TRoaches

I don't think an editorial should necessarily be dismissed, but it should be read critically and considered for what it is: an opinion. The opinion expressed may be well crafted and convincing, or it may be a deceptive and misleading characterization. In all of those examples the person who expressed the opinion was opposed to the fiscal policies that the Tea Party represents and was associating negatively perceived social policies with the more popular and accepted fiscal policies in an attempt to discredit them. I consider this a form of deceptive journalism, or in the case of Reid deceptive politics.

The only link contained in that article between social policy and the Tea Party is a quote from Harry Reid blaming the congress's inability to pass a bill on the "Tea Party extreme social agenda". It is an opinion expressed by Harry Reid, and nothing more. In other words, it is another editorial.

All three of those articles are editorials.

The big issue with the spying is the potential for abuse. Snowden has been getting the most press lately, but the fact is there have been many other whistleblowers who have been trying for years to bring attention to this, and some of them were in much higher positions than Snowden. Russ Tice was talking about this stuff back in 2005. He has been given a few mentions in the news lately because of the Snowden story, and this quote from a recent interview illustrates perfectly why this domestic spying is a problem: This article includes the video of the interview from which that quote is taken and also mentions William Binney, another whistleblower who ranked much higher than Snowden and leaked similar information. If we assume that there is at least some truth in Tice's statements then it becomes very obvious that the domestic spying programs are being abused, or that there is at least massive potential for abuse. It very well may be that the programs have been used to avert terrorist attacks, but if they have also been used to gather blackmail material against supreme court justices, mebers of congress, and the sitting president then it really is debatable whether it is worth it. Very few people have died or been injured in terrorist attacks, but a compromised judicial, legislative, or executive branch (or all three, yikes) has the potential to cause incalculable damage.

@Mandamus: The plea for "smaller government" includes a desire for less taxes, less military spending and foreign militarism, less government oversight with regard to education, and so on. In short, it is a conservative group. A common misconception is that the movement started in response to Obama's election. It is true that a few formalized groups have sprung up since the beginning of Obama's presidency that use variations on the Tea Party name but it is debatable whether any of those groups truly represent the movement itself. The movement, if not the formalized organizations, started during the Bush administration as a response to perceived abandonment of conservative principles by the Republican party and by President Bush. At that time it received very little press coverage, but became a hot topic after Obama's election. The reason for this shift, in my opinion, is that the media does not like a story that upsets the prescribed "order" of conservative vs liberal or democrat vs republican and therefore did not give much coverage to a group of conservatives who oppose an administration that describes itself as conservative while ignoring conservative principles. Once a liberal president was in office they gladly gave the Tea Party movement as much coverage as possible. The same phenomenon can be observed in reverse in the media's current lack of coverage anti-war activists like Cindy Sheehan and Code Pink, who were often branded as "leftists" simply because they opposed Bush's militarism. During Bush's term they were in the news every day and it was painted as a good clean left vs right story, but they have been largely ignored by the same media now that this supposed "leftist" group opposes the current President, and opposes the dichotomy of a Nobel Peace Prize recipient who is overseeing multiple foreign wars. Colourwheel is not describing the Tea Party as much as she is describing the media's characterization of the Tea Party. Their focus is not social politics, but fiscal policy and civil liberties. If the Tea Party really is getting people elected (I have seen very little evidence of this) who hold those social positions it is not because of their perhaps objectionable social politics, but because of their fiscal views. If anything Tea Party members are more likely to completely ignore the social side of politics and focus on fiscal policy, and this could perhaps lead to people with objectionable social positions but sound fiscal positions being elected to office.

Who do they believe should have that power? Who do you believe should have that power?

Because advocating portions of the tea party's philosophy does not exclude one from holding an opposing view with regards to other aspects of politics. One of the tea party's founders is gay and is opposed to gay marriage. I don't agree with him on that, but his opinion on that particular issue does not equate to a organization-wide opposition to gay marriage. I am not aware of the tea party ever opposing anyone's access to civil rights on any issue at an organization-wide level. Their focus is on economic and political policy, not social politics, and if anything they advocate real civil rights to a much greater extent than either of the major parties.

I did not comment on Borlaug's perfection or lack thereof, nor did I imply that he should not be admired for his contributions. I only commented on his advocacy of population control, which is a concept that I abhor and is closely connected to most environmentalist thought, is relevant to his premise because he explicitly connected it to his environmental philosophy, and which is relevant to the topic because of the possibility that increased automation could lead to decreased perceived need of human labor by those who are in position to enact such population controls. Refusing to acknowledge the negative and focusing only on the positive effects of any suggested social or economic change is a recipe for disaster.

This is odd, considering this quote: I suppose the Republicans are the party that you consider more logical? Please correct me if I'm wrong. Or did you register with the less logical party? I would also invite anyone to read your post history in this forum and decide for themself if you seem to favor one party while consistently condemning the other. So which Republican is the good one, whom you support? Not at all, but it is pointless to try to hold prior administrations responsible for what they have done at this point. It is much more constructive to look at what the current administration is doing, try to dissuade them from continuing the bad policies, and try to dissuade other citizens from turning a blind eye to those policies and supporting them while voting and thinking according to party lines. If the topic is dedicated to condemning the tea party based on misinformation then major party allegiance among citizens and the media, and the misinformation that is spread as a result of that allegiance, is at the core of the topic.

You made it pretty clear in your other threads that you support one party and oppose the other. The illegal practices that the supported party have condoned include: -Drone strike assassinations against American citizens suspected but not convicted of crimes, a denial of their right to due process -Domestic wiretapping without probable cause or legal authority -Circumvention of constitutional authority through executive orders -Selling illegal weapons to drug cartels -Violations of the Logan Act (several instances, but all are debatable in their legality) The unethical, but perhaps not illegal, acts would include: -Increased military spending -Increased foreign militarism and imperialism -Increased loss of life and limb among civilians who are victims of our militarism -continuation of ineffective, wasteful, and statistically racist drug prohibition policies -demonstrated tolerance for executive financial crime These are just short lists that came off the top of my head. If one were to really compile a comprehensive version of either list it would grow quite long.

He was a smart and interesting guy, but his philosophy was not without major flaws. For example, consider this quote from his Nobel acceptance speech: "There can be no permanent progress in the battle against hunger until the agencies that fight for increased food production and those that fight for population control unite in a common effort." in conjunction with this quote: "I now say that the world has the technology – either available or well advanced in the research pipeline – to feed on a sustainable basis a population of 10 billion people." Considering that the world population in 1970 was around 3.7B why would he advocate for population control but later claim that the technology to sustain a population of 10B was imminent? If 10B can be sustained there is no need for population controls to be instituted, especially if one assumes that 10B is not a hard cap and the sustainable population will increase along with the real current population. The effects of technological advancement cannot be reduced to either "good" or "bad" future scenarios. The reality is likely somewhere in the middle, with an inherent con associated with every pro. If you believe that technology is destined to lead us to a "higher level" then the question must be asked why we have not yet reached that higher level. Starvation still exists, despite unquantifiable advances in agriculture and transportation technologies. Those advancements have led to improved quality of life for many, and no discernable improvements for many others who have been denied access to those technologies. The primary reason for that denial has been resource wars, which themselves have led to many of the advancements. It is a mind-bending circular process in which there is no inherent good or bad outcome.

I think there is a very strong argument to be made that this is a concise description of the current state of things more so than a hypothetical situation, except for the part about Europe doing nothing. The European powers have never stopped imperialistically meddling in the affairs of foreign sovereignties, and likely never will. I don't think it will lead to world war, however. If global economics were a race China and India would be like young, very fit competitors who are not necessarily winning but are accelerating while their older, fatter competitors are losing speed. They have no interest in stopping the race to fight the other competitors, who may be out of shape but have strong heavy hands and punch very hard, and losing their momentum in the process. If they maintain their current bearing and continue to accelerate they can win the war economically without firing any shots. Why try to compete militarily when you are winning the economic competition?

@colourwheel: Do you ever spend any time questioning the practices of the people who you actually vote for? It seems like all of your political posts are intended to criticize the policies of people who do not claim to represent you. Perhaps your time would be better spent analyzing the actions of those who DO claim to represent you. While you focus on some guy who claims to speak for the tea party your own party are doing plenty of things that oppose your personal interests and beliefs. You either have no idea that they are doing this, or don't care enough to post about it. Either way it is evident that your attention has successfully been diverted away from the unethical and illegal practices of your own party. They know that as long as they can point elsewhere and fix your attention away from them they will be able to continue to receive your vote while breaking all of their promises and violating all of their stated ideals. It seems like it would be more productive for everyone if more people focused their criticism on the actions of the people who they voted for and who claim to represent them rather than the people who do neither. In other words, while you point the finger at the tea party, or the NRA, or Glenn Beck, or whoever your current target is the politicians and party who thrive on your support are violating the ideals for which you elected them. Try pointing that finger back at the ones you have handed your vote to and analyze their actions, and you just may find yourself quite appalled. To a large extent, that is what the tea party is really about.

The "gut check" that Beriallord is describing would be something like a cataclysmic collapse of societal order. I don't think that Beriallord was advocating such a scenario, but rather was warning of its possibility. Such a scenario could be caused by any number of reasons such as war, sudden environmental changes (meteor impact etc), or a financial breakdown akin to the stock market crash and ensuing great depression of the 1920's. The harsh truth is that, in any of those scenarios, a physically disabled person would have a high chance being an early casualty unless that person had prepared in advance for such a scenario. Everyone, disabled or not, would be in danger but those who are prepared would have a better chances of surviving than those who have never given it any thought, and those who were not prepared but are clever enough to improvise would fair better than those who are neither. That improvisation would be much more difficult if mobility is limited due to a disability. This means that a disabled person who recognizes the possibility of a cataclysm and is concerned about their ability to survive should take steps to prepare for it with greater urgency than an able bodied person. When I say "prepared" I don't necessarily mean stockpiles of food (though that is a good idea). Preparedness also comes in the form of knowledge and independence. During the great depression society was much more agrarian than it is now, so the average person had knowledge of gardening, hunting, fishing, trapping, construction, repair, sewing, water purification, and so on. In large part because of this collective survival knowledge there were surprisingly few deaths during the depression as a result of starvation. If the same scenario were to occur today the death rate would likely be much higher due to our increased dependence on technology and infrastructure and our decreased collective knowledge of basic survival. As our basic needs are met through an increasing amount of automation we lose the necessity of learning how to meet those needs without the automation. Because all automation is dependent on social and economic order to operate any interruption of that order would mean interruption of the supply to those needs. Therefore, there are two synergistic negative side effects to increased automation: Increased dependency combined with decreased collective knowledge.

Here is an interesting development: MoD serves news outlets with D-notice over surveillance leaks UK TO BRIT HACKS: SHUT UP - DEFENCE MINISTRY WARNS AGAINST LEAKS ON JOINT US-BRIT SPYING Do you think that maybe the reporters are being surveilled to enforce the D notice to protect the surveillance program? I would imagine so! The Guardian article also mentions that a foreign secretary in charge of the GCHQ appeared on BBC radio and was not asked about the G20 spying, which would indicate that they were complying with the notice. Things like this make me imagine Orwell in a higher dimension screaming "I TOLD YOU!!! I F%$#@ING TOLD YOU!!!"

@colourwheel: That was what I was hinting at, in an indirect way. Automation of laundry certainly destroyed a particular form of employment, but it was a very low yield occupation. Replacing a large number of low yield jobs with a smaller number of high yield jobs is an unavoidable fact of automation. Some people WILL lose income in the short term, like the low-income women who commonly worked home launderers to supplement the family income. If we just look at automation as a simple "more automation == fewer jobs" equation than it ignores the greater context. There are more losers than winners in that narrow short-term equation, but if we expand the scope of the equation we see that the winners are able to support more people through their employment.

Isn't a washing machine an example of technological automation replacing what was once a manual job and a source of employment? If you oppose the automation of jobs then you should be paying someone to hand wash your laundry in a tub.

You're not crazy, and there is much truth in your post. That said, when someone starts frantically connecting dots without any focus, like going from Syria to international banks to shadow governments to 9-11 then back to banks to Kennedy to monetary policy then back to Kennedy and the direction of his blood spray, then punctuate it with the phrase "crazy conspiracy theorist" you run the risk of causing anyone reading it to blow it off as exactly the rantings of a crazy conspiracy theorist. None of what you posted is entirely crazy and much of it isn't even theoretical but it does lack focus and, due to this lack of focus, will cause most people to ignore it while perpetuating the stereotype of a person who takes an interest in the history and context that lies below the surface of current events as a "crazy conspiracy theorist". Please don't take this critique personally. It is only my advice. Take it or leave it.

The linked article is from the Fars News Agency, which is a dubious source if there ever was one. That is the same state-affiliated news agency that once cited a quote from an Onion article to support the notion that the majority of Americans would rather vote for Ahmadinejad than Obama for US president. I would also take issue with the "largest" claim. Largest in what way? The largest staff? Perhaps, but when talking about about a cyber army having the largest staff does not necessarily indicate an advantage. If anything I would imagine that press statement was meant to soothe fears among the Iranian after the Stuxnet incident. The article sources the claim to a retired IDF colonel named Gabi Siboni. I also take any scary claim made about Iran by an IDF affiliated source with some healthy doubt. That is not to say that cyber war is not something that the military should be worried about. I just don't buy it as a valid reason for our communications companies to help big brother in his data mining project. The US military is most likely the world's leading authority on computer security, given that they have been locking up computer systems longer than just about anybody. Even when there is a story in the news about China successfully hacking a US system and stealing something precious I have my doubts about the truth of it. The military probably sets up honeypots for situations like that, and lets them take what they want them to take. It is also worth considering that the military loves redundancy in their systems. If a cyber attack were successful it would likely be only a moderate success, and the damage would quickly be repaired or bypassed. Their whole communications system was built to withstand nuclear strikes at key locations, so any failure at any point can be bypassed.

A few more thoughts on the topic.... Cameron seems eager to throw some UK "aid" in there as well, though I question why anyone would call adding more weapons to a conflict that has already killed almost 100k people a form of "aid". The source of the chemical weapons claim seems to be deputy national security advisor Ben Rhodes. He is the same guy who gifted us with my favorite newspeak of late when he said, in reference to our bombing of Libya, that we were engaging in "kinetic military action", and explained that this is not the same as war. Seems legit!

The nations that are the targeted in these types of ops are always the ones that have strong nationalist policies. It is sold to our public as being about human rights but this makes no sense if you look at the human rights offenders that we tolerate, such as Saudi Arabia. For example, Libya was toppled because they were unwilling to bend to the pricing and mineral rights demands of companies like BP, Shell, and Exxon. Libya was also holding on to a vast national treasury of precious metals, which was looted following the coup. In some cases we have given support to a tyrannical leader as long as they follow our orders, only to topple them as soon as they step out of line. Saddam Hussein and Manuel Noriega are both examples of former "allies" who received plenty of material and financial support prior to being rebranded as dangerous dictators. Both Iraq and Libya were relatively progressive societies compared to many of their neighbors. If we were truly interested in assisting in a humanitarian crisis there are plenty of places where the people are far worse off than they are in Syria, Libya, or Egypt. Liberia comes to mind. This short documentary should be required viewing for anyone who advocates "humanitarian" intervention in an oil-rich country while Liberians are literally eating each other. SPOILER ALERT: They have no plumbing so the beaches and streets are covered in human crap, pure tar heroin and cocaine are available at bargain prices, 15-20 in 100 people have AIDS, around 20% of the children are malnourished, and there is one doctor available for every 100,000 citizens. Liberia wishes it was rich in oil just so the US would come and steal it and bring some order and civility while doing so. They have no infrastructure, no medicine, no education, no arts, no science, no hope. Our military could clean that country up in a matter of weeks or months, spending a fraction of the blood and treasure we have spent in Iraq. The only reason that we have not done this is because they lack exploitable resources. On this thought, The Onion nailed it. Comedy always provides the best political insight:

The "Arab Spring" phenomenon has never been the spontaneous grassroots movement that the media portrays it to be. In each nation it is set in motion or aided by American and European intelligence agencies. The goal is to destabilize the society, foster civil wars, label the situation a humanitarian crisis to justify military intervention, and eventually install a puppet government that will sell off the country's resources at wholesale prices. It has already happened exactly this way too many times for any reasonable person to consider it a coincidence. It doesn't matter who wins the civil war because they will either be in our pocket or will be replaced. If al-Assad retains power it will be through enough bloodshed that he will be labeled a chemical weapon wielding tyrant and be toppled through military intervention. If the Al-Qaeda rebels win then the justification for intervention will simply be "remember 9/11!!!!" and they will be replaced through military intervention. Either way Syria becomes Iraq 2.0 with US and UK troops occupying it for the next few decades. Syria is not particularly rich in natural resources compared to its neighbors, but its location is itself a resource that makes it an important piece in the strategy of global power resource wars. What burns my ass about the narrative of "That tyrant attacked those poor innocent freedom fighters we must give them aid!" is the thought that armed rebels should not be subjected to such treatment. If the police stopped a pickup truck with 10 guys carrying rifles and rocket launchers riding in the back heading into Washington D.C. they would not be referred to as "protesters", and they would most likely be killed for their attempted insurrection. When Libya was going through its engineered destabilization the media narrative actually referred to armed rebels as "protesters", as in "Gaddafi deployed helicopter gunships against protesters!". I don't doubt that some civilian protesters were caught in the crossfire and collateral damage, but I do doubt that the military was wasting such resources on people who were chanting and holding signs while a sophisticated militia that had been armed and trained by our notorious intelligence agencies was banging down the palace doors. These were not some poor rednecks with shotguns. In the early days of the conflict someone posted a video of a Libyan fighter jet being shot down by a rebel SAM. That requires a fairly sophisticated weapon, and the list of entities who had the motive and ability to supply such a weapon and necessary training is a very short one, with the US and UK right at the top.

The technocratic dictatorship is what comes to my mind any time I hear dire warnings about "overpopulation" or positive mentions of "population control". I consider it propaganda meant to acclimate us to our own planned obsolescence. There have always been members of the elite class who consider the rest of us a necessary burden (unwashed masses, mouths to feed, etc), and automation would remove the necessity of the existence of lower classes to produce food and infrastructure. Put yourself in the shoes of a patriarch of one of the world's truly elite groups. I don't mean people that are simply "wealthy" but the people who control wealth itself, such as the old royal families and their more modern cousins in the international banks. Like any other patriarch you probably think and plan for your faction's future. Where most normal people would be concerned about their progeny's survival and prosperity you have no need to be concerned about this. Their prosperity is already a sure thing. Instead you have the luxury of truly looking ahead to the destiny of humanity itself and what role your faction will play in that destiny. Now, if you are a good-natured, humble, and altruistic person then you would not consider those of the lower classes (and remember, EVERY class is lower than yours) to be an expendable waste of resources. However, there is a good chance that a person who was born into that level of power is NOT altruistic, humble, or good-natured. If they are none of these things they may consider the vast majority of the world's population to be unnecessary and wasteful, and their plans would be for their eventual extermination.From their perspective it would perhaps be viewed as a necessary evil to bring about world peace. Most wars are fought over resources, so eliminating the need for vast amounts of those resources would eliminate much of the war on the planet. Also, the environment would no longer be damaged by human sprawl. The flaw in this philosophy is that much or most of humanity's technological and cultural progress has been the result of efforts by people who were born into those lower classes, and many of their innovations were inspired by the struggles they were affected by within their families and communities. You could create a technocracy that awards scientists and thinkers with high status, but I imagine the rate at which new scientists, thinkers, and innovators are produced would surely decrease if the working class was eliminated. Even if there were no extermination or eugenics scenario that occurred, and the earlier mentioned elite class truly are altruistic and allow everyone to just live happy in a work and strife-free utopia, I think the same stagnation would occur with regard to scientific and cultural innovation. Competition for survival and denial of bliss are not an entirely bad things because they motivate people to innovate.

@Morrowvvind: I don't think anyone would be opposed to a utopia without work, but the premise seems to rest on the unrealistic assumption that the bounty produced by automation would be shared freely with the population for the benefit of all. Technology has already made it possible to feed, clothe, and house every human on the planet. It has not happened yet because of a lack of empathy, not a lack of necessary technology.

What I am most curious about with this story is what the process is like to bring the private companies on board. None of this would be possible without access to the communications companies that the monitoring is being done via. I figure that there are two possible ways that this access can be achieved: either with the cooperation of the private company or covertly by inserting an agent as an employee. I would guess that the majority is done through cooperation because it is more reliable than using an agent who could be fired at any time, thus ending the connection. So the next question is why do the companies cooperate? It could be because the NSA asked really nicely, but I imagine that there must be some greater incentive. They could offer money, or some sort of protection or immunity promise. Given the nature of the NSA it would probably be easy to dig up some dirt on any of these companies and leverage it against them. It could be a high-ranking official at the company who practices some sort of social deviance i.e. drug use, adultery, pedophilia, etc. Or it could be a questionable business practice, like money laundering or sheltering. In either case the NSA could offer a deal: Allow us to plug this dongle into your system and we will not let our friends at the FBI know about what you are doing. Whatever the reason for the cooperation I fault the companies that are participating more than I do the NSA. With any government bureaucracy it is nearly impossible to narrow the blame for any given policy or action down to a single person or small group. This program was not the brainchild of a single person or administration. It is the cumulative result of many years worth of policies and programs that could probably be traced all the way back to WWII. WIth a private company, however, it is easy to find the right person or people to blame. They sit in the boardroom, or at the heads of the departments involved. I think throwing our rage at the NSA is a big waste of time. They do not concern themselves with public opinion of what they do. The private companies, however, are extremely concerned with the public's opinion of them. If people let it be known that they do not approve of their information being passed wholesale to the NSA it would possibly be more effective at slowing it down and in bringing light to the situation.