gulliver
gulliver's JournalIf the ACA fails, we will finally get single payer on the table.
I was talking to my astrologer, and he told me it's a sure thing. GREAT NEWS!!!
So stand firm ACA critics! Rock this boat and help the Republicans sink it! A new boat is gonna float up under our feet. Don't believe the naysayers. If the ACA goes, politicians of all political stripes will stampede to propose Medicare for all. IT....IS...IN...THE...STARS!!!
Is Snowden buying asylum by fanning the flames of anti-Americanism?
Didn't this Snowden/Greenwald thing start out being about the NSA spying on American citizens? How did it morph into being about America spying on foreign countries? Why would it?
One possible reason is simple. Snowden's Russian asylum runs out in July 2014. He needs to start finding somewhere else to go. And that raises a huge conflict of interest. It is now good for Snowden to try to portray the United States as some kind of "Great Spying Satan" to anyone and everyone who will listen. By fanning the flames of anti-Americanism abroad, Snowden increases the likelihood of future grants of asylum. If he enrages the populace of foreign countries against the United States, that populace might force or allow its leadership to harbor Snowden after his Russian asylum runs out. It's terrible for America but good for Snowden.
I'm not sure his American fan club noticed the change in message emphasis by Snowden, so I thought I would call it out. What if Snowden had led with revelations that the NSA was spying on Brazil and Germany? Would he have gotten his U.S. fans on board with that? I doubt it. Now that it looks like Snowden is arguably playing some seriously dirty pool, will they stay with him?
I think Snowden is more of a well-intentioned, juvenile fuck-up than anything else.
I don't think his intentions were to betray his country. You can damage your country and society terribly without the necessary mental intentions for betrayal. That's what Snowden did. George W. Bush and Dick Cheney are arguably similar.
I think there is an emotional hang-up that causes people to mis-categorize Snowden as either hero or traitor. He thought he was being a hero, and he wasn't. He didn't think he was damaging his country and society like a traitor would, but he did.
Put aside the terms traitor and hero, and all you really have is "well intentioned fuck-up" or "well-intentioned doer of good." To decide between those two, you have to be objective and ask if anyone benefited from what he did. I would argue that there hasn't been a single known objective, tangible benefit from what Snowden did. Moreover, there has also been no harm shown to have been caused by the activities he exposed.
On the other hand, the United States has suffered a great deal politically and diplomatically. The company Snowden worked for and the people he worked with suffered. He reduced net trust throughout the world. He cost a lot of people jobs and ruined careers. Also, by exposing what he exposed, by keeping people in a constant state of suspense about what he might expose next, and by fleeing to American adversaries, Snowden did heavy damage to the world's safety and security from violence and oppression.
Just a fuck-up. No more a legitimate moral agent than the flu.
Actually I'm on that list.
Arguably, the point being made by the OP of that thread was correct. That's why I recommended it. Look at this thread and the posts on it if you want something else to check out. I've been here a long damned time, and I have never seen such a low display of mob mentality on this site. Hopefully this will be a chance for some folks to look in the mirror.
Why Snowden/Greenwald will have essentially no effect.
Very few politicians or leaders of any kind are going to want their fingerprints on policy changes that reduce perceived security. They know that there will be another "terrorist" crime in the future, and they know that people will be looking to nail anyone who did anything to allow it to happen. You only need to look at the Boston Marathon bombing to see why Snowden/Greenwald will have virtually no effect.
If anything, Snowden/Greenwald probably backfired. There will be lots of new "safeguards" trumpeted. There will be lots of "discussion." But in the end, the policies and activities won't change. In fact, the existence of the new safeguards and oversight will probably be used to support an increase in the level of data gathering.
Honestly, I am actually for government maximizing data gathering while minimizing the possibility of abuse. The government isn't completely trustworthy, but it is extremely trustworthy relative to other players in the information security realm. It is democratically elected, so it is backed by that imperfect but maximal legitimacy. It is highly monitored and overseen, both internally and externally. It actually has a legal duty to both protect privacy and maintain security. Try to think of any organization or individual more trustworthy with either. Don't say your Mom or Dad.
What will Snowden say if he sees something terrible in Russia?
Suppose Snowden witnesses or hears about some horrible crime against human rights, freedom, and dignity in Russia. What do you think he'll do? I wonder what Putin thinks Snowden will do. Snowden is going to be a lot more interesting in Russia (they can have him) than he would be here sitting in jail.
Eliminate the Death Tax
Just tax the estates of the wealthy while they are still living. And tax them a lot more than the current death-triggered estate tax. Maybe give them a 20% bonus credit for paying the tax with repatriated funds or funds from the sale of foreign assets. That way no one could argue that the tax encouraged disinvestment in U.S. assets.
This idea would let Dems say we eliminated the Death Tax. Indeed, if a person were taxed at a higher level of net worth than they had at their death, we could refund the overage. It would be a Death Refund.
I also have a Balanced Budget Amendment. Any deficit that Congress fails to cover in a given fiscal year would automatically be paid by an excise tax on the net worth of the wealthy. It would be a win-win. Future generations would not be saddled with debt, and the wealthy would finally have "certainty" about the government's finances. We might even have fewer wars.
Has the NSA metadata program resulted in known harm to anyone?
The Drug War is a vicious mass killer and mass destroyer of lives. Why are people wasting political ammo on NSA programs that haven't been shown to do any harm to anyone? Give us Barabbas?
School me.
Concealed Carry is the root cause, followed by the Drug War.
If Zimmerman had not had a concealed weapon, he wouldn't have dared to confront Martin. On the other hand, if Zimmerman had an unconcealed weapon, the homeowners in his subdivision would have shouted him off of the street (or had the police drag him off). Concealed Carry enables "Stand Your Ground" and turns it into a trap.
What I am wondering is if civil law can be used to put an end to Concealed Carry. We know the Retreat at Twin Lakes paid a large settlement to Martin's family. That means that homeowners or an insurer (or both) were forced to pay for what Zimmerman did. To me, that is the key to getting rid of concealed carry altogether. Someone has to pay for it.
What if every homeowner's association (HOA) simply disallowed Concealed Carry in their by-laws under penalty of expulsion and lawsuit? I believe it would be their right to do so. As a homeowner myself, I know for sure that I don't want my property and retirement savings backing up the actions of a brain dead dirtball like Zimmerman. I also don't feel it is right for residents to have to pay additional liability insurance just because someone else feels they have the right to Concealed Carry. If people want to carry concealed weapons, they apparently have a right to do so, but they don't have the right to make me pay for it. I would love for my HOA to disallow it and quite simply force out (or sue into oblivion) anyone who exercised their Concealed Carry right in my neighborhood.
Then take it a step further. Couldn't/shouldn't businesses refuse to employ people who carry a concealed weapon on- or off-the-clock, on- or off-premises? Maybe every employment application should have a "do you ever carry a concealed firearm?" question. It seems to me that by eliminating these people from employment, a business could both reduce their liability and their exposure to the kinds of people who might carry these weapons. Once again, a citizen would still have the right to carry a concealed weapon. They just wouldn't have the right to be employed while doing so. Indeed, there is no such right.
Behind all of this is the engine of catastrophe known as the Drug War. While all of those burglaries were happening in the Retreat at Twin Lakes, cops were probably out arresting kids for smoking marijuana. Then those kids get a record and can't get jobs. So they commit more burglaries. And the burglaries make idiot dirtballs like Zimmerman want to play cop. People are funny.
Satan Offers Snowden Asylum in Hell
"Satan is bravely confronting authoritarianism with this bold move!" — Glenn Greenwald.
"The Prince of Darkness is a 99-Percenter!" — The Guardian Editors
Reached for comment, Satan (R) reiterated the offer, but said that Snowden "needs to find a way to get here."
Progressives everywhere announced support for the plan.
"If Snowden goes to Hell, I'm fine with that," said one.
"Yes, he'll be free of American hegemony then," said another.
Profile Information
Gender: MaleMember since: 2001
Number of posts: 13,198
