MoveOn.org was a website created in the days following the Clinton impeachment.
It tweaked the whole preoccupation with CONSENSUAL sex between Presidents and interns on the part of thrice-divorced Republicans and otherwise mocked the whole pretense to "Family Values".
The movie "Jennifer's Body" includes some snappy dialog where one character tells another character to "Move On Dot Org."
On the day of (or maybe the day after) October 7th, a plucky young Ivy Leaguer tweeted out "What did you think decolonization would look like? Vibes? Papers? Essays? Losers."
I mashed all of these together in the hopes that it would point out what a post-Family Values Republican Party would look like. It was intended to be a humorous post but also one with bite because it's also supposed to accurately, if unflatteringly, describe the state of affairs.
There's been too much of a Schmittian undercurrent for too long for any appeals to principle to come across as anything other than applied Friend/Enemy stuff.
Sometimes you see stuff like "I thought at the time that Lloyd Austin should have resigned! That's why I think this guy should!"
But there are ones that 99% of hackers can trivially get to and ones that 99% of hackers cannot trivially get to and the latter ones also happen to be ones where you cannot possibly add journalists to it by mistake.
4 weeks ago
There are two sets of mistakes that I've seen people argue about:
1. Adding Goldberg to the chat was a mistake.
2. Talking about this stuff on a network that could possibly have Goldberg added to it was a mistake
If you want to argue 1, argue 1! If you want to argue 2, argue 2! But don't argue 1 with someone who is arguing 2!
4 weeks ago
Remember back when we were discussing the Kennedy Assassination classified files? Here was the definition of Secret that I lifted off of Wikipedia:
"Secret material would cause 'serious damage' to national security if it were publicly available."
Pretty straightforward, right?
I mocked the idea that any given file in the papers would, in the current year, cause serious damage to national security and called for the papers to be released pretty much solely on that judgment.
And you know what? I went through a bunch of the papers and, yep. They were all dregs from the Cuban Missile Crisis and a bunch of other Cold War debris and precious little stuff having to do with stuff that would cause any damage at all to national security (and, indeed, it doesn't strike me that it would have back in the 90s though I could see having an argument over some of the Cuban Missile stuff).
What we have here is stuff like:
The current time.
Stuff that's going to happen over the next few hours.
Acknowledgment that we have eyes on the ground over there and giving reports to us.
Holy crap! The only thing in there that wouldn't potentially cause damage to national security is the current time!
The commenter archive features may be temporarily disabled at times.
MoveOn.org was a website created in the days following the Clinton impeachment.
It tweaked the whole preoccupation with CONSENSUAL sex between Presidents and interns on the part of thrice-divorced Republicans and otherwise mocked the whole pretense to "Family Values".
The movie "Jennifer's Body" includes some snappy dialog where one character tells another character to "Move On Dot Org."
On the day of (or maybe the day after) October 7th, a plucky young Ivy Leaguer tweeted out "What did you think decolonization would look like? Vibes? Papers? Essays? Losers."
I mashed all of these together in the hopes that it would point out what a post-Family Values Republican Party would look like. It was intended to be a humorous post but also one with bite because it's also supposed to accurately, if unflatteringly, describe the state of affairs.
What did you think moving on dot org would look like?
Vibes? Papers? Essays?
Both dead.
Dumbya, bless his heart, seems to have disappeared.
They wheeled out both Clintons to campaign for Kamala.
For what it's worth, I think that firing Waltz is, at a minimum, justified.
He added Goldberg. He's either stupid or malicious and you should be able to find a replacement that isn't.
Let's pretend to negotiate. What's an acceptable outcome, do you think?
Waltz resigns, Hegseth resigns, Vance takes the Cybersecurity Challenge again?
Will this balance the scales?
The ability for it to be spun as a set of side-by-side tally marks is the problem.
Because it's sooooo friggin' easy to do that.
What's the underlying principle?
I mean, I know how *I* would try to phrase it. Something about a Rawlsian "veil of ignorance" or something like that...
But we ain't playin' that game.
We haven't played that game for a good long while.
There's been too much of a Schmittian undercurrent for too long for any appeals to principle to come across as anything other than applied Friend/Enemy stuff.
Sometimes you see stuff like "I thought at the time that Lloyd Austin should have resigned! That's why I think this guy should!"
But... that's limp, isn't it?
There is no network that hackers cannot hack.
But there are ones that 99% of hackers can trivially get to and ones that 99% of hackers cannot trivially get to and the latter ones also happen to be ones where you cannot possibly add journalists to it by mistake.
There are two sets of mistakes that I've seen people argue about:
1. Adding Goldberg to the chat was a mistake.
2. Talking about this stuff on a network that could possibly have Goldberg added to it was a mistake
If you want to argue 1, argue 1! If you want to argue 2, argue 2! But don't argue 1 with someone who is arguing 2!
Remember back when we were discussing the Kennedy Assassination classified files? Here was the definition of Secret that I lifted off of Wikipedia:
"Secret material would cause 'serious damage' to national security if it were publicly available."
Pretty straightforward, right?
I mocked the idea that any given file in the papers would, in the current year, cause serious damage to national security and called for the papers to be released pretty much solely on that judgment.
And you know what? I went through a bunch of the papers and, yep. They were all dregs from the Cuban Missile Crisis and a bunch of other Cold War debris and precious little stuff having to do with stuff that would cause any damage at all to national security (and, indeed, it doesn't strike me that it would have back in the 90s though I could see having an argument over some of the Cuban Missile stuff).
What we have here is stuff like:
The current time.
Stuff that's going to happen over the next few hours.
Acknowledgment that we have eyes on the ground over there and giving reports to us.
Holy crap! The only thing in there that wouldn't potentially cause damage to national security is the current time!