Also, the article claims the shadow banking system has more money than actually exists. So either their math is wrong, or their conclusions are wrong, or both.
Depends, where do you get your figures on how much money exists? Since money ceased to be backed by gold in any meaningful way, the sum total of "all money" is only limited by what a fool thinks it might be.
As ESR said in his opus The Cathedral and the Bizarre, Linux is only free if your time has no value. Clearly IBM's time, and chip business, has lots of value. A billion dollar's worth apparently.
That's Bazar, not Bizarre. And the statement is true for just the narrow interpretation of "free", which is to say, "as in beer". ESR is a bit of a self important douche, by the way, but that's just my own take on the guy.
... And I would of course be pretty disappointed if any single one of you turned out not to have seen The Pleasure Of Finding Thing Out... 50 minutes of gentle genius.
I wanted to say pretty much this, his autobiography is a great read. What a character. There's also a really worthwhile BBC-produced dramatization of his involvement in the Challenger investigation. William Hurt does a really good job portraying the great man, IMHO.
Sorry HornWumpus, I realize this story is quite old now but only just noticed you had replied.
So, just in case you get notifications... I'm honestly not sure what you mean by me "calling out". Do you mean the fact I mentioned Clapper as an example? I'm not even sure what his political affiliation is, but you are of course right; examples abound on both sides.
Or did you rather mean my earlier post citing sumdumass (sic) above? I am also unaware of his preference, although his post was attacking Democrats so I guess you could take my reply as, therefore, somehow disparaging Republicans... But that only makes sense if you insist that we live in a binary world where everyone is 100% left or right, progressive or conservative, Democrat or Republican -- regardless of a specific topic at hand. I personally think that that is not very helpful, but I also see that much discussion of US politics is polarized to this alarming extent.
Also, I am not sure how you got the idea that there is only one political party I "hate" -- disregarding for a moment that that is much too strong a word for my emotions toward any political party anywhere (save perhaps the white supremacists in South Africa in the 80s, or the religious fundamentalists in places like Tehran or Jerusalem).
For what it is worth, I personally feel that both US parties are rather far to the right of my beliefs. So, for the record, I might agree that the Democratic party is slightly less hateworthy than the Republicans, but only just.
Yes, I suppose you are technically correct. Malice or incompetence, and all that. The problem is though, that incompetence becomes too easy an out if it is basically never challenged and remains unpunished (eg Clapper).
I'm curious, why do you take this as a confession, on the part of Assad's regime, that they were responsible for the August attacks?
As far as I know, they have vehemently denied it. Which doesn't mean much, but then again the rebels seem a pretty nasty bunch as well.
Basically the only ones who claim to know for sure is the US govt -- and now they seem to be less sure of that as before (or maybe they honestly still expected anyone to take their word for it, before being disappointment to find themselves alone in the bomb-first-ask-questions-later camp).
You're right of course, there are still differences. But from the outside (I'm not in the US or China) it looks like the gap is closing fast. ALEC would like to see environmentalists with video cameras charged with terrorism, for instance. You're only one party away from a one-party state -- if we can even count dems and reps to be significantly distinct..
Thanks, that's helpful. The summary is rather sensationalist (whodathunk, right?). Although, on the other hand, this would have been a lot more obvious if these TLAs did not make such a habit of conflating terrorism with whatever else they want to "tackle". In other words, no-one would (should) have been surprised if their original advisory did label them terrists.
Honest question, though, how does this Federal BI propose to get at these guys, assuming most of them are not US citizens nor located within its borders? I mean, it's been clear for a while now that the US govt considers the whole world to be withini their jurisdiction, de facto, but is this now official?
Are you joking? Are you joking? People on Slashdot suggest that regularly! REGULARLY.
Well I'm not on/. nearly as often as you seem to be... But I don't think I've seen many people suggest "to stop intelligence surveillance of terrorists completely" (your words). I'm probably wrong though, people say some pretty stupid things on here. I don't mind opinions I disagree with, as long as they are more or less internally consistent. Do you have some examples? Thanks.
More to the point, perhaps. You state, rather matter-of-factly I might add, that the US govt doesn't consider the entire US population to be (terrorist) suspects. And yet you make patently obvious in many of your posts that you think it's fine for that same govt to monitor, essentially, everybody all the time. How does that not clash dissonantly, in your brain?
They're also not even aggressive. [...] The US government is obsessed with attacking them, and their pet nuclear-armed middle eastern rogue nuclear state even more so. Iran isn't saintly - it's not even a good country - but compared to the aggressors here, it's practically Hello Kitty.
Pretty much this.
Iran has more to fear from Israel than vice versa, given recent history and present rhetoric. Naturally the regime in Tehran had to counter this, for selfish reasons to save face in the eyes of their electorate.
I might add, pre-emptively as it were, that the typical charge that they are antisemites is patently false -- Iran is home to one of the largest Jewish communities in the world, and they would appear to thrive and get along just fine.
John Bolton [theguardian.com] has a more nuanced view. No doubt you will disagree.
I'm not particularly nuanced, I don't suppose. Point taken. But are you now posting op-eds in support of your claim? By John Bolton, no less... The pinnacle of nuance, to be sure. But all right, rather than shoot the messenger, which would be easy here, let's look at what he wrote. (Note to others, the following quotes are Bolton, not cold fjord)
Snowden initially violated his oath to safeguard the national security secrets entrusted to him by revealing National Security Agency (NSA) programs arguably affecting the privacy of US citizens
Conventiently not mentioning his other, more fundamental, oath to protect the US constitution? Also, "arguably affecting the privacy"... We can omit the "arguably" here, it seems to me; that has been Snowden's main point (which has not been creditably disputed, as far as I know).
Snowden's sympathizers and anti-American activists have so far largely controlled his story line
Cleverly mentioning "Snowden sympathizers" and "anti-American activists" in close conjunction. The implication being, without actually demonstrating, that they are one and the same. Echoes of Al-Qaeda and Iraq, a decade ago. Bolton's statement that these have "controlled the story line" is arguably true, but not for lack of trying.
We do not yet know whether Snowden jeopardized US agents, but vital sources and methods of intelligence gathering and operations are clearly at risk
Hm, that contradicts the point you were making about how thousands of operatives were already in grave danger. Although I suppose you will say that you were talking about UK operatives. Ok, I'll give you that, sort of.
Snowden has given Beijing something it couldn't achieve on its own: moral equivalence. Now, China can portray itself as a victim, besieged by America, and simply trying to defend itself.
Do you really not see the hypocrisy here? For years the West has accused China and Russia of doing exactly what they were themselves doing all along. So the "damage" here is that the falsely claimed moral highground is now exposed as dishonest fiction.
Snowden's initial leaks on NSA programs also caused substantial political harm, above and beyond the intelligence damage. Several European governments which co-operated with the US are now predictably running for the tall grass, endangering the continuity of existing programs and damaging prospects for future co-operation
Again, taking for granted that *of course* the US were spying on allies, this doesn't even need defending in Bolton's world. The damage is in showing the hypocrisy. Bolton thinks this is a wonderful argument, I say that this statement, coming from a senior US (ex)official, just discredits US diplomacy even further.
As with the Bradley Manning/WikiLeaks exposure of thousands of classified State Department and Pentagon cables, Europeans want to know why Washington can't protect sensitive information.
False, Europeans want to know why their supposed partners in Washington are treating them like adversaries. The bulk of the cables, I might add, turned out to be "embarrassing" rather than "dangerous" to the US.
But Beijing does not deserve moral equivalence, given the intensity of its cyber-attacks against America. The key point is that China struck first, developing a pronounced asymmetric advantage.
I don't know who struck first, if that even makes sense, but I notice Bolton doesn't give any argument to support his claim. What has been revealed though, is that the West was striking for a long time while publicly denying it.
Then he does a bit of character assassination, I am in no position to judge either way. My personal impression, though it should not count for much, is that Snowd
What was found on Miranda was raw intel -- before being edited. Nothing that made it to press, as far as I know, has identified individuals. Also, how is it Snowden's responsibility that these "non official cover" agents enjoy no protection based on that status?
Finally, can I safely assume that you were vehemently opposed to the pardon of Scooter Libby (and by implication Dick Cheney) for outing an agent -- rather than hang for treason? Which was arguably the more reprehensible in that that leak did not purport to do any public service, but was only out of petty spite (and discouraging dissent) because Wilson wasn't playing along with the massive deception leading up to the illegal war in Iraq?
I wonder how many attacks by the Chines, Russians, North Koreans, and Iranians you have blamed on the US? Does anyone in the world do disagreeable things besides the US, in your mind?
And have you, and other NSA cheerleaders, not bitched and moaned about it every single time anyone suggested they were being hacked from China or Russia? Now that it turns out to be hypocrisy, as in the US are doing much the same on a massive scale, it suddenly serves as an argument in their defense?
You zoom in on Iran, conveniently glossing over the huge list of entirely uncontroversial examples of US-backed overthrows of democratically elected regimes (*).
But you fail to notice -- or just pretend to -- that the inked article does not mention the 1979 Islamic revolution which is what you discuss. I think you've got that wrong too, but let's put that aside. The article discusses the overthrow of Mossadegh in the 1953, and includes this gem:
In August 2013 the CIA formally admitted that it was involved in both the planning and the execution of the coup
(*) This list should of course really be complemented by a list of US-backed dictators, to paint a more complete picture of US dedication to "spreading democracy".
Slashdot Mirror
Also, the article claims the shadow banking system has more money than actually exists. So either their math is wrong, or their conclusions are wrong, or both.
Depends, where do you get your figures on how much money exists? Since money ceased to be backed by gold in any meaningful way, the sum total of "all money" is only limited by what a fool thinks it might be.
In the United States, the central banks are regulating the Government.
They love the government as long as it sets rules that let them win.
How is this Flamebait? Come on, mods. Inside Job, watch it.
Ouch, Muphry's law, I stand corrected.
As ESR said in his opus The Cathedral and the Bizarre, Linux is only free if your time has no value. Clearly IBM's time, and chip business, has lots of value. A billion dollar's worth apparently.
That's Bazar, not Bizarre. And the statement is true for just the narrow interpretation of "free", which is to say, "as in beer". ESR is a bit of a self important douche, by the way, but that's just my own take on the guy.
This story is about how this general Alexander character is a powermad nutbag. Pointing over there and yelling "but, AQ" isn't changing that.
... And I would of course be pretty disappointed if any single one of you turned out not to have seen The Pleasure Of Finding Thing Out... 50 minutes of gentle genius.
I wanted to say pretty much this, his autobiography is a great read. What a character. There's also a really worthwhile BBC-produced dramatization of his involvement in the Challenger investigation. William Hurt does a really good job portraying the great man, IMHO.
You can't vote out bureaucrats. They stay in place from administration to administration and really run things.
... Things including, but not limited to, the elected government.
Sorry HornWumpus, I realize this story is quite old now but only just noticed you had replied.
So, just in case you get notifications... I'm honestly not sure what you mean by me "calling out". Do you mean the fact I mentioned Clapper as an example? I'm not even sure what his political affiliation is, but you are of course right; examples abound on both sides.
Or did you rather mean my earlier post citing sumdumass (sic) above? I am also unaware of his preference, although his post was attacking Democrats so I guess you could take my reply as, therefore, somehow disparaging Republicans... But that only makes sense if you insist that we live in a binary world where everyone is 100% left or right, progressive or conservative, Democrat or Republican -- regardless of a specific topic at hand. I personally think that that is not very helpful, but I also see that much discussion of US politics is polarized to this alarming extent.
Also, I am not sure how you got the idea that there is only one political party I "hate" -- disregarding for a moment that that is much too strong a word for my emotions toward any political party anywhere (save perhaps the white supremacists in South Africa in the 80s, or the religious fundamentalists in places like Tehran or Jerusalem).
For what it is worth, I personally feel that both US parties are rather far to the right of my beliefs. So, for the record, I might agree that the Democratic party is slightly less hateworthy than the Republicans, but only just.
Yes, I suppose you are technically correct. Malice or incompetence, and all that. The problem is though, that incompetence becomes too easy an out if it is basically never challenged and remains unpunished (eg Clapper).
Being wrong doesn't make something a lie.
Oh that's priceless!
No,no,no. Too obvious. How about,
667 - neighbor of the beast
I'm curious, why do you take this as a confession, on the part of Assad's regime, that they were responsible for the August attacks?
As far as I know, they have vehemently denied it. Which doesn't mean much, but then again the rebels seem a pretty nasty bunch as well.
Basically the only ones who claim to know for sure is the US govt -- and now they seem to be less sure of that as before (or maybe they honestly still expected anyone to take their word for it, before being disappointment to find themselves alone in the bomb-first-ask-questions-later camp).
You're right of course, there are still differences. But from the outside (I'm not in the US or China) it looks like the gap is closing fast. ALEC would like to see environmentalists with video cameras charged with terrorism, for instance. You're only one party away from a one-party state -- if we can even count dems and reps to be significantly distinct..
Wait.. An 82 year old broke into a nuclear weapons manufacturing reactor site?
Oh, as they say, shit.
And here I thought my granny was tough.
Guess you were right all along, gotta keep an eye on everyone. Hardcore peacenik grannies most of all.
Probably a lot of you have seen this, and it is only on-topic with a lot of imagination. But still, I nearly pissed myself over this
prank
In poor taste? Sure. Funny as hell? You betcha.
Thanks, that's helpful. The summary is rather sensationalist (whodathunk, right?). Although, on the other hand, this would have been a lot more obvious if these TLAs did not make such a habit of conflating terrorism with whatever else they want to "tackle". In other words, no-one would (should) have been surprised if their original advisory did label them terrists.
Honest question, though, how does this Federal BI propose to get at these guys, assuming most of them are not US citizens nor located within its borders? I mean, it's been clear for a while now that the US govt considers the whole world to be withini their jurisdiction, de facto, but is this now official?
Oh shit forgot to ask... How does one use a strawman against a country? Could come in handy one day :-)
Who has been suggesting it?
Are you joking? Are you joking? People on Slashdot suggest that regularly! REGULARLY.
Well I'm not on /. nearly as often as you seem to be... But I don't think I've seen many people suggest "to stop intelligence surveillance of terrorists completely" (your words). I'm probably wrong though, people say some pretty stupid things on here. I don't mind opinions I disagree with, as long as they are more or less internally consistent. Do you have some examples? Thanks.
More to the point, perhaps. You state, rather matter-of-factly I might add, that the US govt doesn't consider the entire US population to be (terrorist) suspects. And yet you make patently obvious in many of your posts that you think it's fine for that same govt to monitor, essentially, everybody all the time. How does that not clash dissonantly, in your brain?
They're also not even aggressive.
[...]
The US government is obsessed with attacking them, and their pet nuclear-armed middle eastern rogue nuclear state even more so. Iran isn't saintly - it's not even a good country - but compared to the aggressors here, it's practically Hello Kitty.
Pretty much this.
Iran has more to fear from Israel than vice versa, given recent history and present rhetoric. Naturally the regime in Tehran had to counter this, for selfish reasons to save face in the eyes of their electorate.
I might add, pre-emptively as it were, that the typical charge that they are antisemites is patently false -- Iran is home to one of the largest Jewish communities in the world, and they would appear to thrive and get along just fine.
Thanks for sharing, that's pretty awesome
John Bolton [theguardian.com] has a more nuanced view. No doubt you will disagree.
I'm not particularly nuanced, I don't suppose. Point taken. But are you now posting op-eds in support of your claim? By John Bolton, no less... The pinnacle of nuance, to be sure. But all right, rather than shoot the messenger, which would be easy here, let's look at what he wrote. (Note to others, the following quotes are Bolton, not cold fjord)
Snowden initially violated his oath to safeguard the national security secrets entrusted to him by revealing National Security Agency (NSA) programs arguably affecting the privacy of US citizens
Conventiently not mentioning his other, more fundamental, oath to protect the US constitution? Also, "arguably affecting the privacy"... We can omit the "arguably" here, it seems to me; that has been Snowden's main point (which has not been creditably disputed, as far as I know).
Snowden's sympathizers and anti-American activists have so far largely controlled his story line
Cleverly mentioning "Snowden sympathizers" and "anti-American activists" in close conjunction. The implication being, without actually demonstrating, that they are one and the same. Echoes of Al-Qaeda and Iraq, a decade ago. Bolton's statement that these have "controlled the story line" is arguably true, but not for lack of trying.
We do not yet know whether Snowden jeopardized US agents, but vital sources and methods of intelligence gathering and operations are clearly at risk
Hm, that contradicts the point you were making about how thousands of operatives were already in grave danger. Although I suppose you will say that you were talking about UK operatives. Ok, I'll give you that, sort of.
Snowden has given Beijing something it couldn't achieve on its own: moral equivalence. Now, China can portray itself as a victim, besieged by America, and simply trying to defend itself.
Do you really not see the hypocrisy here? For years the West has accused China and Russia of doing exactly what they were themselves doing all along. So the "damage" here is that the falsely claimed moral highground is now exposed as dishonest fiction.
Snowden's initial leaks on NSA programs also caused substantial political harm, above and beyond the intelligence damage. Several European governments which co-operated with the US are now predictably running for the tall grass, endangering the continuity of existing programs and damaging prospects for future co-operation
Again, taking for granted that *of course* the US were spying on allies, this doesn't even need defending in Bolton's world. The damage is in showing the hypocrisy. Bolton thinks this is a wonderful argument, I say that this statement, coming from a senior US (ex)official, just discredits US diplomacy even further.
As with the Bradley Manning/WikiLeaks exposure of thousands of classified State Department and Pentagon cables, Europeans want to know why Washington can't protect sensitive information.
False, Europeans want to know why their supposed partners in Washington are treating them like adversaries. The bulk of the cables, I might add, turned out to be "embarrassing" rather than "dangerous" to the US.
But Beijing does not deserve moral equivalence, given the intensity of its cyber-attacks against America. The key point is that China struck first, developing a pronounced asymmetric advantage.
I don't know who struck first, if that even makes sense, but I notice Bolton doesn't give any argument to support his claim. What has been revealed though, is that the West was striking for a long time while publicly denying it.
Then he does a bit of character assassination, I am in no position to judge either way. My personal impression, though it should not count for much, is that Snowd
What was found on Miranda was raw intel -- before being edited. Nothing that made it to press, as far as I know, has identified individuals. Also, how is it Snowden's responsibility that these "non official cover" agents enjoy no protection based on that status?
Finally, can I safely assume that you were vehemently opposed to the pardon of Scooter Libby (and by implication Dick Cheney) for outing an agent -- rather than hang for treason? Which was arguably the more reprehensible in that that leak did not purport to do any public service, but was only out of petty spite (and discouraging dissent) because Wilson wasn't playing along with the massive deception leading up to the illegal war in Iraq?
I wonder how many attacks by the Chines, Russians, North Koreans, and Iranians you have blamed on the US? Does anyone in the world do disagreeable things besides the US, in your mind?
And have you, and other NSA cheerleaders, not bitched and moaned about it every single time anyone suggested they were being hacked from China or Russia? Now that it turns out to be hypocrisy, as in the US are doing much the same on a massive scale, it suddenly serves as an argument in their defense?
Just checking.
So you're saying... It's not all bad? Please.
You zoom in on Iran, conveniently glossing over the huge list of entirely uncontroversial examples of US-backed overthrows of democratically elected regimes (*).
But you fail to notice -- or just pretend to -- that the inked article does not mention the 1979 Islamic revolution which is what you discuss. I think you've got that wrong too, but let's put that aside. The article discusses the overthrow of Mossadegh in the 1953, and includes this gem:
In August 2013 the CIA formally admitted that it was involved in both the planning and the execution of the coup
(*) This list should of course really be complemented by a list of US-backed dictators, to paint a more complete picture of US dedication to "spreading democracy".