The same thing happens with much more serious crimes: murders go unsolved all the time; the Mafia exists in spite of powerful RICO statutes and anti-racketeering laws, tens of millions spent on FBI investigations, etc..
Umm, you make it sound like the efforts to curtail the Mafia have been completely ineffective. I have family members who hail from neighborhoods where back in the day you had to pay protection money to run your business. The Mafia may still exist but they don't have nearly the power that they used to.....
You missed my point entirely: if the person deciding whether an action is legal or not is a member of a political party, then they are more likely to find actions of their own party legal and actions of an opposition party illegal
Well duh! That's why we have so many different layers of Government with overlapping responsibilities. Different layers of Government (Federal/State/Local), different branches of Government (Executive/Legislative and Judaical) and different agencies within those branches (multiple law enforcement agencies at each level of Government, district attorneys, the justice department, the attorney general of OH, etc, etc).
Somewhere within one of those agencies is an ambitious SOB who wants to make a name for himself. If laws were broken then odds are that someone who has a vested interest in not covering it up will discover any crimes and bring them to light.
It's not a pretty system but it sure as hell beats the alternatives doesn't it?
However, if the call transits a different carrier, then the LEC that handles termination for the target of the scammer only knows the caller ID that was passed to it from the transit carrier.
That's not entirely accurate. ANI exists separately from caller id and is generally much harder to spoof. The LEC probably has access to this information -- whether or not they will share it with you sans subpoena is another matter altogether.....
They just installed a new 750 gallon tank in their basement, and with all the metal halide lights (used to promote plant/coral growth), their power bill is pushing $700/month. I've spoken with him about switching to new full-spectrum LED systems that have a higher initial investment, but would bring his bill down to $250-$350/month.
That's gotta be dumping a lot of waste heat into his house too.... how much does he spend on A/C?
I am not sure I would depend on this case too much. As I understood it the state was not required to pursue to the key to secure a conviction but rather the guy was convicted based on the testimony of the customs guards.
How does that change the fact that the ruling was based on the right against self-incrimination and held that he couldn't be compelled to turn over the key? And what of the Bush defense? What are they going to do if you say you can't recall the key? I suppose they could hold you in contempt for a time but what if you honestly couldn't recall the key? My encryption key is >20 letters and I'm not sure if I could remember it if my PC was seized and I wasn't typing it in on a daily basis.
I would also point you to the criminal who used the (Seagate?) hard drive encryption and got convicted anyway (mostly of being an ass I think)
Do you have a link? I'm not familiar with that case.
As far as I can tell the main tactic has been avoiding direct attacks on encryption
That is the main tactic. Which is why I'd be much more worried about a sneak-and-peek warrant being used to install a hardware key logger than I would be by a cold boot attack or some other effort to compromise my already running system. If you are truly afraid of the Feds then you'd better be sleeping with your computer under your pillow or have a team of armed guards watching it 24/7.
I'm not nearly that paranoid -- the main reason my hard drive is encrypted is because it has all of my financial data on it and I've had neighbors who have been burglarized. I can't stop some dimwitted criminal from breaking into my house and stealing my PC but I sure as hell can stop him from recovering my sensitive information.
From there they simply keep it alive.
How does keeping it alive help them if you are running a secure OS? If there is a way to bypass the authentication system of a properly configured Linux box I'm not aware of it. Hell I'm not aware of one for Windows either but I take that with a grain of salt (closed source and all that). Granted if it's running then you've probably already lost -- the aforementioned cold boot attack vector -- but I'm curious how they would go about doing it otherwise?
I don't think the cold boot attack is likely to be used by domestic TLAs or local enforcement but I would not rely on such assumptions.
My experience with local law enforcement leads me to think that a decoder ring from Ovaltine would be enough to beat them;) Well, maybe not to that degree, but I had an experience a number of years ago where I was accused of a computer-related crime. It's a long story that I've told here before but what sticks out in my mind is how they never even bothered to get warrants to seize and search any of my PCs. There wasn't anything incriminating on them but I've always found it interesting that they didn't bother to at least look for evidence. They went to Grand Jury with a bunch of screen shots and a MAC address (that wasn't even mine -- not that it matters because we all know how easily those are spoofed or changed) and couldn't even get an indictment.
I'd say the existence of encryption is ample evidence to convince a judge to compel you to reveal your key.
Umm, in the United States the case law so far suggests that they can't compel you to turn over the key. Even if they did compel you to turn off the key what's to stop you from adopting the Bush Administration approach of "I can't recall"?
I'd also say that most enforcement agencies, which are going to participating in such a no-knock raid on a domestic terrorist, have some pretty damn interesting forensic tools designed to circumvent encryption (Preventing the computer from ever going to sleep is one common tactic employed).
Well, I'm a little confused as to why you felt the need to bring up the 'T' word, but regardless, how can it be assured that the PC is on when they raid the house? If the PC isn't on then what good does having access to it do? The big concern that I've read about is a cold boot attack -- but that seems to be a moot point if the PC is already turned off. Is there some other method that can be used to attack encrypted drives that I'm not aware of?
Not to mention, MS Windows XP (at I seem to recall earlier versions) come with an on screen keyboard. Programs > Accessories > Accessibility > On Screen Keyboard.
So, if you use MS Windows (and TrueCrypt was written originally for MS Windows, and based on earlier code written for MS Windows), don't complain. And if you are using GNOME, I just found at least two programs available in Ubuntu repositories, I'm sure that there are plenty more.
None of that helps you if you are using system encryption and the truecrypt bootloader......
Probably because it's not just computers that emit electromagnetic radiation. Even the mains wiring will emit a certain amount.
So what if you just shield the room where the PC is? They'd still see emissions from your TV and other appliances but none from the PC. I'd also say let em knock down my door. If they can't compromise my encryption key then seizing my PC isn't going to be very useful.....
here might be a few Democrats who want to, but the party as a whole, under the leadership of Pelosi, has done nothing to pull out of Iraq.
What do you want them to do? Cut off funding for the troops and sign their political death warrants? Bush will veto any bill with a timetable for withdrawal -- so the only choice the Democrats have is to refuse to pass any funding bill. If they did that we'd be looking at a GOP landslide and four more years of war.
Similarly, the party under Pelosi has done nothing to pursue impeachment of Bush or Cheney, even though a few elements (Kucinich) have pushed for it.
Again, look at the reality on the ground. Can you name me 16 Republican Senators that will vote for a conviction? (17 if Lieberman voted for acquittal, which seems likely) What would be the point of pursuing impeachment and further dividing this country when the outcome would be predetermined?
I've heard it argued that American involvement in WWI is what directly led to WWII, and that the world would have been better off if we had not gotten involved in WWI and just let Germany win. They didn't get really nasty until they were oppressed by the Allies after their WWI defeat, and turned to fascism and Hitler.
"Really" nasty is in the eye of the beholder. They weren't running death chambers in WW1 but they were fighting a war of aggression -- ever read the details of the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk? In any case our involvement wasn't a sure thing until Germany started sinking American ships and plotting with our enemies in this hemisphere. Google the 'Zimmermann Telegram' for more information.
Korea wasn't terribly successful
It preserved South Korean independence. They are now a stable democracy and an ally of the United States. That's not 'terribly successful'? What would you have done differently in Truman's shoes? Expanded the war into China? Not fought it at all and allow the conquest of the South?
Vietnam was a complete disaster (and there was never a reason for us to go there anyway)
Blame that on the French;)
The people who weren't opposed to it were the ones who created the mess in the first place through their disastrous economic policies, such as overturning the Glass-Steagal act (which was authored by Graham, now McCain's economic advisor, and signed into law by Clinton). Having the government take ownership of the financial sector amounts to fascism, and is not a solution.
So what would you do differently? Adopt a Libertarian laissez-faire approach and allow the collapse to happen? That might speed along the asset price readjustments that need to happen -- but it probably wouldn't be terribly popular with the millions of people who would lose their jobs. Remember that any plan you come up with needs the support of a majority of the electorate to be successful.
Sorry, but it's all pork, regardless of where it is. The Federal government has no business funding projects in States, except for things like National Parks. Bridges and the like are things States need to pay for themselves. Does the Federal government pave the roads in your subdivision, in front of your house? Of course not, that's a local or state responsibility. So why should the Federal government be involved in bridges, or other projects of local interest? You might be able to make a case for interstate highway infrastructure, where there's a strategic interest, but bridges to islands with 50 people on them do not fall in this category. Research on wool is also not something in the national interest.
I agree with you. The blue states tend to pay out more in Federal taxes than they take back in -- my state gets something like 80% back. The other 20% is "redistributed" to poorer red states who then boast about how low their state taxes are and steal ou
Due to the "anti-terror" (and before them but to much lesser degree the "anti drug") regulations all such databases can be integrated and mined by whatever governmental "security" fetishists are inclined to do so
And I'm concerned by those developments. I still think you need to adjust your tinfoil hat though. We were specifically talking about rental applications -- you seem to be under the impression that all such applications need to be included in one of these databases. I've never seen any law or regulation that would require that.
If there is such a law or regulation in your hometown then my original advice still applies: Take it up with your local and/or state government. I do realize what you are trying to say when you point out that even local/state databases are integrated into Federal efforts -- but I'm not aware of any Federal mandate requiring the States to maintain a database of rental applications.
Which precludes this thing called "privacy". Which was the entire point of my post. For what supposed "purpose" that privacy is removed is quite irrelevant, be it "security" or "taxation" or "credit worthiness" or whatever, it matters not. The point is simply that privacy no longer exists.
I agree. But I don't think you make the best argument for our cause when you fret over paperwork that your landlord has to submit to "wherever". I would also take issue with this comment:
Also, as you pointed out yourself, restrictions against paying cash is only one prong of the attack against privacy
There are no "restrictions" against paying cash. I could buy a $50,000 car with cash if I was so inclined. I might have to explain where I got that cash from but if I could produce a withdrawal receipt from my bank I don't think I'd have many issues.
The limit is $2,000. The $5,000 was a typo on my part. There is not much room between $1,000 and $2,000 when compared to typical capital expense. A TV set is these days commonly more then $2,000.
And I could walk right down to Circuit City and buy a $2,000 TV with cash if I was inclined to do so. Nobody is stopping me from doing that.
It doesn't really matter as local, state and federal governments cross-pollinate the same "terror" databases these days.
I think your tinfoil hat needs to be adjusted if you are worrying about terror databases related to rental applications. I'm far more worried about what the commercial sector is doing with my private information than I am about the Government. I can vote the Governmental bastards out of office. I have no such choice when it comes to Equifax, Trans Union, Lexis Nexis or Choice Point.
The published by the IRS [irs.gov] regulations vary between $5,000-10,000, although I am certain that I read somewhere about the new limit in some transactions being $1000 due to the Bad Guys Under Every Bed, but I have no time to go find it for you at the moment.
So what you are saying is that the published regulations agree with the numbers that I said and the $1,000 limit that you've discussed isn't supported in the official literature?
So you are taking the actions of a single city known for rampant corruption and expanding them out to the entire United States?
We've had natural disasters in my neck of the woods. Nobody came around town taking our guns away. And I live in one of the bluest states (New York) on the map.
Also, as you pointed out yourself, restrictions against paying cash is only one prong of the attack against privacy, many others exist like for example the vehicle registration and the paperwork your landlord has to submit to wherever.
Umm, care to submit a citation for that last claim? I've been involved in rentals for a long time and I've never had to submit any paperwork when I rent out one of my units. Maybe it's different in your city but that's an issue for local and maybe state government to fret about -- not the Feds.
Granted, if a tenant files a complaint with [INSERT REGULATORY AGENCY HERE] you'll have to respond with paperwork -- but as a matter of course? Not in my area.
It's no longer $10,000, its $1000 these days.
Citation? I do consulting work on the side and get paid in cash for a few of my jobs. I've routinely made bank deposits and withdrawals in the four digit range. Nobody has ever questioned it or even looked at me strange.
Err... to stop that they passed laws dealing with "suspicious amounts of cash". I.e. car dealers, real estate agents and even places like Best Buy are supposed to demand ID and report you if you use cash in amounts greater then a certain amount (I think it is $1000 these days during the War On Terror, thanks to which it has been lowered down from $10,000 during the War On Drugs). So no, cash is not going to get you anywhere unless you also plan to live under the bridge.
Well, I don't think the car analogy is a very good one. I'm already going to have to show ID when I register the thing -- or do you also think that license plates are a violation of your privacy? And "suspicious amounts of cash"? I don't know about you but my take home pay is a lot less than $10,000 a pay cycle. I could live a cash lifestyle if I was willing to try hard enough -- it would be a PITA but very doable.
And who keeps the government in check with the constitution?
Well, if worst comes to worst the military swears an oath to uphold the Constitution, not to follow every single order of POTUS. If POTUS ordered the military to nuke New York City it's a reasonably safe assumption that they would refuse to carry out that order.
For example, during Catrina, they confiscated firearms for law abiding citizens for their own protection.
Blame the State of Louisiana for that. That would never happen in my state -- if for no other reason than my state doesn't register rifles and shotguns and has no way of knowing whether or not I own one. Our cops also don't abandon their posts during times of crisis. There's a lot of fucked up shit you could bring up regarding Louisiana.
And since most people were forced into "repayment plans" that they couldn't afford, they just abandoned ship
What are you basing this on? Do you even know how bankruptcy works?
In a Chapter 13 they take your approved expenses (rent/mortgage, food, gas, insurance, utilities, medical, etc, etc, etc) and subtract them from your income. The remaining amount is 'disposable income' and gets paid into the bankruptcy plan. If you wound up in a repayment plan you couldn't afford then you had a very bad bankruptcy attorney -- my bankruptcy attorney worked with his clients to lower the 'disposable income' amount as much as possible.
Furthermore, the litmus test only applies to people who have incomes higher than the median income of your state. In NY that figure is >$50,000. If you are making less than that amount you aren't subject to the litmus test and can choose between a Chapter 7 and Chapter 13. If you are above the median income than the litmus test comes into play and you might have to file a 13 if you have disposable income left after the expense calculation.
Go talk to any BK attorney. Most will tell you that the overwhelming majority of their clients aren't impacted by any of this. The biggest problem with the BK "reform" bill is that it imposed a ton of new requirements which drove up the cost of filing BK -- in the case of my attorney his fee went from $800 pre-reform to $1,500 post-reform. That sucks a lot -- but it's hardly the debtor prison that a lot of people are making it out to be.
They left behind empty houses and banks were left in dire straits.
And WTF does this have to do with the new bankruptcy laws? Under the old system you would have to file a Chapter 13 anyway to keep your house in most scenarios. The only way you can retain your house in a Chapter 7 is if you reaffirm the mortgage (if any exists), are timely with the payments and the amount of your equity is under the exemption limit for your state. In New York that limit is only $10,000 -- so you'd lose your home in a Ch-7 if you have more than $10,000 of equity in it. There's a reason why Chapter 7 is called liquidation.
where the quality of care suffers the problems that Canada has now.
And the quality of care isn't already suffering? Have you read about the general practitioner shortage? The OB/GYN shortage? The wait time in some parts of this country to see a specialist?
and the reason I said that is because they will not want health insurance
Then we'll get it from them in the form of taxes. Like I said, I don't really have a philosophical problem with this concept.
It's not just a double digit lead, it's a lead in all the key states necessary to win.
More than that, McCain needs to win practically all of those contested states to get to 270. Obama only needs to win one decent sized one (VA, OH or FL) or 2-3 little ones (CO, NV, NM, NH) to get to 270.
It could all be over before the polls even close in my state (9pm EST). VA/OH and FL all close at 8pm. If McCain doesn't win all three of them he is toast.
Hey, look, if you are arguing that most politicians, regardless of party, are in the pockets of big business, I'm right with you. But you are trying to pin it all on the Democrats, and right now, they are BY FAR the lesser of two evils. The Republicans have turned into a sad parody of their true ideals.
I knew there was a reason why you are on my friends list.... well said!
My brother had to have open heart surgery and he was without insurance. The operation was estimated at $250K without complications. What he did was go to the doctor and explain his situation. "I need this surgery, and if it bankrupts me, you get screwed and I get screwed. What are my options of how you can get paid, and I can keep my credit?" So he managed to find an insurance company that would pay for it, despite it being an existing condition, (through his university) and the surgery was scheduled for when the policy would come into effect. If you want to play the game, sometimes you have to learn the rules. It's often better to consult with the scorekeepers than the rulebooks.
What would your brother have done if the situation was more critical and he needed the operation today and didn't have time to shop for a policy?
The only problem that you pointed out that I can see is this one:
the wealthy people can opt out of having health insurance altogether
You probably meant to say 'healthy' instead of 'wealthy'. Wealthy people have no incentive to drop medical insurance because the cost of the insurance is comparatively cheap against the cost of getting a serious illness. Just because they might be able to afford that illness doesn't mean it doesn't make sense to carry insurance. A really wealthy person could probably afford to go without car insurance -- but car insurance is cheap for the amount of protection provided -- so it doesn't usually make sense to go without it even though you could afford an accident or a lawsuit. Would you rather pay a few hundred bucks every six months or roll the dice on losing a personal injury lawsuit after an automobile accident?
Assuming you meant to say 'healthy' then that's a problem with any insurance system that doesn't have mandated coverage. I honestly don't have an answer for you on this -- I'm not a fan of Governmental mandates and disagreed with Hillary when she purposed one. I do see your point that the taxpayers are going to wind up paying anyway but as I've already said I don't have a philosophical problem with that concept.
I'd be curious to know what the real numbers are of healthy people who opt out of insurance coverage. I considered doing it myself but decided not to when I thought of my friend who got cancer in her 20s and wound up with >$200,000 worth of medical bills. The $1,400 I pay for my policy (my portion is 25% so my employer pays 3 times as much) is peanuts compared to the risk it's protecting me against.
Well, I'm not a legal expert or a lawyer but I would start by reforming the damages process so people can't collect massive punitive damages in cases where negligence didn't occur. This doesn't represent a large dollar amount (they are only awarded in something like 2% of civil cases) but it would be a good start.
You might also consider some sort of 'no fault' system similar to what a few states have for auto insurance to try and resolve legitimate cases without needing to go to court. This would help to bring the legal fees down and ensure that more of the money actually winds up in the hands of the injured party.
Slashdot Mirror
The same thing happens with much more serious crimes: murders go unsolved all the time; the Mafia exists in spite of powerful RICO statutes and anti-racketeering laws, tens of millions spent on FBI investigations, etc..
Umm, you make it sound like the efforts to curtail the Mafia have been completely ineffective. I have family members who hail from neighborhoods where back in the day you had to pay protection money to run your business. The Mafia may still exist but they don't have nearly the power that they used to.....
You missed my point entirely: if the person deciding whether an action is legal or not is a member of a political party, then they are more likely to find actions of their own party legal and actions of an opposition party illegal
Well duh! That's why we have so many different layers of Government with overlapping responsibilities. Different layers of Government (Federal/State/Local), different branches of Government (Executive/Legislative and Judaical) and different agencies within those branches (multiple law enforcement agencies at each level of Government, district attorneys, the justice department, the attorney general of OH, etc, etc).
Somewhere within one of those agencies is an ambitious SOB who wants to make a name for himself. If laws were broken then odds are that someone who has a vested interest in not covering it up will discover any crimes and bring them to light.
It's not a pretty system but it sure as hell beats the alternatives doesn't it?
Did the Strom Troopers also get electrocuted in the showers on the Death Star?
However, if the call transits a different carrier, then the LEC that handles termination for the target of the scammer only knows the caller ID that was passed to it from the transit carrier.
That's not entirely accurate. ANI exists separately from caller id and is generally much harder to spoof. The LEC probably has access to this information -- whether or not they will share it with you sans subpoena is another matter altogether.....
They just installed a new 750 gallon tank in their basement, and with all the metal halide lights (used to promote plant/coral growth), their power bill is pushing $700/month. I've spoken with him about switching to new full-spectrum LED systems that have a higher initial investment, but would bring his bill down to $250-$350/month.
That's gotta be dumping a lot of waste heat into his house too.... how much does he spend on A/C?
I am not sure I would depend on this case too much. As I understood it the state was not required to pursue to the key to secure a conviction but rather the guy was convicted based on the testimony of the customs guards.
How does that change the fact that the ruling was based on the right against self-incrimination and held that he couldn't be compelled to turn over the key? And what of the Bush defense? What are they going to do if you say you can't recall the key? I suppose they could hold you in contempt for a time but what if you honestly couldn't recall the key? My encryption key is >20 letters and I'm not sure if I could remember it if my PC was seized and I wasn't typing it in on a daily basis.
I would also point you to the criminal who used the (Seagate?) hard drive encryption and got convicted anyway (mostly of being an ass I think)
Do you have a link? I'm not familiar with that case.
As far as I can tell the main tactic has been avoiding direct attacks on encryption
That is the main tactic. Which is why I'd be much more worried about a sneak-and-peek warrant being used to install a hardware key logger than I would be by a cold boot attack or some other effort to compromise my already running system. If you are truly afraid of the Feds then you'd better be sleeping with your computer under your pillow or have a team of armed guards watching it 24/7.
I'm not nearly that paranoid -- the main reason my hard drive is encrypted is because it has all of my financial data on it and I've had neighbors who have been burglarized. I can't stop some dimwitted criminal from breaking into my house and stealing my PC but I sure as hell can stop him from recovering my sensitive information.
From there they simply keep it alive.
How does keeping it alive help them if you are running a secure OS? If there is a way to bypass the authentication system of a properly configured Linux box I'm not aware of it. Hell I'm not aware of one for Windows either but I take that with a grain of salt (closed source and all that). Granted if it's running then you've probably already lost -- the aforementioned cold boot attack vector -- but I'm curious how they would go about doing it otherwise?
I don't think the cold boot attack is likely to be used by domestic TLAs or local enforcement but I would not rely on such assumptions.
My experience with local law enforcement leads me to think that a decoder ring from Ovaltine would be enough to beat them ;) Well, maybe not to that degree, but I had an experience a number of years ago where I was accused of a computer-related crime. It's a long story that I've told here before but what sticks out in my mind is how they never even bothered to get warrants to seize and search any of my PCs. There wasn't anything incriminating on them but I've always found it interesting that they didn't bother to at least look for evidence. They went to Grand Jury with a bunch of screen shots and a MAC address (that wasn't even mine -- not that it matters because we all know how easily those are spoofed or changed) and couldn't even get an indictment.
Uh, duh yeah, a hammer.
Well I guess you can break AES-256 encryption with a hammer if you really want to ;) Can you decrypt it though? ;)
I'd say the existence of encryption is ample evidence to convince a judge to compel you to reveal your key.
Umm, in the United States the case law so far suggests that they can't compel you to turn over the key. Even if they did compel you to turn off the key what's to stop you from adopting the Bush Administration approach of "I can't recall"?
I'd also say that most enforcement agencies, which are going to participating in such a no-knock raid on a domestic terrorist, have some pretty damn interesting forensic tools designed to circumvent encryption (Preventing the computer from ever going to sleep is one common tactic employed).
Well, I'm a little confused as to why you felt the need to bring up the 'T' word, but regardless, how can it be assured that the PC is on when they raid the house? If the PC isn't on then what good does having access to it do? The big concern that I've read about is a cold boot attack -- but that seems to be a moot point if the PC is already turned off. Is there some other method that can be used to attack encrypted drives that I'm not aware of?
Not to mention, MS Windows XP (at I seem to recall earlier versions) come with an on screen keyboard. Programs > Accessories > Accessibility > On Screen Keyboard.
So, if you use MS Windows (and TrueCrypt was written originally for MS Windows, and based on earlier code written for MS Windows), don't complain. And if you are using GNOME, I just found at least two programs available in Ubuntu repositories, I'm sure that there are plenty more.
None of that helps you if you are using system encryption and the truecrypt bootloader......
Probably because it's not just computers that emit electromagnetic radiation. Even the mains wiring will emit a certain amount.
So what if you just shield the room where the PC is? They'd still see emissions from your TV and other appliances but none from the PC. I'd also say let em knock down my door. If they can't compromise my encryption key then seizing my PC isn't going to be very useful.....
Well, I for one am intrigued by these topics and wish to learn more.
Just don't get into the scary looking van young padawan ;)
here might be a few Democrats who want to, but the party as a whole, under the leadership of Pelosi, has done nothing to pull out of Iraq.
What do you want them to do? Cut off funding for the troops and sign their political death warrants? Bush will veto any bill with a timetable for withdrawal -- so the only choice the Democrats have is to refuse to pass any funding bill. If they did that we'd be looking at a GOP landslide and four more years of war.
Similarly, the party under Pelosi has done nothing to pursue impeachment of Bush or Cheney, even though a few elements (Kucinich) have pushed for it.
Again, look at the reality on the ground. Can you name me 16 Republican Senators that will vote for a conviction? (17 if Lieberman voted for acquittal, which seems likely) What would be the point of pursuing impeachment and further dividing this country when the outcome would be predetermined?
I've heard it argued that American involvement in WWI is what directly led to WWII, and that the world would have been better off if we had not gotten involved in WWI and just let Germany win. They didn't get really nasty until they were oppressed by the Allies after their WWI defeat, and turned to fascism and Hitler.
"Really" nasty is in the eye of the beholder. They weren't running death chambers in WW1 but they were fighting a war of aggression -- ever read the details of the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk? In any case our involvement wasn't a sure thing until Germany started sinking American ships and plotting with our enemies in this hemisphere. Google the 'Zimmermann Telegram' for more information.
Korea wasn't terribly successful
It preserved South Korean independence. They are now a stable democracy and an ally of the United States. That's not 'terribly successful'? What would you have done differently in Truman's shoes? Expanded the war into China? Not fought it at all and allow the conquest of the South?
Vietnam was a complete disaster (and there was never a reason for us to go there anyway)
Blame that on the French ;)
The people who weren't opposed to it were the ones who created the mess in the first place through their disastrous economic policies, such as overturning the Glass-Steagal act (which was authored by Graham, now McCain's economic advisor, and signed into law by Clinton). Having the government take ownership of the financial sector amounts to fascism, and is not a solution.
So what would you do differently? Adopt a Libertarian laissez-faire approach and allow the collapse to happen? That might speed along the asset price readjustments that need to happen -- but it probably wouldn't be terribly popular with the millions of people who would lose their jobs. Remember that any plan you come up with needs the support of a majority of the electorate to be successful.
Sorry, but it's all pork, regardless of where it is. The Federal government has no business funding projects in States, except for things like National Parks. Bridges and the like are things States need to pay for themselves. Does the Federal government pave the roads in your subdivision, in front of your house? Of course not, that's a local or state responsibility. So why should the Federal government be involved in bridges, or other projects of local interest? You might be able to make a case for interstate highway infrastructure, where there's a strategic interest, but bridges to islands with 50 people on them do not fall in this category. Research on wool is also not something in the national interest.
I agree with you. The blue states tend to pay out more in Federal taxes than they take back in -- my state gets something like 80% back. The other 20% is "redistributed" to poorer red states who then boast about how low their state taxes are and steal ou
Due to the "anti-terror" (and before them but to much lesser degree the "anti drug") regulations all such databases can be integrated and mined by whatever governmental "security" fetishists are inclined to do so
And I'm concerned by those developments. I still think you need to adjust your tinfoil hat though. We were specifically talking about rental applications -- you seem to be under the impression that all such applications need to be included in one of these databases. I've never seen any law or regulation that would require that.
If there is such a law or regulation in your hometown then my original advice still applies: Take it up with your local and/or state government. I do realize what you are trying to say when you point out that even local/state databases are integrated into Federal efforts -- but I'm not aware of any Federal mandate requiring the States to maintain a database of rental applications.
Which precludes this thing called "privacy". Which was the entire point of my post. For what supposed "purpose" that privacy is removed is quite irrelevant, be it "security" or "taxation" or "credit worthiness" or whatever, it matters not. The point is simply that privacy no longer exists.
I agree. But I don't think you make the best argument for our cause when you fret over paperwork that your landlord has to submit to "wherever". I would also take issue with this comment:
Also, as you pointed out yourself, restrictions against paying cash is only one prong of the attack against privacy
There are no "restrictions" against paying cash. I could buy a $50,000 car with cash if I was so inclined. I might have to explain where I got that cash from but if I could produce a withdrawal receipt from my bank I don't think I'd have many issues.
The limit is $2,000. The $5,000 was a typo on my part. There is not much room between $1,000 and $2,000 when compared to typical capital expense. A TV set is these days commonly more then $2,000.
And I could walk right down to Circuit City and buy a $2,000 TV with cash if I was inclined to do so. Nobody is stopping me from doing that.
It doesn't really matter as local, state and federal governments cross-pollinate the same "terror" databases these days.
I think your tinfoil hat needs to be adjusted if you are worrying about terror databases related to rental applications. I'm far more worried about what the commercial sector is doing with my private information than I am about the Government. I can vote the Governmental bastards out of office. I have no such choice when it comes to Equifax, Trans Union, Lexis Nexis or Choice Point.
The published by the IRS [irs.gov] regulations vary between $5,000-10,000, although I am certain that I read somewhere about the new limit in some transactions being $1000 due to the Bad Guys Under Every Bed, but I have no time to go find it for you at the moment.
So what you are saying is that the published regulations agree with the numbers that I said and the $1,000 limit that you've discussed isn't supported in the official literature?
So you are taking the actions of a single city known for rampant corruption and expanding them out to the entire United States?
We've had natural disasters in my neck of the woods. Nobody came around town taking our guns away. And I live in one of the bluest states (New York) on the map.
Also, as you pointed out yourself, restrictions against paying cash is only one prong of the attack against privacy, many others exist like for example the vehicle registration and the paperwork your landlord has to submit to wherever.
Umm, care to submit a citation for that last claim? I've been involved in rentals for a long time and I've never had to submit any paperwork when I rent out one of my units. Maybe it's different in your city but that's an issue for local and maybe state government to fret about -- not the Feds.
Granted, if a tenant files a complaint with [INSERT REGULATORY AGENCY HERE] you'll have to respond with paperwork -- but as a matter of course? Not in my area.
It's no longer $10,000, its $1000 these days.
Citation? I do consulting work on the side and get paid in cash for a few of my jobs. I've routinely made bank deposits and withdrawals in the four digit range. Nobody has ever questioned it or even looked at me strange.
Err... to stop that they passed laws dealing with "suspicious amounts of cash". I.e. car dealers, real estate agents and even places like Best Buy are supposed to demand ID and report you if you use cash in amounts greater then a certain amount (I think it is $1000 these days during the War On Terror, thanks to which it has been lowered down from $10,000 during the War On Drugs). So no, cash is not going to get you anywhere unless you also plan to live under the bridge.
Well, I don't think the car analogy is a very good one. I'm already going to have to show ID when I register the thing -- or do you also think that license plates are a violation of your privacy? And "suspicious amounts of cash"? I don't know about you but my take home pay is a lot less than $10,000 a pay cycle. I could live a cash lifestyle if I was willing to try hard enough -- it would be a PITA but very doable.
And who keeps the government in check with the constitution?
Well, if worst comes to worst the military swears an oath to uphold the Constitution, not to follow every single order of POTUS. If POTUS ordered the military to nuke New York City it's a reasonably safe assumption that they would refuse to carry out that order.
For example, during Catrina, they confiscated firearms for law abiding citizens for their own protection.
Blame the State of Louisiana for that. That would never happen in my state -- if for no other reason than my state doesn't register rifles and shotguns and has no way of knowing whether or not I own one. Our cops also don't abandon their posts during times of crisis. There's a lot of fucked up shit you could bring up regarding Louisiana.
And since most people were forced into "repayment plans" that they couldn't afford, they just abandoned ship
What are you basing this on? Do you even know how bankruptcy works?
In a Chapter 13 they take your approved expenses (rent/mortgage, food, gas, insurance, utilities, medical, etc, etc, etc) and subtract them from your income. The remaining amount is 'disposable income' and gets paid into the bankruptcy plan. If you wound up in a repayment plan you couldn't afford then you had a very bad bankruptcy attorney -- my bankruptcy attorney worked with his clients to lower the 'disposable income' amount as much as possible.
Furthermore, the litmus test only applies to people who have incomes higher than the median income of your state. In NY that figure is >$50,000. If you are making less than that amount you aren't subject to the litmus test and can choose between a Chapter 7 and Chapter 13. If you are above the median income than the litmus test comes into play and you might have to file a 13 if you have disposable income left after the expense calculation.
Go talk to any BK attorney. Most will tell you that the overwhelming majority of their clients aren't impacted by any of this. The biggest problem with the BK "reform" bill is that it imposed a ton of new requirements which drove up the cost of filing BK -- in the case of my attorney his fee went from $800 pre-reform to $1,500 post-reform. That sucks a lot -- but it's hardly the debtor prison that a lot of people are making it out to be.
They left behind empty houses and banks were left in dire straits.
And WTF does this have to do with the new bankruptcy laws? Under the old system you would have to file a Chapter 13 anyway to keep your house in most scenarios. The only way you can retain your house in a Chapter 7 is if you reaffirm the mortgage (if any exists), are timely with the payments and the amount of your equity is under the exemption limit for your state. In New York that limit is only $10,000 -- so you'd lose your home in a Ch-7 if you have more than $10,000 of equity in it. There's a reason why Chapter 7 is called liquidation.
where the quality of care suffers the problems that Canada has now.
And the quality of care isn't already suffering? Have you read about the general practitioner shortage? The OB/GYN shortage? The wait time in some parts of this country to see a specialist?
and the reason I said that is because they will not want health insurance
Then we'll get it from them in the form of taxes. Like I said, I don't really have a philosophical problem with this concept.
It's not just a double digit lead, it's a lead in all the key states necessary to win.
More than that, McCain needs to win practically all of those contested states to get to 270. Obama only needs to win one decent sized one (VA, OH or FL) or 2-3 little ones (CO, NV, NM, NH) to get to 270.
It could all be over before the polls even close in my state (9pm EST). VA/OH and FL all close at 8pm. If McCain doesn't win all three of them he is toast.
Hey, look, if you are arguing that most politicians, regardless of party, are in the pockets of big business, I'm right with you. But you are trying to pin it all on the Democrats, and right now, they are BY FAR the lesser of two evils. The Republicans have turned into a sad parody of their true ideals.
I knew there was a reason why you are on my friends list.... well said!
My brother had to have open heart surgery and he was without insurance. The operation was estimated at $250K without complications. What he did was go to the doctor and explain his situation. "I need this surgery, and if it bankrupts me, you get screwed and I get screwed. What are my options of how you can get paid, and I can keep my credit?" So he managed to find an insurance company that would pay for it, despite it being an existing condition, (through his university) and the surgery was scheduled for when the policy would come into effect. If you want to play the game, sometimes you have to learn the rules. It's often better to consult with the scorekeepers than the rulebooks.
What would your brother have done if the situation was more critical and he needed the operation today and didn't have time to shop for a policy?
The only problem that you pointed out that I can see is this one:
the wealthy people can opt out of having health insurance altogether
You probably meant to say 'healthy' instead of 'wealthy'. Wealthy people have no incentive to drop medical insurance because the cost of the insurance is comparatively cheap against the cost of getting a serious illness. Just because they might be able to afford that illness doesn't mean it doesn't make sense to carry insurance. A really wealthy person could probably afford to go without car insurance -- but car insurance is cheap for the amount of protection provided -- so it doesn't usually make sense to go without it even though you could afford an accident or a lawsuit. Would you rather pay a few hundred bucks every six months or roll the dice on losing a personal injury lawsuit after an automobile accident?
Assuming you meant to say 'healthy' then that's a problem with any insurance system that doesn't have mandated coverage. I honestly don't have an answer for you on this -- I'm not a fan of Governmental mandates and disagreed with Hillary when she purposed one. I do see your point that the taxpayers are going to wind up paying anyway but as I've already said I don't have a philosophical problem with that concept.
I'd be curious to know what the real numbers are of healthy people who opt out of insurance coverage. I considered doing it myself but decided not to when I thought of my friend who got cancer in her 20s and wound up with >$200,000 worth of medical bills. The $1,400 I pay for my policy (my portion is 25% so my employer pays 3 times as much) is peanuts compared to the risk it's protecting me against.
Well, I'm not a legal expert or a lawyer but I would start by reforming the damages process so people can't collect massive punitive damages in cases where negligence didn't occur. This doesn't represent a large dollar amount (they are only awarded in something like 2% of civil cases) but it would be a good start.
You might also consider some sort of 'no fault' system similar to what a few states have for auto insurance to try and resolve legitimate cases without needing to go to court. This would help to bring the legal fees down and ensure that more of the money actually winds up in the hands of the injured party.