In The Liberal War on on Transparency, published by Threshold Editions last month, I revealed the existence of a series of black, or “alias” email accounts used by EPA administrators. These were actively instituted by none other than Carol Browner, who designed her own secret address, for an account that I also learned was set to “auto-delete”.
You remember Ms. Browner? She’s the lady who suddenly ordered her computer hard drive be reformatted and backup tapes be erased, just hours after a federal court issued a “preserve” order that her lawyers at the Clinton Justice Department insisted they hadn’t yet told her about? She’s the one who said it didn’t matter because she didn’t use her computer for email anyway? Yes, that one. . . more
President Obama said he was committed to being the most transparent Administration in history. It seems to be coming true, but not in the way votes expected. But it is true, the administration is becoming increasing transparent.
So, this can be added to the growing list of administration scandals fighting for public attention: Benghazi, IRS suppression of conservative political groups, IRS suppression of orthodox religious groups, IRS suppression of adoption, IRS seizure of health records, exploding costs for healthcare reform,....
I guess it must be morning wherever the press has been on vacation the last couple of years.
G'day Mr. DeathElk, I welcome your suggestion. And if the Light Horse could scrape up the courage to charge Beersheba under Turkish guns, I think I'll be able to find the courage to try Vegemite as you suggest. Cheers!
You're joking, right? We export that crap so we don't have to drink it.
Given that Fosters has something like a 45% share of the Australian market, some combination of this must be true: it still has fans, remains a guilty pleasure that isn't admitted to, or nobody can find enough export victims. At least it has some snappy advertising to help.
Frankly, I have no idea what can be done about vegemite. People have been warned.
Much like your Anita Dunn comment - you don't know that she was quoting GOP strategist Lee Atwater because whatever blog you picked up that smear from didn't bother to mention it either.
I think we covered that here. Your point is misleading rubbish.
The original poster's point (read it) was to advance the idea that the "media" praises and fawns over Stalin, Pol Pot, and Mao,...
Anita Dunn referred to Mao as one of her "favorite political philosophers," You can hear and watch her say that here.
A shitload of people disagree with you, and quite of few of them view you as a nutcase. It's highly unlikely that you're smarter and more well-informed than ALL of them, isn't it?
If you're talking Slashdot, yes, that can certainly happen, i.e. the mob is wrong, as are you.
Don't confuse high moderation with actually being correct on a matter.
Oh, and also because she was ironically quoting GOP strategist Lee Atwater, but you missed that while you were watching the Glenn Beck show - probably because his out-of-context attack didn't mention that key tidbit.
. . . Here, you should try reading this:
Why read misleading commentary when you can watch her and figure it out for yourself? Or does that not suit your purpose?
She isn't quoting Lee Atwater, she is quoting Chinese Communist Party Chairman Mao Zedong. Were all of the Washington, Jefferson, Hamilton, Lincoln, Grant, Sherman, Theodore Roosevelt, FDR, Eisenhower, MacArthur, Truman, JFK, Reagan, Clinton, Churchill, Thatcher, Ghandi, Lord Beaverbrook, or even de Gaulle quotes used up? There was no other leader with a quote to illustrate that point besides Mao? If Lee Atwater in truth played any role in this at all, it was in the vanishingly small part of making her aware of the quote in some unknown context 20 odd years ago, which you apparently think is a smoking gun. But either way she was still the one that chose to use it in 2009, wasn't she? It is a very long stretch to try to attribute this in any way to something which may or may not have been uttered during the Reagan administration. Get real.
Or maybe it's because it's not "one of Obama's close advisers", but one of his debate coaches that served as White House communications director for 7 months.
Yes, she was the White House Communications Director, the person who is responsible for projecting the public face of the administration of President of the United States Barack Obama. You would think that would be just the person who shouldn't be quoting the leader of a nation that managed to kill approximately 70 million people, for which he bore no small responsibility, regarding political wisdom to use in guiding one's actions. I've noticed most White House Communications Directors have been able to stay away from quotes by Lenin, Stalin, Mussolini, Tojo, Hitler, Castro, and Ho Chi Minh for quite some time now, so why not Mao?
Unlike you, I'm willing to enlighten a dim-witted mind.
No problem. With an audience that is both international and prone to being "nose to the grindstone" for long periods of time, you can't always make assumptions. It is a pity though that the "Newspaper of Record" can best be characterized with sarcastic irony in terms of its coverage, as you point out. It brings this to mind. Have a great week.
Assuming you aren't going for sarcasm or irony given that the New York Times has generally been fans of the Obama administration and provided what could be called "friendly" coverage (although it may be more apt to describe it in military terms as "covering fire")...
You clearly have no idea what "the full force of government to stifle opposition" actually looks like, and for all our sakes, I sincerely hope you never find out.
I think you could say the "consommé" version of that sort of "feast" enjoyed in truly oppressive regimes, such as under Stalin, is being served now to conservatives of various flavours in the United States. That is still not acceptable. The IRS has admitted it was out of line, but they may not be the only ones involved.
But Engelbrecht's attorney, Cleta Mitchell, says it's not just the Democratic Party that went after the conservative causes, but also the federal government. Within months of the groups filing for tax-exempt status, Engelbrecht claims she started getting hit by an onslaught of harassment: six FBI domestic terrorism inquiries, an IRS visit, two IRS business audits, two IRS personal audits, and inspections of her equipment manufacturing company by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF), the U.S. Department of Labor Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and Texas environmental quality officials.
Taken alone, any of the visits and actions might seem perfectly reasonable. But Engelbrecht and her lawyer says it's the pattern and the timing of the attention paid to Engelbrecht's interests that led them to conclude something was amiss...
So far it looks like it may have been as many as 500-600 conservative groups. This is not good, at all. Some of what has been going on is way beyond acceptable for government behavior in the United States, or the West in general today.
We don't have to get to Stalin / Mao / Pol Pot bad to say things have gone too far. Even the totalitarian regimes they headed didn't want to repeat the experience again.
You didn't quite get it straight, so no, you aren't correct. His stated and only purpose for going to the building, based on an insider tip he received, was to secretly record the meeting of Senator McConnell's reelection committee without their consent. He went there on a holiday with an accomplice, snuck into the building, past an unmanned reception desk (as stated, it was a holiday), until he found Senator McConnell's office. He then used a hand-held device with a microphone and digital recording capability to record the conversations of Senator McConnell's committee for at least 12 minutes while holding his device to the door vent. They must have been at the door for even longer since they apparently checked what they were recording and made adjustments to their equipment, and changed their mind about how and what they were recording, going from an attempt to capture video to only audio. And how does he describe how he felt, and when he left?
I was sweating. My heart was racing. . . . When a gentleman walked out of the campaign headquarters and into the hall, I put my Flip and phone back in my pocket, and headed to the elevator.
Shawn was already there. We made our escape.
He made his escape. Doesn't really sound innocent, does it? Do you think an ordinary passerby, that wasn't trespassing on a holiday to record the Senator's meeting, would linger with a recording device by a door for 20 minutes if it occurred on a normal business day at 2:00 PM? The fact that his recording device was his cell phone is completely irrelevant, and it is the recording that makes this a possible criminal offense.
You don't find anything even mildly unethical about it? You think the problem isn't with the two intruders? It certainly appears to be direct violation of the law, probably more than one, hence the prosecutor and grand jury. As I indicated, I don't think you have this one straight.
His initial post was correct. Tons of people should read it. The AC he responded to was misleading in what must be a deliberate attempt to confuse the issue.
Your initial post was correct. The post you responded to relies on clever misdirection to, in effect, lie. The man facing an indictment by a grand jury didn't simply overhear a conversation through a door as he innocently passed by, he specifically went there based on an insider tip to secretly record their conversation without their consent, and violate their privacy. I don't think there is any real question about there being an expectation of privacy when engaged in private conversation behind closed doors in a private office in a private building. If the standard for privacy is, "can't be heard by hook or by crook," there will be nothing considered private.
Once again, you were completely correct in your initial post.
The voices were coming from the other side of a nearby door, which had a window. I pulled out my Flip camera and started to record. I don’t need to tell you what a weapon the pocket video camera has become."
A covert listening device, more commonly known as a bug or a wire, is usually a combination of a miniature radio transmitter with a microphone. The use of bugs, called bugging, is a common technique in surveillance, espionage and in police investigations.
A bug does not have to be a device specifically designed for the purpose of eavesdropping.
He was covert - nobody talking knew he was there. Nobody in the discussion knew or consented to their discussion being recorded. (Aren't we big on consent here?) He didn't commit the conversation to memory or paper. Instead used a recording device with a built-in microphone and digital recording capability - nothing says it can't be hand held. Maybe you think it is only bugging if a radio transmitter is used, but no, that isn't required. (Although if you want to get technical about it, the device he used is a radio transmitter and digital recorder.)
From the same source:
On the other line was the source who first let me know about the HQ opening. He told me I had missed the launch, pronouncing the donuts cheap and stale and the coffee cold, but the meeting was still going. And he told me the location of the headquarters: the second floor of a building named Watterson Towers.
We headed over.
The front door to the office building was unlocked, and there was no one behind the reception desk. Walking down the hall of the second floor, I recognized McConnell’s voice. He was talking about Sen. Rand Paul’s strategic use of the Tea Party in procuring his 2010 election.
The voices were coming from the other side of a nearby door, which had a window. I pulled out my Flip camera and started to record.
I don’t need to tell you what a weapon the pocket video camera has become. Bartender Scott Prouty changed the trajectory of the entire 2012 election when he captured Mitt Romney in his now classic “47 percent” speech. You just never knew when a politician was going to open his mouth and accidentally reveal his true agenda. And as I held my Flip up to the window, that’s what I was hoping for, but I soon realized that the video I was capturing was the back of a projection screen, and only the audio was of value. So I held the Flip closer to the door vent instead of the window, and began recording the 11:45 minutes of footage later released by Mother Jones.
I was sweating. My heart was racing. . . .
Shawn was already there. We made our escape.
They sneaked into a building, turned their phones into bugs to surreptitiously record private discussions, and then escaped. Now he faces a grand jury, and you're baffled, or is that bugged?
Senator McConnell's wife is Chinese American. She was born in the Republic of China, commonly referred to as Taiwan, and came to the United States when she was eight years old. I guess you didn't read far enough into the story to pick up that Progressive Kentucky were drawing attention to the fact that she is Asian, specifically Chinese, and the implication that as US Secretary of Labor she had sent American jobs to China because she is Chinese by birth. Some might regard that as racist. I'm a little surprised you didn't catch on to that. Aren't Europeans generally held to be more sophisticated in such matters?
This story belongs to politico or any number of political blogs. Why in the fuck is this story on a site that is ostensibly news for nerds??? There is no nerd angle here whatsoever.
Over the years, Slashdot has covered stories from the silly to the sublime. The tag was: New for nerds, stuff that matters.
The fact that a major political figure has been secretly recorded in a manner made possible with modern technology with the intention of trying to influence the election by an organization that previously embarrassed itself on Twitter is clearly something that matters, as attested to by the coverage on various news sites on the web - that you want them to go to. I think this story might be a bit more significant than kids recording their teachers in the lounge, don't you? You must think it is significant as well, since there are plenty of other stories on Slashdot that you could comment on, but you are commenting on this one instead of ignoring it. Why might that be?
An elected official working in his private campaign headquarters discussing this reelection campaign with his campaign staff does have an expectation of privacy while in it. That was the case here. Your post has nothing to do with this situation. I also doubt that your point even holds true in general as even public officials discuss confidential matters not for public release.
Your post is a red herring. He wasn't engaged in official duties as a US Senator at the time. He was in his campaign headquarters discussing his reelection campaign with his campaign staff.
Better being bedeviled by badgers blocking bucolic British broadband buildout than buggered bolting blokes being butchered by biting beavers in Belarus.
Not to mention the last time they had a democracy we murdered their leader and forced in the Shah so BP could get cheap oil on the backs and blood of all those murdered by our dear beloved puppet the Shah.
Your history is way off there. The so-called secular democracy in Iran at the point in question consisted solely of the former Prime Minister who had dissolved parliament, was ruling by decree indefinitely, faked an election, and resisted the sole remaining check on his power - the right of the constitutional monarch to dismiss the Prime Minister. What you refer to as "democracy" was a simple dictatorship at that point. The real coup in Iran was the Prime Minister overthrowing the government. The counter-coup was restoring the Shaw to power. Over time the Shaw was an ally of the West, not a puppet. Because of that alliance, Iran was trusted enough to be allowed to buy some of the most sophisticated weapons in the West. That almost became a huge problem after the Shaw fell. It would have been ugly indeed if it had been a few years later.
Let me put up a quote from a former general in the US Marines, see how much of this sounds familiar...
Your quote is apparently from Major General Smedley Butler, USMC, twice winner of the Congressional Medal of Honor. He was a good of a battlefield marine and commander as you would want. Outside of uniform the man was a fringe political crank. I would follow him anywhere on a battlefield, but nowhere near a voting booth.
BTW how many of you know that Afghanistan has a mineral deposit so big it may end up being worth more than the Iraq oil fields? Sadly the USA doesn't do a damned thing because its "right" anymore, not unless some corp can exploit a place and make out like Gods.
You aren't seriously suggesting that the US was wrong to attack Al Qaida and the Taliban in Afghanistan after 9/11, are you? Do you really believe that US attack against the perpetrators of 9/11 and their protectors had anything to do with those mineral deposits (that I believe were discovered after the invasion)?
Why don't you check to see what portion of oil business the US has in Iraq. You might be surprised. (Hint: you are way off base.)
I don't think it is a case of the US not doing anything because it's right so much as you prefer the explanations in the leftist media which seem to have a limited list of motivations for US actions that are often at least misleading if not in fact wrong.
Slashdot Mirror
E-mail Scandal at the EPA - The Obama administration embraces secrecy and stonewalling.
Who is 'Richard Windsor'?
In The Liberal War on on Transparency, published by Threshold Editions last month, I revealed the existence of a series of black, or “alias” email accounts used by EPA administrators. These were actively instituted by none other than Carol Browner, who designed her own secret address, for an account that I also learned was set to “auto-delete”.
You remember Ms. Browner? She’s the lady who suddenly ordered her computer hard drive be reformatted and backup tapes be erased, just hours after a federal court issued a “preserve” order that her lawyers at the Clinton Justice Department insisted they hadn’t yet told her about? She’s the one who said it didn’t matter because she didn’t use her computer for email anyway? Yes, that one. . . more
President Obama said he was committed to being the most transparent Administration in history. It seems to be coming true, but not in the way votes expected. But it is true, the administration is becoming increasing transparent.
The EPA’s Secret Email Accounts
Most Transparent Administration Evah is Riddled with Secret Email Addresses
More secret email accounts for Obama’s EPA chief?
So, this can be added to the growing list of administration scandals fighting for public attention: Benghazi, IRS suppression of conservative political groups, IRS suppression of orthodox religious groups, IRS suppression of adoption, IRS seizure of health records, exploding costs for healthcare reform, ....
I guess it must be morning wherever the press has been on vacation the last couple of years.
G'day Mr. DeathElk, I welcome your suggestion. And if the Light Horse could scrape up the courage to charge Beersheba under Turkish guns, I think I'll be able to find the courage to try Vegemite as you suggest. Cheers!
Thank you for the update.
I stand corrected. Thanks for the link.
You're joking, right? We export that crap so we don't have to drink it.
Given that Fosters has something like a 45% share of the Australian market, some combination of this must be true: it still has fans, remains a guilty pleasure that isn't admitted to, or nobody can find enough export victims. At least it has some snappy advertising to help.
Frankly, I have no idea what can be done about vegemite. People have been warned.
Much like your Anita Dunn comment - you don't know that she was quoting GOP strategist Lee Atwater because whatever blog you picked up that smear from didn't bother to mention it either.
I think we covered that here. Your point is misleading rubbish.
The original poster's point (read it) was to advance the idea that the "media" praises and fawns over Stalin, Pol Pot, and Mao,...
Anita Dunn referred to Mao as one of her "favorite political philosophers," You can hear and watch her say that here.
A shitload of people disagree with you, and quite of few of them view you as a nutcase. It's highly unlikely that you're smarter and more well-informed than ALL of them, isn't it?
If you're talking Slashdot, yes, that can certainly happen, i.e. the mob is wrong, as are you.
Don't confuse high moderation with actually being correct on a matter.
Oh, and also because she was ironically quoting GOP strategist Lee Atwater, but you missed that while you were watching the Glenn Beck show - probably because his out-of-context attack didn't mention that key tidbit.
. . . Here, you should try reading this:
Why read misleading commentary when you can watch her and figure it out for yourself? Or does that not suit your purpose?
Remember this... Anita Dunn On Mao
She isn't quoting Lee Atwater, she is quoting Chinese Communist Party Chairman Mao Zedong. Were all of the Washington, Jefferson, Hamilton, Lincoln, Grant, Sherman, Theodore Roosevelt, FDR, Eisenhower, MacArthur, Truman, JFK, Reagan, Clinton, Churchill, Thatcher, Ghandi, Lord Beaverbrook, or even de Gaulle quotes used up? There was no other leader with a quote to illustrate that point besides Mao? If Lee Atwater in truth played any role in this at all, it was in the vanishingly small part of making her aware of the quote in some unknown context 20 odd years ago, which you apparently think is a smoking gun. But either way she was still the one that chose to use it in 2009, wasn't she? It is a very long stretch to try to attribute this in any way to something which may or may not have been uttered during the Reagan administration. Get real.
Or maybe it's because it's not "one of Obama's close advisers", but one of his debate coaches that served as White House communications director for 7 months.
Yes, she was the White House Communications Director, the person who is responsible for projecting the public face of the administration of President of the United States Barack Obama. You would think that would be just the person who shouldn't be quoting the leader of a nation that managed to kill approximately 70 million people, for which he bore no small responsibility, regarding political wisdom to use in guiding one's actions. I've noticed most White House Communications Directors have been able to stay away from quotes by Lenin, Stalin, Mussolini, Tojo, Hitler, Castro, and Ho Chi Minh for quite some time now, so why not Mao?
Unlike you, I'm willing to enlighten a dim-witted mind.
You seem to be getting ahead of yourself.
No problem. With an audience that is both international and prone to being "nose to the grindstone" for long periods of time, you can't always make assumptions. It is a pity though that the "Newspaper of Record" can best be characterized with sarcastic irony in terms of its coverage, as you point out. It brings this to mind. Have a great week.
Assuming you aren't going for sarcasm or irony given that the New York Times has generally been fans of the Obama administration and provided what could be called "friendly" coverage (although it may be more apt to describe it in military terms as "covering fire")...
IRS Admits Targeting Conservative Groups During 2012 Election
Medical Firm Sues IRS For 4th Amendment Violation In Records Seizure
US Government Monitoring Associated Press Phone Records
www.irs.gov - Tax collectors
www.justice.gov - Department of Justice
Good general resource for more info: National Review & the Weekly Standard.
The people who cast the votes don't decide an election, the people who count the votes do. -- Joseph Stalin
You clearly have no idea what "the full force of government to stifle opposition" actually looks like, and for all our sakes, I sincerely hope you never find out.
I think you could say the "consommé" version of that sort of "feast" enjoyed in truly oppressive regimes, such as under Stalin, is being served now to conservatives of various flavours in the United States. That is still not acceptable. The IRS has admitted it was out of line, but they may not be the only ones involved.
What's going on between the IRS and True the Vote?
But Engelbrecht's attorney, Cleta Mitchell, says it's not just the Democratic Party that went after the conservative causes, but also the federal government. Within months of the groups filing for tax-exempt status, Engelbrecht claims she started getting hit by an onslaught of harassment: six FBI domestic terrorism inquiries, an IRS visit, two IRS business audits, two IRS personal audits, and inspections of her equipment manufacturing company by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF), the U.S. Department of Labor Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and Texas environmental quality officials.
Taken alone, any of the visits and actions might seem perfectly reasonable. But Engelbrecht and her lawyer says it's the pattern and the timing of the attention paid to Engelbrecht's interests that led them to conclude something was amiss...
The IRS’s Tea-Party Targeting
IRS may have looked beyond 'tea party' and 'patriots'
So far it looks like it may have been as many as 500-600 conservative groups. This is not good, at all. Some of what has been going on is way beyond acceptable for government behavior in the United States, or the West in general today.
We don't have to get to Stalin / Mao / Pol Pot bad to say things have gone too far. Even the totalitarian regimes they headed didn't want to repeat the experience again.
It is likely that Turks will come to rue the day they departed from the principles of Mustafa Kemal Atatürk and Kemalism.
You didn't quite get it straight, so no, you aren't correct. His stated and only purpose for going to the building, based on an insider tip he received, was to secretly record the meeting of Senator McConnell's reelection committee without their consent. He went there on a holiday with an accomplice, snuck into the building, past an unmanned reception desk (as stated, it was a holiday), until he found Senator McConnell's office. He then used a hand-held device with a microphone and digital recording capability to record the conversations of Senator McConnell's committee for at least 12 minutes while holding his device to the door vent. They must have been at the door for even longer since they apparently checked what they were recording and made adjustments to their equipment, and changed their mind about how and what they were recording, going from an attempt to capture video to only audio. And how does he describe how he felt, and when he left?
I was sweating. My heart was racing. . . . When a gentleman walked out of the campaign headquarters and into the hall, I put my Flip and phone back in my pocket, and headed to the elevator.
Shawn was already there. We made our escape.
He made his escape. Doesn't really sound innocent, does it? Do you think an ordinary passerby, that wasn't trespassing on a holiday to record the Senator's meeting, would linger with a recording device by a door for 20 minutes if it occurred on a normal business day at 2:00 PM? The fact that his recording device was his cell phone is completely irrelevant, and it is the recording that makes this a possible criminal offense.
You don't find anything even mildly unethical about it? You think the problem isn't with the two intruders? It certainly appears to be direct violation of the law, probably more than one, hence the prosecutor and grand jury. As I indicated, I don't think you have this one straight.
His initial post was correct. Tons of people should read it. The AC he responded to was misleading in what must be a deliberate attempt to confuse the issue.
Your initial post was correct. The post you responded to relies on clever misdirection to, in effect, lie. The man facing an indictment by a grand jury didn't simply overhear a conversation through a door as he innocently passed by, he specifically went there based on an insider tip to secretly record their conversation without their consent, and violate their privacy. I don't think there is any real question about there being an expectation of privacy when engaged in private conversation behind closed doors in a private office in a private building. If the standard for privacy is, "can't be heard by hook or by crook," there will be nothing considered private.
Once again, you were completely correct in your initial post.
Incompetent != Unethical
Still allows instances of:
Incompetent U unethical
Bugging ?
The voices were coming from the other side of a nearby door, which had a window. I pulled out my Flip camera and started to record.
I don’t need to tell you what a weapon the pocket video camera has become."
Yes bugging.
He was covert - nobody talking knew he was there. Nobody in the discussion knew or consented to their discussion being recorded. (Aren't we big on consent here?) He didn't commit the conversation to memory or paper. Instead used a recording device with a built-in microphone and digital recording capability - nothing says it can't be hand held. Maybe you think it is only bugging if a radio transmitter is used, but no, that isn't required. (Although if you want to get technical about it, the device he used is a radio transmitter and digital recorder.)
From the same source:
They sneaked into a building, turned their phones into bugs to surreptitiously record private discussions, and then escaped. Now he faces a grand jury, and you're baffled, or is that bugged?
Senator McConnell's wife is Chinese American. She was born in the Republic of China, commonly referred to as Taiwan, and came to the United States when she was eight years old. I guess you didn't read far enough into the story to pick up that Progressive Kentucky were drawing attention to the fact that she is Asian, specifically Chinese, and the implication that as US Secretary of Labor she had sent American jobs to China because she is Chinese by birth. Some might regard that as racist. I'm a little surprised you didn't catch on to that. Aren't Europeans generally held to be more sophisticated in such matters?
This story belongs to politico or any number of political blogs. Why in the fuck is this story on a site that is ostensibly news for nerds???
There is no nerd angle here whatsoever.
Any more than these?
Declassified LBJ Tapes Accuse Richard Nixon of Treason
FBI Wiretapped Hemingway
Girls Bugged Teachers' Staff Room
High-Tech Squirrels Trained to Conduct Espionage
DOJ Fights To Bury Court Ruling On Government Surveillance
There are plenty more, just search on surveillance or wiretap.
Over the years, Slashdot has covered stories from the silly to the sublime. The tag was: New for nerds, stuff that matters.
The fact that a major political figure has been secretly recorded in a manner made possible with modern technology with the intention of trying to influence the election by an organization that previously embarrassed itself on Twitter is clearly something that matters, as attested to by the coverage on various news sites on the web - that you want them to go to. I think this story might be a bit more significant than kids recording their teachers in the lounge, don't you? You must think it is significant as well, since there are plenty of other stories on Slashdot that you could comment on, but you are commenting on this one instead of ignoring it. Why might that be?
An elected official working in his private campaign headquarters discussing this reelection campaign with his campaign staff does have an expectation of privacy while in it. That was the case here. Your post has nothing to do with this situation. I also doubt that your point even holds true in general as even public officials discuss confidential matters not for public release.
Your post is a red herring. He wasn't engaged in official duties as a US Senator at the time. He was in his campaign headquarters discussing his reelection campaign with his campaign staff.
It is truly sad to see the direction things have been heading in the United States.
My thoughts on the matter?
Better being bedeviled by badgers blocking bucolic British broadband buildout than buggered bolting blokes being butchered by biting beavers in Belarus.
Old sketch: Copper clappers
Not to mention the last time they had a democracy we murdered their leader and forced in the Shah so BP could get cheap oil on the backs and blood of all those murdered by our dear beloved puppet the Shah.
Your history is way off there. The so-called secular democracy in Iran at the point in question consisted solely of the former Prime Minister who had dissolved parliament, was ruling by decree indefinitely, faked an election, and resisted the sole remaining check on his power - the right of the constitutional monarch to dismiss the Prime Minister. What you refer to as "democracy" was a simple dictatorship at that point. The real coup in Iran was the Prime Minister overthrowing the government. The counter-coup was restoring the Shaw to power. Over time the Shaw was an ally of the West, not a puppet. Because of that alliance, Iran was trusted enough to be allowed to buy some of the most sophisticated weapons in the West. That almost became a huge problem after the Shaw fell. It would have been ugly indeed if it had been a few years later.
Let me put up a quote from a former general in the US Marines, see how much of this sounds familiar...
Your quote is apparently from Major General Smedley Butler, USMC, twice winner of the Congressional Medal of Honor. He was a good of a battlefield marine and commander as you would want. Outside of uniform the man was a fringe political crank. I would follow him anywhere on a battlefield, but nowhere near a voting booth.
BTW how many of you know that Afghanistan has a mineral deposit so big it may end up being worth more than the Iraq oil fields? Sadly the USA doesn't do a damned thing because its "right" anymore, not unless some corp can exploit a place and make out like Gods.
You aren't seriously suggesting that the US was wrong to attack Al Qaida and the Taliban in Afghanistan after 9/11, are you? Do you really believe that US attack against the perpetrators of 9/11 and their protectors had anything to do with those mineral deposits (that I believe were discovered after the invasion)?
Why don't you check to see what portion of oil business the US has in Iraq. You might be surprised. (Hint: you are way off base.)
What corporation(s) do you think made out like gods when the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln assisted with relief operations after Indonesia was hit by a tsunami?
I don't think it is a case of the US not doing anything because it's right so much as you prefer the explanations in the leftist media which seem to have a limited list of motivations for US actions that are often at least misleading if not in fact wrong.