You could destroy most of the ruling class and infrastructure with a single nuke to the NK capital. The rest of the country is practically pre-industrial, judging from the nighttime illuminant maps and google Earth flyovers.
NK has pretty much nothing to lose, therefore war will not be nearly as devastating to them as it would be SK.
Shopper: What ya got? Town: Well, we got Walmart. Kmart and Walmart. Kmart, Walmart, and BestBuy. Walmart, Kmart, Walmart, and BestBuy. Walmart, Kmart, Walmart, BestBuy, and Walmart. Walmart, Walmart....
Yep. If Amazon has no problem with the bible then books should be allowed with child porn, incest, rape, murder, genocide, etc. , because the bible pretty much has all of them. Oh, and the Koran too. And the Talmud. And multiple myths and legends from multiple cultures.
Has it ever occurred to you that one of the reasons why NASA missions are so expensive is because you can't just yank shit of a shelf, stuff it in a box, and hope that it works in space? Did it cross your mind that the people with the know how to correctly engineer something that can last in space for extended periods of time aren't exactly cheap?
There are no economies of scale here. Highly specialized = expensive. Highly specialized + rugged = very expensive.
Healthcare is not a personal liberty, it's someone else's goods and services.
So is being able to eat, but you don't see grocery stores charging $6000 an apple.
Talk about piracy...
Piracy is making a family earning $40K or less per year pay 25%or more of their income just in case someone gets sick or breaks an arm, because if they don't then it could potentially cost them 200% or more of their income. Even if you pay, you may still go bankrupt if they deny your claims. Or you may die.
Although, a more accurate depiction of insurance companies are the old viking raiders, which people used to pay tribute to in the hopes of not being raided. If you were too poor, you got raided. If you didn't pay tribute, then you got raided. If you paid tribute, then sometimes you still got raided anyway.
Paul isn't saying we should go all turtle and not interact with the world. He's saying stop being a dick to the rest of planet by forcing our ways and desires on other countries. He's saying we should become a self-sufficient nation such that we don't need to fight resource wars half a planet away. He's saying stop spending a metric assload of cash on our "defense"and international empire and focus more on what we need in our own country.
I don't agree with everything Ron Paul stands for, but he's got this one right.
The rich, say the top 1% of the pop. pay approx 37 % of all the income tax in the country. The top 20% pay about 85% of the income taxes. The bottom 50% of the pop. pay no income tax.
Yes it is important to have a sense of proportion. But looking at just income taxes is incredibly flawed. Look at overall wealth distribution and tax burden, as opposed to one selective number (income tax). If you look at overall tax burden, the middle and lower classes pay more than their fair share. Especially if you look at tax burden compared to wealth.
Regardless, the top 1% make close to 20% of all income. But this leaves out a rather large amount of income that is not taxed as "income". The primary wealth generating mechanism for the millionaires and billionaires rarely comes from a job. They have their money in investments and assets designed to shield as much of their money as possible from the tax man. When Buffet said his effective tax rate is lower than his secretary's, he meant it.
The top 25% own 87% of all the wealth. The middle 50% owns 13%. The bottom 25% owns none. But if you look at overall tax burden, the middle 50% actually pay the most.
What cause is that? Releasing a stream of illegally-released classified information from a democratic nation?
Freedom of speech and the press. Neither Assange nor Wikileaks are US citizens/entities, and they were not the perpetrators of the security breach. The government has no legal ground to stand on, and should be able to do nothing to them. The keyword being should.
It's quite obvious that such inconveniences as previous case law and the Constitution mean little when those in power are threatened. Government pressuring companies to submit to its will is not something you want to see in a supposedly free society. And before you jump into ToS agreements, these companies are more than happy to accept business from other groups that violate their ToS, such as the KKK.
Too bad people can't see this for what it is: a foreign national releasing illegally-obtained classified information in a coordinated effort to deliberately try to influence public opinion and US policy.
Foreign national? Wikileaks is an organization. A press organization actually. One of several releasing this information to the public.
And what did you think these releases were going to do? Of course they're going to influence public opinion and policy. That's the point. When you're government is doing shady things the public should know, like letting people with suitcases full of cash go through checkpoints, illegally ordering diplomats to perform spy operations, supplying little boys for sex, or performing military strikes in a country and lying about it. Such information is critical when it comes time to make decisions about who should be running our country so we don't come off as self-serving hypocritical bastards.
Assange has already said he considers himself a "media insurgent"...
Assange, Assange, Assange. Assange this and Assange that. I could care less about Assange. Assange is not the centerpiece of the discussion, nor is he "Wikileaks". Wikileaks is an organization with many people. Assange is the ego-maniacal shitshield.
my interpretation of the media's justification is that they feel they, not the government that works on behalf of the people, are the arbiters of what does and doesn't constitute properly-classified national security information
The government is NOT working on behalf of the people when it is performing shady operations. But the government HAS and WILL classify that information to ensure that it doesn't come to light. That is NOT democracy. That's the kind of crap you see in China and North Korea. If our government bends and breaks the laws in order to accomplish it's goals then our government is no better than any other tyrannical government that will do anything to further it's own ends. That is NOT the type of government that we, the shining light of democracy and freedom, should have.
That's exactly where this is leading, and what it results in is an environment where closed and repressive societies have an advantage in the information realm over open and democratic societies.
So we should lower ourselves down to their level to ensure we're playing on a level field, is that it? What is this, the land of the free only when it suits us? The land of compromise our morals and standards for political gain? We always claim we are better than that, but perhaps we aren't. I guess hypocrisy knows no bounds.
Garbage collection interacts very badly with swap.
Old versions of java had this issue. Even then though you could pass parameters that would control garbage collection. Java's garbage collection is not some sort of black box that you have no control over. You can control aspects of it at invocation time and run time.
I haven't seen this problem in any modern java app, including ones that use up considerable amounts of resources.
Sun's JVM requires you to pass startup parameters that determine the maximum memory the program will be allowed to use
No it doesn't.
The defaults are too small for almost anything.
Either the apps you write have large resource requirements or you're doing it wrong. I can recall only one circumstance where I've needed to alter the memory settings and that was when I was working with very large image files.
Sun's JVM also makes use of several different areas of memory, all requiring their own parameter, thus recreating the DOS experience with loving attention to detail.
Uh yeah. It's a virtual machine. It allows you to map out the memory and how it's used. This way you can tightly control what and how your app uses memory resources. Again, I've very rarely needed to adjust the defaults.
The Java class library is huge, complicated and odd
Really? In comparison to what exactly? Given the very large number of apps out there you would think that if it was "huge, complicated, and odd" no one would be writing apps that used it.
This is especially true of Swing
Now swing certainly does have it's quirks, but again it really is not that complicated, or even "huge". And java does support opengl.
A high school kid with an internet connection would be able to come up with that list, and may even be able to expand it. There's nothing on that list that isn't already known or could be found out by a few minutes with google BEFORE the leak. How many Hollywood movies and TV shows use attacks on such facilities as plot lines? Why do you think Hollywood writers were invited to DC after 9/11?
Let's see how much thought this takes. You want to disrupt a major shipping center in the US. Do you attack:
a) Yellowstone National Park b) The Betty Ford Clinic c) LA international harbor.
Seriously, the list of vital US facilities is very much NOT secret.
...and an all expenses paid trip to where you will spend a yet to be determined amount time in the experienced hands of the who will and you, then proceed to and before they and . Finally, you will be before you are .
A conservative could be getting raped by a grizzly bear, and they'd cheer it on as long as it meant that a hippie was going to get punched in the face.
More correctly, they're getting raped by a mama grizzly. But you're right about the hippies.
And I agree. The problem is when "off the record" becomes "one hand washes the other", "wink wink nudge nudge", or "it'd be a shame if something were to happen to you".
The need for privacy does not trump the need for law.Yes, there are circumstances where privacy is needed, but those circumstances should NOT be when our government is participating or turning a blind eye to amoral, unethical, or illegal activities.
Or is it okay when we're doing it 'cuz we're 'merica? Fuck yeah!
Leave it to the states. Sure. Okay, which state wants to be known as a haven to the poor? How many states would be willing to make the necessary cuts in spending and/or increase in taxes to cover an adequate welfare program? How many states can even do so? Or is that SEP (somebody else's problem)?
Democracy needs a well educated populace to survive. Europeans are generally more educated and less likely to grow ass roots into the couch for a free TV lobotomy than their US counterparts.
Democracy does not elect the best leaders. It elects the leaders the populace believes are the best. Unfortunately, these things can be very different.
Now in defense of the Governator, he wasn't just an actor. He's also a fairly shrewd businessman. He navigated the turd-field of Hollywood and came out smelling like roses. I'm not saying I agree with the way he has run things, but to discredit his abilities entirely is a bit much.
Of course they do. That's the whole point of having three branches of government, which serve as checks on each other. The whole point of having legislative oversight of executive activies is so that locally elected representatives - who are routinely up for re-election or change - can sound off if they see something being done by the executive branch that they think merits action.
That is probably one of the more naive statements I have seen in regards to our government. Were you sleeping during the past decade? Nothing like a congress to rubber stamp anything the executive desires.
Any politician fighting the good fight makes enemies on both sides of the aisle, pretty much ensuring they stay irrelevant. In the meantime, politicians focus the public's attention on useless wedge issues instead of more important matters. They WANT to keep the population in the dark. If some covert action will help funnel money to the politicians corporate sponsors, do you really think they'll raise a stink about it? Unlikely to say the least.
Checks and balances these days only go as far as the politicians CHECKING to make sure they have high BALANCES.
So how is this any different than publishing the IDs and home addresses of every under-cover narcotics cop?
Because they're not doing that. It's also unlikely that a foreign diplomat would be killed over calling Germany's chancellor a bitch.
You're also comparing a single individual to the government. Government policy can affect thousands to millions of people. If the government is indeed doing illegal activities that is far more nefarious than any NARC gone bad.
We need information! All of it! All the time! There is no such thing as a single trustworthy government employee, right, and only the New York Times can be trusted to know what information can be held back!
Last I checked, a NARC officer is a private individual hired to do a job. The government is elected and represents the people of the US. If the government is performing, hiding, or turning a blind eye to illegal activities then it is OUR RIGHT TO KNOW so we can correct the problem. Otherwise, this country is nothing more than a hypocritical farce.
No, really. What's your point? You're saying that people can't be trusted to do work that involves secrecy, so you're trusting other people to judge what's appropriate, while completely throwing out the very real, critical strategic and tactical value of not having everything you do or say broadcast to your adversaries, or to the enemies of those you're trying to protect.
That's not what I'm saying at all, and stop being so melodramatic. I have a healthy skepticism when anyone from the government says "trust us", mainly because you usually can't. This is especially true when you have two branches of government scratching each others backs for mutual benefit. No one is watching the watchers, or if they are they are collecting favors to cash in a later point. It's political horse trading.
Do you, really? Your solution seems to be to review all of the horses as they run out of the barn, and then to close the door later.
I did not present a solution. That's a creation of your own imagination.
Ultimately there is no workable solution as corruption permeates everything. Something that might help would be an active judicial review of actions to at least say what is legal and what is not BEFORE the action is taken. Then congress/the executive would have to forgo the action or work to make it legal. Then they could at least pretend they were following the laws. But that's just too damn inconvenient. It's much more convenient to perform the questionable action NOW, that way your grandfathered in just in case it ever comes to light and goes to court, where it will be tied up for years giving you enough time to write your memoirs and go on a book tour.
so, your contention is that the best way to decide which communication should be allowed to be frank and private is to have government employee steal the data, provide it to a foreign person with a highly politicized agenda, and then have that person pick and choose the documents that best support his agenda while he published those secret communications in the press?
That's not what I'm saying in the slightest. I'm saying that, currently, the general public has no way to know what shady/illegal activities our government may be performing in the name of national interests. Democracy relies on a well informed populace, and deliberately hiding behind the "state secrets" mantra when trying to hide the hypocrisy of our foreign relations defeats that purpose.
Here's a better approach. Elect people you trust, and don't re-elect the ones you don't.
And how exactly are you supposed to be able to discern this when these activities are happening behind closed doors with no public knowledge? Politicians are very good at saying one thing and doing another, especially when said politician can do something without anyone knowing about it.
A well loved priest can still be a pedophile when the church doors close.
Having an egomaniac like Assange line up his chosen leaks to further his own agenda and self agrandizement is hardly the right way to approach it.
I never claimed it was. But information is information, and now we have information we didn't have before. Typically this kind of information isn't released for decades and by then it is far too late to do anything about it. The information is useful, despite the messenger.
Which illegal activities do you suppose you've busted a US diplomat in the middle of, as he's privately discussing which particular Arabs seem to be funding AQ?
Personally none. But just from the initial release we already know that a blind eye has been turned in at least one instance.
And how do you suppose Assange has helped to keep that important information flowing when he decides to make public information that may get an informant or on important inside-the-finance-world source killed for their trouble?
Stop it. The same things were said with the Iraq and Afghan documents and it was much ado about nothing. So far nothing has been revealed that will get anyone killed. Embarrassed, certainly, but not killed.
I understand that some things need to be kept secret, but shady dealings and illegal activities should NOT be. That information SHOULD be made public so that we, the people, can make informed decisions.
sure it will. It will monetize the debt, it's the same thing only worse, because the currency itself will be destroyed.
Monetizing debt is not the same as defaulting. There is a big difference between being able to repay a debt and being able to repay a debt. The US will always be capable of repaying the debt, either through inflation or higher taxes. Higher taxes, of course, would be the first weapon before inflation.
Our GDP still outstrips our debt obligations and tax rates on the wealthiest are still paltry compared to where they were in the '60's. We're not in any danger over the next decade unless the government gets really boneheaded. There's still plenty of income the government can tap to shore up it's coffers.
That's not to say that it wouldn't have consequences. It's just not as apocalyptic as you seem to imply.
USD will become irrelevant...
I think what you mean is the USD may not remain being the world reserve currency, which is not nearly the same thing as becoming irrelevant. There is nothing stopping countries from using their own currencies for making deals. However, those countries must be prepared to take on the risk of those currencies.
Regardless, the USD is still the reserve currency and that doesn't appear to be changing anytime soon. If it did, it would be changing from the USD to a basket of currencies.
the 'economic indicators' are cooked
Uh huh. And yet the market, with all it's big players and such, don't seem to disagree with them all that much.
That 4% projection you're talking about is based on 2 months of economic data from just one company. I'd hardly call that conclusive. A 4% inflation is also a far cry from runaway inflation, especially since last year we had slight deflation.
Deflation, has it ever actually happened to you? Has it ever hurt you? Did you see prices falling?
Yes. Yes. And yes. The '70's weren't exactly a peachy time for the US economy. To stop the spiral they had to jack interest rates through the roof which cause even more economic pain. It wasn't pleasant.
Deflation can be useful, but a deflationary spiral is not. So far, we've managed to avoid both extremes (inflation and deflation).
SS is bankrupt. It's insolvent right now...
Actuarially speaking, it isn't insolvent. The interest bearing bonds in the trust are real assets, paid by Uncle Sam.
That's not to say that there isn't a problem with this. But SS still has about 20 years of life left assuming something cataclysmic doesn't happen between then and now.
Also, SS is not welfare. They are separate programs with different purposes. I wouldn't curse anyone with the unfortunate task of working with this country's welfare system. If SS were to moved under the welfare blanket there would need to be some substantial changes in that program first.
Not that any of this matters. Very few politicians have the balls to come within 100 yards of the SS program.
Of course gov't must also get out of economy completely, with all its regulations and taxes, otherwise nothing will happen anyway.
Well, the past ten years saw the SEC made toothless, the repeal of several critical regulations on how banks can operate, and other such legislation. That didn't work out so well.
Greed is good. Unconstrained greed is deadly, and this has been repeatedly demonstrated time and again. The "invisible hand" of the market is the thing that punches you in the balls before robbing you blind and throwing you in a gutter.
US is not recovering...
According to the numbers it is. But you seem inclined to disagree with the numbers.
its economy has a terminal disease, the name is government
No, the terminal disease are amoral people looking only to serve themselves at the cost of society as
Slashdot Mirror
Nonsense. With Democrats you're just screwed. With Republicans, you're super-deluxe holy fuck screwed.
In defense of the democrats, they've been too busy bending over for the republicans to screw anybody lately.
You could destroy most of the ruling class and infrastructure with a single nuke to the NK capital. The rest of the country is practically pre-industrial, judging from the nighttime illuminant maps and google Earth flyovers.
NK has pretty much nothing to lose, therefore war will not be nearly as devastating to them as it would be SK.
Shopper: What ya got?
Town: Well, we got Walmart. Kmart and Walmart. Kmart, Walmart, and BestBuy. Walmart, Kmart, Walmart, and BestBuy. Walmart, Kmart, Walmart, BestBuy, and Walmart. Walmart, Walmart....
Shoppers: Walmart! Wonderful Walmart! Walmart, wonderful Walmart!
Town: Shut up! Stupid shoppers...
Yep. If Amazon has no problem with the bible then books should be allowed with child porn, incest, rape, murder, genocide, etc. , because the bible pretty much has all of them. Oh, and the Koran too. And the Talmud. And multiple myths and legends from multiple cultures.
But I guess those don't count.
It's going to be totally rad.
Has it ever occurred to you that one of the reasons why NASA missions are so expensive is because you can't just yank shit of a shelf, stuff it in a box, and hope that it works in space? Did it cross your mind that the people with the know how to correctly engineer something that can last in space for extended periods of time aren't exactly cheap?
There are no economies of scale here. Highly specialized = expensive. Highly specialized + rugged = very expensive.
Healthcare is not a personal liberty, it's someone else's goods and services.
So is being able to eat, but you don't see grocery stores charging $6000 an apple.
Talk about piracy...
Piracy is making a family earning $40K or less per year pay 25%or more of their income just in case someone gets sick or breaks an arm, because if they don't then it could potentially cost them 200% or more of their income. Even if you pay, you may still go bankrupt if they deny your claims. Or you may die.
Although, a more accurate depiction of insurance companies are the old viking raiders, which people used to pay tribute to in the hopes of not being raided. If you were too poor, you got raided. If you didn't pay tribute, then you got raided. If you paid tribute, then sometimes you still got raided anyway.
Some might call it isolationism.
And some would be very wrong.
Paul isn't saying we should go all turtle and not interact with the world. He's saying stop being a dick to the rest of planet by forcing our ways and desires on other countries. He's saying we should become a self-sufficient nation such that we don't need to fight resource wars half a planet away. He's saying stop spending a metric assload of cash on our "defense"and international empire and focus more on what we need in our own country.
I don't agree with everything Ron Paul stands for, but he's got this one right.
The rich, say the top 1% of the pop. pay approx 37 % of all the income tax in the country. The top 20% pay about 85% of the income taxes. The bottom 50% of the pop. pay no income tax.
Yes it is important to have a sense of proportion. But looking at just income taxes is incredibly flawed. Look at overall wealth distribution and tax burden, as opposed to one selective number (income tax). If you look at overall tax burden, the middle and lower classes pay more than their fair share. Especially if you look at tax burden compared to wealth.
Regardless, the top 1% make close to 20% of all income. But this leaves out a rather large amount of income that is not taxed as "income". The primary wealth generating mechanism for the millionaires and billionaires rarely comes from a job. They have their money in investments and assets designed to shield as much of their money as possible from the tax man. When Buffet said his effective tax rate is lower than his secretary's, he meant it.
The top 25% own 87% of all the wealth. The middle 50% owns 13%. The bottom 25% owns none. But if you look at overall tax burden, the middle 50% actually pay the most.
What cause is that? Releasing a stream of illegally-released classified information from a democratic nation?
Freedom of speech and the press. Neither Assange nor Wikileaks are US citizens/entities, and they were not the perpetrators of the security breach. The government has no legal ground to stand on, and should be able to do nothing to them. The keyword being should.
It's quite obvious that such inconveniences as previous case law and the Constitution mean little when those in power are threatened. Government pressuring companies to submit to its will is not something you want to see in a supposedly free society. And before you jump into ToS agreements, these companies are more than happy to accept business from other groups that violate their ToS, such as the KKK.
Too bad people can't see this for what it is: a foreign national releasing illegally-obtained classified information in a coordinated effort to deliberately try to influence public opinion and US policy.
Foreign national? Wikileaks is an organization. A press organization actually. One of several releasing this information to the public.
And what did you think these releases were going to do? Of course they're going to influence public opinion and policy. That's the point. When you're government is doing shady things the public should know, like letting people with suitcases full of cash go through checkpoints, illegally ordering diplomats to perform spy operations, supplying little boys for sex, or performing military strikes in a country and lying about it. Such information is critical when it comes time to make decisions about who should be running our country so we don't come off as self-serving hypocritical bastards.
Assange has already said he considers himself a "media insurgent"...
Assange, Assange, Assange. Assange this and Assange that. I could care less about Assange. Assange is not the centerpiece of the discussion, nor is he "Wikileaks". Wikileaks is an organization with many people. Assange is the ego-maniacal shitshield.
my interpretation of the media's justification is that they feel they, not the government that works on behalf of the people, are the arbiters of what does and doesn't constitute properly-classified national security information
The government is NOT working on behalf of the people when it is performing shady operations. But the government HAS and WILL classify that information to ensure that it doesn't come to light. That is NOT democracy. That's the kind of crap you see in China and North Korea. If our government bends and breaks the laws in order to accomplish it's goals then our government is no better than any other tyrannical government that will do anything to further it's own ends. That is NOT the type of government that we, the shining light of democracy and freedom, should have.
That's exactly where this is leading, and what it results in is an environment where closed and repressive societies have an advantage in the information realm over open and democratic societies.
So we should lower ourselves down to their level to ensure we're playing on a level field, is that it? What is this, the land of the free only when it suits us? The land of compromise our morals and standards for political gain? We always claim we are better than that, but perhaps we aren't. I guess hypocrisy knows no bounds.
Garbage collection interacts very badly with swap.
Old versions of java had this issue. Even then though you could pass parameters that would control garbage collection. Java's garbage collection is not some sort of black box that you have no control over. You can control aspects of it at invocation time and run time.
I haven't seen this problem in any modern java app, including ones that use up considerable amounts of resources.
Sun's JVM requires you to pass startup parameters that determine the maximum memory the program will be allowed to use
No it doesn't.
The defaults are too small for almost anything.
Either the apps you write have large resource requirements or you're doing it wrong. I can recall only one circumstance where I've needed to alter the memory settings and that was when I was working with very large image files.
Sun's JVM also makes use of several different areas of memory, all requiring their own parameter, thus recreating the DOS experience with loving attention to detail.
Uh yeah. It's a virtual machine. It allows you to map out the memory and how it's used. This way you can tightly control what and how your app uses memory resources. Again, I've very rarely needed to adjust the defaults.
The Java class library is huge, complicated and odd
Really? In comparison to what exactly? Given the very large number of apps out there you would think that if it was "huge, complicated, and odd" no one would be writing apps that used it.
This is especially true of Swing
Now swing certainly does have it's quirks, but again it really is not that complicated, or even "huge". And java does support opengl.
Since we started living in a society that is almost free.
A high school kid with an internet connection would be able to come up with that list, and may even be able to expand it. There's nothing on that list that isn't already known or could be found out by a few minutes with google BEFORE the leak. How many Hollywood movies and TV shows use attacks on such facilities as plot lines? Why do you think Hollywood writers were invited to DC after 9/11?
Let's see how much thought this takes. You want to disrupt a major shipping center in the US. Do you attack:
a) Yellowstone National Park
b) The Betty Ford Clinic
c) LA international harbor.
Seriously, the list of vital US facilities is very much NOT secret.
...and an all expenses paid trip to where you will spend a yet to be determined amount time in the experienced hands of the who will and you, then proceed to and before they and . Finally, you will be before you are .
Sincerely,
, Homeland Security Office
Freedom: You're doing it wrong.
A conservative could be getting raped by a grizzly bear, and they'd cheer it on as long as it meant that a hippie was going to get punched in the face.
More correctly, they're getting raped by a mama grizzly. But you're right about the hippies.
And I agree. The problem is when "off the record" becomes "one hand washes the other", "wink wink nudge nudge", or "it'd be a shame if something were to happen to you".
The need for privacy does not trump the need for law.Yes, there are circumstances where privacy is needed, but those circumstances should NOT be when our government is participating or turning a blind eye to amoral, unethical, or illegal activities.
Or is it okay when we're doing it 'cuz we're 'merica? Fuck yeah!
If you're really upset then why not write a letter to your congressman and/or donate to the EFF?
Reverse that and you may have more luck. For large values of "contribution" that is.
The TSA is scanning for people with weapons or bombs...
I think it's more like they're scanning for melons and knobs.
Hooray for Peter Pumpkinhead.
Leave it to the states. Sure. Okay, which state wants to be known as a haven to the poor? How many states would be willing to make the necessary cuts in spending and/or increase in taxes to cover an adequate welfare program? How many states can even do so? Or is that SEP (somebody else's problem)?
Democracy needs a well educated populace to survive. Europeans are generally more educated and less likely to grow ass roots into the couch for a free TV lobotomy than their US counterparts.
Democracy does not elect the best leaders. It elects the leaders the populace believes are the best. Unfortunately, these things can be very different.
Now in defense of the Governator, he wasn't just an actor. He's also a fairly shrewd businessman. He navigated the turd-field of Hollywood and came out smelling like roses. I'm not saying I agree with the way he has run things, but to discredit his abilities entirely is a bit much.
Of course they do. That's the whole point of having three branches of government, which serve as checks on each other. The whole point of having legislative oversight of executive activies is so that locally elected representatives - who are routinely up for re-election or change - can sound off if they see something being done by the executive branch that they think merits action.
That is probably one of the more naive statements I have seen in regards to our government. Were you sleeping during the past decade? Nothing like a congress to rubber stamp anything the executive desires.
Any politician fighting the good fight makes enemies on both sides of the aisle, pretty much ensuring they stay irrelevant. In the meantime, politicians focus the public's attention on useless wedge issues instead of more important matters. They WANT to keep the population in the dark. If some covert action will help funnel money to the politicians corporate sponsors, do you really think they'll raise a stink about it? Unlikely to say the least.
Checks and balances these days only go as far as the politicians CHECKING to make sure they have high BALANCES.
So how is this any different than publishing the IDs and home addresses of every under-cover narcotics cop?
Because they're not doing that. It's also unlikely that a foreign diplomat would be killed over calling Germany's chancellor a bitch.
You're also comparing a single individual to the government. Government policy can affect thousands to millions of people. If the government is indeed doing illegal activities that is far more nefarious than any NARC gone bad.
We need information! All of it! All the time! There is no such thing as a single trustworthy government employee, right, and only the New York Times can be trusted to know what information can be held back!
Last I checked, a NARC officer is a private individual hired to do a job. The government is elected and represents the people of the US. If the government is performing, hiding, or turning a blind eye to illegal activities then it is OUR RIGHT TO KNOW so we can correct the problem. Otherwise, this country is nothing more than a hypocritical farce.
No, really. What's your point? You're saying that people can't be trusted to do work that involves secrecy, so you're trusting other people to judge what's appropriate, while completely throwing out the very real, critical strategic and tactical value of not having everything you do or say broadcast to your adversaries, or to the enemies of those you're trying to protect.
That's not what I'm saying at all, and stop being so melodramatic. I have a healthy skepticism when anyone from the government says "trust us", mainly because you usually can't. This is especially true when you have two branches of government scratching each others backs for mutual benefit. No one is watching the watchers, or if they are they are collecting favors to cash in a later point. It's political horse trading.
Do you, really? Your solution seems to be to review all of the horses as they run out of the barn, and then to close the door later.
I did not present a solution. That's a creation of your own imagination.
Ultimately there is no workable solution as corruption permeates everything. Something that might help would be an active judicial review of actions to at least say what is legal and what is not BEFORE the action is taken. Then congress/the executive would have to forgo the action or work to make it legal. Then they could at least pretend they were following the laws. But that's just too damn inconvenient. It's much more convenient to perform the questionable action NOW, that way your grandfathered in just in case it ever comes to light and goes to court, where it will be tied up for years giving you enough time to write your memoirs and go on a book tour.
But that's just crazy
so, your contention is that the best way to decide which communication should be allowed to be frank and private is to have government employee steal the data, provide it to a foreign person with a highly politicized agenda, and then have that person pick and choose the documents that best support his agenda while he published those secret communications in the press?
That's not what I'm saying in the slightest. I'm saying that, currently, the general public has no way to know what shady/illegal activities our government may be performing in the name of national interests. Democracy relies on a well informed populace, and deliberately hiding behind the "state secrets" mantra when trying to hide the hypocrisy of our foreign relations defeats that purpose.
Here's a better approach. Elect people you trust, and don't re-elect the ones you don't.
And how exactly are you supposed to be able to discern this when these activities are happening behind closed doors with no public knowledge? Politicians are very good at saying one thing and doing another, especially when said politician can do something without anyone knowing about it.
A well loved priest can still be a pedophile when the church doors close.
Having an egomaniac like Assange line up his chosen leaks to further his own agenda and self agrandizement is hardly the right way to approach it.
I never claimed it was. But information is information, and now we have information we didn't have before. Typically this kind of information isn't released for decades and by then it is far too late to do anything about it. The information is useful, despite the messenger.
Which illegal activities do you suppose you've busted a US diplomat in the middle of, as he's privately discussing which particular Arabs seem to be funding AQ?
Personally none. But just from the initial release we already know that a blind eye has been turned in at least one instance.
And how do you suppose Assange has helped to keep that important information flowing when he decides to make public information that may get an informant or on important inside-the-finance-world source killed for their trouble?
Stop it. The same things were said with the Iraq and Afghan documents and it was much ado about nothing. So far nothing has been revealed that will get anyone killed. Embarrassed, certainly, but not killed.
I understand that some things need to be kept secret, but shady dealings and illegal activities should NOT be. That information SHOULD be made public so that we, the people, can make informed decisions.
sure it will. It will monetize the debt, it's the same thing only worse, because the currency itself will be destroyed.
Monetizing debt is not the same as defaulting. There is a big difference between being able to repay a debt and being able to repay a debt. The US will always be capable of repaying the debt, either through inflation or higher taxes. Higher taxes, of course, would be the first weapon before inflation.
Our GDP still outstrips our debt obligations and tax rates on the wealthiest are still paltry compared to where they were in the '60's. We're not in any danger over the next decade unless the government gets really boneheaded. There's still plenty of income the government can tap to shore up it's coffers.
That's not to say that it wouldn't have consequences. It's just not as apocalyptic as you seem to imply.
USD will become irrelevant...
I think what you mean is the USD may not remain being the world reserve currency, which is not nearly the same thing as becoming irrelevant. There is nothing stopping countries from using their own currencies for making deals. However, those countries must be prepared to take on the risk of those currencies.
Regardless, the USD is still the reserve currency and that doesn't appear to be changing anytime soon. If it did, it would be changing from the USD to a basket of currencies.
the 'economic indicators' are cooked
Uh huh. And yet the market, with all it's big players and such, don't seem to disagree with them all that much.
That 4% projection you're talking about is based on 2 months of economic data from just one company. I'd hardly call that conclusive. A 4% inflation is also a far cry from runaway inflation, especially since last year we had slight deflation.
Deflation, has it ever actually happened to you? Has it ever hurt you? Did you see prices falling?
Yes. Yes. And yes. The '70's weren't exactly a peachy time for the US economy. To stop the spiral they had to jack interest rates through the roof which cause even more economic pain. It wasn't pleasant.
Deflation can be useful, but a deflationary spiral is not. So far, we've managed to avoid both extremes (inflation and deflation).
SS is bankrupt. It's insolvent right now...
Actuarially speaking, it isn't insolvent. The interest bearing bonds in the trust are real assets, paid by Uncle Sam.
That's not to say that there isn't a problem with this. But SS still has about 20 years of life left assuming something cataclysmic doesn't happen between then and now.
Also, SS is not welfare. They are separate programs with different purposes. I wouldn't curse anyone with the unfortunate task of working with this country's welfare system. If SS were to moved under the welfare blanket there would need to be some substantial changes in that program first.
Not that any of this matters. Very few politicians have the balls to come within 100 yards of the SS program.
Of course gov't must also get out of economy completely, with all its regulations and taxes, otherwise nothing will happen anyway.
Well, the past ten years saw the SEC made toothless, the repeal of several critical regulations on how banks can operate, and other such legislation. That didn't work out so well.
Greed is good. Unconstrained greed is deadly, and this has been repeatedly demonstrated time and again. The "invisible hand" of the market is the thing that punches you in the balls before robbing you blind and throwing you in a gutter.
US is not recovering...
According to the numbers it is. But you seem inclined to disagree with the numbers.
its economy has a terminal disease, the name is government
No, the terminal disease are amoral people looking only to serve themselves at the cost of society as