just don't hypocritically speak otherwise unless willing to be acknowledged as such.