-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
PoliGAF 2013 |OT3| 1,000 Years of Darkness and Nuclear Fallout
- Thread starter bananas
- Start date
- Status
Very good numbers. I wasn't sure they'd hit a million so topping it is a very good start. Now to see how that carries into January.
Between the young that can stay on their parents plans, the federal and state exchanges, and the Medicaid expansion, the ACA has taken a big bite out of the uninsured.
cooljeanius
Member
Just came across wh.gov's favorite gifs of the year post:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2013/12/27/year-review-white-houses-13-favorite-gifs-2013
Posting them here for future reference as I can see some of them being usable here on PoliGaf in the future...
Late edit: see also: http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?p=96129535
http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2013/12/27/year-review-white-houses-13-favorite-gifs-2013
Posting them here for future reference as I can see some of them being usable here on PoliGaf in the future...
Late edit: see also: http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?p=96129535
And, really... isn't that the point? Can't wait to hear from the right/skeptics how this is still such a huge issue.
empty vessel
Member
More endorsement of Republican framing:
This is extremely harmful to society, notwithstanding the politics, and responsible leadership wouldn't do it.
The biggest takeaway from Benghazi (to me, anyway) is that once again intelligence is given too much leash for the level of delivered results. NSA gets the benefit of the doubt when it comes to staggering informational databases they can't even parse in real time, CIA gets the benefit of the doubt when it comes to predictive intelligence they routinely and spectacularly fail at putting together. Policymakers need to become less enamored of the self-touted genius of intelligence and get insurance also.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
So what the heck is the big deal with the new NSA leak?
They spy and have a group that tries to get the hardest targets and they use more conventional spying techniques.
The conflating of the phone data collection/data trolling and leaks about their targeted collection is ridiculous and it happens constantly and people like greenwald and reddit constantly do it on purpose. I'm fine with restricting the out of control collection of metadata, but they're entire job it to do what the current leak shows. If anything I'm happy the NSA is doing this stuff, and sucks snowden revealed programs like this which don't fall under whistle blowing and instead just undermine techniques
I'm mostly angry at peoples idiotic reactions to the stories. Though I think many in the media have an agenda and are playing on this.
They spy and have a group that tries to get the hardest targets and they use more conventional spying techniques.
The conflating of the phone data collection/data trolling and leaks about their targeted collection is ridiculous and it happens constantly and people like greenwald and reddit constantly do it on purpose. I'm fine with restricting the out of control collection of metadata, but they're entire job it to do what the current leak shows. If anything I'm happy the NSA is doing this stuff, and sucks snowden revealed programs like this which don't fall under whistle blowing and instead just undermine techniques
I'm mostly angry at peoples idiotic reactions to the stories. Though I think many in the media have an agenda and are playing on this.
RustyNails
Member
I thought having a lower overall debt is harmful, not deficits?More endorsement of Republican framing:
This is extremely harmful to society, notwithstanding the politics, and responsible leadership wouldn't do it.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
The TAO stuff yea. I think there is spying on industry they already revealed petrobras but I think that's all good and fine if its not used for shady commercial dealings and more for geopolitical understanding and defense
Hacking Samsung and giving blueprints to apple not good, spying on an a foreign electronics company to see their spying tech for counterespionage fine, wanted and expected.
If there isn't private spending picking up the decrease in spending (which is driving much of the decreases) your economic output is below its potential, leaving people out of work and not producing as much as it could.
Deficits and debts are accounting tools not real economic indicators, the thing that matters is that spending is at the right levels. Its too low now. There are unproductive sectors that could benefit from government spending.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
The problem being the way these articles are portrayed, especially on the internet is that anything will be the 'same as china'.
I already saw similar calls after the petrobras thing was reported on. Partly this is the nature of these stories is their hard to parse out and find which are part of what story (the NSA isn't a monolithic entity and things like the phone meta data and section 215 programs are completely separate from TAO and more conventional foreign intelligence) but I think some outlets and individuals have intentionally muddied the waters due to a desired outcome. They want US hegemony in certain fields ended, Greenwald has stated as much on certain occasions.
empty vessel
Member
Debt is just the accumulation of yearly deficits. And, to be clear, my problem with this image is that it suggests that declining deficits are per se good. Any economist (who is not a hack) who looked at that graph would not see any information conveyed to him or her from which any meaningful conclusion about anything in the real world could be drawn. But we're expected to be pleased by it.
"The citizens of the world deserve to understand the system in which they live" strikes me as less muddying the waters and more a clear and succinct statement of purpose, and neither Snowden or Greenwald (to my knowledge) have been cagey about that. Putting on my foreigner shoes for a moment, I have a vested interest in knowing what my government negotiates and ultimately does on my behalf, particularly if what it does in secret may not be in my interest. That isn't to say that either of these two men are beyond disrepute or error, simply that the desired outcome is far from nefarious.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
Greenwald has had past statements where he's cheered on the US's fall.
And his definition of US empire is very vast. Its the typical Chomsky stuff, the US is the source of all evil every evil action in the world the US can be blamed for.Greenwald responding to a question about the fall of the US empire said:
He's also stated in the past incorrect statements which get at the hart of the misinformation or intentionally misleading stories about the NSA which mix very different programs.
That's what colors his article and they're not borne out by the facts. The second one is especially malicious in its insinuations
I'm not saying you can't discuss the leaks without their motivations but when they are the one writing a lot of the articles and those are their beliefs I tend to understand why their is so much stupidity on the internet regarding the NSA leaks. Which is what again I'm most frustrated by I think some of the leaks are going to end up changing something for the better, but I just forget not everybody reads vociferously the follow ups after many of the article first leak. People think everything on the internet is now compromised by the evil NSA. Conspiracy theorists think their theories have been borne out but they're just as crazy as they've ever been
The Librarian
Banned
I really, really don't like Greenwald.
As expected, Issa far too patriotic to be effected by the liberal media's "facts":
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/gregory-...-al-qaeda-as-hot-button-during-election-year/
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/gregory-...-al-qaeda-as-hot-button-during-election-year/
empty vessel
Member
That's a caricature of both Greenwald and Chomsky. They have a very realistic understanding of state power that well-conditioned "patriots" downplay. Incidentally, this is not unique to Americans. Chomsky, for example, has talked about how much he is welcomed on Canadian radio right up until the point he makes statements critical of the Canadian government.
The US is the most powerful force on earth and has been for many decades now. That means it will, in fact, have a lot of responsibility for what the world looks like, because it is the largest force acting on the world. There is nothing anti-American about this. It is a simple recognition of power and how it exerts itself. If the American government were not the most powerful entity on the planet, then most eyes would be directed towards the entity that were. The problem is not with Greenwald or Chomsky but with people whose patriotic conditioning blinds them to the world as it exists. (Indeed, as critical as they are, Greenwald and Chomsky are if anything biased in favor of the West and the US by virtue of their life-long exposure to the same social conditioning that so effectively influences the rest of us; one cannot escape this conditioning, one can only be conscious of and try to temper it).
Chomsky's capacity to describe things empirically as they exist is unparalleled, and it is his insistence on doing so (rather than using coded patriotic (Orwellian) language) that gets him in trouble amongst the guardians of patriotic conditioning (political and but especially media elite).
zero shift
Banned
Question, when they say that 15% of Americans fall under the poverty line does this mean that they fall under the poverty line BEFORE receiving social assistance (food stamps, etc.) or AFTER receiving social assistance.?
PhoenixDark
Banned
Empty Vessel already said what I was going to say but still...I'm baffled by this statement. Do you deny that vast expansion of the US empire? We are the most powerful country in the world, and influence every continent to some degree. We're involved in most major global events (for instance Libya, Egypt, and Syria recently, and the China/Japan situation now). This isn't an exaggeration.
The US does a lot of good things globally, but it would be naive to deny that we are a destabilizing force more often than not.
Greenwald is a diva, sure. But overall his work speaks for itself, and he's good at what he does. I think the vitriol he faces from the left is largely due to the general dismissive nature many liberals have towards Obama's atrocious record on civil liberties and the lawless war on terror (specifically drones). There's a constant attempt to ignore or dismiss this stuff when in reality Obama is far worse than Bush on these issues. It's not a personal thing - I tend to believe the next US president will be worse than Obama on this stuff. We're in a downward spiral until we get a president who's willing to ramp down executive power. And that's not going to happen unless Ron Paul magically becomes president, or the reincarnation of Jimmy Carter becomes president.
Debt is the result of deficits (under the current system), in and by itself a lower debt is not a bad thing as with a given deficit it allows you to do more productive things than pay interest, but again, it's not in and by itself, not to mention that the debt is super cheap right now (also, such framing ignores how budgets are done in the US).
Even lower deficits are not categorically bad, there are situations where you want to lower the deficit, it's just that given the current state of things (inflation, unemployment, bond yields) it doesn't make sense to do so.
Also, focusing on just the size of the deficit ignores the very important fact that not all deficits are created equal, what you spend your money and who you tax matters a whole lot.
I saw that earlier today. That wouldn't be out of place 50 or 100 years ago, but today that's a crime.
Jimmy can run for another term. He'll be like 92 in 2016 but it's doable!
NYCmetsfan
Banned
I don't deny the vastness of the US 'empire' (wouldn't use empire, hegemony is better) my problem is with his desire for it to fall or that its an objectively a good thing.
And by saying its vast was to say that greenwald doesn't want US being dominant in any aspect: Economicaly, Militarily, Culturally, Politically. And its not even in my reading of him that other countries are underrepresented or marginalized and need to have a bigger voice its that the US needs to be brought down a peg and punished. He's a part of the school of thought that IMO takes any agency or responsibility from smaller entities and ascribes them just a victims of a bully power and thus anytime the bully is punished its a positive and noble thing.
He doesn't target just, what he would term, bad actions (drones, Iraq war, overzealous intervention). He goes further and makes innuendos about their wider motives and intent that just can't be found in what he's reporting and can be contradicted with other facts. And these characterization allow him to paint everything with the same brush. (And he find himself utterly incapable of finding fault in any other actors that isn't forced on them by the US).
His 'investigations', no matter what they say confirm his already held notions and self righteousness. He uses them to fit his already establishes worldview rather than reading and reporting them impartially and maybe finding faults in his hypothesis. It's less about him being a diva than his reporting and writing style which are in the style of a polemic than a news investigation or report.
Some of these criticisms are faults a lot of people fall into but they just bother me a lot.
I probably shouldn't have brought Chomsky into it because he's a different beast.
Holy shit man, you're Fox News-ing that quote like crazy.
Let's look it in context, it was on a Q&A, someone asked him -
That's hardly "rooting for the US to fail", and it focus on the US's military presence and actions around the world, which is abundantly clear if you read the his columns.
But in any case, Greenwald is not and never has been the issue, if you think the public should not know about those NSA activities, you should defend that position without resorting to ad hominem attacks
Let's look it in context, it was on a Q&A, someone asked him -
Should we cheer or fear the possible, if not eventual, collapse of the American empire in terms of its economic and military dominance?
To which he answered - The events leading to such a collapse would likely entail misery and suffering for many people, which isn't something to cheer, but the end of US military dominance and the maintenance of a US empire is certainly something to cheer.
It's too hard to predict what the consequences would be, too many variables. Usually, major political transformations and collapses of hegemonic states bring about lots of suffering and instability, but there's a wide range of how awful it could be.
It's too hard to predict what the consequences would be, too many variables. Usually, major political transformations and collapses of hegemonic states bring about lots of suffering and instability, but there's a wide range of how awful it could be.
That's hardly "rooting for the US to fail", and it focus on the US's military presence and actions around the world, which is abundantly clear if you read the his columns.
But in any case, Greenwald is not and never has been the issue, if you think the public should not know about those NSA activities, you should defend that position without resorting to ad hominem attacks
PD and emptyvessel covered a lot of ground here, but I will chime in and say that I think you're ascribing more malice into the quotations than is there. You've no argument from me that he's a firebrand that lives for confrontation, the drama, but he isn't powwoing the doom of "USA the Great Satan" or slandering the NSA here. At least under Alexander's term, its appetite for information has definitely been that broad, and held back more by means than by restraint. It scaled up its capabilities for bulk acquisition as quickly as it physically could, and until recent times, has been quite successful circumventing and working around legal and material restrictions placed upon those capacities. They were essentially written a blank cheque, and it's going to take a very special kind of bureau head that won't take that and run with it. Alexander raising the specter of 9/11 isn't merely a patriotic expression, it's also his sincere effort to entrench and protect the nearly limitless latitude for action his agency has enjoyed until the present. Greenwald may be a lot of things, but he isn't inventing the raw hunger for data.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
Its much more than that single quote. And I still don't know how cheering the end of the US military or economic dominence is a good thing.
And he is the issue when his reporting of the story is misleading the public about the facts and leading them to fear things that aren't happening. And I've stated I don't think like TAO are really things the public needs to know about unless their doing illegal things like warrantlessly doing this to Americans. I understand why a foreign news agency would report on it. Which is why snowden even if his leaks bring needed change can never be a hero in my eyes.
Shocking
NYCmetsfan
Banned
My favorite part is them talking to each other is proof of coordination
They were going left AND right!
Edit: as much as Benghazi has become something of a meme it should be remembered there were us screw ups and 4 people died that shouldn't have.
Some people (myself included) believe that this military and economic dominance is presently a tremendously corrupting force on the sort of freedoms and ideals the US, while falling short of, still aspires towards. Even if one disregards the negative impact on the world out of hand, this hegemony imperils a great deal of what you cherish at home also. Ideally, homegrown political will builds to avoid the pitfalls that implicitly come with such dominance in the future. Less than ideally, dominance is lost for whatever reason and the US must operate cautious of pitfall by default, and further, is incapable of pitfalling across the globe at the provocations and attacks of terrorists. Great strength without wisdom is its own undoing.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
First of all, he's not cheering for the end of economic dominance, 2nd of all, he's not cheering at all on the practical level.
And while I'm sure there were some inaccuracies in his reporting, as a whole, the American public is much more informed about the NSA's actions thanks to his reporting, I hardly see how you can claim he's misleading the public about facts.
If you're argument is that the public "can't handle the truth", well, that's an undemocratic argument, and if we are to have the country run by people we should just trust because they know better, might as well switch to a system like China, at least we'll get a working public transportation system (no, I'm not serious about the China thing, well, outside the public transportation).
As for individual programs like TAO, it's a bit of a grey area, I accept that you can have a secret collection programs, however there should be oversight and debate on what measures you use (for example, installing backdoors and using exploits reduce the network security of an organization, and it expose it to other actors as well; is the collection gathered from TAO worth it? has it been used on US citizens/companies? who get to see that information and on what level?). And given that the NSA has demonstrated that it lacks any sort of effective oversight, I'm perfectly fine with reporting/whistle-blowers picking up the slack. I don't think they have done anything that would cause me to put blind trust in them or their judgment.
adamsappel
Member
While I agree with you, I think that it illustrates that going by the GOP's metric, Obama isn't the profligate wastrel they paint him as. If they are so concerned about the deficit, well, it's half what it was when Obama took office.
PhoenixDark
Banned
To be fair to Greenwald, we'd save a shit ton of money if the US empire "failed." So yes, bring it on, especially in the Middle East.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
We'd lose more IMO.
And no I'm not arguing for war or intervention everywhere. Just lots of bilateral involvement with many countries and some defensive alliances
A call for reform first, most definitely, but I would nonetheless settle for the waning of its military dominance if reform simply doesn't materialize. America's track record being what it is, they've extinguished the benefit of the doubt when it comes to wise and measured use of their privileged position. Fundamental change to America's hegemonistic influence is needed, whether that be substantial changed direction or its utter end.
The status quo will continue to burn everyone in the long run, so it's definitely a welcome change to see Libya, Syria, and Iran approached as they have been. That needs to be the status quo, that of directly working with partners and using the threat of one's own force or sanctions to accomplish diplomatic solutions, not unavoidable military adventurism, the unconditional patronage of bellicose proxies, and being locked into a billion little alliances that constrict one's ability to move. Shades of the old diplomatic flexibility that America once knew need to keep surfacing.
Military bases are not the only (or best) way to advance your interests.
Look at what China is doing in Africa.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
Where did I say that?
I think they are a part and only when the situation makes it wise
I'd disagree on the first point.
And I think he's been misleading in his selective reporting of the documents, drawing comparisons to other programs in his articles that have nothing to do each other to confuse the public on where one begins and ends, made public statements that are factually wrong in his media appearances, been wrong on some major facts and not owning up to it when confronted, that and acting like he's the most persecuted man on the planet.
My argument is not the public can't handle the truth. I never said that and don't believe it. I'm saying they are being mislead by some. A bit intentionally and a bit because its a lot of stuff thats being dripped out and its hard to put the pieces together.
I believe that's what Geenwald is talking about, he's not an isolationist.
I honestly think the public (and heck, even Congress) is much better informed of the NSA's collection program thanks to Greenwald's reporting.
I'm sure you can find instances where he made mistakes, but as a whole?
What did he mislead the public into thinking?
NYCmetsfan
Banned
Read gaf and reddit.
I'm not talking about Congress or the well read media consumer who read more than the guardian stories, listen to debates, pay attention to corrects. I'm talking about someone who gets linked to one story and starts spouting off nonsense. This was sparked by the TAO thread.
And I think other reporters have been more informative then greenwald, In fact I seen his name rarely on the byline any more.
I think it's kinda ridiculous to implicate Greenwald for people bringing their own preconceptions into discussions... and that's on top of not reading articles beyond a title. I mean, just take a gander at the stuff Angry Fork is saying with a straight face. Is that Greenwald, or is that Angry Fork getting up on the soapbox?
So you're faulting Greenwald because some conspiracy theorists, ADD people who only read headlines and people with real anti-American agenda get the wrong ideas from his stories?
Come on now.
And I thought that Greenwald had nothing to do with the TAO story.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
I think some of the reporting and statements (tweets too, glenn cheerleads those who he knows are not spreading completely accurate information) play into that feeling, intentionally at that. When you read the articles they almost always have a line saying "there is no evidence that this program as been targeting Americans or civilians" but its buried in the article and not reiterated.
I think glenn's style help people like Angry Fork pontificate. And he's knows it.
Again I don't only think he's responsible. He's just an example. A notable one.
I've stated my main frustration is with the people who are lazy and don't read and just mentioned that some of the reporting has feed that.
So, provided he can't actually strap readers to a chair and force them to read all of the material he tweets, how complicit is he in misleading his audience? A headline that grabs attention? At some point responsibility to digest more than the cover has to fall to your readership, especially when the author promotes the full text prominently. We can waffle about whether or not this or that headline is tarted up, or this or that tweet is lacking context (and whether or not that's atypical), but at the end of the day people are responsible for the dumb things they say.
I think the NSA's overreach and the lack of oversight is a significantly more important of an issue than some idiots getting rage fueled on the internet.
I still contend that his reporting has been a net positive to society, a big one.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
I'm not saying they're not responsibly just that the media has a responsibility too
While I don't think the internet people are going to have a large effect on NSA policy. I sometimes worry about their rhetoric and driving more malicious snowden/manning types who want to get out more dangerous material because of the perceived evilness of the NSA rather than overreach that has so far not shown to have been used for nefarious or big brother type uses. That and the general anti-USA sentiment that is based on these incorrect beliefs. They're 'useful idiots'
PhoenixDark
Banned
Greenwald certainly goes for the big headline, regardless of its fairness. But that applies to many journalists and bloggers in the twitter/instant access age. That being said, his actual reporting is usually accurate. Does he have an agenda? Sure. But again, that's nothing new or exclusive to him.
At the end of the day the NSA, violation of civil liberties, lawless war on terror/drones etc are ugly topics, and any anger or outrage should be focused at the perpetrators, not the messenger.
At the end of the day the NSA, violation of civil liberties, lawless war on terror/drones etc are ugly topics, and any anger or outrage should be focused at the perpetrators, not the messenger.
- Status