tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post113515385852696926..comments2024-03-28T09:30:58.096-07:00Comments on CONTRARY BRIN: The Power of Strategic ListeningDavid Brinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comBlogger44125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-1137160489058643832006-01-13T05:54:00.000-08:002006-01-13T05:54:00.000-08:00We are at war by the Constitutional definition. Co...We are at war by the Constitutional definition. Congress is paying for it. Not all wars in our history, from the beginning have been declared.<BR/><BR/>Follow the money.<BR/><BR/>In any case I was watching TV on the morning of 9/11. When I saw the 2nd plane headed for the towers I said about 3 seconds before the hit: "This means war". That should be enough for you.M. Simonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09508934110558197375noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-1137160009791975422006-01-13T05:46:00.000-08:002006-01-13T05:46:00.000-08:00When will the war on terror be won?It takes about ...When will the war on terror be won?<BR/><BR/>It takes about 20 years to defeat an insurgency. We have about 20 or 30 to deal with currently.<BR/><BR/>I think this war will go on for 100 years. Unless Islam can reform. Reform in Judahism and Christianity has been possible because the scriptures are the word of God through man. In Islam the man only held the pen. The Koran is the direct word of God and has been understood that way for 1400 years.<BR/><BR/>Good luck on reforming that.M. Simonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09508934110558197375noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-1137159700655623762006-01-13T05:41:00.000-08:002006-01-13T05:41:00.000-08:00To believe that Soros is anything but a power hung...To believe that Soros is anything but a power hungry fool is to believe in Santa Claus.<BR/><BR/>The advance of technology makes things better. <BR/><BR/>So why is Soros putting so much into politics? Socialist politics at that.<BR/><BR/>Capitalism is a brutal system that advances. Socialism is a much less brutal system that is stagnant. I guess Soros' contact with National Socialsm (as explained by Hayek) taught him nothing.M. Simonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09508934110558197375noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-1137156244580562692006-01-13T04:44:00.000-08:002006-01-13T04:44:00.000-08:00Bleeding America dry?I thought that was WW2.So far...Bleeding America dry?<BR/><BR/>I thought that was WW2.<BR/><BR/>So far we have sustainde fewer casualties than we did at Omaha Beach. By about 4 to 1.<BR/><BR/>WW2 absorbed 50% of the American economy. The Iraq war (considering only the DOD incremental cost) about 2%.<BR/><BR/>There seems to be a significant amount of innumerancy going on here.<BR/><BR/>BTW wars agains insurgencies take about 20 years to win. The key is democracy. Insurgents hate it.M. Simonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09508934110558197375noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-1135689498361144612005-12-27T05:18:00.000-08:002005-12-27T05:18:00.000-08:00Comparing presidents is so utterly useless so why ...Comparing presidents is so utterly useless so why even start...?<BR/><BR/><I>"President Bush has broken the law here - has admitted to it and is unapologetic. If that's not enough to trigger outrage, I don't know what is."</I><BR/><BR/>Outrage is being dampened by fear. People are not worried about whether Bush did something illegal but whether he did the right thing. There is a huge information vacuum on terrorism. This makes it very hard to criticize any of Bushs' decisions as he can always claim that they are based on privileged knowledge. Going against mr. Bush would require quite the leap of faith from the People as They don't have enough information to make an informed judgement. It's like the famous neocon motto:"Always keep 'em guessing".Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-1135635465074878252005-12-26T14:17:00.000-08:002005-12-26T14:17:00.000-08:00Rob,I didn't see him - but in that case it's eithe...Rob,<BR/><BR/>I didn't see him - but in that case it's either politics as usual or the straw that broke the camel's back. It might be that he did not consider them individual rights while they were in a legal grey area - but they are now definitely individual rights that have been violated by the president. It might be that he trusted the Clinton administration not to abuse intelligence more than he did the Bush administration. It might just be that he didn't want to embarass his own side. It may simply be that he gave Clinton the benefit of the doubt - but either does not give it to President Bush because he is a Republican, or considers that breaking the law to undertake an action is sufficient evidence that he can no longer give him the benefit of the doubt.<BR/><BR/>Whichever is the case, the fact remains that President Bush's actions here are definitely worse than President Clinton's (stepping into a grey area vs breaking an explicit law) and as such people who did not speak out against Clinton on this point may have had a threshold tripped here - but every single honest person who objected to Clinton's actions should be objecting to those of Bush.<BR/><BR/>President Bush has broken the law here - has admitted to it and is unapologetic. If that's not enough to trigger outrage, I don't know what is.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-1135615733875520782005-12-26T08:48:00.000-08:002005-12-26T08:48:00.000-08:00No, I don't buy that, at least as a rationale for ...No, I don't buy that, at least as a rationale for the differences in Byrd's behavior. <BR/><BR/>Byrd ranted about populist constitutional violations, that the President's police are spying on people in violation of individual rights, not on whether they've defied the Congress in doing it, or violated a technicality about the FISA law. <BR/><BR/>Nice rebuttal about the legality of it all, though. Leaves me scratching my chin, and glad the debate continues.Rob Perkinshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13115249244056328076noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-1135529247538667462005-12-25T08:47:00.000-08:002005-12-25T08:47:00.000-08:00Rob Perkins said... I found this, of all places...<EM>Rob Perkins said...<BR/><BR/> I found this, of all places referenced in a discussion group about Mormonism (which gets politics-spam on a regular basis. Hey, it's Usenet!)<BR/> http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york200512200946.asp<BR/><BR/> The operative quote in that article came from Jamie Gorelick, who claimed as Clinton's administration attorney (I think) that he claimed the same right to spy on U.S. citizens as Bush has claimed.<BR/><BR/> A question arises, of course: "Where was Byrd's outrage when Clinton was doing it, or at least claiming authority to do it without asking a court?" </EM><BR/><BR/>Byrd's outrage was much less because <A HREF="http://mediamatters.org/items/200512220011" REL="nofollow">when Clinton did it, it was in a legal grey area.</A><BR/><BR/>Only in 1995 - a year after the quote you present - was FISA amended.<BR/><BR/>In short, to compare the two is to compare something not covered by FISA to something that is expressly against the law. It is therefore yet another case of "But Clinton did it too" when, in fact he didn't. Why on earth should Senator Byrd be as outraged by this as he is by directly criminal acts from the President?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-1135450726580612742005-12-24T10:58:00.000-08:002005-12-24T10:58:00.000-08:00David Brin said:-jomama said... Been going on for ...David Brin said:<BR/><BR/><I>-jomama said... Been going on for years. Clinton was not immune.<BR/><BR/>Ah but there is a point when cynical shrugs become delusional. And this is one. Clinton was NOT the same. There is not a scintilla of evidence to support this assertion and I (smiling) challenge you to find any. Any at all.</I><BR/><BR/>Of course, Clinton wasn't the same. I never said he was. I'm not an apologist for either one, or any other...or any other yet unelected. <BR/><BR/>And this has been going on long before Clinton or Bush:<BR/><BR/><I>If the NY Times is to be believed,the National Security Agency engages in “some eavesdropping inside the country,” There are hundreds of sources that prove the intelligence services have been operating similar programs for decades.</I><BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://infowars.net/articles/december2005/191205spying.htm" REL="nofollow">link.</A><BR/><BR/>Need more?<BR/><BR/>Google "Project Echelon".<BR/><BR/>Still smiling?<BR/><BR/>About making things "better"...<BR/><BR/>I think that's what I'm doing but there are so many meadow muffins to throw out, I often wonder whether it's worth it.<BR/><BR/>Isn't that latter the first step in doing just that...making things "better"?jomamahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11059960615448444452noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-1135409015688081192005-12-23T23:23:00.000-08:002005-12-23T23:23:00.000-08:00David,Can I quote you on that?David,<BR/><BR/>Can I quote you on that?Rob Perkinshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13115249244056328076noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-1135378211110860442005-12-23T14:50:00.000-08:002005-12-23T14:50:00.000-08:00I had to comment on this.For a pampered and coddle...I had to comment on this.<BR/><BR/>For a pampered and coddled and safe and sated American, who has never seen war or heard a marching invading army or smelled the stench of a burning city or the sweet dank of gangrene... who sees nearly all children fed and safe and educated... to be ANY kind of cynic is to witness the most profound hypocrisy and utter delusional mentality possible.<BR/><BR/>Only an utter addiction to sanctimony and smugness can allow an heir of all this, of the enlightenment, to wallow in the sick pleasures of cynicism, instead of standing up, dusting off the potato chip crumbs, and getting to work making things "even better."<BR/><BR/>...oh, this was Brin... on travel... and never let anyone claim to be me without checking, or taking the posting with a grain of salt!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-1135371491168403832005-12-23T12:58:00.000-08:002005-12-23T12:58:00.000-08:00David Brin said...Ah but there is a point when cyn...David Brin said...<BR/><BR/><I>Ah but there is a point when cynical shrugs become delusional.</I><BR/><BR/>Looking at politics as anything more than raw force is delusional.<BR/><BR/>I'm like H. L. Mencken when he said "a cynic is a man who, when he smells flowers, looks around for a coffin."jomamahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11059960615448444452noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-1135293824254667342005-12-22T15:23:00.000-08:002005-12-22T15:23:00.000-08:00From today's NYTimes:" ... Undercover New York Cit...From today's NYTimes:<BR/><BR/>" ... Undercover New York City police officers have conducted covert surveillance in the last 16 months of people protesting the Iraq war, bicycle riders taking part in mass rallies and even mourners at a street vigil for a cyclist killed in an accident, a series of videotapes show.<BR/>...<BR/>"Beyond collecting information, some of the undercover officers or their associates are seen on the tape having influence on events. At a demonstration last year during the Republican National Convention, the sham arrest of a man secretly working with the police led to a bruising confrontation between officers in riot gear and bystanders."<BR/><BR/>Got that? Sham arrest -- followed by violence, in front of television cameras.<BR/><BR/>Why but to mislead the voters?<BR/><BR/>Caption to the photo of Rumsfield shaking hands with Saddam:<BR/> "Don't do anything I wouldn't!"Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-1135292419209383902005-12-22T15:00:00.000-08:002005-12-22T15:00:00.000-08:00The current powers-that-be seem like teenagers pus...The current powers-that-be seem like teenagers pushing against a curfew -- first five minutes, then half an hour, then out till 3 a.m. No matter how generous the rules on wiretaps become, this crowd will want to violate them. Always testing boundaries, and due to lack of punishment (such as arrest or impreachment), always getting away with it. And then pushing even farther...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-1135276952545148292005-12-22T10:42:00.000-08:002005-12-22T10:42:00.000-08:00Regarding secrecy and surveillance, every private ...<I>Regarding secrecy and surveillance, every private business which admits the public already has cameras covering *every single inch* of its property... </I><BR/><BR/>Not where I live. I don't think I'd like to live in a place where that was considered necessary.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-1135272071012861482005-12-22T09:21:00.000-08:002005-12-22T09:21:00.000-08:00@Rob Perkins:Maybe it's because I live in such a m...@Rob Perkins:<BR/><BR/><I>Maybe it's because I live in such a melting pot. My neighbors to the right don't celebrate Halloween, and I can't tell at a glance who is Jew or Shinto or Buddhist or Muslim. So, "Have a good holiday!" seems most appropriate.</I><BR/><BR/>Yeah, I tried that line of reasoning in a discussion with someone on the other side of the issue. They still claimed to be offended by the use of imprecise names. About the best compromise we could reach was that "Happy Holidays / etc." was OK only if you did not know <I>which</I> holiday(s) they celebrate.<BR/><BR/>The key component of the complaint (as far as I can tell) is that Christmas, being a holiday for pretty much everyone (regardless of whether they actually celebrate it), has accrued over the years a whole secular mythology that has grown bigger than the religious one.<BR/><BR/><BR/>-- MattAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-1135270015477800982005-12-22T08:46:00.000-08:002005-12-22T08:46:00.000-08:00I checked out The Anarchist's Cookbook after the P...I checked out <I>The Anarchist's Cookbook</I> after the Patriot Act was passed without triggering a national security letter. In fact, I actually did it after a full-blown conversation about it with a librarian, who was bored with the subject. <BR/><BR/>(Of course, that might be a really bad example, since <I>The Anarchist's Cookbook</I> is very badly written and very nearly useless, in my opinion. Perhaps to trigger a letter I should have changed my name to something arabic and started researching nuclear weapons technology?)<BR/><BR/>Regarding secrecy and surveillance, every private business which admits the public already has cameras covering *every single inch* of its property, along with staff to watch and apprehend misbehaving people. Nearly every largish merchant has cameras to watch its own employees as well.<BR/><BR/>We've all accepted that. The benefit (lower prices and lower crime rates inside malls and stores) outweighs the risk. Perhaps that's one reason why people aren't troubled by the government surveilling internationally cross-jurisdictional communication without a warrant. <BR/><BR/>I don't know, David (switching topics a bit); I don't think the "traitors were Republicans" line is all that fruitful.<BR/><BR/>I don't know sometimes what to think about the Culture War; the idea that merchants who have been overcommercializing Christmas for more than fifty years should be *faulted* when they stop doing it, well... I just don't see the problem. And the reasoning behind public-square holiday displays which came out of the courts (eventually) doesn't seem that objectionable. <BR/><BR/>Maybe it's because I live in such a melting pot. My neighbors to the right don't celebrate Halloween, and I can't tell at a glance who is Jew or Shinto or Buddhist or Muslim. So, "Have a good holiday!" seems most appropriate.Rob Perkinshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13115249244056328076noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-1135267576939950232005-12-22T08:06:00.000-08:002005-12-22T08:06:00.000-08:00One thing in the US' hand though - term limits on ...<B>One thing in the US' hand though - term limits on presidents mean that love him or hate him there is a hard limit on how long Bush will be around.</B><BR/><BR/>That's what I thought when Clinton was elected. It may be his son wearing the President Hat this time, but the rest of the team is just about lifted from the Reagan/Bush administration...Silly Old Bearhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12596701341213781844noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-1135267276315777222005-12-22T08:01:00.000-08:002005-12-22T08:01:00.000-08:00Reason and HawkerHurricane, I think you’ve touched...Reason and HawkerHurricane, I think you’ve touched on an issue that on one hand is core impediment to the U.S. moving forward on a number of debilitating issues and on the other hand a spectacular reason for separating religious fervor from law. It’s truly counterproductive to national security!<BR/><BR/>Let’s start with the premise that we really want to defeat global terrorism. As you’ve pointed out, an entirely open (i.e., an entirely accountable) society would be of enormous benefit to all involved. No one should care if you like to spend time at playboy.com or something “worse” (talk about subjective!). It’s legal, and that should be the end of it. And yet, we can’t do that because judgmental folks would gleefully destroy reputations – ruining careers, relationships, and lives in the process. <BR/><BR/>That’s not terribly charitable. It’s prohibited by Christian Scripture, too – gossip’s clearly frowned on. So’s humans judging each other. Why’s that so hard to understand? It’s in black and white (or, in some translations, red and white).<BR/><BR/>Let me put it another way.<BR/><BR/>Why do people on the far right or left (or whatever) take it upon themselves to help terrorists by keeping society closed and secretive?<BR/><BR/>Isn’t that the real issue here? Isn’t that not only unpatriotic, but potentially psychopathic as well? <BR/><BR/>I really, really want to defeat terrorism. I think that the U.S. system of government should prevail because it’s founded on noble and compelling ideals. Shouldn’t we use any reasonable weapon at our disposal – weapons like separation of powers, trust in the citizenry, and our idealism? Those are weapons that heal and empower. Those are weapons that inspired generations of Americans, and made this country a destination for immigrants from every corner of the planet (dare I say Weapons of Mass Inspiration?). I don’t think there’s any reason to give up on them now. <BR/><BR/>Quite the contrary. Let’s stay with what works!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-1135267097195722262005-12-22T07:58:00.000-08:002005-12-22T07:58:00.000-08:00I don't loathe Bush as many seem to, but one thing...I don't loathe Bush as many seem to, but one thing that strikes me with respect to this overall conversation is that openness in society would definitely help here...It's basically impossible to make a informed decision or who is right or wrong or what is being done right now. There are so many layers of rhetoric on either side that to find facts about who did what when seems nigh impossible.<BR/><BR/>The secrecy doesn't help - if you are innocent it makes you look guilty and if you are guilty people can't find it out.<BR/><BR/>One thing in the US' hand though - term limits on presidents mean that love him or hate him there is a hard limit on how long Bush will be around.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-1135265364516360582005-12-22T07:29:00.000-08:002005-12-22T07:29:00.000-08:00David...Forgot the culture war and the 'counter wa...David...<BR/>Forgot the culture war and the 'counter war against the war on Christmas'... sorry. But I see both of them as a kind of rear guard action: The culture war (to use one aspect of it as a example) is attempting to make it illegal for men to marry other men... why wasn't it illegal before? Because it was unconcievable that a man would want to. Now it's concievable, so it must be banned... a generation from now, it will be allowed but frowned on, a generation after that the bigots won't dare say anything in public for fear of being exposed.<BR/><BR/>Whiskey 1...<BR/>G. Gordon Liddy (and others) have somehow managed to attatch Clinton's name to everything bad that happened in the 90's... and well into the 00's. I'm surprised they don't blame him for losing Vietnam (oops, they do) or Pearl Harbor.<BR/>Again I say... Clinton did a lot of bad things. There is no need to make stuff up. People who make stuff up make me think that they have no honest complaints.<BR/><BR/>On open society...<BR/>People are secretive to hide things that society condemn them for. Mostly about sex. That the same secrecy (about sex) would hide a number of honest to goodness crimes is the issue. Eliminate the FBI's ability to blackmail me about my sex life (or lack therof) AND assure me that my politics won't be held against me and I won't object to them looking into my internet/library/bookstore habits.<BR/><BR/>HawkerHurricaneAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-1135259469898575392005-12-22T05:51:00.000-08:002005-12-22T05:51:00.000-08:00David, I like your comment ...you all know I am m...David,<BR/> I like your comment<BR/><I> ...you all know I am much less concerned about what the government sees than I am about how it hides and prevents us from seeing </I><BR/> I remember being asked once (a long time ago) what I thought about the trade-off being civil liberties and security and I found it hard to give a short answer. The problem was my answer sounds sort of niave, but I don't think it really is. My answer was that what we need to do is open up society - use every citizen as a source of information - not to make it more secretive. I too are not so worried about what the government knows about me, <I> provided that I can look at what it has on me and challenge it where it is not accurate </I>. If terrorists know that they are being spied upon (and they will assume it anyway) we may end up blowing the chance to catch some red handed. But more likely we will disrupt their communations, make them nervous and therefore more likely to act suspiciously and so actually make ourselves safer. Privacy (taken to an extreme) really helps the criminal and autocrat, openness is what we need in a democracy. In a really open society, secretive alienated terrorists would be spotted a mile away.reasonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06594313655855683716noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-1135259122077776572005-12-22T05:45:00.000-08:002005-12-22T05:45:00.000-08:00Well, most traitors aren't ideological: they're re...Well, most traitors aren't ideological: they're reacting to some actual or perceived slight, trying to get out of personal problems or debt (Benedict Arnold actually fits in both categories), or have personality disorders (Walker, for example, appears to have been quite literally sociopathic). Ideologically-motivated traitors like the Rosenbergs or Pollard (who also showed signs of narcissistic personality disorder) are actually a minority, at least in American history.<BR/><BR/>Now, as to why such persons tend to gravitate to often arch-conservative belief settings is open to question, but a need for interpersonal domination and control may be a factor.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-1135237283945935332005-12-21T23:41:00.000-08:002005-12-21T23:41:00.000-08:00THANKS FOR THE GREAT WIKIPEDIA LIST OF CONVICTED T...THANKS FOR THE GREAT WIKIPEDIA LIST OF CONVICTED TRAITORS!<BR/><BR/>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_convicted_or_accused_traitors#United_States<BR/><BR/>Pelton, Pitts, Aldrich Ames, Robert Hanssen, John Walker, Michael Walker and Timothy McVeigh were all clearly Republicans, though at least one was a right-wing nut job while most of the others sold their country out for cash. <BR/><BR/>Anyway, what the list shopws is that my generalization was simpleminded, as most are. Pollard? How to classify a many who gave secrets to an ally that the ally would eventually get anyway, by asking... yet who has been punished more severely than the Walkers? And of course there are the more recent islamic-linked men convicvted of treason. I doubt either group fits the dem-gop model in any useful way.<BR/><BR/>Still, the eerie trend for most of the others is clear... and never mentioned. The spies who harmed us the most, and who did deadly damage mostly for cash, were all on one side of the Culture War. And it weren’t what you’d expect.David Brinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-1135233751924507192005-12-21T22:42:00.000-08:002005-12-21T22:42:00.000-08:00"(the War on Terror)... was won, boys and girls, b..."(the War on Terror)... was won, boys and girls, by the heroes aboard Flight UA 93<BR/><BR/>A timely reminder of something that, as you point out, has received remarkably little official comment."<BR/><BR/>I guess if David can offer info from "a source" I could do so as well, and though I'm less confident of this one, is the explanation for *why* UA 93 doesn't get talked about much... that the F-16's didn't miss their target that time?<BR/><BR/>(Learned second-hand from an Air Force officer I know...)<BR/><BR/>Sorry, I bought the rumor that Rummy was retiring. Apparantly he's not, and that bit missed my ear.Rob Perkinshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13115249244056328076noreply@blogger.com