tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post8617245441274918195..comments2024-03-29T06:22:47.638-07:00Comments on CONTRARY BRIN: On the Transparency Front: FBI vs Apple and the prescribers of "hiding."David Brinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comBlogger109125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-89614256783674663922016-04-17T09:35:18.501-07:002016-04-17T09:35:18.501-07:00Dr. Brin,
In response to your comments about not ...Dr. Brin,<br /><br />In response to your comments about not being able to hide from the elites, I've always wondered if what John Brunner described way back in "The Shockwave Rider" has now become practical. <br /><br />Is it possible to create a set of false identities - a blizzard of dis-information - to hide much of your actions and private correspondence in the noise?Bill Stuckeynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-57736655174711350182016-04-17T06:53:36.623-07:002016-04-17T06:53:36.623-07:00Dr. Brin,
Since when has expressing a personal op...Dr. Brin,<br /><br />Since when has expressing a personal opinion about a candidate become slander? You are using a lawyer’s trick on me. You are saying find a specific action when it is the absence of specific action that is important when judging Hillary Clinton’s record. She has taken spoken stands against financial institutions while managing never having to actually do anything about them. She has voted for several bills on Medical care but those bills were tweaks only of the system filling in a whole here and there. There is nothing in them that affects the majority of people. She was on the right side of the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005. She couldn’t be there for the vote because Bill was having heart surgery but she came out against it the day before. That was good action but since then, she has not set in motion anything substantive as far as I see.<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-84444658103885997532016-04-16T15:59:03.600-07:002016-04-16T15:59:03.600-07:00onwardonwardDavid Brinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-52466832684869616272016-04-16T14:32:23.168-07:002016-04-16T14:32:23.168-07:00That bit about Lincoln is historically wrong. He p...That bit about Lincoln is historically wrong. He pushed for the amendment but didn't declare universal suffrage. He lived one week after the ratification of the 13th.Jumperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11794110173836133321noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-71829072977608083192016-04-16T13:03:09.972-07:002016-04-16T13:03:09.972-07:00"Now she no longer fights if it runs counter ..."Now she no longer fights if it runs counter to the interest of her donors."<br /><br />Show us one... just one... even one example. She defied Bernie to offer one at the debate and he collapsed. It is just a narrative. Comfy slander.<br /><br />I am moving onward. You guys can continue here....David Brinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-84186032718383285102016-04-16T12:57:14.554-07:002016-04-16T12:57:14.554-07:00Donzelion,
Clinton fought for health care twenty ...Donzelion,<br /><br />Clinton fought for health care twenty years ago but that was then. Now she no longer fights if it runs counter to the interest of her donors. Hillary Clinton is not an evil person (I do have doubts about Trump). I see her, because of the campaign financing, as having to make so many compromises as to having lost sight of the goal. The means has become the end and not the result. She was for health care twenty years ago and now she says it is too expensive which is totally false. Please tell me why the change? She has, as many others, been captured even though she still thinks her heart is in the right place as is willing to do what she can but not what she should do. Afro-Americans have not improved their situation under Obama under any measure and it is doubtful that Clinton will do much for them if she is elected. They traditionally vote Democrat but Sanders is a Democrat also and there is movement towards Sanders among some of them. She does not own the African-American vote by divine right. Sanders has consistently been right on the important issues for a long time. Compare his voting record to Clinton’s. If you want a side-by-side comparison then I will furnish it tomorrow if you like. How can you praise her as politician? She is lousy at it. Bill was a true politician but she is wanting.<br /><br />Lincoln was not willing to compromise on slavery. He was setting forth, with his characteristic clarity, the moral choices that had to be made. He was saying the primary objective was to save the Union but to do so would require the abolition of slavery by legislation if possible and by force if necessary. He was seen by the hard abolitionists as a traitor only because they didn’t see that Lincoln needed the Border States on his side first. The abolitionists were afraid that he would backtrack and it would be a “return to business as usual”. They stopped worrying when they understood that Lincoln was going all the way by accepting to pick up the gauntlet the South had thrown down. Lincoln was an abolitionist. He destroyed slavery.<br /><br />Your last paragraph is just a what-if scenario. It didn’t happen. You might as well as said, “If the Founders had outlawed slavery then we wouldn’t have had the Civil War”. Useless.<br /><br />Why didn’t you discuss the main aim of my post, namely that a political upheaval could happen resulting in a new party instead of sidelining to Clinton’s merits? <br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-25494244257865896062016-04-16T12:42:13.038-07:002016-04-16T12:42:13.038-07:00A transparent government is necessary if we are to...A transparent government is necessary if we are to be able to make informed decisions (as bosses), but it isn't sufficient.Howard Brazeehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08837948125432719131noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-21730086505307096772016-04-16T12:37:26.799-07:002016-04-16T12:37:26.799-07:00@Alfred We are not thinking of the same thing. For...@Alfred We are not thinking of the same thing. For me to make myself transparent does nothing to shed light on the activities of the NSA. For the transparent society to happen, there have to be concrete steps I or we can take to get there. If it requires serious reform of government, it requires the cooperation of the elites we aim to constrain, even more than the hiding approach does. I suppose there is an asymmetry, in that it might be easier to catch an elite cheating on a transparency requirement than to catch them cheating on a "don't look" requirement. That doesn't seem like the proper rock to build a new paradigm on.Davehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17330240621500931648noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-55534879548120598082016-04-16T12:03:58.656-07:002016-04-16T12:03:58.656-07:00onward
onwardonward<br /><br />onwardDavid Brinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-62746528912017739602016-04-16T12:03:22.878-07:002016-04-16T12:03:22.878-07:00HB while Nixon did talk about national health and ...HB while Nixon did talk about national health and established the EPA... those were different times and he had a very Democratic Congress he had to trade off with. In fact, had that Congress accepted Nixon's health plan, instead of holding out for more, we'd be in vastly better shape.<br /><br />But to call him liberal is just loony. As loony as calling Hillary a right winger. For 2 years Bill Clinton had a demo congress and she fought like hell for health care and other causes. For 2 years Barack Obama had a demo congress and he fought like hell for health care and other causes. Want to measure her liberalism? Try helping get he a democratic Congress. This time bigger and for more than 2 years.David Brinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-54222605659249612572016-04-16T11:11:43.822-07:002016-04-16T11:11:43.822-07:00Many candidates promise stuff that's simply no...Many candidates promise stuff that's simply not in the purview of the president; things that Congress must do. Clinton resembles someone who doesn't like to make these bogus promises.Jumperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11794110173836133321noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-48251402271825082062016-04-16T11:04:09.147-07:002016-04-16T11:04:09.147-07:00I can understand LarryHart's statement that Cl...I can understand LarryHart's statement that Clinton obviously isn't a Bernie Sanders. But I disagree that she's no Barack Obama. To me she's as conservative as he is (and more conservative than Nixon was).Howard Brazeehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08837948125432719131noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-77328249322552176682016-04-16T11:00:46.958-07:002016-04-16T11:00:46.958-07:00Donzelion,
My "passengers" metaphor is ...Donzelion,<br /><br />My "passengers" metaphor is what I see happening in many debates. We avoid a prophesy, not because it was wrong but because - once warned - it was avoidable. But then when the next prophesised (and likely avoidable) disaster approaches, the previous prophesy's "failure" is used to justify ignoring the current one. But it is the critics who are ignoring that the prophesy was <i>avoided</i>, not wrong. That results in efforts to avoid the next disaster being blocked, ironically because efforts to avoid the last disaster were successful.<br /><br /><i>"and Malthus was a ninny"</i> plays into that. Because the "failure" of Malthusianism is the go-to trope of those trying to prevent action to avoid future problems.<br /><br />Malthus was a genius. He just wasn't an actual future-predicting prophet.Paul451https://www.blogger.com/profile/12119086761190994938noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-21791972163741240502016-04-16T10:53:09.096-07:002016-04-16T10:53:09.096-07:00Deuxglass:
Hillary has been sounding a bit more t...Deuxglass:<br /><i><br />Hillary has been sounding a bit more to the left to counter Sanders but she is not convincing. She says she will “fight for this and that” but if elected she will say, “it isn’t possible” or “it will cost too much”. It’s just a ploy. She doesn’t believe in changing anything and many Democrat voters know that.<br /></i><br /><br />I'm not sure about that.<br /><br />You see Hillary as a conservative who mouths liberal platitudes in order to get Democratic votes. I see her as a liberal who runs more toward the center-right under the impression that that's what it takes to survive politically. The more it becomes apparent that the "center-right country" is pulling to the left, the more she'll let her inner leftist free.<br /><br />I'm exaggerating to make the point. Obviously, Hillary is no Bernie Sanders, or even Barack Obama. However, if she fights for liberal positions out of political expediency, even if she doesn't "feel" them herself, I think she'll do a good job of that fighting. I'm among those Democrats who believes that "If you're in a street fight, Hillary is the one you want on your side," even though I voted for Bernie in the primary.LarryHartnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-16196364819806218872016-04-16T10:24:01.102-07:002016-04-16T10:24:01.102-07:00donzel what self-hypnosis. The Turkish Sultans cl...donzel what self-hypnosis. The Turkish Sultans claimed the office of Caliph among their titles and while there were dissenters, most of Islam accepted it. Also, if you wanted to be absolutely legalistic in the terms YOU define, then marry a Saudi princess into the line and let her sons be caliphs. Moreover, you know there are a dozen solutions to your declared absolute. Including the fact that the Saudis and Whhabis are totally interbred by now and getting to control the world's madrassas is a big incentive to collaborate.<br /><br />Only a lawyer would cite a prim legalism and declare "Done! There's no way around this! Even though... if I worked for the other party I could come up with dozens!"<br /><br />Likewise, the part that is silliest is the sentence's OTHER clause: " as Arab women can in almost any other country"<br /><br />Reeeeeeelly?<br /><br />You really need to get out more.David Brinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-56083674066835595732016-04-16T10:17:11.892-07:002016-04-16T10:17:11.892-07:00@Dr. Brin - "DAZZLING claptrap! One strategic...@Dr. Brin - <i>"DAZZLING claptrap! One strategic marriage and their line would be qualified. Are you telling me there aren't already lines descended from M woven into the House of ibn Saud?"</i><br /><br />There are thousands of individuals who trace from the maternal line, and have been for a century or more. None of that matters though. The tribal identity that M lived in, endorsed, and was defined by rejects 'marrying into' a tribe - it's a pure paternal line of transition. For Saudis to make a claim to the caliphate, they'd have to change their religion itself. Hence, the title "Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques" - which is itself an argument for authority. Were they to ever posit "Caliph" themselves, the immediate consequence would be a rupture between Wahhabis and Saudis.<br /><br /><i>" if Saudi daughters could marry whomever they wanted, as Arab women can in almost any other country"</i><br />Which part is silly? Marital bonds are the most important economic transaction most Saudis will ever make - far more important than buying a starter home is in America. The Kingdom of Saudi was forged through marital alliances (and religious alliances) - this stuff matters a great deal, and the government perceives national security importance in the patterns of marriage.<br /><br />Arab women CAN marry whomever they want in every other Arab country (well, maybe not Qatar, which is also Wahhabi, but looks nothing like Saudi Arabia, but those restrictions only apply to the ruling tribe).donzelionhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05991849781932619746noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-67252225305545397042016-04-16T10:03:13.596-07:002016-04-16T10:03:13.596-07:00“As for your advice that we pay down debts in good...“As for your advice that we pay down debts in good times and borrow in bad times, I put that right up there with buy low, sell high. It's pretty obvious. I'm also willing to concede that we should borrow when rates are low and pay back if they go up. Unfortunately, we don't actually do any of that.”<br /><br />Wrong, Alfred. Bill Clinton used good times to pay down debt. So has Jerry Brown in California. That is true Keynsianism.<br /><br />Donzel Malthus wasn’t a ninny. He just never expected the Miracle. That human females who have confidence and health and are empowered tend to limit reproduction to 2 or 3. A trait that might save us all.<br /><br />HB sorry I misinterpreted you combination of cynicism and idealism. All I can say is that war has been preached against since time immemorial and the preaching accomplished nothing. What HAS reduced the overall level of cviolence and allowed most nations to spend historically minuscule fractions of GDP on defense has been Pax Americana. Nothing more and nothing less. <br /><br /> The world we now have is not perfect, but it is trending toward the world we want. A burden of proof falls on those proclaiming we could have had it without a militarily strong USA.<br /><br />Deuxglass… There would have been no republican party if the South had not started active raiding-warfare in 1852, sending bands of irregular cavalry rampaging across northern states with complicity of southern appointed US Marshals. This radicalized northern states and paved the way for Lincoln.<br />David Brinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-15630269873515423982016-04-16T09:43:56.511-07:002016-04-16T09:43:56.511-07:00" if Saudi daughters could marry whomever the..." if Saudi daughters could marry whomever they wanted, as Arab women can in almost any other country"<br /><br />Utter silliness and claptrap, sorry.<br /><br />"Again, the Saudis regard any real 'caliphate' as the end to their rule."<br /><br />DAZZLING claptrap! One strategic marriage and their line would be qualified. Are you telling me there aren't already lines descended from M woven into the House of ibn Saud? David Brinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-12372339078431345862016-04-16T09:42:06.318-07:002016-04-16T09:42:06.318-07:00Their big difference is in who is to be boss, the ...Their big difference is in who is to be boss, the people or Wall Street.Howard Brazeehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08837948125432719131noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-84550141829081082322016-04-16T09:37:32.327-07:002016-04-16T09:37:32.327-07:00@Paul - "Many of those involved in the Green ...@Paul - <i>"Many of those involved in the Green Revolution and all of those developing birth control pills were believers in the Malthusian danger."</i><br /><br />You are correct, and indeed, many of those endorsing/distributing contraception (who ultimately set the stage for what 'rights of privacy' we actually have in America today) took up the Malthus banner. My view is that they had a different agenda (a positive "women ought to be empowered" agenda, rather than a negative "there's too many babies" agenda) - but used whatever rhetorical/conceptual tools they found.<br /><br />But Malthus WAS wrong about the economy, fundamentally, and largely because he missed the importance of technology. His thinking developed from that era in which "land was wealth" - and since nobody is making more land, starvation cycles are inevitable. Early 20th century elites briefly flirted with Malthus (by misconstruing Darwin) - they overlooked somewhat important developments in physics (and other fields) that would change the world immensely in decades to come. <br /><br />As with your passengers, sometimes one sees the cliff and leads wisely, sometimes one believes in dragons in the sea and leads foolishly - the fact that someone guided us well once does not mean they are right or wrong the next time around. Republicans guided us well in eradicating slavery - which Lincoln (rightly) perceived as a cliff - but that does not mean they're guiding us well today.donzelionhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05991849781932619746noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-74463980758374331532016-04-16T09:25:42.935-07:002016-04-16T09:25:42.935-07:00@Deuxglass - Hillary was fighting for health care ...@Deuxglass - Hillary was fighting for health care 20+ years ago, and taking fairly extreme heat for it all along. Any Democrat who believes "she doesn’t believe in changing anything" hasn't been watching politics for very long (or else doesn't think health care is very important). Why do you think African-Americans endorsed Hillary so overwhelmingly? Media likes to suggest it's because she visited a bunch of churches, but many of them have somewhat more complete memories (and there are reasons she's been invited to so many churches, for so long).<br /><br />On your historical account, bear in mind that Lincoln himself was "anti-slavery" (because slavery is evil) - but never elected on a platform to eliminate slavery ("I would save the Union, if that meant liberating all slaves, or liberating no slaves"), and from the beginning, was willing to compromise (using abolition first as a tactical punishment for Southern traitors - then trying to broaden that through the Constitution). To an abolitionist, Lincoln was a damned traitor (for many years) - but to a historian, he was the 'Great Liberator.' <br /><br />Apply the same logic to Hillary. She's come down on the right side of history each time.<br /><br /><i>"What the Trump and Sander followers see is that the 1% and the corresponding distortions in trade can bring the United States down because it destroys the very bases of our power and prosperity."</i><br /><br />On which precise issues do you believe Hillary is on a different side than Sanders? They do have differences in approach - she favors incremental tweaks, he favors revolution. Both are generally leading in the same direction, but she's been doing so from inside a Party, while he's been a prophet on the outside for years. Sometimes, one wants a prophet, but usually, one elects politicians.<br /><br />(And just remember, if the Whigs hadn't delayed the end of slavery, the outcome of the Civil War would most likely have been quite different from how it ultimately resolved - without waves of immigrants shoring up the Union army, without infrastructure and factories empowering the Union army, the South might have retained slavery for longer than anyone realizes...)donzelionhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05991849781932619746noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-13430991957232625972016-04-16T09:17:36.460-07:002016-04-16T09:17:36.460-07:00Donzelion,
"and Malthus was a ninny"
Da...Donzelion,<br /><i>"and Malthus was a ninny"</i><br /><br />David speaks of "self-preventing prophesies". Many of those involved in the Green Revolution and all of those developing birth control pills were believers in the Malthusian danger.<br /><br />Passenger1: "There's a cliff ahead. If we continue in this direction, we'll drive off the cliff!"<br />Driver: "We can turn that way to avoid the cliff!"<br />Passenger2: "A ha! See, there was no danger, you ninny."<br /><br />[Later]<br /><br />Passenger1: "The engine temperature is rising too quickly, the engine could blow up!"<br />Driver: "Well, we can drive more easily until we are able to replace the radiat..."<br />Passenger2: "No, no, don't listen to him. He was wrong about the cliff thing, there's no need to listen to him now. Just drive on!"Paul451https://www.blogger.com/profile/12119086761190994938noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-81091176708727272072016-04-16T09:07:28.789-07:002016-04-16T09:07:28.789-07:00Alfred,
"I'd argue a lot of people like K...Alfred,<br /><i>"I'd argue a lot of people like Keynesian models because they feel good."</i><br /><br />Whereas people like Austrian models because it makes them feel clever.<br /><br />(But then I don't even <i>own</i> a television.)Paul451https://www.blogger.com/profile/12119086761190994938noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-1924105109591799202016-04-16T08:59:50.981-07:002016-04-16T08:59:50.981-07:00addendum
When faced with an Existential Threat a...addendum <br /><br />When faced with an Existential Threat all other issues become secondary. Coalitions can form of people who have differences on many issues but who agree an overwhelmingly important one.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-82569131098105507512016-04-16T08:49:55.418-07:002016-04-16T08:49:55.418-07:00LarryHart,
Hillary has been sounding a bit more t...LarryHart,<br /><br />Hillary has been sounding a bit more to the left to counter Sanders but she is not convincing. She says she will “fight for this and that” but if elected she will say, “it isn’t possible” or “it will cost too much”. It’s just a ploy. She doesn’t believe in changing anything and many Democrat voters know that.<br /><br />“History doesn’t repeat but it rimes.”<br /><br />Take a look at why and how the Whig Party collapsed in the mid-1850’s in the US and it shows what might just in the US. <br /><br />http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/what-can-collapse-whig-party-tell-us-about-todays-politics-180958729/?utm_source=smithsonianhistandarch&no-ist<br /><br />The Slavery Issue was the most important problem leading up to the Civil War. The Whig and the Democrat Party leaders in the spirit of cooperation kept coming up with compromises that just tweaked the system and never looked for a solution. They just put it off and kicked the can down the road but the pressure was building. Lincoln hit it right when he said, “Either we must be all free or all slave but we can’t be both”. To make it short, the anti-slavery part of the Whigs, the anti-slavery part of the Democrats and the Free Soil Party combined to form the Republican Party and they had the will to do what the two other parties refused to do in the name gradualism and compromise. <br /><br />What do Trump supporters and Sander supporters have in in common? They both have an overwhelming concern about the 1% and trade. These two issues are in reality one issue because they are intimately tied. They see this correctly as an Existential Threat. Obama was right when he said that terrorism is not an existential thread. Terrorism although serious cannot bring down the United States. What the Trump and Sander followers see is that the 1% and the corresponding distortions in trade can bring the United States down because it destroys the very bases of our power and prosperity. <br /><br />Pressure was building with the Whig Party for ten years, but when it collapsed, it was sudden. Within two years, the new Republican Party had control of the House and much of the Senate. When Lincoln was elected, the Slave States had to choose between slavery and rebellion and they rebelled. The Republicans conducted our bloodiest war to a successful conclusion. The Whigs disappeared and the Democrat Party was out of office for years for twenty-five years until they sold their souls and allied themselves with the former slave-owners. Pressure has been building at least since 2008 and probably more. The time is ripe.<br /><br />Can something like this happen again? I think it is definitely possible. You can only hold your nose for so long until you say enough is enough.<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com