tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post1070261068822694001..comments2024-03-29T00:39:31.629-07:00Comments on CONTRARY BRIN: Science Fiction, Media, Podcasts & Events!David Brinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comBlogger74125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-38051416881243015412007-04-03T05:59:00.000-07:002007-04-03T05:59:00.000-07:00Max,In the case of stenography, you have the possi...Max,<BR/><BR/>In the case of stenography, you have the possibility of positive confirmation before making a raid, unlike most data-mining contexts. Quite different.RandomSequencehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12259854206507818658noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-52013154021419334172007-04-02T16:49:00.000-07:002007-04-02T16:49:00.000-07:00RS,Yes, that was why I originally frowned at traff...RS,<BR/><BR/>Yes, that was why I originally frowned at traffic analysis. In an article on stenography, though, he pointed to traffic analysis as one tool that might be useful to detecting terrorists using stenographic encryption. [shrug] I suppose "actionable" doesn't have to mean "launch a raid." It could just provide the impetus for further investigation. Anyway, if a well-known expert views traffic analysis as at least potentially useful I shouldn't dismiss it out of hand as a tool for fools.<BR/><BR/>-MaxB.C.https://www.blogger.com/profile/04048881524085910509noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-30566603401733624682007-04-02T08:30:00.000-07:002007-04-02T08:30:00.000-07:00Re: Schneier and data mining.Max,Re-read Bruce's s...Re: Schneier and data mining.<BR/><BR/>Max,<BR/><BR/>Re-read Bruce's statements on data-mining. He's for data-mining where it works. Some of the principles of workable data-mining is that the costs of false positives are fairly minimal.<BR/><BR/>From what I've read of his analysis of data-mining regarding the jihadi's, is that since the population of aggressors is so small, you will inevitably get false positives several orders of magnitude larger than the actual population of aggressors, even in cases where your false negatives are an order of magnitude greater than true negatives.<BR/><BR/>Generally, he thinks data-mining is a great idea for credit card fraud, but not the right approach for terrorists, where traditional law-enforcement/intelligence approaches work much better, historically speaking.RandomSequencehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12259854206507818658noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-68927566096849557102007-04-02T08:22:00.000-07:002007-04-02T08:22:00.000-07:00Re: constant existential threat.If I found myself ...Re: constant existential threat.<BR/><BR/>If I found myself under constant threat of death, I'd consider two possibilities, or some combination thereof:<BR/><BR/>1) Paranoia.<BR/>2) That I may be taking actions leading to the death threats.<BR/><BR/>For a culture, the first implies a high likelihood that there is some group attempting to fan the flames for their own advantage.<BR/><BR/>In case 2, I'd seriously reconsider my approach, an approach that seems to result in a constant threat to my existence.<BR/><BR/>Is every nation under constant "existential" threat? Have we been under constant existential threat since the settlement of North American? We've existed as a cultural group for almost 500 years now, we should have some evidence now for what results in threat of destruction.<BR/><BR/>Is empire all it's cracked up to be?RandomSequencehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12259854206507818658noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-54407853336950376902007-04-01T06:03:00.000-07:002007-04-01T06:03:00.000-07:00We aren't on a war footing.We have been on a war f...<I>We aren't on a war footing.</I><BR/><BR/>We have been on a <A HREF="http://www.truthandpolitics.org/military-US-world.php#chart-1" REL="nofollow">war footing</A> since 1945, and despite that have lost every major shooting war that we have been involved in (Korea, Vietnam, Iraq)and we would have probably lost WWII if the Russians had not destroyed the German Army.Don Quijotehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03355584994080980478noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-78416309150673414582007-04-01T05:36:00.000-07:002007-04-01T05:36:00.000-07:00Dr. B said: IT IS THE PEOPLE IN URBAN AMERICA -- T...Dr. B said: <I>IT IS THE PEOPLE IN URBAN AMERICA -- THE PRESUMED TARGETS -- WHO WANTED TO SHRUG IT OFF.</I><BR/><BR/>RadicalModerate replied: <I>take a look at this Pew Research poll from October 10, 2002. I don't think you can make those results jibe with your assertion.</I><BR/><BR/>First, I would note that the subtitle of that poll (HTML version <A HREF="http://google.com/search?q=cache%3Awww.cfr.org%2Fcontent%2Fpublications%2Fattachments%2FPew_iraw-war.pdf" REL="nofollow">here</A>) is "AMERICANS THINKING ABOUT IRAQ, BUT FOCUSED ON THE ECONOMY"<BR/><BR/>Second... on what page should I look for information relating to the correlation between rural/urban (or political party, as a proxy for that) and attitude towards going to war in retaliation for 9/11? What I'm finding is things like "Most Don’t See Rush to War", page 16: "an overwhelming majority of the public says that politicians on the other side of the issue are not sincere in their beliefs – that they are taking their position for political reasons. This view is as strong among supporters of the war as among opponents.", and a lot of tables which aren't broken down by rural/urban or anything which might substitute for that. ...but there are a lot of tables, and I haven't had time to read the whole document.Woozlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17948248776908775080noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-10999044634187849402007-04-01T00:42:00.000-07:002007-04-01T00:42:00.000-07:00Hard to say we won a war which ended with the side...Hard to say we won a war which ended with the side we supported ceasing to exist.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-45307122526765514222007-04-01T00:39:00.000-07:002007-04-01T00:39:00.000-07:00Jihadism in an existential threat for the same rea...<I>Jihadism in an existential threat for the same reason. No, the Jihadis can't destroy us right now. But they have an idea that is actively embraced by 10-20% of the Muslim world and passively tolerated by another 40-60%</I><BR/><BR/>It depends upon whether you think Muslims are capable of being an existential threat. Maybe Indonesians are, but I'm pretty well convinced that Arabs aren't. They write great poetry but can't fight worth a dead badger.<BR/><BR/><I>Vietnam saw a draft. And we lost.</I><BR/><BR/>HH, we didn't lose Vietnam. South Vietnam fell to an armed invasion of 12 divisions, a hundred and fifty thousand troops, AFTER the insurgency we were fighting had been pretty well suppressed. The armed invasion was no bigger than the 1972 invasion South Vietnam crushed with U.S. help, but in 1975 no U.S. help was forthcoming. It's hard to see how we lost a war we declined to participate in.<BR/><BR/>-MaxB.C.https://www.blogger.com/profile/04048881524085910509noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-46775509174556039662007-04-01T00:29:00.000-07:002007-04-01T00:29:00.000-07:00RM,Comment retracted. I looked a bit closer and Br...RM,<BR/><BR/>Comment retracted. I looked a bit closer and Bruce Schneier, at least, seems to feel traffic analysis is a useful tool.<BR/><BR/>-MaxB.C.https://www.blogger.com/profile/04048881524085910509noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-17339811605458177632007-03-31T23:33:00.000-07:002007-03-31T23:33:00.000-07:00The Korean War saw a continued draft, a continuati...The Korean War saw a continued draft, a continuation of the WW2 war taxes, and a national commitment.<BR/>Vietnam saw a draft. And we lost.<BR/>The "Cold War" was not a war, it was a arms race.<BR/>Desert Storm was a police action, more so than Korea.<BR/>War on Terror? We fight it like we fight the War on Drugs: declare war, give extra powers to the police (which they promptly used for everything, not just for the 'war'), waste massive amounts of treasure on things that don't help...<BR/>We aren't at war. Not even with "Muslim Extremists". If we were, we'd invade Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, the two countries with the worst extremists.<BR/>This "War" isn't about warfare. It's about political control.<BR/><BR/>As for comparing Jihadists with Brownshirts...<BR/>Germany was the most powerful industry in Europe, in spite of the Versaille Treaty. So, if the Jihadists take over Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Iraq, Iran, Syria (any others you want to add?) what kind of industrial power would they be? Think about it.<BR/>The Jihadists aren't dangerous because they're powerful, they're dangerous because they're so weak they act like monsters; if they didn't act like monsters no one would notice them.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-47407818459592626122007-03-31T22:23:00.000-07:002007-03-31T22:23:00.000-07:00Oh one more difference. We would have fought the ...Oh one more difference. We would have fought the REAL war, by investing in science and efficiency standards and cutting way back on the rate that we ship trillions overseas, into the pockets of those who hate us.<BR/><BR/>Clinton asked for all of this under your vaunted "divided government" when the laziest, most slothful, dogmatic, anti-scientific and utterly stupid Congress in memory had only one agenda, to serve the top 1% at home and abroad.<BR/><BR/>That, too, would have been different.David Brinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-78710261914071362612007-03-31T22:21:00.000-07:002007-03-31T22:21:00.000-07:00David--Well, not true even in the slightest. Dig i...David--<BR/><BR/><I>Well, not true even in the slightest. Dig it. IT IS THE PEOPLE IN URBAN AMERICA -- THE PRESUMED TARGETS -- WHO WANTED TO SHRUG IT OFF.</I><BR/><BR/>In 1990 the US population was 75% urban and 25% rural, per the census definitions of those terms. I assume that it has skewed even more urban since then.<BR/><BR/>Meanwhile, take a look at this <A HREF="http://www.cfr.org/content/publications/attachments/Pew_iraw-war.pdf" REL="nofollow">Pew Research poll from October 10, 2002</A>. I don't think you can make those results jibe with your assertion. Indeed, the only demographic where a majority opposed the war were self-described liberal democrats. Yes, <I>all</I> of that demographic is core urban. But there are also substantial numbers of conservative demographics there as well. Maybe core urban support for the war was only 65%. That's still enough to render your assertion invalid.<BR/><BR/>Now, existential threats: Were gangs of Brownshirts wandering through Bavaria in 1925 an existential threat to the US? <I>Of course they were!!!</I> They had a powerful idea and fertile ground for the idea to grow.<BR/><BR/>Jihadism in an existential threat for the same reason. No, the Jihadis can't destroy us right now. But they have an idea that is actively embraced by 10-20% of the Muslim world and passively tolerated by another 40-60%<BR/><BR/>You'll get no argument from me that we've made things worse in the last 4 years. But if you think that Jihadism isn't going to grow to be an existential threat--one that can actually destroy western civilization--unless we take both soft <I>and</I> hard power action against it, you're living in fantasyland.TheRadicalModeratehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04671143818738683349noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-77866797630191293272007-03-31T21:46:00.000-07:002007-03-31T21:46:00.000-07:00Max, the NSA's not doing data mining. They're doi...Max, the NSA's not doing data mining. They're doing traffic analysis, which is still one of the best analysis tools for spotting patterns of behavior.<BR/><BR/>Woozle, HH: You guys have an extremely odd idea of what a war footing is. Were we on a war footing during the Cold War? Were we even on a war footing during Korea and Vietnam? How 'bout Desert Storm? <BR/><BR/>I guess Bush could have decreed that we all go out and build aircraft during the day and listen to Glenn Miller all night, but I'm not sure it would have quite achieved the effect you're looking for.<BR/><BR/>I'm not trying to be glib here. Yes, Bush completely screwed the pooch on doing the mid-course unification that needs to be done and he did an even worse job of explaining what he was doing and why it was important. But please take a moment to think what a modern war footing should look like:<BR/><BR/>There's no draft because our force composition relies on training that takes too long and is too sophisticated for conscripts.<BR/><BR/>I won't kick on the tax issue very much.<BR/><BR/>What war-critical materials are we running short of?<BR/><BR/>And I'll punt on production and shortages in the logistical tail. Yeah, we had too much of things that turned out to be useless and too little of things that turned out to be critical, esp. armor for light troops. This is why logistics is important.<BR/><BR/>Meanwhile, he had a huge national consensus on Afghanistan and a pretty good one on Iraq. I would have loved to see him come straight out and say that reliance on Persian Gulf oil was a national security threat and take active measures, including raising CAFE and putting a floor on gas prices, but that frankly would have cost him his consensus on military action. Whether you think that would have been a good thing after the fact, Bush had his priorities and worked towards them.<BR/><BR/>Alter-Clinton would have done exactly the same for Afghanistan. He might easily have avoided Iraq and maybe had the guts to piss everybody off on the foreign oil issue. Or maybe not--the man liked to wield popular power as much as anybody else.TheRadicalModeratehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04671143818738683349noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-5430151005800656002007-03-31T21:43:00.000-07:002007-03-31T21:43:00.000-07:00RM is still arm waving like mad.“In re. "vacation ...RM is still arm waving like mad.<BR/><BR/>“In re. "vacation from history," the 90's were the first decade since the 20's where the US wasn't facing some form of existential threat.”<BR/><BR/>What an absolute load! The “existential threat” we currently face is entirely imaginary. This “terrorism” stuff is absolute bullshit.<BR/><BR/>“David, I read your comment on 9/11 being a minor economic/military event and puzzled over it for some time. You are, of course, correct. However, it was hardly minor from either a psychological or nationalistic standpoint.”<BR/><BR/>Well, not true even in the slightest. Dig it. IT IS THE PEOPLE IN URBAN AMERICA -- THE PRESUMED TARGETS -- WHO WANTED TO SHRUG IT OFF.<BR/><BR/>That is the fact. Only slightly exaggerated. Because, yes, we did want the bastards hunted down. And the core threat eliminated. And that is what the Afghanistan war against the Taliban did, using plans drawn up by Clinton and Clark. That WAS the “war.” We eliminated (using professionalism and high quality doctrines) the enemy state that had committed an act of war against us.<BR/><BR/>AT THAT POINT we were fearsome and intimidating and overwhelmingly impressive. The Iranians were BOTH impressed AND grateful, and that is the point that a man (like Clinton) with more than two brain cells, would have “gone to China” with the Iranian people, thus undermining Saddam, the petrosheiks and the Iranian mullahs, themselves.<BR/><BR/>“I'm certainly happy to agree that Iraq was an overreaction (although I wouldn't have said so at the time). But surely you're not saying that Bush could have gotten away with a response that didn't put the US on a war footing?”<BR/><BR/>He did more than enough “war footing” by taking Kabul. From then on, we needed a man who wanted to lead us to victory by thriving, not defeat by fratboy bellicosity.<BR/><BR/>And let me repeat. It is rural/red America that quakes in terror of terrorists. City folk saw the towers collapse, turned east and sneered “is THAT all you got?”<BR/><BR/>I look you in the eye. We are in this mess because monsters either (1) have been somehow so stupid they miraculously managed to avoid EVEN ONE right decision, across six years. Or (2) that was actually the intent.<BR/><BR/>Clinton was neither stupid nor did he intend to destroy America. Every single thing would have been different.David Brinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-12480854566395607852007-03-31T20:49:00.000-07:002007-03-31T20:49:00.000-07:00Meanwhile, imagine Mike Hayden walking into the Ov...<I>Meanwhile, imagine Mike Hayden walking into the Oval Office on 02/01/2002 and saying, "President Alter-Clinton, I can tweak 2 or 3 parameters in Echelon and give you actionable traffic analysis pointing at terror cells in the US, as long as I don't have this huge logistical tail with obtaining FISA warrants." Do you think Alter-Clinton would have told Hayden to stop? Of course not.</I><BR/><BR/>It's possible that Clinton would have been smart enough to know why data mining is a terrible technique for finding terrorists. Or at least smart enough to listen to advisors who are smart enough to know.<BR/><BR/>-MaxB.C.https://www.blogger.com/profile/04048881524085910509noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-56385870509048362252007-03-31T16:01:00.000-07:002007-03-31T16:01:00.000-07:00RM said: But surely you're not saying that Bush co...RM said: <I>But surely you're not saying that Bush could have gotten away with a response that didn't put the US on a war footing? If he'd tried to do that, he would have been impeached.</I><BR/><BR/>(Oh, yeah, I totally missed that one. Thanks, HH.)<BR/><BR/>Ahm. In what sense is this in any way true? I don't recall there being a huge outcry for blood. Cries for justice, cries to stop terrorism, cries to <I>investigate</I> the whole disaster, perhaps. Bush has done his worst (or what would be anyone else's worst, anyway) on all three counts -- having blocked investigation, made sure that justice would be uneven and arbitrary, and raised the risk of terrorism, especially for Americans -- and is only now facing feeble cries for impeachment from the opposing party.<BR/><BR/>Seems to me if he'd done something smart (like, say, <I>not</I> using a sledgehammer to fight a wasp's nest), his popularity could hardly have suffered by comparison with what it is in the reality-based here-and-now.Woozlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17948248776908775080noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-55030417079164675772007-03-31T16:00:00.000-07:002007-03-31T16:00:00.000-07:00HH:However, we ARE spending ungodly amounts of mon...HH:<BR/><BR/>However, we ARE spending ungodly amounts of money in ways that enrich certain politically connected companies.<BR/><BR/>All the benefits of war profiteering with no chance that your ivy-league brat will get dragged off to boot camp!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-34401752158889741002007-03-31T15:17:00.000-07:002007-03-31T15:17:00.000-07:00"But surely you're not saying that Bush could have..."But surely you're not saying that Bush could have gotten away with a response that didn't put the US on a war footing?"<BR/><BR/>We aren't on a war footing.<BR/>There's no draft to increase troop strength.<BR/>There's no increase in taxes to pay for the equipment that the troops need.<BR/>There's no rationing of war critical materials.<BR/>There's no ramp up of production of war materials.<BR/><BR/>The ONLY way we are on a 'war footing' is political. One party is using "We're at WAR" as a excuse to hammer the other party and to avoid criticism.<BR/><BR/>If we were at war, I'd expect some sign of it other than a blurb on the television. Like maybe ordering me back to active duty. Or asking me to act as a civilian trainer, given my health problems. But nothing...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-10808632632818635412007-03-31T15:06:00.000-07:002007-03-31T15:06:00.000-07:00P.S. I'm not a lefty; I'm a moderate. (You've stol...P.S. I'm not a lefty; I'm a moderate. (You've stolen my political designation, curse ye!)Woozlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17948248776908775080noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-13258896980445540072007-03-31T13:26:00.000-07:002007-03-31T13:26:00.000-07:00RadicalModerate said: the Balkans would barely mak...RadicalModerate said: <I>the Balkans would barely make it on to the list of Genocide's Greatest Hits From the Late 20th Century.</I><BR/><BR/>Actually, it is on the list of less than 20 genocides in the late 20th century listed on <A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocides_in_history" REL="nofollow">Wikipedia</A>. Or is that too liberally-biased? Try <A HREF="http://www.conservapedia.com/Genocide" REL="nofollow">Conservapedia</A>, where it made the list of 3 genocides in the late 20th century.<BR/><BR/>What about Somalia? The slaughter in Rwanda, against which our losses on 9/11 are a pittance? I'm no world affairs fanatic and even <I>I</I> remember this stuff. "Vacation from history"?<BR/><BR/>RadicalModerate said: <I>But do you really think those PR events had anything to do with policy?</I><BR/><BR/>Perhaps not as much as some of the things he did -- but I do think (a) they were a step in the right direction (he might have, for example, depended entirely on professional survey-takers to find out what people want) (b) they were part of a well-established pattern of <I>interacting with and listening to</I> the people for whom he supposedly worked, i.e. us citizens.<BR/><BR/>RM said: <I>I will grant you this: the Alter-Clinton would have done a hugely better job explaining himself and his policies to post-9/11 America than Real-Bush could ever do.</I><BR/><BR/>Alter-Clinton would have (1) explained the <I>real</I> reasons he was doing what he was doing, (2) they probably would have been at least somewhere on the scale of reasonableness, (3) he would have been interested in building up not only firm domestic support but an international coalition to do whatever it was we ultimately decided to do <I>and</I> in using negotiated compromise to work out something approaching a good solution, rather than telling us what we were going to do and indulging in heavy-handed browbeating and namecalling against anyone who disagreed, (4) been open to criticism of his proposals, and (5) been forthcoming with more information and responses to questions asked.<BR/><BR/>The current guy is the diametric opposite of all that, and callously deceitful besides. And you're still defending him as being in the same league as Clinton? As being a decent human, even?<BR/><BR/>RM said: <I>Re. declassification: It made huge sense to start dumping all the Cold War secrets into the public domain, both for historical and administrative purposes. I would have expected any 90's president to do the same.</I><BR/><BR/>And all of a sudden it makes sense to start re-classifying mountains of stuff that Clinton previously de-classified? Most of which has <I>nothing</I> to do with national security?<BR/><BR/>Are you seriously trying to claim that the secrecy of the Bush administration is reasonable under the circumstances?<BR/><BR/>RM said: <I>None of the other mistakes get made unless the decision to invade Iraq gets made in the first place.</I><BR/><BR/>Going into Iraq was not a "single mistake" because Bush was told repeatedly that it was a bad idea. He had to make the mistake of ignoring each piece of advice, and the next one, and the one after that. He also ignored advice on the details -- the best way to do it, the need for a clear set of goals, the need for a timetable, and so on.<BR/><BR/>But yeah, perhaps you're right; calling each of those a "mistake" is assuming that he (or whoever makes his decisions for him) had the best interests of the United States in mind.<BR/><BR/>And really, I don't think Clinton would have invaded Iraq in response to 9/11. Aside from the fact that there was no reason to choose <I>Iraq</I> as the scapegoat for 9/11, there are so many, many different things we could have done which might actually have worked <I>against</I> terrorism instead of making the situation worse as we all knew the invasion would. (Well, those of us who weren't all "my Decider, right or wrong!" in 2002/3.)<BR/><BR/>RM said: "if I'm the provocateur that's going to produce the glib responses to you hapless lefties, it seems like you have little to fear so far."<BR/><BR/>You're right. If you really are a provocateur, then we're seeing the Bad Guys' <I>best</I> arguments, presented at their sharpest and freshest. What's really scary is the idea that you're who you say you are -- just an average guy who thinks Bush might be bad but not really all <I>that</I> bad -- and that the arguments, ideas, and misinformation you're presenting represent common belief. Then we're <I>really</I> in trouble.Woozlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17948248776908775080noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-55346671656665531802007-03-31T10:56:00.000-07:002007-03-31T10:56:00.000-07:00Woozle--Thanks for the response.In re. "vacation f...Woozle--<BR/><BR/>Thanks for the response.<BR/><BR/>In re. "vacation from history," the 90's were the first decade since the 20's where the US wasn't facing some form of existential threat. The Balkans would hardly qualify. Indeed, the Balkans would barely make it on to the list of Genocide's Greatest Hits From the Late 20th Century.<BR/><BR/>I'm happy to give props to Clinton for mobilizing Western Europe to clean up a mess that was virtually in their back yard, using counterinsurgency tactics that were developed for western societies. He did a nice job.<BR/><BR/>Along the same lines, David, I read your comment on 9/11 being a minor economic/military event and puzzled over it for some time. You are, of course, correct. However, it was hardly minor from either a psychological or nationalistic standpoint. I'm certainly happy to agree that Iraq was an overreaction (although I wouldn't have said so at the time). But surely you're not saying that Bush could have gotten away with a response that didn't put the US on a war footing? If he'd tried to do that, he would have been impeached.<BR/><BR/>Woozle, re. divided government and openness: Clinton's townhall events were excellent theater and certainly played to his strengths as a charismatic extemporaneous speaker. (Bush obiviously avoids this format because he's an awful speaker, extemporaneous or otherwise.) But do you really think those PR events had <I>anything</I> to do with policy?<BR/><BR/>I will grant you this: the Alter-Clinton would have done a hugely better job explaining himself and his policies to post-9/11 America than Real-Bush could ever do. That actually might have been enough to tip the balance.<BR/><BR/>Re. declassification: It made huge sense to start dumping all the Cold War secrets into the public domain, both for historical and administrative purposes. I would have expected any 90's president to do the same.<BR/><BR/>Meanwhile, imagine Mike Hayden walking into the Oval Office on 02/01/2002 and saying, "President Alter-Clinton, I can tweak 2 or 3 parameters in Echelon and give you actionable traffic analysis pointing at terror cells in the US, as long as I don't have this huge logistical tail with obtaining FISA warrants." Do you think Alter-Clinton would have told Hayden to stop? Of course not. Alter-Clinton would have been expecting follow-on attacks, just as Real-Bush did, and would have done everything necessary to protect himself from later accusations that he hadn't done everything necessary to secure the country.<BR/><BR/>Re. the "single mistake:" None of the other mistakes get made unless the decision to invade Iraq gets made in the first place. It was the unforced error from which all other errors, forced or unforced, flow.<BR/><BR/>Finally, if I'm the provocateur that's going to produce the glib responses to you hapless lefties, it seems like you have little to fear so far. Guess I'll have to go down to the dungeon and force my Evil Minions to start churning out the talking points faster. (They're all chained together with Blackberries taped to their hands. There's a Spinmaster in a leather breechclout at the front of the room with a huge drum. The minions put out one line of text per drumbeat or the Overseers beat them. Guess maybe it's time to order ramming speed...)TheRadicalModeratehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04671143818738683349noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-56885874786181768492007-03-31T09:35:00.000-07:002007-03-31T09:35:00.000-07:00DQ and Max,An interesting fact of American culture...DQ and Max,<BR/><BR/>An interesting fact of American culture is that the mainstream of Americans are left on policy, but right on language.<BR/><BR/>What I mean is that in terms of opinion polls on policy, Americans always come out pro-single payer health care, pro-Kyoto, pro-UN, anti-war... But Americans react in a knee-jerk fashion as soon as you accuse people of "liberalism". This is not just a sociological fact, it's also anecdotally true - it's always fun to poke at conservative midwesterners on policy - "Do you think society should guarantee a minimum health care for everyone?" - and then point out to them when they say yes that they must be "liberals".<BR/><BR/>So folks on the right wing think they are in the mainstream, because they use the same language as everyone else, even though in terms of policy most American would consider them radical. And on the left wing, the politicos are absolutely incompetent at building a large political base or getting the vote out (even registering people) for the same reason.<BR/><BR/>It's pretty depressing when language and thought diverge, in terms of getting a healthy democratic process functioning.RandomSequencehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12259854206507818658noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-48016166769380343142007-03-31T09:24:00.000-07:002007-03-31T09:24:00.000-07:00DQ,The problem with NAFTA is that it has been comp...DQ,<BR/><BR/>The problem with NAFTA is that it has been completely economically insane. To have a common market, you have to have a level playing field in infrastructure and generally similar standards of living. Otherwise, the gradient will simply tear the societies apart.<BR/><BR/>When Europe brought Spain and Greece into the EU (and W. Germany annexed E. Germany), they realized that they had to pump massive subsidies into those societies to bring them up to standard. Build roads, trains, give welfare payments and so forth, to minimize the local damage.<BR/><BR/>What did we do with Mexico? Absolutely nothing, which of course collapsed local economies in Mexico, brought up the cost of living up towards American standards without any of the infrastructure we had. Massive immigration was the obvious (and I'm sure foreseen by some) result, and the loss of industries that could relocate from the US. And of course, the WTO has been following in the same footsteps.<BR/><BR/>Of course, some will say that eventually the market will correct for that. Well, maybe eventually, after a few generations. But the lower and middle classes are going to have to pay for it in collapsing communities in the meanwhile on both sides of the border. Nice exchange for cheaper tomatoes.RandomSequencehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12259854206507818658noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-52432940804587676022007-03-31T08:59:00.000-07:002007-03-31T08:59:00.000-07:00An interesting irony about getting tough on compan...An interesting irony about getting tough on companies that hire illegal immigrants: Carol Lam (the fired USA from San Diego) initiated one of the very few criminal cases against a company and their executives for repeated use of illegal workers.<BR/><A HREF="http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2006/12/14/news/state/23_45_5612_13_06.txt" REL="nofollow">NC Times</A>Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09899896624634559665noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-46024184345003905142007-03-31T06:33:00.000-07:002007-03-31T06:33:00.000-07:00(Ok, so I'm a bit slow keeping up with the posting...(Ok, so I'm a bit slow keeping up with the posting here...)<BR/><BR/>RadicalModerate said: <I>(1) The 90's were truly a "vacation from history." The economy literally ran itself and sizeable foreign policy blunders had no consequences until Clinton was out of office. Bushco has certainly not had that luxury. </I><BR/><BR/>So the whole Balkan thing isn't part of history now? Oh, wait, you mean it isn't part of history because we didn't screw up terribly, leaving a distinct absence of huge wounds in the national psyche which will take decades to heal, so nobody really remembers it, so it doesn't count? I doubt that's the only example of "history" in progress during the 1990s. (Clinton also made some of what I would consider mistakes, e.g. signing the Digital Millennium Copyright Act into law; I don't hear you mentioning that, but I'd have to say that was history too.) Bushco hasn't had that luxury because he has a talent for making his own blunders without waiting for history.<BR/><BR/>RM said: <I>(2) Divided government is accountable government. Clinton benefitted hugely from having the GOP nipping at his heels. In other words, he was forced to have the most open government in history by his political enemies. Bushco got to run open-loop for 6 years because his own party wouldn't investigate him. While I'm sure I will indulge in much eye-rolling over the next 2 years, the fact that the relationship between Congress and the Executive is once again adversarial will vastly improve Bushco and the Congress.</I><BR/><BR/>Oh come on! Clinton, from the very start, was all about Town Meetings and listening to ordinary citizens to find out what they wanted to see the government doing, and talking extensively about what he was doing and why, and opening the process so everyone could see the proof. He didn't <I>have</I> to start the most massive declassification in history, and it certainly wasn't at the GOP's insistence that he did so. (WTF?)<BR/><BR/>Bush has been completely the opposite, sheltering himself from all but his closest advisors. If Clinton been Bush Jr. in disguise, he would have spent his first 2 unopposed years in office (before the neocons took over) classifying and hiding everything the way Bush has done, and he would have responded to the first sign of threat by clamping down even further.<BR/><BR/>RM said: <I>(3) I know I'm sounding like a broken record here, but the single mistake of invading Iraq the wrong way has warped all subsequent foreign policy. I'd like to think that Clinton would have been wise enough to avoid this decision but frankly I don't know. The man certainly had his own "wag the dog" propensities when backed up against the wall.</I><BR/><BR/>"Single mistake"?? Iraq is a series of mistakes a mile long, and even now Bush wants to add another surge of them. He also made plenty of other <A HREF="http://issuepedia.org/Corruption_in_the_Bush_administration" REL="nofollow">mistakes</A>, some of them quite possibly deliberate.<BR/><BR/>...<BR/><BR/>I must say, though, you GOP provocateurs are getting very good at your craft; you had me fooled at first. I often worry that we're helping you folks too much by refining the surface-credibility of your arguments to a fine polish so they're all nice and sharp for the next election... but such are the penalties of openness and transparency. The benefit is that the truth will win through in the end, if it's not ruthlessly suppressed by whoever the GOP puts forward to be the next puppet.Woozlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17948248776908775080noreply@blogger.com