I think there's truth to your point here but I also find it incomplete. There are things we can do and can demand that our politicians do to limit the real dangers these agencies pose. I get your point that we should be realistic but doesn't that require acknowledging that our intelligence agencies have been allowed to run rampant with zero oversight or accountability?
The CIA is at least in theory supposed to work for the citizens of this country and yet we often find out that even Congress is just as in the dark about what they do as we are.
Yea, the first priority in a robbery like this should be to give them what they want and get them out without anyone being harmed. I wouldn't want her on my staff anymore either.
Regarding your friend's predicament, I think it's the natural result of a bunch of well intended but ultimately unworkable and schizophrenic rules that govern urban professional progressive culture. Don't move into a minority majority enclave and the sin is failure to integrate. Move into one and the sin is gentrification. Make sure to appreciate other cultures but don't dare get caught listening to their music or cooking their food or doing their stretching routines lest you commit the sin of appropriation. Confess to your own privilege often and loudly... and also to the utter powerlessness of yourself and all people to do anything about their own condition (sarcastically if you can manage it).
It's a bad look and I really hope we (as a demographic) grow out of it.
I would and as I said above I'm fine with investigating what happened and attempting to close those holes. I'm less sanguine about what was done in the particular context.
I don't want to speculate on what else Russia might do with whatever information it has. With regard to their foreign policy though this is where I'd like us to become a bit more circumspect about how our own actions are perceived abroad, and the precedents we're setting. From Russia's perspective we marched NATO right up to their doorsteps, have orchestrated regime changes, and put our own fingers on the scale in the internal politics of other countries (including supporting some corrupt and unsavory groups of our own in places where they have interests like Ukraine and Syria).
This doesn't mean I think well of Putin's government or that the West shouldn't defend it's actual interests when pressed. It does mean that we need to be more honest about the role our own actions abroad play in causing blowback, and assessing when it's worth the risk. Right now we seem to treat everything as some sort of hollywood script with the valiant, free and democratic West standing up for what's right and the evil Russians/terrorists/whoever undermining us.
I'm not and would never argue for blind trust in any organization, Wikileaks included. They've got their own agenda like everyone else (I've got a much more positive disposition to someone like Edward Snowden, based on what we know about him).
However I also think Wikileaks is the direct and inevitable result of government policy. As I said above to Galen I do think there are plenty of obvious things Western governments could do with regard to their own conduct that would undermine the case Wikileaks makes for itself. They chose not to do those things and for that reason my sympathy is very limited.
This seems more on the money. It's never been clear to me that the alt-right exists as a meaningful faction for electoral purposes or that they got beyond some limited aesthetical alignment with the Trump campaign's own online trolling.
From my perspective it just isnt clear that this particular one sided hack (again, assuming for the sake of argument that the characterization we are getting is generally true and accurate) had some kind of decisive impact on the election. Right up through election day Clinton and her supporters were confident that it was a non-issue. I've seen no evidence that it was what turned the couple hundred thousand odd votes in the upper Midwest that gave victory to Trump.
On the matter of how to handle Russia I'm fine with the idea of increasing security behind the scenes and looking for ways to keep them from exploiting holes more generally, the same as we would with any other country. What I don't think is useful is a lame duck president firing a meaningless shot across the bow of a large, assertive nuclear power because his party lost an election, which is how this looks.
On the issue of privacy in politics my heart wants to agree with you but my head and recent experience says that's just not the kind of country we live in. Our federal government is largely run by people and institutions who are utterly allergic to transparency. If the price of a little sunlight is that politicians are also caught making embarassing or hypocritical remarks I think we have to take it. If people in power want to do something about it or regain moral authority then the answer is to stop classifying so much and to make government more open so we don't have to rely on the Julian Assanges and Edward Snowdens of the world to find out what our government is actually doing.
It's also not like we're talking about some insurgent political movement that got caught unaware by a foreign power and the cynical game of American politics. We're talking about a heavily favored presidential candidate with massive institutional support in the government and the media.
I haven't read up enough on the private entities (I'm attempting to do that with the links provided above) but the 17 agencies and various congress critters is still just an appeal to authority. I'm also not saying I don't think it's possible or even probable that there was some Russian involvement. I'm asking what the purpose of this move from the administration was, and what the point is that people who are freaking out over this are trying to make.
Let's assume for the sake of argument that everything that the intelligence agencies are saying is true and untainted by their various murky agendas. Let's also give them a pass on how hypocritical it is for them of all people to raise concerns about foreign powers involving themselves in our domestic politics. What is the argument being made? Is it that the Russian hack caused people to know too much about Hilary Clinton and vote for someone else or not at all? If so, is that really a sound argument that Democrats should get behind, that they lost because the voters knew too much?
Maybe there's an angle I'm missing here but that sounds pretty silly to me, and not like something that's going to get people to change their mind about the next candidate next time around.
@stillwater I want to submit to you that this kind of critique is one of the things that made Trump's victory possible. I'm not saying it isn't possible that the Russians are behind the hack(s). I am saying that these agencies you're talking about have a very sordid history when it comes to the truth, and the traditional media has a very recent history of being manipulated into being mouthpieces of behind the scenes actors with an agenda.
Just saying 'well x agency says so, and someone who works there but refused to be named or provide any details confirmed it to the Washington Post' can't cut it anymore. This is especially so when the campaign that lost spent months saying these leaks were immaterial (and as far as influencing the election I think they probably were, unless the contention is that they were the last straw in making a bunch of blue collar workers around the Great Lakes who voted Obama twice switch sides or stay home).
From our conversations before you know I had no love for HRC but I do oppose Trump. Those of us on the broader liberal side of the equation need to get back to showing our work. Relying on appeals to authority that fewer and fewer people find credible (something I see as justified by recent history) is a losing strategy. Focusing on this nonsense with the Russians isn't helping.
I don't buy this analysis. Yes certain Republican partisans are exploiting it. However you'd have to ignore all the Iraq war leaks to believe the organization is somehow in the bag for the GOP.
I haven't either. I'll happily reassess if we ever get anything beyond anonymous sources and unsubstantiated hearsay from the sketchiest agency in the government. My suspicion is that will never happen.
This is precisely correct. The mass hysteria over Trump's election is going to start looking to a lot of people like crying wolf if it hasn't already. He should be opposed on substantive issues. Let asinine tweets speak for themselves.
I just don't understand the Obama administration's thought process on this. Expelling the Russian diplomats has had no substantive impact of any kind, and we're probably lucky that the Kremlin is playing it this way. The move looks like sour grapes based on the election results and like the article says, is going to give Putin a propaganda victory.
I also think it's worth remembering that by the time Obergefell was decided SSM was already legal in 36 states and DC. Even on the slim chance it is ever reversed I think the setback would only be temporary and limited to a handful of ultra red states. It's not like the court was way out in front of our culture and public policy on the issue.
I don't think the call is for coddling so much as it is for tactics that might convince people with different perspectives to change their minds or at least be willing to work together where there is agreement.
I look at the tiny house stuff as the extreme end of what is in my opinion a reasonable position, namely that as a culture we should move away from the idea that success is attached to owning an enormous home. This is especially so when that cultural ideal starts pushing public policy in an unsustainable direction (inflated mortgages supported by bad financing decisions, environmental destruction and waste, short sighted development, etc.).
Of course in our culture even reasonable ideas result in charlatans and caricatures of the movement looking for their 15 minutes of fame on crass basic cable programming.
Just to clarify, it's not necessarily that I think a high level of professionalism is the norm, it's more that I don't think the character of individual officers is the overriding factor at play in most of the shootings at issue. Even if all of our police officers were angels I think we'd still see a disturbing number of incidents because of where we've set the incentives.
I don't necessarily. There's a whole conversation to be had on the reliability of breathalyzers, especially when the algorithms they use are trade secrets but there are plenty of instances of people testing higher and still being out and about.
I'm not one who defends the officers in most of the lawful but hard to justify shoots we've talked about. My response isn't really what was requested but I'll give it anyway.
I think the officer here behaved the way we should expect all police officers to. However I don't think its as rare as your post implies. There are millions of interactions a day between black citizens and law enforcement that don't result in bad, crazy, or controversial conduct. While it's a good thing these issues are being more widely discussed I think one of the mistakes being made is to focus on racially disparate policing as born of an uncleansable original sin rather than a policy/accountability problem.
I can't comment on the particulars of a situation I don't know anything about. I would certainly hope that there was more evidence collected before the expulsion though than what you personally witnessed.
I'm not buying the 'it's only a code of conduct finding' stuff. Yes, these boards can't send someone to prison but they do label people violent felons. Their intent is that the accused is ostracized and denied access to education and other opportunities by virtue of the finding.
Do you think these schools have adequate expertise, investigative abilities, and provide sufficient due process safeguards to justify that? I certainly dont.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.
On “Jacobin: The CIA Is Not Your Friend”
I think there's truth to your point here but I also find it incomplete. There are things we can do and can demand that our politicians do to limit the real dangers these agencies pose. I get your point that we should be realistic but doesn't that require acknowledging that our intelligence agencies have been allowed to run rampant with zero oversight or accountability?
The CIA is at least in theory supposed to work for the citizens of this country and yet we often find out that even Congress is just as in the dark about what they do as we are.
On “Morning Ed: North America {2017.01.04.W}”
Yea, the first priority in a robbery like this should be to give them what they want and get them out without anyone being harmed. I wouldn't want her on my staff anymore either.
"
Regarding your friend's predicament, I think it's the natural result of a bunch of well intended but ultimately unworkable and schizophrenic rules that govern urban professional progressive culture. Don't move into a minority majority enclave and the sin is failure to integrate. Move into one and the sin is gentrification. Make sure to appreciate other cultures but don't dare get caught listening to their music or cooking their food or doing their stretching routines lest you commit the sin of appropriation. Confess to your own privilege often and loudly... and also to the utter powerlessness of yourself and all people to do anything about their own condition (sarcastically if you can manage it).
It's a bad look and I really hope we (as a demographic) grow out of it.
On “BI: Putin chooses not to respond to Obama sanctions, diplomat expulsion”
I would and as I said above I'm fine with investigating what happened and attempting to close those holes. I'm less sanguine about what was done in the particular context.
"
I don't want to speculate on what else Russia might do with whatever information it has. With regard to their foreign policy though this is where I'd like us to become a bit more circumspect about how our own actions are perceived abroad, and the precedents we're setting. From Russia's perspective we marched NATO right up to their doorsteps, have orchestrated regime changes, and put our own fingers on the scale in the internal politics of other countries (including supporting some corrupt and unsavory groups of our own in places where they have interests like Ukraine and Syria).
This doesn't mean I think well of Putin's government or that the West shouldn't defend it's actual interests when pressed. It does mean that we need to be more honest about the role our own actions abroad play in causing blowback, and assessing when it's worth the risk. Right now we seem to treat everything as some sort of hollywood script with the valiant, free and democratic West standing up for what's right and the evil Russians/terrorists/whoever undermining us.
"
I'm not and would never argue for blind trust in any organization, Wikileaks included. They've got their own agenda like everyone else (I've got a much more positive disposition to someone like Edward Snowden, based on what we know about him).
However I also think Wikileaks is the direct and inevitable result of government policy. As I said above to Galen I do think there are plenty of obvious things Western governments could do with regard to their own conduct that would undermine the case Wikileaks makes for itself. They chose not to do those things and for that reason my sympathy is very limited.
On “2016: The Year The Alt-Right Collapsed”
This seems more on the money. It's never been clear to me that the alt-right exists as a meaningful faction for electoral purposes or that they got beyond some limited aesthetical alignment with the Trump campaign's own online trolling.
On “BI: Putin chooses not to respond to Obama sanctions, diplomat expulsion”
From my perspective it just isnt clear that this particular one sided hack (again, assuming for the sake of argument that the characterization we are getting is generally true and accurate) had some kind of decisive impact on the election. Right up through election day Clinton and her supporters were confident that it was a non-issue. I've seen no evidence that it was what turned the couple hundred thousand odd votes in the upper Midwest that gave victory to Trump.
On the matter of how to handle Russia I'm fine with the idea of increasing security behind the scenes and looking for ways to keep them from exploiting holes more generally, the same as we would with any other country. What I don't think is useful is a lame duck president firing a meaningless shot across the bow of a large, assertive nuclear power because his party lost an election, which is how this looks.
On the issue of privacy in politics my heart wants to agree with you but my head and recent experience says that's just not the kind of country we live in. Our federal government is largely run by people and institutions who are utterly allergic to transparency. If the price of a little sunlight is that politicians are also caught making embarassing or hypocritical remarks I think we have to take it. If people in power want to do something about it or regain moral authority then the answer is to stop classifying so much and to make government more open so we don't have to rely on the Julian Assanges and Edward Snowdens of the world to find out what our government is actually doing.
It's also not like we're talking about some insurgent political movement that got caught unaware by a foreign power and the cynical game of American politics. We're talking about a heavily favored presidential candidate with massive institutional support in the government and the media.
"
I haven't read up enough on the private entities (I'm attempting to do that with the links provided above) but the 17 agencies and various congress critters is still just an appeal to authority. I'm also not saying I don't think it's possible or even probable that there was some Russian involvement. I'm asking what the purpose of this move from the administration was, and what the point is that people who are freaking out over this are trying to make.
Let's assume for the sake of argument that everything that the intelligence agencies are saying is true and untainted by their various murky agendas. Let's also give them a pass on how hypocritical it is for them of all people to raise concerns about foreign powers involving themselves in our domestic politics. What is the argument being made? Is it that the Russian hack caused people to know too much about Hilary Clinton and vote for someone else or not at all? If so, is that really a sound argument that Democrats should get behind, that they lost because the voters knew too much?
Maybe there's an angle I'm missing here but that sounds pretty silly to me, and not like something that's going to get people to change their mind about the next candidate next time around.
"
@joe-m thank you for sharing I will take a look!
"
@stillwater I want to submit to you that this kind of critique is one of the things that made Trump's victory possible. I'm not saying it isn't possible that the Russians are behind the hack(s). I am saying that these agencies you're talking about have a very sordid history when it comes to the truth, and the traditional media has a very recent history of being manipulated into being mouthpieces of behind the scenes actors with an agenda.
Just saying 'well x agency says so, and someone who works there but refused to be named or provide any details confirmed it to the Washington Post' can't cut it anymore. This is especially so when the campaign that lost spent months saying these leaks were immaterial (and as far as influencing the election I think they probably were, unless the contention is that they were the last straw in making a bunch of blue collar workers around the Great Lakes who voted Obama twice switch sides or stay home).
From our conversations before you know I had no love for HRC but I do oppose Trump. Those of us on the broader liberal side of the equation need to get back to showing our work. Relying on appeals to authority that fewer and fewer people find credible (something I see as justified by recent history) is a losing strategy. Focusing on this nonsense with the Russians isn't helping.
"
Mildly disruptive until 3 weeks from now when them or people like them are let back in.
"
I don't buy this analysis. Yes certain Republican partisans are exploiting it. However you'd have to ignore all the Iraq war leaks to believe the organization is somehow in the bag for the GOP.
"
I haven't either. I'll happily reassess if we ever get anything beyond anonymous sources and unsubstantiated hearsay from the sketchiest agency in the government. My suspicion is that will never happen.
On “Liberals are Smug”
This is precisely correct. The mass hysteria over Trump's election is going to start looking to a lot of people like crying wolf if it hasn't already. He should be opposed on substantive issues. Let asinine tweets speak for themselves.
On “BI: Putin chooses not to respond to Obama sanctions, diplomat expulsion”
I just don't understand the Obama administration's thought process on this. Expelling the Russian diplomats has had no substantive impact of any kind, and we're probably lucky that the Kremlin is playing it this way. The move looks like sour grapes based on the election results and like the article says, is going to give Putin a propaganda victory.
On “Morning Ed: Politics {2016.12.29.Th}”
I also think it's worth remembering that by the time Obergefell was decided SSM was already legal in 36 states and DC. Even on the slim chance it is ever reversed I think the setback would only be temporary and limited to a handful of ultra red states. It's not like the court was way out in front of our culture and public policy on the issue.
"
I don't think the call is for coddling so much as it is for tactics that might convince people with different perspectives to change their minds or at least be willing to work together where there is agreement.
On “Morning Ed: Housing {2016.12.27.T}”
I look at the tiny house stuff as the extreme end of what is in my opinion a reasonable position, namely that as a culture we should move away from the idea that success is attached to owning an enormous home. This is especially so when that cultural ideal starts pushing public policy in an unsustainable direction (inflated mortgages supported by bad financing decisions, environmental destruction and waste, short sighted development, etc.).
Of course in our culture even reasonable ideas result in charlatans and caricatures of the movement looking for their 15 minutes of fame on crass basic cable programming.
On “Give This Man a Promotion”
Just to clarify, it's not necessarily that I think a high level of professionalism is the norm, it's more that I don't think the character of individual officers is the overriding factor at play in most of the shootings at issue. Even if all of our police officers were angels I think we'd still see a disturbing number of incidents because of where we've set the incentives.
"
No disagreement.
"
I don't necessarily. There's a whole conversation to be had on the reliability of breathalyzers, especially when the algorithms they use are trade secrets but there are plenty of instances of people testing higher and still being out and about.
There was this friend of mine in college...
"
I'm not one who defends the officers in most of the lawful but hard to justify shoots we've talked about. My response isn't really what was requested but I'll give it anyway.
I think the officer here behaved the way we should expect all police officers to. However I don't think its as rare as your post implies. There are millions of interactions a day between black citizens and law enforcement that don't result in bad, crazy, or controversial conduct. While it's a good thing these issues are being more widely discussed I think one of the mistakes being made is to focus on racially disparate policing as born of an uncleansable original sin rather than a policy/accountability problem.
On “Morning Ed: Law & Order {2016.12.20.T}”
I can't comment on the particulars of a situation I don't know anything about. I would certainly hope that there was more evidence collected before the expulsion though than what you personally witnessed.
"
I'm not buying the 'it's only a code of conduct finding' stuff. Yes, these boards can't send someone to prison but they do label people violent felons. Their intent is that the accused is ostracized and denied access to education and other opportunities by virtue of the finding.
Do you think these schools have adequate expertise, investigative abilities, and provide sufficient due process safeguards to justify that? I certainly dont.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.