Rosenzweig Now Chairman of DHS Privacy Board 214
An anonymous reader writes "Paul Rosenzweig, a conservative lawyer and prominent proponent of the Pentagon's controversial Total Information Awareness project, has been
appointed the first chairman of the Department of Homeland Security's privacy board. This follows the appointment of an executive of Gator to the board. Lee Tien, a lawyer with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, says that, rather than viewing protection of privacy as priority, Rosenzweig 'tends to view privacy as something to be circumvented.' Are the foxes guarding the henhouse when it comes to government and privacy?"
Are the foxes guarding the henhouse? (Score:3, Funny)
Why no, it seems that the Gator is guarding the henhouse in this case.
Re:Are the foxes guarding the henhouse? (Score:5, Insightful)
Along the lines of the ministry of love being where you go to get the living shit beat out of you it seems the ministry of privacy being formed in america is where all of your privacy will be stripped away.
Re:Are the foxes guarding the henhouse? (Score:3, Funny)
Man you're old. I can't remember anything earlier than '85 or so.
Re:Are the foxes guarding the henhouse? (Score:4, Insightful)
The timeline of a board/commission/department/[whatever] that is supposed to deal with a problem:
1. Concerned citizens see a problem/crises and demand that their reps "Do something about it!"
2. The legislature creates a [whatever] to "Do something about it!"
3. The concerned citizens see that something has been "Done" and get bored with the issue, moving on to another issue that's now in the news.
4. The new [whatever] looks around for "experts" in the area they are supposed to be dealing with.
5. The affected industry, ngos and other special interest groups are the ones who actually have the "experts" to supply.
6. They also actually have a stake in what the [whatever] does, so they stick around and do whatever is necessary to control the [whatever]. Since no one else cares, they typically gain control within 0-3 years of [whatever's] existance.
7. ??? (Traditional
8. Profit! (for the special interest groups, because now they can use [whatever] to stick it to any new competition and preserve and expand their own power.)
Take a look at just about any [whatever] that is "supposed" to be regulating something and you'll pretty much see the above pattern.
Re:Are the foxes guarding the henhouse? (Score:5, Insightful)
I guess it's... (Score:2)
Re:Are the foxes guarding the henhouse? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Are the foxes guarding the henhouse? (Score:3, Insightful)
This reminds of when during the election Bush "said" he wanted to reinstate the draft. I dont care which way you swing, I just care when mindless banter gets passed off as fact and even worse, other people believe it.
Oh yeah this is slantdot =)
Re:Are the foxes guarding the henhouse? (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't remember anyone claiming that Bush said that. As I understood it, people were saying that his actions were going to make it inevitable that a draft would be necessary. Do you have any references which say otherwise? I'm genuinely curious.
-Chris
Re:Are the foxes guarding the henhouse? (Score:2)
http://www.diggersrealm.com/mt/archives/000140.ht
Never underestimate the power of lies. How many people actually believed this and voted for Kerry? (I am not saying voting for kerry is a bad thing, I think he was a good candidate.) I am simply stating how powerful disinformation is. One of the unfortunate sideaffects of free speech I suppose. I wouldnt be suprised if election laws were harsher wrt disinformation in the future.
Re:Are the foxes guarding the henhouse? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Are the foxes guarding the henhouse? (Score:2)
has some press clippings about Bush appointees, and the controversy surrounding them.
I trust that you are not being disingenuous - you don't have to replace every employee of an agency / company to provoke change - just ones in key positions.
It's quite obvious that the Bush Administration has been quite vigorous in this regard.
Shades of "Fahrenheit 451" (Score:2)
an oxymoron. They are in charge of the non-
existent seaport security (w/ recent incursions
by Chinese stowaways in container cargo), with
nearly non-existent border security (w/ 1-1/2
million illegal aliens entering the USA each year,
up by 50% from before 9-11-2001), and with nearly
non-existent enforcement of immigration laws (28
million illegal aliens in the USA hired illegally
by USA employers).
We have illegal aliens working for the TSA (Trans-
potation Security Agency) as screeners and baggage
handlers, and illegal aliens working construction
on US military bases, and even illegal aliens
working as maintenence contractors at our nuclear
power plants.
But privacy and privacy laws are there to be
circumvented, the Federal government has gotten
(way big time) into the public propaganda "hearts
and minds" battle, and former WH legal counsel,
now our US AG, who proposed and promulgated the
use of torture (and abandoning the Geneva Accords).
The USA Patriot Act (I) does more to undermine
and destroy the USA's Constitution and Bill of
Rights than any other legislation since
the "Alien & Sedition Act" in the early 1800s.
When they finally get around to renaming the
Department of Defense as the Department of Peace,
the conversion will have been complete.
Apparently, science fiction from the mid-20th
century has become the playbook for the neo-cons
currently in power. So I know that they do read
something other than the KJ edition of the Bible,
but only in the comic book versions (with plenty
of pictures).
Re:Why do you expect the gov't to protect privacy? (Score:2)
Maybe because they are there to serve the people and not the other way around?
Maybe because it is in the spirit of the constitution which they promissed to serve and protect?
> And your bashing of Bush may have gotten you mod points, but the Democrats are no slouches in the corporate malfeasance department. Terry McAuliff was up to his neck in Global Crossing, and the first person Ken DeLay called when the shit hit the fan at Enron was the Clinton administration's Treasury Secretary.
Sure, but republicans are supposedly advocating a lean and mean government with limited power, I have yet to hear democrats claiming the same.
Besides, 2 wrongs don't make a right. That the clinton admninistration messed up is no excuse whatsoever for Bush to mess up.
I could have told you something was wrong... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I could have told you something was wrong... (Score:2)
Is the fox guarding the henhouse?!!?
What're all these damned chicken feathers doing everywhere!? Ay! What's all this bloody mess here too?
Re:I could have told you something was wrong... (Score:5, Insightful)
Stop thinking like you're in the 20th century. It's a brave new world and white is the new black.
Re:I could have told you something was wrong... (Score:2)
Doesn't this reek of Orwellian doublespeak? I mean - the privacy board represents a group of people who want to circumvent privacy. The PATRIOT act is the most un-patriotic legislation government action since COINTELPRO. Etc.
Yuck!
See This [thecarpetb...report.com] for a fun look at Bush tactics.
April 02, 2005
Build your own Bush administration! It's easy and fun!
Something has been wrong, for a very long time... (Score:4, Informative)
"more privacy in the form of total surveillance" --> HUAC, McCarthy et al.?
"government transparency in the form of increased classification of documents, and high moral standards in the form of flagrant House ethics rule violations" --> Nixon?
"smaller government in the form of increased federal spending" AND "isolationist foreign policy in the form of overseas force projection" --> Reagan?
American conservatives have this wonderful way of completely ignoring their own philosophy.
(not actually anonymous; one more observation) (Score:5, Insightful)
Anyway, one more observation on this topic: conservatives tried to excuse all of the above inconsistencies by saying thay they were for the sake of fighting communism. What are we doing today to keep the charade going? Fighting terrorism! That's really the most relevant parallel between 1984 and today's situation: just like Ingsoc, the U.S. always needs an enemy.
Stop calling Bush people conservatives (Score:5, Insightful)
As someone who considered themselves conservative before the religious right got involved, these people are an affront to true conservatives. Changing the ethics rules to favor one of their own crooked leadership, labeling someone who volunteered for service in Viet Nam "Hanoi John" because he later protested a loser war while promoting a dope-smoking, draft-dodging, Conneticut Yankee pretending to be a Texan, running up record federal deficits, and passing legislation to try and override state courts are all actions real conservatives should find hugely revolting.
Conservatives are not your enemy. The Republican party pays lip service to its conservative roots the same way it pays lip service to the religious right. The Republicans are all about money and power at a time the Democrats have gone completely nutless. A lot of times these days you're picking the party that sickens you the least.
And what's with the religious right? Why aren't all those right wing protestants having a fit about Bush kneeling in front of the Pope's body? Hello, McFly! All the world wondering after the beast...any of that ringing any bells? Or are you just all up about gays getting married these days?
Re:Stop calling Bush people conservatives (Score:2)
See, the problem is that you're not really a conservative at all; you're a libertarian who's suffering from an identity crisis. It was the same for me; I used to think I was a liberal, but I've come to realize I'm a libertarian too.
Conservatism, as originally understood, favored government imposition of social mores, limited individual rights, government collusion with (or ownership of) business, and general hostility to change. To quote Hayek, whom conservatives mysteriously think was one of them: "A conservative movement, by its very nature, is bound to be a defender of established privilege and to lean on the power of government for protection of privilege." Old-fashioned liberalism (what we now call libertarianism) favored very limited government. Lefitsm fuses a few aspects of liberalism with a powerful, activist government.
The modern concept of conservatism as a small-government philosophy was Goldwater's idea. Goldwater called himself a conservative because he believed in a limited interpretation of the Constitution (although this is not, mind you, always compatible with increased freedom). This was largely a reaction to the lefists social engineering of the Democrats. Unfortunately, plenty of other people liked Goldwater's ideas too, because they wanted larger and more powerful government on the state level and the federal government was getting in the way.
Modern conservatives only care about states' rights because they see the federal government as an obstacle to conservative rule on the state level, and they're generally correct. However, now that they run the federal government, they can impose conservative values on a national level. This isn't really hypocrisy so much as a change in strategy; this is what they've always really wanted.
I agree with your characterization of both parties; nowadays I either vote against the incumbent (no matter what party), or if it's close, swallow my pride and vote for whomever I least mind running my life (usually the Democrat). But let's face it: 90% of people calling themselves "conservative" do not think it means the same thing you do.
Re:I could have told you something was wrong... (Score:3, Interesting)
Lower taxes, state's rights, and free trade have never been considered traditional liberal values, at least not any time in the last 50 years, so it's hardly surprising that you find liberal politicians working against those goals. And since when have liberal politicians made proclamations of personal morality a primary message of their campaigns?
Liberals have their tropes, to be sure, and you can find plenty of politicians abandoning their stated principles on the left. That doesn't mean the right isn't doing it. If anything, conservatives should by the very definition of the word "conservative" be much more concerned with upholding their traditional values. I see those values (a lot of which I agree with) falling by the wayside and it saddens me.
Re:I could have told you something was wrong... (Score:2)
I get the sense that conservatives are all for more privacy for big business, but they could care less about the rights of the average citizen.
Neither "side" believes in freedom. (Score:3, Insightful)
The political landscape can be dumbed down to a simple Cartesian coordinate system: personal freedom on one axis, economic freedom on another.
Whereas a liberal will tend to deprive you of economic freedom in order redistribute wealth and fund social programs, a conservative will tend to deprive you of personal freedom in order to control your behavior.
Take this test, it's interesting: http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz.html [theadvocates.org]
Re:Neither "side" believes in freedom. (Score:2)
Then why is the ACLU considered a liberal organization by most? Which philosophy gives you a better chance at:
1. Dying with dignity.
2. Decriminalzing non-addictive substances.
3. Ensuring the rights of unpopular groups (minorities, gays, atheists, etc).
Which one has historically? I'll give you a hint, it doesn't start with a C.
Re:Neither "side" believes in freedom. (Score:2)
Then why is the ACLU considered a liberal organization by most? Which philosophy gives you a better chance at:
Because the ACLU has a long history of being more interested in certain freedoms that others.
Which philosophy gives you a better chance at:
Which one has historically? I'll give you a hint, it doesn't start with a L. It doesn't really start with an R these days either, but my point is that Liberals aren't the only ones concerned with freedoms.
Re:Neither "side" believes in freedom. (Score:2)
You're alone. (Score:2)
With regard to Pournelle's Axes,
a) there's no fun test to take
b) you "think" you know where you stand already, so "finding" yourself on Pournelle's coordinate system isn't very interesting
c) And may I say, Pournelle pisses me off, and so does his militaristic fiction. Anyone who can "solve" a planet-wide social problem by killing an entire stadium full of malcontents, even in a work of fiction, should be placed in his own "Nazi" designation. But I guess that proves Pournelle belongs in the Baen stable, along with Weber, who routinely kills off millions of intelligent sapiens, human and non-human, in the Honor Harrington series (and elsewhere) without an eyeblink.
Re:I could have told you something was wrong... (Score:5, Insightful)
As we can see, they're only for cutting so-called liberal programs. States' rights have seemed to lose style because those Massachusetts liberals can let gays marry (the horror!).
Whenever any party is in the minority, they rail against any expansion of federal government powers because they know it won't be expanding in the way they like. As soon as the tides turn, government expansion is a nessary evil.
Which raises the questions (Score:5, Insightful)
When will people start leaving their parties (Republican or Democrat) when their parties move away from what they believe?
The answer is probably when there is a no longer a two party system. The Republicans can treat their conservative base with contempt, and then still get their support by fear: "look at what the alternative would be!" The Democrats do the same thing on their side of the fence.
Re:Which raises the questions (Score:3, Insightful)
I've gotten the distinct impression that US politics, in conjunction with the media, has become such that any issue is now a "black" (x)or "white" issue. IOW, it's easier to pick a view on a seemingly dichotomous issue rather than have to confront and think about the grey tones of real life.
Re:Which raises the questions (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Which raises the questions (Score:2)
I've never found this argument at all convincing. It usually starts with the complaint that the Democrats aren't socialist enough. Fortunately, this isn't Europe and most people here agree that a regulated capitalist system like we have now is pretty close to ideal, if imperfect in a few places. Within those lines, there are huge disagreements that actually do affect our lives quite a bit.
The Democrats and Republicans do have one thing in common: neither makes any pretense to believing in a limited government that cherishes liberty above all else. Unfortunately, neither does most of the voting public. Worse, most of the people who consider the parties identical don't believe in any of this either. I'm looking at you, Ralph.
Re:Which raises the questions (Score:2)
I think you have a fair point.There are multiple factors at play here. There are indeed differences between Republicans and Democrats, however they have to play a game in which they maintain their base and attract voters in the middle. Obfuscation of differences are an important tool. If you didn't see this strategy at work in the last election, you weren't paying much attention.
What drives the Republican spending binge is the simple imperative of maintaining power. One way to do that is to shoot goodies to your friends. The Dems do it too, but since there is a label for it ("tax and spend") they're a little more vulnerable to being called to account.
The Republicans are theoretically risking alienating the fiscal conservatives in their base, except they're counting on the fact that those people have no place to go where they won't become irrelevant. If you aren't a big enough block to join a coalition that swings victory one way or another, you have zero power mathematically and zero influence politically.
So, in our system, people who don't fit into the mainstream, such as principled libertarians, have no role whatever to play in the system, whereas in a different kind of system they could hold the Republicans to account. Imagine there was a fiscal conservative party with two or three senate seats and a couple dozen house seats. They could work with the Democrats to reign in the suqishy middle right Republicans' spending. The Democrats would do it for tactical reasons, the Conservatives would do it for ideological reasons.
Re:Which raises the questions (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't think many people would advocate this position, fortunately.
By some interpretations of the word "conservative", this is probably true. The conservatives who've become disaffected with the administration and its policies have spoken out against the expansion of executive power, new law enforcement capabilities, the growth in spending, and the activist foreign policy. All of these might be considered anathema to some conservatives; certainly Goldwater didn't care for the direction his party was going, and some of the Reaganites were actually principled in their belief in smaller government.
However, I've never really taken the conservative opposition to these seriously, because I honestly don't believe most conservatives oppose them (except maybe for spending, but that's tricky). There's a strong strain of authoritarian conservatism in this country - to be fair, there are plenty of authoritarian leftists too - and they only support limited government when the other guys are in power. Take someone like Paul Weyrich, who's currently in league with the ACLU in opposing the PATRIOT ACT. Weyrich doesn't believe in limited government - he actually thinks the government *should* bust down doors to stop gays having sex - only in restricting the federal government in case those goddamn liberals get ahold of it again.
While I'm happy to see conservatives like Weyrich standing up to the Bush administration, I don't for a moment believe they're on the same side as me.
ImaLamer on Labels (Score:2)
I think, and this has been said, that the word liberal needs to be re0wned. Labels help - people need them. It's the parties who have failed us, it's not the labels. The Republican party has looked at the liberal philosophy and hated it for years - they have made liberal a bad word. Democrats meanwhile have run from that term. In fact, I'd argue most of the country is really "liberal" even though elections have showed us something else.
I think most people, normal folk, think with the liberal philosophy. The reason the media seems so liberal is because they have been writing with the majority in mind. Sure, the O'Reilly Factor gets a lot of buzz - but actually doesn't do as good in the ratings as you'd think (someone told me a number, but it's an unreliable source. But this is slashdot, back it up or debunk it.)
This is why I'm working on (the GNU FDL) a document "What It Takes To Be A Liberal In America". It's only in pre-Alpha stage, but I hope it will help people feel better when they are called a liberal.
Wear the label!
Re:I could have told you something was wrong... (Score:3, Insightful)
Not to mention pornography, sex toys, gay rights, minority rights, etc.
Conservatism is the defense of the status quo. Today and in the past. Anything else is sophistry and revisionism.
Re:I could have told you something was wrong... (Score:2)
You're confusing, intentionally or not, conservatism [reference.com]'s multiple definitions. Republicans (who call themselves conservatives) today do not want the status quo - that's why they passed the USA PATRION Act, appoint privacy advocates who don't believe in privacy, etc. Another case in point: Terry Schiavo. The status quo said that it was up to the state courts. Most of today's conservatives thought otherwise (mad props to Republican Christopher Shays [house.gov] for standing up to them, at least on this issue).
Re:I could have told you something was wrong... (Score:2)
It seems the dividing lines have been redrawn... and it looks like it's now in crayon.
The "Conservatives" still favor privacy and minimal intervention *if* you are a corporation. If you're an individual, you need to be watched to make sure you don't endanger the corporations.
On the flip side, the "Liberals" want to protect individuals from the corporations. However, this leaves them in a sticky situation because, like it or not, the corporations are a (if not *the*) major source of campaign financing.
That should be NEO-conservative most likely... (Score:2)
I think both camps are beginning to realize this.
Check this out [checksbalances.org] Both sides [checksbalances.org] coming together against the Patriot Act.
Re:I could have told you something was wrong... (Score:2)
I see in lots of the comments already a strong awareness of what is happening in American politics. Outright thugs with a lust for wealth and power are getting away with wrapping themselves in flags and crosses, because reluctance to change views is a basic feature of conservative thinking. Sticking with the tried and true, not changing horses in mid-stream, weathering tough times with your beliefs intact -- these are sensible, down-to-earth attitudes that work if you have honest leadership, otherwise they play right into the hands of evil.
Looking at it a different way, I see what is happening as inevitable. We all know that people who are good at hacking systems will eventually hack any system.
Sir Humphrey Appleby (Score:3, Insightful)
Quote Sir Humphrey in Yes Minister:- I need to know everything in order to know what I need to know
The beaurocrat's excuse for invasion of privacy never realy changes.
Re:Sir Humphrey Appleby (Score:2)
Write and get help! (Score:5, Insightful)
Personally, I look at this issue like I do with European software patents. If ordinary people don't stand up and lobby their government representative, then nothing will change. If you believe strongly about this, then try to do something about it. Make your views known
Re:Write and get help! (Score:5, Insightful)
When will you folks learn. In the US, our reps won't listen unless there's a huge PAC donation included with your letter.
Re:Write and get help! (Score:2)
Yes, it's hard to compete with PACs. But remember that PAC dollars are used to buy, for the most part, TV ad time. And those ads are used to get votes.
Rather than give up, let's get off our asses and organize and get ready for the next election.
Don't just write your Congressman that you think it's a pathetic joke that a TIA supporter his chair of the DHS Privacy Board -- get the signature of nine other people^W voters on your letter, and then send it.
And then keep those other nine voters aware of the latest on privacy. No form letters, no mass mailing, just call or email or have a beer with your friends, and keep them up to date. Especially as we get closer to elections.
You're a Slashdotter -- so in all likelihood you've set up computers for friends and family, and you've told them to use Firefox to protect against viruses and exploits. Next time you're doing that for somebody, tell them about these Federal exploits too.
Head down to your local Democratic Party office -- yes, yes, the Democrats have been bad on privacy too, but with the Republicans in control of the Presidency and the Congress, with the Republicans nominating guys like this, it's not the Democrats you have to worry about now -- and volunteer your technical services. Once you've met the local Democratic leaders, as a very useful volunteer, explain to them what brought you there was your worries about privacy, and your hope that the Democratic Party shares your concerns.
Do something. Posting to Slashdot is fine, but as long as politicians think that all you're doing is posting to Slashdot, they won't give a damn. Get up, get out, and get organized.
To paraphrase Franklin: America is your republic -- if you can keep it.
(I'll be posting more about this in my Slashdot Journal in the near future; look for it, and think about other ways we can stand up to Washington's follies.)
Re:Write and get help! (Score:2)
Re:Write and get help! (Score:2)
Unfortunatley, you'll probably get what you deserve.
Re:Write and get help! (Score:2)
Re:Write and get help! (Score:3, Interesting)
Paul Rosenzweig for beginners (Score:4, Informative)
On the Patriot Act:
The 9/11 Commission has emphasized the importance of the Patriot Act and considers it to be an essential weapon in the global war on terrorism. Prior to September 11, there was a wall of legal and regulatory policies that prevented effective sharing of information between the intelligence and law enforcement communities. Read More [mithuro.com]
Paul Rosenzweig On Transparency:
After all, why do we seek transparency in the first instance? Not for its own sake. Without need, transparency is little more than voyeurism. Rather, the reason for transparency is oversight - Read More [mithuro.com]
They're defending America! (Score:5, Funny)
They have selected these Patriots to ensure that there is no risk of Privacy invading The United States of America. Over their dead bodies, there will be none of this Privacy in America.
Re:They're defending America! (Score:2)
I guess the travel/transportation costs will be lower than shipping an army over to the Middle East. Oh, wait, there's one already there...
Re:They're defending America! (Score:2)
Oh come on (Score:5, Insightful)
Privacy is something that is entirely the opposite of the DHS's goal - therefore, isn't it obvious that they will hire experts in how to remove privacy? The DHS's privacy department isn't about protecting privacy (because that would be counter to the DHS's mission) but rather how to remove privacy so the DHS can do its job. Of course they will mask this in doublespeak - just like what was called the department of war half a century ago got renamed to the department of defence.
I am really worried (Score:2, Interesting)
Basically, this paranoia and disrespect for the law isn't much different than the death of Roman democracy. Add to that the fact that we are bleeding wealth like crazy and you have a the makings of a disaster.
I wonder how hard it is to emigrate to New Zealand?
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
huh? (Score:2, Informative)
Oh really? Cause that is a complete bull-shit statement. We've mainly operated at a deficit since 1960 - but not always. Either way, trade deficit isn't the only way to measure the economy.
ahref=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_deficit [slashdot.org]h
Additionally, the Bush administration is not trying to shut the borders
Sure, the Canadian border.
ahref=http://www.obviousnews.com/breakingnews/sto
Pop-quiz: who was Germany's top trading partner in 1938?
Prescott Bush?
Prescott Bush! (Score:2, Informative)
and?
Prescott Bush!!!
Whenever I post and that name is included I get labeled a troll! Must be a filter or something? A perl script?
Comment removed (Score:2)
Americans Funded Nazi War Machine (Score:4, Informative)
Good point. Indeed, it's worse than that -- much worse.
Who funded the Nazi war machine? Prescott Bush [wikipedia.org], among others. Prescott and his partners made a ton of money banking for the Nazis -- investing in the Wermacht -- throughout the 1930s. Not illegal at the time. A brutal demonstration of man's inhumanity to man, perhaps; but not illegal at the time.
Herr Bush, of course, is father and grandfather, respectively, to two generations of American Presidents (and one generation of CIA Director [google.com]).
See also From Hitler to MX [google.com], documenting other examples of 1930's American investment in the Nazi war machine (and how, after the war, American-back ventures survived unbombed, while their competitors where destroyed). Companies involved include General Electric (sold advanced submarine tech for U-boats), and one or more (I forget which) of the big oil firms.
War is -- dammit -- good for business.
-kgj
Economy 101 (Score:4, Insightful)
If a country sells you ore for 1 million dollars, the value of that million dollars is _only_ what they can buy in return with it. No more, no less. If they can't buy much, then they're giving away their ore to you for free.
So I wouldn't put much hope in an economy that _only_ exports cash. That's an economy that in reality exports _nothing_.
If all you export is printed bits of paper, expect the value of those to plummet very very fast.
The dollar until now did have the saving grace of being perceived as _the_ international standard, and as something worth having reserves of. But again, on the assumption that they can at some point buy stuff with those dollars.
As that perception starts to fade, well, you're already seeing the effects. A huge trade deficit == a fast drop in currency value, until the value of _real_ exports matches that in imports. If you ever wondered why the dollar took a nose dive recently, now you know why: because of that trade defficit.
Want to export even more money? Well, then be prepared for the dollar value to fall even more.
Just keep it up. By the time your salary will be worth a tenth of what it's worth today, well, maybe you'll see what was wrong with that policy.
"Countries don't refuse to do business with other countries because they don't like them much."
True. But they might limit how much they're willing to sell you, based on how much you can actually afford to buy. And by "afford", I mean the value of your _exports_.
"Money is money"
Precisely because of that. What they're interested is what you can get for that money, not how fast you can print bits of paper.
"America is now and will always be a huge market"
China and India are both even bigger markets, and you don't see them being able to afford the same level of imports as you do.
A huge market that can't pay is not much of a market.
Comment removed (Score:2)
Bordes completely shut?! (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Bordes completely shut?! (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:I am really worried (Score:2)
Hey! thats the country I've chosen to flee to! find your own damn country!
wanna share a cab to the airport?
Re:I am really worried (Score:2, Informative)
The current administration has no respect for laws and the constitution. They've said as much.
When have they said as much? They seem to have tremendous respect for the law . . . they simply interpret it different than many other people. If they didn't respect it, they would even bother use try to interpret it.
We are going to see Americans having as much trouble getting back into the States as foreigners do. (ie. you won't be able to get back in from Canada without a passport.)
I hardly think that they need for a passport in hand is equivalent to what foreigners go through when coming to the US. An a US citizen, you don't need a visa (most foreigners do), and you don't need to fingerprinted and photographed like all non-resident foreign nationals do when entering the USA.
American trade is going to dry up because nobody will want to do business with us.
Again, paranoid delusions . . . the US economy is approximately 1/3 the world economy. I don't think that any country can ignore that. If countries don't want to do business with us, then why are Indonesia, Jordan, Australia, and others pursuing free trade agreements with the US? Why are we running the biggest trade defecit in history? Surely the record trade defecit is indicative that other countries want to do more, not less business with the USA.
Basically, this paranoia and disrespect for the law isn't much different than the death of Roman democracy.
Uhh, Roman generals marched on Rome multiple times. In the later years of the Roman Empire, Roman soldiers swore alliegance to their generals, not to Rome. Eventually, Roman generals were responsible for soldiers' pensions (instead of Rome). I don't see any of this happening. The US military still swears to uphold the constitution, pensions are paid for by the state, and the military still answers to Congressional oversight. In the US, the people are still in control.Re:I am really worried (Score:2)
You can find out aere [immigration.govt.nz]
Re:I am really worried (Score:2, Interesting)
Isn't that interesting; you've hit on one of those inner conflicts that the Repubs are grappling with. On the one hand, their socially conservative, xenophobic base wants to keep all of those dirty brown people on the other side of the wall. On the other, their conservative corporate base wants a big flood of Cheap Surplus Labor to keep the domestic brand from getting too uppity. One side supplies the foot soldiers, and the other supplies the cold, hard cash, and they need both. So, they'll make noise and give speeches about the problem, while actually doing as little about it as they can get away with. Wisdom of Solomon, that's what it's going to take...
Re:I am really worried (Score:2)
But here's what I say: I was born here, and I've lived here all my life. This is my country as much as anyone else's, and no home-grown Taliban or Stasi is going to take it away without a fight. If enough people feel that way, we'll be alright.
Freedom is Slavery? (Score:5, Insightful)
The way things are going in the western world at the moment I do fear that we are sleep walking towards some kind of Orwellian nightmare. We face a determined foe who are willing to die for what they believe in. Yet we are willing to throw aside our own hard won values of freedom and justice in the interest of "safety".
Freedom is Slavery was a propaganda slogan from the book 1984, designed to keep the masses happy with being oppressed. Every time I hear Tony Blair or George Bush reducing our rights to "protect freedom" I'm reminded of this.
Not sleepwalking, an illusion (Score:5, Insightful)
I'll give you a quote:
"It is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country." --Hermann Goering
See, here's the real lie. People believe they are protecting the values, not throwing them away. Of course the original quote was about war, now it is about terror.
"Pacifists" are opponents of the politic. In this context, civil rights activists. They get discredited like dreamers, idealists which will expose the country to danger just like pacifists.
"Lack of patriotism" is of course a good mix of nationalism (American/Non-american), racism (Caucasian/Arab) and religion (Christian/Muslim). It plays on basic "Principles are fine, but now we have to protect our own" self-preservation.
Finally, "exposing the country to danger" is no longer about war, it is even "better". With war, you always know roughly who, where and how it will play out. With terror, the "danger" is everywhere, all the time and invisible. How can you argue that you are NOT exposing it to danger?
Noone dares speaks of such things. It is not "politically correct" to quote Nazi leaders, Machiavelli, Sun Tzu and other examples of people that have manipulated great crowds. Naturally, we don't want to inspire more. But it also means people are oblivious to the fact that they are being manipulated. It cuts both ways.
Kjella
my buddy ben... (Score:2, Insightful)
Ben Franklin
Re:Freedom is Slavery? (Score:2)
Or, maybe the real problem is that in our Orwellian (near-) future, the people won't be given the bread?
if you don't like it, do something about it. (Score:5, Informative)
Might be a good idea to contact your senators [senate.gov] and representatives [house.gov] too.
Contact the DHS privacy office, your senators (Score:2)
Re:if you don't like it, do something about it. (Score:3, Insightful)
Here's a clue, folks... most Congressmen do listen. If you call them, if you write them, your opinion is taken into consideration. Even if there is no money attached. Do corporations have too much power? You bet they do. Does that mean we are powerless? Not in the slighest.
The slashdot effect can do more than take down webservers. You have political power. 500,000 emails each from a private individual going to DHS will be hard to ignore. A flood protesting phone calls to relevant Senators, a flood so big it knocks out phone service to the capital for the afternoon... that will cause lots of conversation in the halls of Congress.
The biggest complaint of every politician I know of is this: the people do not communicate enough. That's a blank check slashdot.
Now, go back to pricing plane tickets. Much easier that way.
Re:if you don't like it, do something about it. (Score:2)
Re:if you don't like it, do something about it. (Score:3, Interesting)
The irony is that this is true exactly to the extent that we believe it to be true, and are willing to act on our beliefs. Cynical helplessness always plays into the hands of established power.
Re:if you don't like it, do something about it. (Score:2)
Isn't it cool how "liberal" has become the new "Commie"?
Re:if you don't like it, do something about it. (Score:4, Informative)
One word: ACLU [aclu.org]
Proud dues-paying member since 2003.
One of the few organizations with the clout to truly (and positively) influence policy when it comes to these matters. You can be a member for less than $50/year. The min membership might even be half that much, IIRC.
not if you don't say anything (Score:2)
And you know this because of all the letters you've written that they've ignored?
Not trying to defend DHS, but the idea that we say nothing because they will ignore it anyway is pretty pathetic.
Hiding stuff. (Score:5, Interesting)
The real need is to roll back the ability of the mob to make your life miserable if you choose to think or do something that is unconventional.
In the long run, which is going to leave us in a better position? Should we be fighting to maintain privacy in the face of increasingly efficient snooping, or fighting for freedom of thought and action?
Not that anyone's really going sacrifice much to achieve either of those goals . . . .
Re:Hiding stuff. (Score:2)
Or merely the possibility of a future threat (which possibility is, of course, a threat itself). What if some Red State government decided to start a registry of all gay residents, to no avowed purpose or intent? Should gays then not feel threatened? How about registering Jews in Germany in the 1930s? The real issue is not that information of this sort should (or can) be kept secret from everybody (i.e., absolute privacy). The problem is that government has become increasingly interested in keeping lists and databases, all thoroughly cross-referenced and ready for mining for any future purpose they see fit, in the heat of any moment. Their propaganda promises us that it will not be abused, but in government there is a name for real promises: they are called laws. And right now, the laws are headed in the other direction.
Re:Hiding stuff. (Score:2, Interesting)
I agree.
Consenting adults should not be legally prohibited from engaging in any activity or speech they want, whatsoever, the only exception being to protect some overriding societal interest.
Unfortunately this principle isn't explicitly stated in the US Constitution, so instead an implicit right to privacy has been used in its place.
Why do we need limitations surveillance and the collection of information? I don't mind if I have to withstand peer pressure in order to act, think, and speak as I like, within the law -- so long as others can only express disapproval through their own free speech.
It is a good thing if the government, private organizations, and the public are all aware of what one another are doing, but only react to that information in ways allowed by the law.
COINTELPRO-like efforts by federal agents to infiltrate and disrupt private groups would be ineffective if the public could rapidly become aware of such activity and organize against it. This is a current concern, because the DOD is poised to resume the domestic spying program it gave up in the 60's: http://cryptome.org/dod-homespy.htm [cryptome.org]
Laws restricing surveillance make it more difficult to expose activity that is potentially threatening and may require legislative attention. For example, are religious groups and secret socities infilitrating our corporations and public institutions? Here is a web site raising such concerns about activities of the Unification Church (aka "moonies"): http://iapprovethismessiah.com/2005/01/moon-funnel s-250000-to-bush.html [iapprovethismessiah.com]. There are similar concerns about activities of Scientologists, other religious groups, and possible secret socities.
Foxes guarding the henhouse? (Score:3, Funny)
Guarding is a cover story. The foxes are actually impregnating the hens -- breeding strange fox/chicken hybrids -- merging government and privacy into a single organism.
I, for one, do not welcome our privacy-sucking overlords.
-kgj
Re:Foxes guarding the henhouse? (Score:2)
I used to think Democracy meant life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness -- not the mass penetration of citizens by the throbbing truncheon of Total Information Awareness.
-kgj
NEO-conservative or conservative? (Score:2)
Just like I would describe myself as a classical liberal [wikipedia.org]as opposed to conservative [wikipedia.org].
Americaphage (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Americaphage (Score:2, Insightful)
No,no,no,
this guy LOVES AMERICA!
Corporate America that is....
If You Haven't Got The Picture By Now... (Score:2)
you're too moronic to ever get it.
"Homeland Security" has NOTHING whatever to do with either the "homeland" or YOUR security.
I remember privacy... I think. (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't remember, but I think when I was a kid (20 years ago) didn't we have the right to privacy here in America. In fact wasn't this always one of the key items that made America so great?
Conservative Contradiction (Score:3, Insightful)
I Agree with Rosenzweig (Score:3, Interesting)
when he says
I think he's right.A little less privacy at the highest levels of government and in the corporate ranks would do wonders for increasing their dismal reputations for hiding incompetance and fraudulent behavior.
Perhaps this new found penetration of privacy could be applied to the Vice President's meetings with business officials to come up with an energy policy. God knows we're ready for one.
So this is how the real axis of evil looks like. (Score:2)
Re:I'm glad i don't live in U.S. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I'm glad i don't live in U.S. (Score:2)
I had to snort at that ridiculous statement. Remember the IRA during its "glory days"? They may not have killed as many people in total, but given the attacks over many years it's no wonder there's surveillance everywhere (not that it's been necessarily effective--change in political landscape has far more to do with the lack of attacks these days).
Stress (Score:2)
Re:2005 != 1984 (Score:2)
I feel compelled to suggest that, in the examples you mention, art was representing life, in which case, it is strange to say that in our current circumstance, life is imitating art. Rather, life is becoming similar to former life.
The current situation is simply a case of well known political tactics being used again as they have at times in the past. However, more people are familiar with the literary works representing those tactics than with the history of their use. Thus, the references to the literature are not really inappropriate.