...they would still have to overturn wiretapping laws in the US...
Except that treaties that the US agrees to trump all domestic laws, regulations, and statutes...everything but the US Constitution, and as much as that meant to halting anything the government/politicians really wanted over the last few decades, I wouldn't put a lot of faith in that "goddamn piece of paper!"
Treaties entered into by the Executive Branch need to be ratified by Congress, but even if Congress fails to ratify it, that would not necessarily kill it. In many instances over the last decade, Congress has been bypassed by Executive Orders and similar Executive Branch power tactics to achieve their goals and simulaneously grab more Executive Branch power despite Congressional inaction and/or opposition, Congressional and/or popular.
There has to be a BIG push-back on this to stop it. Whether or not that push-back materializes to the strength and magnitude required to stop it is anyone's guess at this point, although I admit being pessimistic.
Long distance and national phone calls are charged at a higher rate as it is the simplest way of getting businesses and wealthy people to subsidize the maintenance of the local telephone network.
It's also a dis-incentive to the peoples of different regions to develop close, regular contact, thus promoting social and cultural divisions based on fear, ignorance, hatred, and mistrust. The more divided people are, the easier they are to control.
The internet has exploded far beyond expectations in almost every metric, and this threatens the entire current power structures of both governments and commerce worldwide. Depend on the powers that be attempting to control what and who is on it and how it is used. It's the single greatest threat to tyranny and despotism to come along in centuries. Of course that all depends on, as Ben Franklin said to a woman who asked him about the freshly-minted US Republic, "If you can keep it!"
This is my sorrow that people cannot agree that their opponent has valid goals...
What if one disagrees with the goals and honestly, with reason, does not consider them valid or has reason to believe the publicly-stated goals are not the actual goals because of actions taken that consistently do not match the publicly-stated goals?
Hate Obama for his policies, not is existence or this imaginary crimes.
I don't hate Obama. I don't even know Obama. Neither do you. All I know are his policies and actions, or lack of actions. And what if he *has* committed real, actual crimes? He should get a pass because of race? Isn't that racist?
I don't even care about being called racist any more. It's been so bastardized, over-used, and misapplied to everything and everybody that disagrees with and/or opposes Obama and/or his policies and goals that it has become nearly meaningless, which I'm sure must delight the *real* racists in the KKK, NBPP, Nation of Islam, Aryan Brotherhood, etc etc.
So, congratulations to all the Progressives/Democrats for all their hard work in setting back race relations and the battle against *actual* racism by decades by pounding this "anyone who disagrees with Obama and/or Progressive policies/goals is a racist!" meme into the ground until nobody cares or pays attention to *actual* racism anymore because of the extreme politicization of the term into a lame and meaningless generic political attack.
Not surprising after the Patreaus scandal. Funny how these things move fast when it afects politicians. They are probably afraid one of them would be the next Patreaus.
Petraeus was appointed with the administration already knowing all about his peccadilloes. They wanted somebody vulnerable there as a cutout and scapegoat to protect and insulate others including the POTUS from the repercussions of their actions, in this case their actions (or lack of actions) surrounding Benghazi and 4 Americans left to die when help was available, all in order to protect the administration and it's agendas regarding Islamic terrorism and the Muslim Brotherhood ("we don't use the 'T-word' any more", and "the MB are moderate and mostly secular" are parts of it).
Anyone familiar with Chicago politics cant tell you that it's one of the hallmarks of corrupt Chicago-style politics: Always appoint people you've got "leverage" and "dirt" on in case they start singing.
Who do you think was behind the Petraeus scandal coming to light, conveniently for the administration, just as Congress was going to hear Petraeus testify about Benghazi? Laws regarding email privacy would have done exactly squat to prevent the Petraeus emails from coming out.
The existing laws and this bill covering private, personal email have nothing to do with email privacy regarding those in government positions with high national security and secrecy clearances in any case.
Another result shows that 'we carry a much larger load of deleterious variants' (as well as positive variants) than our ancestors 200 generations ago."
Anyone who is familiar with and has read some of the comments on Slashdot could've told you *that*! Hell, "Idiocracy" is a documentary film!
Did someone actually pay these people for this "research"?
A Dire Straights song comes to mind. No, it's not "Sultans of Swing".
1) Data Retention checks and privacy controls 2) Removing surveillance powers, claims, etc. 3) Reducing existing intelligence powers "securing the net" - (think the staggering amounts of warrant-less information requests sent today) 4) Preventing doubtful domain name from existing players.
Always look at the other side of the coin before buying it... And never take at political statement at face value.
Yeah, damn Issa to hell! Congress was just abut to pass a set of laws to accomplish all that stuff. It was practically a done-deal and internet freedom within our grasp when Issa yanked it out from under us.
The Party of Mickey Mouse and the Senators from Disneyland and Hollywood were all on-board and ready to completely reverse their entire decades-long direction and agenda, and then Issa messed everything up. And it was going to happen in a lame-duck Congress, too.
What color is the sky on your planet?
I bet you think the recently proposed "Net Neutrality" bill has something positive to do with actual net neutrality, too.
Hint: It just hands over regulatory control of the internet to three unelected bureaucrats in the FCC. The FCC that's headed by a guy who thinks that Hugo Chavez' seizing control of radio/TV stations etc was a ~good~ thing.
All those laws and regs against fraud started out as an "attempt to "shape" and "steer" the market according to some politician's or bureaucrat's fantasies"
Only if you consider enforcing basic rules of fair-dealing and basic marketplace rules qualify as an "attempt to "shape" and "steer" the market according to some politician's or bureaucrat's fantasies".
I and most people call rules, laws, and Acts designed to encourage or discourage certain investments and/or patterns of investments in certain areas/industries/markets and/or with certain parties over others in an effort to shape markets to suit a political or ideological agenda, "attempts to "shape" and "steer" the market according to some politician's or bureaucrat's fantasies".
Oh, yeah.
Iran doesn't get to extradite anyone from the USA, but they can certainly prosecute anyone they want in absentia.
Right you are, but you do realize why, right? The same reason other countries don't do the same thing to US citizens in the US that the US does to foreign nationals in other countries:
US military, political, and economic might.
This was precisely the point I was making, that the US is throwing it's weight around in a way that it would never itself tolerate, and would probably call terrorist, and possibly even "send innn the dronesss" over.
Do you think that if the US was comparable in wealth/political power/military might to Ecuador that the UK or NZ would be helping the US snatch up their own citizens, often with questionable evidence, and sometimes even when it may be completely contrary to their own laws? Sometimes even against the laws both in the US AND the target country!?
The US government has "gone rogue". It no longer even pretends to follow it's own laws or the limits on it's power set forth in the constitution. It has become millstone around the necks of, and a clear and present danger to, not only it's own citizens, but the people of the entire world.
That's one of the major reasons I cannot comprehend the thinking of those that wish to grant the government ever-more control over more and more of our lives, our economy, and our society, while also insisting we hand over more and more of our wealth for government to buy the shiny new jack-boots to enforce the powers it has simply grabbed or were granted to it by a corrupt Congress/SCOTUS. In fact the opposite should be occurring, as that's the only way the rogue US government can be peacefully restrained from it's abuse of it's own people and those of other nations around the world, and prevent the inevitable (if little or nothing changes) civil war that will come.
And the US has already been (repeatedly, IIRC?) sanctioned by the WTO for doing so.
As they should be. Either gambling is a moral problem or it is not.
I agree on the face of it.
However, the politicians themselves will never feel any repercussions, only regular citizens who are left to pay the costs and deal with restrictions and other primary and secondary consequences, both intended AND unintended.
As long as those paying the politicians pay enough, the politicians will just have citizens "suck it up" because they know they have us so divided we can't effectively oppose them, especially when the two major parties on most major issues concerned with things other than "wedge issues" almost totally agree with each other.
I am not slamming on my breaks in front of a truck no matter what the light says.
Yeah, no shit. Where I'm at there's a major gravel quarry in the area, which means there are huge double-trailer gravel haulers running the main roads. You have one of those monsters close enough to count the folds of skin on the jaw on that Mack bulldog hood ornament in your rear-view mirror on a 50mph two-lane approaching a traffic light...well, let's just say the old adrenaline levels get a little "bump" if that light turns yellow as you get close, and you start desperately looking at cross-traffic to see what your odds are. Now imagine you're not driving a car, but riding a motorcycle.:-O
Since the topic involves vehicles, I had a chuckle at this recently. --- I saw a Vespa hit a Prius at the traffic intersection today.
The US doesn't ban gambling, they protect the government's monopoly of it.
Well, technically, they ban US citizens from participating in gambling occurring outside the US. It's OK to bet at the horse track and the indian casinos, even OK to do it online IIRC. Just not OK to gamble with a non-US-based entity.
And the US has already been (repeatedly, IIRC?) sanctioned by the WTO for doing so.
Intertrade had already been charged with the exact same offense, had agreed to stop doing so, but didn't. Somehow this is an issue with intrusive, authoritarian governments?
Yes, if the US government is attempting to extend it's legal jurisdiction to control what a sovereign foreign national or foreign business does in their own nation. Does Iran get to extradite and prosecute Hollywood film companies and/or their execs for depicting women not covered by hijabs and/or burqas?
/And I don't think anyone is arguing that commodities futures should not be regulated, because they would be wrong.
If by "regulation" you mean laws and regulations to prevent fraud/cheating/stealing and to enforce legal contracts and negate illegal or unconscionable contracts, then I agree.
If you mean the type of intrusive and byzantine laws and regulations that exist now that attempt to "shape" and "steer" the market according to some politician's or bureaucrat's fantasies, then I AM arguing against regulation, regardless of your opinions either way.
The right not to starve or freeze to death should not be dependent on the whims of Robber Barons and Fascists, so fuck you and all your right wing nutjob cronies.
I agree.
I don't think they should be dependent on "Robber Barons and Fascists" either.
That's why I want the government out of it, because government is exactly where robbers and fascists are, and where they operate best. After all, fascism is a form of _government_ not religion, and tax collectors are government-sanctioned robbers.
Churches generally look after their own, or people they consider the "deserving poor."
Bullshit. I've lived and worked in many places across the US. In almost every single place, there was a homeless shelter and soup kitchen. Every single one was funded by a church, not any government agency.
My band and I have done charity fund-raiser shows many times over the years to help these shelters raise money to operate on, as well as money to pay for compliance costs for the ever-growing list of new laws and regulations they are confronted with every single year (government doesn't like competition...they want to be the only game in town, even when it comes to charity).
These church-run shelters and soup kitchens don't care what race, religion (if any), ethnicity, etc the people they help are. They take care of those that don't qualify for (or don't want anything to do with) government programs, and even many that do receive some government help, but not enough.
If you want to see the pure evil that reliance on fucking charity involves, try reading a few Dickens novels...
Why not try putting down the Kindle, walking up mom's basement stairs, and walk outside and experience the real world the rest of us live in? Hint: We aren't living in Dickens' world of "Oliver Twist", so you won't need to wear those 19th-century schoolboy-shorts you've been hoarding.
Guess why those protests had such widespread support?
Because people are no different then than they are now, and just like you, are easily tempted by appeals to the emotions of envy, greed, and hatred, and turned into "useful idiots" in the classic bourgeois-vs-proletariat, class-warfare road to violent radical revolution.
The sad news is that it has never worked out well for them no matter how many times it's been done through history or by whom, and again, just like you, they fail to learn from history. The problem is, you drag innocent, unwilling others down with you, otherwise I'd say you deserve the horror and tyranny you demand.
The US entered economic downturns that started off as bad as the Great Depression. The difference was that in 1920, 1873, etc. the federal government did not attempt to intervene as Hoover and FDR did. None of those downturns lasted as long as the Depression, and yet progressives have the GALL to claim that their programs worked when it took WWII to end the stagnation.
WWII essentially equals Keynesian type government spending at an absurd scale (out of necessity in this case).
So.. you're contradicting yourself.
No, he's not.
A large influx of money from government spending does, in the short term, stimulate economic activity.
The problem is that it's like heroin.
It only keeps working while the spending is going on, and every new influx needs to be bigger than the one before to get the same results, and eventually, the dosage reaches a toxic level as the government spending sucks all the capital away and burdens the economy with unsustainable levels of debt.
It's really not rocket surgery. It's just that some people want everyone to believe it is in order to further their own ideological and political agendas, wealth, and power. Whether one is an individual, family, city, State, multinational mega-corp, or nation; If you spend more than you make, even if others will loan you money at first to cover your excessive spending, you'll eventually go bankrupt if not halted in time.
And, even if halted before an economic meltdown, there will be a lot of hard work, economic pain, and widespread suffering before things return to anything approaching "normal". Just like a drug addict finally recovering, only to face all the debts incurred supporting his addiction.
Also just as with a drug addict, the longer we wait to break the government-spending addiction, the harder and more painful it will be, possibly even being fatal, and the longer that painful and difficult recovery will be.
I'm actually quite strongly pro-Israeli, that doesn't mean I can't (for instance) criticise the actions of the more extreme settlers in provoking the Palestinians.
My post wasn't directed at reasonable people with measured, intelligent, and pointed criticisms. I don't necessarily agree 100% with every bit of Israeli actions or policies either. That does not make them bad or wrong in this conflict.
I was thinking more along the lines of the "Code Pink"-style of shrill, hate-filled, "Freedom Flotilla" type Liberal/Progressives, the ones that sound like (aside from language) they could have been time-transported out from a late-1930s-Germany political rally, so vitriolic is their hatred for Jews and Israel.
It's the same sick hatred carried over from WW2 Nazi Germany. Hitler and the Grand Mufti were allies in their hatred for the Jews. The Allies defeated Germany and took steps to mostly end the Jew-hatred in Europe, but did almost nothing to alleviate it in the ME. So, there in the ME that same hatred from WW2 has festered and grown more evil for ~60 years.
The Allies at the end of WW2 should have taken steps in the ME as they did in Europe to end the Jew-hate, but they failed to foresee the chaos and bloodshed leaving that hatred festering would cause.
Today it's up to us to either stop it now, or wait and watch the world plunged into a hate-filled global Armageddon led by an Islamic version of Nazi Germany. Only this time with a nuclear-armed Islamic version of Nazi Germany, if Iran's nuclear program is not halted.
I'm not holding out much hope, however. Not when the WH has Muslim Brotherhood members as honored guests and they are given security clearances to access classified and secret government documents and information.
Speculate what would happen if we just stopped taking care of those who depend on such a system. It would be bad for EVERYONE
We don't have to speculate. We have history!
During most of which in the US, there was no Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, Federal Reserve, or Fannie/Freddie. No food stamps. Or income tax and IRS either, for that matter.
And guess what?
During that time we came from a backwater colony to a major world power in every sense of the word, and became the beacon of freedom and opportunity that practically everyone in the world wanted to immigrate to There were no masses of homeless poor. Communities, and their churches and charities, with contributions from wealthy local people and businesses, as they didn't have to send a large percentage of their wealth to the government, took care of their neighbors and people in the community that fell onto hard times.
Then, the Progressive movement took hold in the US and gave us Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, the Federal Reserve, Fannie/Freddie, Food stamps, and income taxes and the IRS.
Now, we're here. On the brink of economic and social collapse.
But I'm sure many will say those things are unrelated. They'll try to nitpick semantics, engage in ad hominem attacks, etc etc, trying to discredit and attack me personally in an attempt to discredit and distract from what I've posted.
I suggest doing your own historical research as I did. And no, simply looking shit up on Wikipedia or reading blogs is not researching
I don't understand how those who describe themselves as tolerant and civilized Liberal/Progressives can possibly support "Palestinians" who blatantly kill gays and beat/stone to death women and treat them as sex-slaves and chattel.
So, to recap, Palestinians hang gays and treat women as property, yet Palestinians are supported by the same people and groups who are protesting for gay marriage and pro-women agendas in the US. Is it only US gays that deserve to be allowed to live, not get hung, and get married? Or are "brown" gays different? Is it only non-Arabic women that you get upset over being treated as sub-human chattel and sex-slaves?
I guess I'm just morbidly curious as to how anyone claiming to be tolerant and progressive-minded can rationalize all that rabid support for Palestinians and rabid hatred for Israelis/Jews without their head asploding.
Excellent argument. The government-employed medical doctors doing cutting edge research developing treatments no private sector company will touch because there's not enough profit in it: Clearly corrupt. Those firefighters who parachute in to disaster areas with nothing but a shovel and desire to save whoever they can: Obviously corrupt. People battling for meaningful financial reform against incredibly powerful opponents: Corruption incarnate. The only moral choice is to do nothing; anybody who says they're in government to try and do the right thing is obviously lying.
Nice straw-man arguments there. Too bad I didn't argue any of those. I'm sure that the old Soviet government and Iran's government also did/does some good things. Doesn't make them good guys, and neither does it make the US government good guys.
Almost every single thing you mentioned could be done at the State and local levels without the Feds except a national financial reform, and nothing you listed requires domestic surveillance (digital or otherwise) of the NSA/CIA/FBI variety.
At this point in time, the US Federal government is FAR more a danger to individual freedom, privacy, and rule of law, than any terrorist group or foreign power. I trust Al Qaeda far more than the Federal government. I KNOW what Al Qaeda's agenda is, though I disagree vehemently with it. Sadly, I cannot trust my own government's intentions to anywhere close to the same degree. They keep giving me more and more, and stronger and stronger, reasons not to almost every time I read the news.
Also, you don't have a clue about what the folks who work for the US government do for you.
Yeah, yeah, yeah "We're from the government, and we're here to help".
Please stop doing stuff for us. It's destroying the country.
I know some of what the people who work for the US government do TO us. That's way too much as it is, thanks.
If those you speak of in the US government want more trust from we the people, they desperately need to focus their efforts on exposing and destroying corruption and betrayal by US government officials and politicians.
Until that happens, you're all still willing parts in the corrupt, evil machine and will be regarded and treated as such. Molon labe.
Do they admit anyone with tuition, or must all students be sponsored by some government agency? Are the full range and content of courses available to non-government-sponsored students?
Might be a good idea for the EFF and/or other similar watchdog/defense organizations to set up a scholarship to train those who would help defend us from precisely the things they're teaching.
I'd be willing to bet long odds that a large percentage of the government-sponsored student graduates will end up using their skills against domestic civilian targets at the behest of their government handlers, and many/most of those targets are/will be purely political in nature.
But in the U.S. the 5th amendment would protect you from having to reveal the encryption keys.
That's cute that you believe your "rights" have any meaning if US police and/or any TLAs want your encryption keys bad enough, especially if it's something like the encrypted data in question being such that it may expose/prove massive wrongdoing/corruption/treasonous acts on the government's behalf. This is especially true these days with expanded-PATRIOT act, NDAA, etc etc.
Refusal to reveal encryption keys in such cases is likely to cost one an expanding list of bodily parts...kneecaps...fingers...teeth...eyes...genitalia...you get the idea.
The US has become a police state. It just hasn't gone all full goose-stepping-thugs-and-open-trench-mass-graves.
Yet.
If government size, power, and control aren't reined-in sharply and quickly, it will.
We're only one convenient crisis away.
DHS and FEMA are ready with millions and millions of rounds of hollow-point ammo requisitioned over the past couple of years, and "temporary" holding facilities "in case of emergency". DHS also recently requisitioned tens of thousands of prefabricated, bulletproof, roadside checkpoint shelters.
Of course that's all just conspiracy-nut stuff. It couldn't happen here. All emergency/disaster refugee centers are built like prisons with razor-wire fences, guard towers, and barred holding cells. Move along, nothing to see here.
I see the great Slashdot tradition of modding-down what you disagree with but can't form a consistent, cogent, and factual argument against is still strong. I'm sorry if documented facts & reality upset those incapable of independent critical thought, but I won't keep silent to appease the small minds of the Idiocracy. "If you strike me down, I shall become more powerful than you can possibly imagine."...as you only reverse-validate my points by trying to silence those that disagree with your ideological stances instead of presenting an argument that counters the points and facts in my post. Apparently all that "tolerance and inclusiveness" that is touted is only for those who agree with your views.
So the question is, who is attacking to destroy newscorp with the aid of the United States and Big Media?
That would be people like George Soros and his Open Society Institute as well as hundreds of other organizations (Tides, Ford, etc) he and his -sub-organizations fund in full or in part. Many attacks carried out by third-party proxies. But, Soros and others around the world wanting a single global government are but one of many other power blocs like the Muslim/Islamic blocs, the socialist and the communist blocs, and every other radical revolutionary organization and bloc both foreign and domestic that sees the chaos being caused as an opportunity for them.
Murdoch/News Inc has many enemies inside of various governments and outside of those governments, including many political and radical groups. No surprise they pile-on when they smell blood in the water. Doesn't matter if one group attacking is actually a mortal enemy of another attacker. For the time being to accomplish a larger common goal, the enemy of their enemy, etc. No active coordination needed, just self-interest in taking advantage of an opportunity to damage a major enemy.
To make major societal, cultural, and political changes takes time...unless one doesn't mind creating widespread chaos, panic, death, and destruction to "clear the way" for a new power bloc to grab control by telling the people; "Just follow us! We'll save you from this chaos!"...not mentioning, of course, that they have spent decades working to bring the chaos about and them to this point of desperation.
Desperate, starving, and frightened people will do pretty much anything that anyone that even looks like they might be able to help tells them to do or say. Help create/accelerate the chaos, then ride to the rescue. It's how most socialist revolutions have worked, and is even pretty much how things went in 1930s Germany.
It's a good thing for tyrants, tyrannies, genocidal butchers, and the revolutions that keep putting them into power, that people never learn from history and even attack anyone who tries, so deluded, fanatical, and closed-minded do they become.
Slashdot Mirror
...they would still have to overturn wiretapping laws in the US...
Except that treaties that the US agrees to trump all domestic laws, regulations, and statutes...everything but the US Constitution, and as much as that meant to halting anything the government/politicians really wanted over the last few decades, I wouldn't put a lot of faith in that "goddamn piece of paper!"
Treaties entered into by the Executive Branch need to be ratified by Congress, but even if Congress fails to ratify it, that would not necessarily kill it. In many instances over the last decade, Congress has been bypassed by Executive Orders and similar Executive Branch power tactics to achieve their goals and simulaneously grab more Executive Branch power despite Congressional inaction and/or opposition, Congressional and/or popular.
There has to be a BIG push-back on this to stop it. Whether or not that push-back materializes to the strength and magnitude required to stop it is anyone's guess at this point, although I admit being pessimistic.
Strat
Long distance and national phone calls are charged at a higher rate as it is the simplest way of getting businesses and wealthy people to subsidize the maintenance of the local telephone network.
It's also a dis-incentive to the peoples of different regions to develop close, regular contact, thus promoting social and cultural divisions based on fear, ignorance, hatred, and mistrust. The more divided people are, the easier they are to control.
The internet has exploded far beyond expectations in almost every metric, and this threatens the entire current power structures of both governments and commerce worldwide. Depend on the powers that be attempting to control what and who is on it and how it is used. It's the single greatest threat to tyranny and despotism to come along in centuries. Of course that all depends on, as Ben Franklin said to a woman who asked him about the freshly-minted US Republic, "If you can keep it!"
Strat
This is my sorrow that people cannot agree that their opponent has valid goals...
What if one disagrees with the goals and honestly, with reason, does not consider them valid or has reason to believe the publicly-stated goals are not the actual goals because of actions taken that consistently do not match the publicly-stated goals?
Hate Obama for his policies, not is existence or this imaginary crimes.
I don't hate Obama. I don't even know Obama. Neither do you. All I know are his policies and actions, or lack of actions. And what if he *has* committed real, actual crimes? He should get a pass because of race? Isn't that racist?
I don't even care about being called racist any more. It's been so bastardized, over-used, and misapplied to everything and everybody that disagrees with and/or opposes Obama and/or his policies and goals that it has become nearly meaningless, which I'm sure must delight the *real* racists in the KKK, NBPP, Nation of Islam, Aryan Brotherhood, etc etc.
So, congratulations to all the Progressives/Democrats for all their hard work in setting back race relations and the battle against *actual* racism by decades by pounding this "anyone who disagrees with Obama and/or Progressive policies/goals is a racist!" meme into the ground until nobody cares or pays attention to *actual* racism anymore because of the extreme politicization of the term into a lame and meaningless generic political attack.
Strat
Not surprising after the Patreaus scandal. Funny how these things move fast when it afects politicians. They are probably afraid one of them would be the next Patreaus.
Petraeus was appointed with the administration already knowing all about his peccadilloes. They wanted somebody vulnerable there as a cutout and scapegoat to protect and insulate others including the POTUS from the repercussions of their actions, in this case their actions (or lack of actions) surrounding Benghazi and 4 Americans left to die when help was available, all in order to protect the administration and it's agendas regarding Islamic terrorism and the Muslim Brotherhood ("we don't use the 'T-word' any more", and "the MB are moderate and mostly secular" are parts of it).
Anyone familiar with Chicago politics cant tell you that it's one of the hallmarks of corrupt Chicago-style politics: Always appoint people you've got "leverage" and "dirt" on in case they start singing.
Who do you think was behind the Petraeus scandal coming to light, conveniently for the administration, just as Congress was going to hear Petraeus testify about Benghazi? Laws regarding email privacy would have done exactly squat to prevent the Petraeus emails from coming out.
The existing laws and this bill covering private, personal email have nothing to do with email privacy regarding those in government positions with high national security and secrecy clearances in any case.
Strat
Another result shows that 'we carry a much larger load of deleterious variants' (as well as positive variants) than our ancestors 200 generations ago."
Anyone who is familiar with and has read some of the comments on Slashdot could've told you *that*! Hell, "Idiocracy" is a documentary film!
Did someone actually pay these people for this "research"?
A Dire Straights song comes to mind. No, it's not "Sultans of Swing".
Strat
This the bill also outlaws laws that affect:
1) Data Retention checks and privacy controls
2) Removing surveillance powers, claims, etc.
3) Reducing existing intelligence powers "securing the net" - (think the staggering amounts of warrant-less information requests sent today)
4) Preventing doubtful domain name from existing players.
Always look at the other side of the coin before buying it... And never take at political statement at face value.
Yeah, damn Issa to hell! Congress was just abut to pass a set of laws to accomplish all that stuff. It was practically a done-deal and internet freedom within our grasp when Issa yanked it out from under us.
The Party of Mickey Mouse and the Senators from Disneyland and Hollywood were all on-board and ready to completely reverse their entire decades-long direction and agenda, and then Issa messed everything up. And it was going to happen in a lame-duck Congress, too.
What color is the sky on your planet?
I bet you think the recently proposed "Net Neutrality" bill has something positive to do with actual net neutrality, too.
Hint: It just hands over regulatory control of the internet to three unelected bureaucrats in the FCC. The FCC that's headed by a guy who thinks that Hugo Chavez' seizing control of radio/TV stations etc was a ~good~ thing.
Woohoo, boy, I feel freer already, don't you?
Strat
All those laws and regs against fraud started out as an "attempt to "shape" and "steer" the market according to some politician's or bureaucrat's fantasies"
Only if you consider enforcing basic rules of fair-dealing and basic marketplace rules qualify as an "attempt to "shape" and "steer" the market according to some politician's or bureaucrat's fantasies".
I and most people call rules, laws, and Acts designed to encourage or discourage certain investments and/or patterns of investments in certain areas/industries/markets and/or with certain parties over others in an effort to shape markets to suit a political or ideological agenda, "attempts to "shape" and "steer" the market according to some politician's or bureaucrat's fantasies".
Oh, yeah.
Iran doesn't get to extradite anyone from the USA, but they can certainly prosecute anyone they want in absentia.
Right you are, but you do realize why, right? The same reason other countries don't do the same thing to US citizens in the US that the US does to foreign nationals in other countries:
US military, political, and economic might.
This was precisely the point I was making, that the US is throwing it's weight around in a way that it would never itself tolerate, and would probably call terrorist, and possibly even "send innn the dronesss" over.
Do you think that if the US was comparable in wealth/political power/military might to Ecuador that the UK or NZ would be helping the US snatch up their own citizens, often with questionable evidence, and sometimes even when it may be completely contrary to their own laws? Sometimes even against the laws both in the US AND the target country!?
The US government has "gone rogue". It no longer even pretends to follow it's own laws or the limits on it's power set forth in the constitution. It has become millstone around the necks of, and a clear and present danger to, not only it's own citizens, but the people of the entire world.
That's one of the major reasons I cannot comprehend the thinking of those that wish to grant the government ever-more control over more and more of our lives, our economy, and our society, while also insisting we hand over more and more of our wealth for government to buy the shiny new jack-boots to enforce the powers it has simply grabbed or were granted to it by a corrupt Congress/SCOTUS. In fact the opposite should be occurring, as that's the only way the rogue US government can be peacefully restrained from it's abuse of it's own people and those of other nations around the world, and prevent the inevitable (if little or nothing changes) civil war that will come.
Strat
I agree on the face of it.
However, the politicians themselves will never feel any repercussions, only regular citizens who are left to pay the costs and deal with restrictions and other primary and secondary consequences, both intended AND unintended.
As long as those paying the politicians pay enough, the politicians will just have citizens "suck it up" because they know they have us so divided we can't effectively oppose them, especially when the two major parties on most major issues concerned with things other than "wedge issues" almost totally agree with each other.
Strat
I am not slamming on my breaks in front of a truck no matter what the light says.
Yeah, no shit. Where I'm at there's a major gravel quarry in the area, which means there are huge double-trailer gravel haulers running the main roads. You have one of those monsters close enough to count the folds of skin on the jaw on that Mack bulldog hood ornament in your rear-view mirror on a 50mph two-lane approaching a traffic light...well, let's just say the old adrenaline levels get a little "bump" if that light turns yellow as you get close, and you start desperately looking at cross-traffic to see what your odds are. Now imagine you're not driving a car, but riding a motorcycle. :-O
Since the topic involves vehicles, I had a chuckle at this recently.
---
I saw a Vespa hit a Prius at the traffic intersection today.
There was glitter _everywhere_.
---
Strat
The US doesn't ban gambling, they protect the government's monopoly of it.
Well, technically, they ban US citizens from participating in gambling occurring outside the US. It's OK to bet at the horse track and the indian casinos, even OK to do it online IIRC. Just not OK to gamble with a non-US-based entity.
And the US has already been (repeatedly, IIRC?) sanctioned by the WTO for doing so.
Strat
Intertrade had already been charged with the exact same offense, had agreed to stop doing so, but didn't.
Somehow this is an issue with intrusive, authoritarian governments?
Yes, if the US government is attempting to extend it's legal jurisdiction to control what a sovereign foreign national or foreign business does in their own nation. Does Iran get to extradite and prosecute Hollywood film companies and/or their execs for depicting women not covered by hijabs and/or burqas?
/And I don't think anyone is arguing that commodities futures should not be regulated, because they would be wrong.
If by "regulation" you mean laws and regulations to prevent fraud/cheating/stealing and to enforce legal contracts and negate illegal or unconscionable contracts, then I agree.
If you mean the type of intrusive and byzantine laws and regulations that exist now that attempt to "shape" and "steer" the market according to some politician's or bureaucrat's fantasies, then I AM arguing against regulation, regardless of your opinions either way.
Strat
The middle east bans Muhammad satire and the US bans gambling and other vices. Somehow it all goes back to intrusive, authoritarian governments.
FTFY
Strat
The right not to starve or freeze to death should not be dependent on the whims of Robber Barons and Fascists, so fuck you and all your right wing nutjob cronies.
I agree.
I don't think they should be dependent on "Robber Barons and Fascists" either.
That's why I want the government out of it, because government is exactly where robbers and fascists are, and where they operate best. After all, fascism is a form of _government_ not religion, and tax collectors are government-sanctioned robbers.
Churches generally look after their own, or people they consider the "deserving poor."
Bullshit. I've lived and worked in many places across the US. In almost every single place, there was a homeless shelter and soup kitchen. Every single one was funded by a church, not any government agency.
My band and I have done charity fund-raiser shows many times over the years to help these shelters raise money to operate on, as well as money to pay for compliance costs for the ever-growing list of new laws and regulations they are confronted with every single year (government doesn't like competition...they want to be the only game in town, even when it comes to charity).
These church-run shelters and soup kitchens don't care what race, religion (if any), ethnicity, etc the people they help are. They take care of those that don't qualify for (or don't want anything to do with) government programs, and even many that do receive some government help, but not enough.
If you want to see the pure evil that reliance on fucking charity involves, try reading a few Dickens novels...
Why not try putting down the Kindle, walking up mom's basement stairs, and walk outside and experience the real world the rest of us live in? Hint: We aren't living in Dickens' world of "Oliver Twist", so you won't need to wear those 19th-century schoolboy-shorts you've been hoarding.
Strat
Guess why those protests had such widespread support?
Because people are no different then than they are now, and just like you, are easily tempted by appeals to the emotions of envy, greed, and hatred, and turned into "useful idiots" in the classic bourgeois-vs-proletariat, class-warfare road to violent radical revolution.
The sad news is that it has never worked out well for them no matter how many times it's been done through history or by whom, and again, just like you, they fail to learn from history. The problem is, you drag innocent, unwilling others down with you, otherwise I'd say you deserve the horror and tyranny you demand.
Strat
No, he's not.
A large influx of money from government spending does, in the short term, stimulate economic activity.
The problem is that it's like heroin.
It only keeps working while the spending is going on, and every new influx needs to be bigger than the one before to get the same results, and eventually, the dosage reaches a toxic level as the government spending sucks all the capital away and burdens the economy with unsustainable levels of debt.
It's really not rocket surgery. It's just that some people want everyone to believe it is in order to further their own ideological and political agendas, wealth, and power. Whether one is an individual, family, city, State, multinational mega-corp, or nation; If you spend more than you make, even if others will loan you money at first to cover your excessive spending, you'll eventually go bankrupt if not halted in time.
And, even if halted before an economic meltdown, there will be a lot of hard work, economic pain, and widespread suffering before things return to anything approaching "normal". Just like a drug addict finally recovering, only to face all the debts incurred supporting his addiction.
Also just as with a drug addict, the longer we wait to break the government-spending addiction, the harder and more painful it will be, possibly even being fatal, and the longer that painful and difficult recovery will be.
Strat
I'm actually quite strongly pro-Israeli, that doesn't mean I can't (for instance) criticise the actions of the more extreme settlers in provoking the Palestinians.
My post wasn't directed at reasonable people with measured, intelligent, and pointed criticisms. I don't necessarily agree 100% with every bit of Israeli actions or policies either. That does not make them bad or wrong in this conflict.
I was thinking more along the lines of the "Code Pink"-style of shrill, hate-filled, "Freedom Flotilla" type Liberal/Progressives, the ones that sound like (aside from language) they could have been time-transported out from a late-1930s-Germany political rally, so vitriolic is their hatred for Jews and Israel.
It's the same sick hatred carried over from WW2 Nazi Germany. Hitler and the Grand Mufti were allies in their hatred for the Jews. The Allies defeated Germany and took steps to mostly end the Jew-hatred in Europe, but did almost nothing to alleviate it in the ME. So, there in the ME that same hatred from WW2 has festered and grown more evil for ~60 years.
The Allies at the end of WW2 should have taken steps in the ME as they did in Europe to end the Jew-hate, but they failed to foresee the chaos and bloodshed leaving that hatred festering would cause.
Today it's up to us to either stop it now, or wait and watch the world plunged into a hate-filled global Armageddon led by an Islamic version of Nazi Germany. Only this time with a nuclear-armed Islamic version of Nazi Germany, if Iran's nuclear program is not halted.
I'm not holding out much hope, however. Not when the WH has Muslim Brotherhood members as honored guests and they are given security clearances to access classified and secret government documents and information.
Strat
Speculate what would happen if we just stopped taking care of those who depend on such a system. It would be bad for EVERYONE
We don't have to speculate. We have history!
During most of which in the US, there was no Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, Federal Reserve, or Fannie/Freddie. No food stamps. Or income tax and IRS either, for that matter.
And guess what?
During that time we came from a backwater colony to a major world power in every sense of the word, and became the beacon of freedom and opportunity that practically everyone in the world wanted to immigrate to There were no masses of homeless poor. Communities, and their churches and charities, with contributions from wealthy local people and businesses, as they didn't have to send a large percentage of their wealth to the government, took care of their neighbors and people in the community that fell onto hard times.
Then, the Progressive movement took hold in the US and gave us Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, the Federal Reserve, Fannie/Freddie, Food stamps, and income taxes and the IRS.
Now, we're here. On the brink of economic and social collapse.
But I'm sure many will say those things are unrelated. They'll try to nitpick semantics, engage in ad hominem attacks, etc etc, trying to discredit and attack me personally in an attempt to discredit and distract from what I've posted.
I suggest doing your own historical research as I did. And no, simply looking shit up on Wikipedia or reading blogs is not researching
Strat
I don't understand how those who describe themselves as tolerant and civilized Liberal/Progressives can possibly support "Palestinians" who blatantly kill gays and beat/stone to death women and treat them as sex-slaves and chattel.
This explains what I mean: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cCiqdjVHTOI
And this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VGaXIhT3SRI
So, to recap, Palestinians hang gays and treat women as property, yet Palestinians are supported by the same people and groups who are protesting for gay marriage and pro-women agendas in the US. Is it only US gays that deserve to be allowed to live, not get hung, and get married? Or are "brown" gays different? Is it only non-Arabic women that you get upset over being treated as sub-human chattel and sex-slaves?
I guess I'm just morbidly curious as to how anyone claiming to be tolerant and progressive-minded can rationalize all that rabid support for Palestinians and rabid hatred for Israelis/Jews without their head asploding.
Strat
Excellent argument. The government-employed medical doctors doing cutting edge research developing treatments no private sector company will touch because there's not enough profit in it: Clearly corrupt. Those firefighters who parachute in to disaster areas with nothing but a shovel and desire to save whoever they can: Obviously corrupt. People battling for meaningful financial reform against incredibly powerful opponents: Corruption incarnate. The only moral choice is to do nothing; anybody who says they're in government to try and do the right thing is obviously lying.
Nice straw-man arguments there. Too bad I didn't argue any of those. I'm sure that the old Soviet government and Iran's government also did/does some good things. Doesn't make them good guys, and neither does it make the US government good guys.
Almost every single thing you mentioned could be done at the State and local levels without the Feds except a national financial reform, and nothing you listed requires domestic surveillance (digital or otherwise) of the NSA/CIA/FBI variety.
At this point in time, the US Federal government is FAR more a danger to individual freedom, privacy, and rule of law, than any terrorist group or foreign power. I trust Al Qaeda far more than the Federal government. I KNOW what Al Qaeda's agenda is, though I disagree vehemently with it. Sadly, I cannot trust my own government's intentions to anywhere close to the same degree. They keep giving me more and more, and stronger and stronger, reasons not to almost every time I read the news.
Strat
Also, you don't have a clue about what the folks who work for the US government do for you.
Yeah, yeah, yeah "We're from the government, and we're here to help".
Please stop doing stuff for us. It's destroying the country.
I know some of what the people who work for the US government do TO us. That's way too much as it is, thanks.
If those you speak of in the US government want more trust from we the people, they desperately need to focus their efforts on exposing and destroying corruption and betrayal by US government officials and politicians.
Until that happens, you're all still willing parts in the corrupt, evil machine and will be regarded and treated as such. Molon labe.
Strat
Do they admit anyone with tuition, or must all students be sponsored by some government agency? Are the full range and content of courses available to non-government-sponsored students?
Might be a good idea for the EFF and/or other similar watchdog/defense organizations to set up a scholarship to train those who would help defend us from precisely the things they're teaching.
I'd be willing to bet long odds that a large percentage of the government-sponsored student graduates will end up using their skills against domestic civilian targets at the behest of their government handlers, and many/most of those targets are/will be purely political in nature.
Strat
Hey CJ, looks like we _both_ got hit by AC's other brother Daryl...with mod points, LOL!
Pretty amazing, looking at how this thread went and how the AC replied.
Well, it's to be expected I suppose. After all, sheep *do* travel in herds, right? Heh.
Strat
But in the U.S. the 5th amendment would protect you from having to reveal the encryption keys.
That's cute that you believe your "rights" have any meaning if US police and/or any TLAs want your encryption keys bad enough, especially if it's something like the encrypted data in question being such that it may expose/prove massive wrongdoing/corruption/treasonous acts on the government's behalf. This is especially true these days with expanded-PATRIOT act, NDAA, etc etc.
Refusal to reveal encryption keys in such cases is likely to cost one an expanding list of bodily parts...kneecaps...fingers...teeth...eyes...genitalia...you get the idea.
The US has become a police state. It just hasn't gone all full goose-stepping-thugs-and-open-trench-mass-graves.
Yet.
If government size, power, and control aren't reined-in sharply and quickly, it will.
We're only one convenient crisis away.
DHS and FEMA are ready with millions and millions of rounds of hollow-point ammo requisitioned over the past couple of years, and "temporary" holding facilities "in case of emergency". DHS also recently requisitioned tens of thousands of prefabricated, bulletproof, roadside checkpoint shelters.
Of course that's all just conspiracy-nut stuff. It couldn't happen here. All emergency/disaster refugee centers are built like prisons with razor-wire fences, guard towers, and barred holding cells. Move along, nothing to see here.
Strat
I see the great Slashdot tradition of modding-down what you disagree with but can't form a consistent, cogent, and factual argument against is still strong. I'm sorry if documented facts & reality upset those incapable of independent critical thought, but I won't keep silent to appease the small minds of the Idiocracy. "If you strike me down, I shall become more powerful than you can possibly imagine."...as you only reverse-validate my points by trying to silence those that disagree with your ideological stances instead of presenting an argument that counters the points and facts in my post. Apparently all that "tolerance and inclusiveness" that is touted is only for those who agree with your views.
Strat
So the question is, who is attacking to destroy newscorp with the aid of the United States and Big Media?
That would be people like George Soros and his Open Society Institute as well as hundreds of other organizations (Tides, Ford, etc) he and his -sub-organizations fund in full or in part. Many attacks carried out by third-party proxies. But, Soros and others around the world wanting a single global government are but one of many other power blocs like the Muslim/Islamic blocs, the socialist and the communist blocs, and every other radical revolutionary organization and bloc both foreign and domestic that sees the chaos being caused as an opportunity for them.
Murdoch/News Inc has many enemies inside of various governments and outside of those governments, including many political and radical groups. No surprise they pile-on when they smell blood in the water. Doesn't matter if one group attacking is actually a mortal enemy of another attacker. For the time being to accomplish a larger common goal, the enemy of their enemy, etc. No active coordination needed, just self-interest in taking advantage of an opportunity to damage a major enemy.
To make major societal, cultural, and political changes takes time...unless one doesn't mind creating widespread chaos, panic, death, and destruction to "clear the way" for a new power bloc to grab control by telling the people; "Just follow us! We'll save you from this chaos!"...not mentioning, of course, that they have spent decades working to bring the chaos about and them to this point of desperation.
Desperate, starving, and frightened people will do pretty much anything that anyone that even looks like they might be able to help tells them to do or say. Help create/accelerate the chaos, then ride to the rescue. It's how most socialist revolutions have worked, and is even pretty much how things went in 1930s Germany.
It's a good thing for tyrants, tyrannies, genocidal butchers, and the revolutions that keep putting them into power, that people never learn from history and even attack anyone who tries, so deluded, fanatical, and closed-minded do they become.
Strat