Intercept Greenwald Klein Talk Waffling Full Disclosure
https://theintercept.com/2016/10/19/is-disclosure-of-podestas-emails-a-step-... youtube-dl https://soundcloud.com/the_intercept/disclosure_glennnaomi_v1 Some news organizations, including The Intercept, have devoted substantial resources to reporting on the newsworthy aspects of the archive of emails of Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta that was published last week by WikiLeaks. Numerous documents from that archive have shed considerable light on the thought processes and previously secret behavior of top Clinton campaign aides and often the candidate herself. While the significance of particular stories has been debated, there is no denying that many of those disclosures offer a valuable glimpse into campaign operatives who currently exercise great political power and who, as of January of next year, are likely to be among the most powerful officials on the planet. Despite her agreement with those propositions, the author and activist Naomi Klein believes there are serious threats to personal privacy and other critical political values posed by hacks of this sort, particularly when accompanied by the indiscriminate publication of someone’s personal emails.
From: grarpamp <grarpamp@gmail.com> https://theintercept.com/2016/10/19/is-disclosure-of-podestas-emails-a-step-... youtube-dl https://soundcloud.com/the_intercept/disclosure_glennnaomi_v1 [quoting the article above] "Some news organizations, including The Intercept, have devoted substantial resources to reporting on the newsworthy aspects of the archive of emails of Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta that was published last week by WikiLeaks. Numerous documents from that archive have shed considerable light on the thought processes and previously secret behavior of top Clinton campaign aides and often the candidate herself. While the significance of particular stories has been debated, there is no denying that many of those disclosures offer a valuable glimpse into campaign operatives who currently exercise great political power and who, as of January of next year, are likely to be among the most powerful officials on the planet." "Despite her agreement with those propositions, the author and activist Naomi Klein believes there are serious threats to personal privacy and other critical political values posed by hacks of this sort, particularly when accompanied by the indiscriminate publication of someone’s personal emails." [end quote]----------------- Jim Bell's comments follow: I'd say, in response to the referenced comments from Naomi Klein: "NONSENSE!" The public is being the victim of extreme corruption, and finally a mechanism exists (leaking) to combat it. "Go Leaking Go!" I say. Leaks of "personal emails" of those who are perpetrating government and political corruption, as the Clinton cronies are clearly doing, should be considered "open season". I am not at all bothered by the assertion (even if assumed to be true) that these documents might have been 'hacked': If that's the case, whoever did it is doing the public an amazing service that must not merely continue, but should be expanded greatly. Fools like Republican Marco Rubio have echoed similar opinions to these by Naomi Klein, which I saw this morning on video: It is as if he believes that the two main wings of America's single big political party (the "Demoblicans", or should we call them "Republicrats"?) are desperately trying to close ranks to protect itself from being exposed as the corrupt edifice that it really is. Indeed, while I just saw a clip this morning from Rubio, his fear as expressed to other Republicans, apparently, is something like, 'Today' it is [against] the Democrats, tomorrow it could be us! [the Republicans]". at: 0:26: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=soS4lGsBiu0 (And: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V9IFSjfeAm0 ) Does Rubio not understand that expressed in this fashion, in a forum that we all can hear, it is as if he's identifying the American people as being THE ENEMY, our attention directed today threatening the Democrats, but tomorrow potentially going after the Republicans too? Is Rubio under the impression that as heard by the average, relatively-non-partisan American, his words would not be seen as a virtual declaration of war against us? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y0X0ZYbnHxA I'd say that if the Republicans have as much to be leaked as the Democrats have, so far, "Let's go! Leak it!" Let the chips fall where they may! The American public should be utterly aghast at this kind of thinking, by Klein and Rubio. Jim Bell
On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 5:49 PM, jim bell <jdb10987@yahoo.com> wrote:
I'd say that if the Republicans have as much to be leaked as the Democrats have, so far, "Let's go! Leak it!" Let the chips fall where they may!
For sure, and not just America's two parties, but all sorts of entities and structures around the world... the world's people can handle transparency there... and probably make a better world with it.
On 10/19/2016 12:45 PM, grarpamp wrote:
https://theintercept.com/2016/10/19/is-disclosure-of-podestas-emails-a-step-... youtube-dl https://soundcloud.com/the_intercept/disclosure_glennnaomi_v1
Some news organizations, including The Intercept, have devoted substantial resources to reporting on the newsworthy aspects of the archive of emails of Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta that was published last week by WikiLeaks. Numerous documents from that archive have shed considerable light on the thought processes and previously secret behavior of top Clinton campaign aides and often the candidate herself. While the significance of particular stories has been debated, there is no denying that many of those disclosures offer a valuable glimpse into campaign operatives who currently exercise great political power and who, as of January of next year, are likely to be among the most powerful officials on the planet.
Despite her agreement with those propositions, the author and activist Naomi Klein believes there are serious threats to personal privacy and other critical political values posed by hacks of this sort, particularly when accompanied by the indiscriminate publication of someone’s personal emails.
That's the downside of having power in a corporatist shitstem and it applies to their whore politicians too. Hillary Clinton is a public person in a high profile position. She HAS NO "Personal emails" afaic. Just like a corporate director has to get up at 3 am while in mid-fuck of some prostitute he hired for the night and get on a plane to 'put out a fire' threatening the corporation, someone whose secretary of state or president HAS NO PRIVATE LIFE. Nor should they. Rr
This is an interesting argument. For clarification on your opinion, do their children have private lives or have they been forced into the spotlight based on nothing but who their parents happen to be? On 10/20/2016 11:30 AM, Razer wrote:
On 10/19/2016 12:45 PM, grarpamp wrote:
https://theintercept.com/2016/10/19/is-disclosure-of-podestas-emails-a-step-... youtube-dl https://soundcloud.com/the_intercept/disclosure_glennnaomi_v1
Some news organizations, including The Intercept, have devoted substantial resources to reporting on the newsworthy aspects of the archive of emails of Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta that was published last week by WikiLeaks. Numerous documents from that archive have shed considerable light on the thought processes and previously secret behavior of top Clinton campaign aides and often the candidate herself. While the significance of particular stories has been debated, there is no denying that many of those disclosures offer a valuable glimpse into campaign operatives who currently exercise great political power and who, as of January of next year, are likely to be among the most powerful officials on the planet.
Despite her agreement with those propositions, the author and activist Naomi Klein believes there are serious threats to personal privacy and other critical political values posed by hacks of this sort, particularly when accompanied by the indiscriminate publication of someone’s personal emails.
That's the downside of having power in a corporatist shitstem and it applies to their whore politicians too. Hillary Clinton is a public person in a high profile position. She HAS NO "Personal emails" afaic. Just like a corporate director has to get up at 3 am while in mid-fuck of some prostitute he hired for the night and get on a plane to 'put out a fire' threatening the corporation, someone whose secretary of state or president HAS NO PRIVATE LIFE.
Nor should they.
Rr
-- Kevin Gallagher PhD Candidate, Department of Computer Science New York University Tandon School of Engineering 2 MetroTech Center, 10th Floor Brooklyn, NY 11201 Phone: (757) 202-8961 Email: kevin.gallagher@nyu.edu Key Fingerprint: D02B 25CB 0F7D E276 06C3 BF08 53E4 C50F 8247 4861
On 10/20/2016 08:56 AM, Kevin Gallagher wrote:
This is an interesting argument.
For clarification on your opinion, do their children have private lives or have they been forced into the spotlight based on nothing but who their parents happen to be?
Let me put it this way. The warmongering bitch so-called progressive liberals will vote for probably hahahaha-ed about the drone assassination death of anwar al-Awalaki's 19 year old son who'd never been charged with a crime. (more recently that Yemeni taxicab driver who just happened to pick up the WRONG person) Does that hint at my answer your question how I feel about the human scum offered up as US dictators-of-corporate policy and their corporatist bffs, and their right to privacy? Get this. Fascist HAVE NO RIGHTS (because they grant you none you can really exercise freely, usefully) and that fucking well includes their right to have private, cf. CONSPIRATORIAL, lives. So Kevin... In light of the above. A question for you. Is it considered unusual to think politicians need to be held to a HIGHER STANDARD needing DIFFERENT RULES if they're going to have relegated and delegated power over our lives? RR
On 10/20/2016 11:30 AM, Razer wrote:
On 10/19/2016 12:45 PM, grarpamp wrote:
https://theintercept.com/2016/10/19/is-disclosure-of-podestas-emails-a-step-... youtube-dl https://soundcloud.com/the_intercept/disclosure_glennnaomi_v1
Some news organizations, including The Intercept, have devoted substantial resources to reporting on the newsworthy aspects of the archive of emails of Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta that was published last week by WikiLeaks. Numerous documents from that archive have shed considerable light on the thought processes and previously secret behavior of top Clinton campaign aides and often the candidate herself. While the significance of particular stories has been debated, there is no denying that many of those disclosures offer a valuable glimpse into campaign operatives who currently exercise great political power and who, as of January of next year, are likely to be among the most powerful officials on the planet.
Despite her agreement with those propositions, the author and activist Naomi Klein believes there are serious threats to personal privacy and other critical political values posed by hacks of this sort, particularly when accompanied by the indiscriminate publication of someone’s personal emails.
That's the downside of having power in a corporatist shitstem and it applies to their whore politicians too. Hillary Clinton is a public person in a high profile position. She HAS NO "Personal emails" afaic. Just like a corporate director has to get up at 3 am while in mid-fuck of some prostitute he hired for the night and get on a plane to 'put out a fire' threatening the corporation, someone whose secretary of state or president HAS NO PRIVATE LIFE.
Nor should they.
Rr
Hello Razer, I actually don't disagree with you at all. I agree with the "transparency for the powerful, privacy for the weak" mindset that is so ingrained in cypherpunk culture. I was just wondering where we draw the line between the powerful and the weak. There is no doubt in my mind that the criminals currently running for government positions in the U.S. are powerful, and therefore need transparency, but this brings about a few questions in my mind. Is one powerful because they are related to someone who is powerful? If so, at what point does the relation become "too distant" for someone to be considered powerful? Is there something other than money or political power that can be considered a source of power? These are just considerations I want to think through, and I was wondering what your take on it was. My question was honestly not meant as a critique of your viewpoint, just a clarification so I can think these ideas through. I'm sorry if it offended you. To answer your question directly: No, that's not unreasonable. I agree with you on it entirely. I just want to consider the implications of things such as family relationships, and where the lines are drawn. Thanks, Kevin On 10/20/2016 12:41 PM, Razer wrote:
On 10/20/2016 08:56 AM, Kevin Gallagher wrote:
This is an interesting argument.
For clarification on your opinion, do their children have private lives or have they been forced into the spotlight based on nothing but who their parents happen to be?
Let me put it this way. The warmongering bitch so-called progressive liberals will vote for probably hahahaha-ed about the drone assassination death of anwar al-Awalaki's 19 year old son who'd never been charged with a crime. (more recently that Yemeni taxicab driver who just happened to pick up the WRONG person)
Does that hint at my answer your question how I feel about the human scum offered up as US dictators-of-corporate policy and their corporatist bffs, and their right to privacy?
Get this. Fascist HAVE NO RIGHTS (because they grant you none you can really exercise freely, usefully) and that fucking well includes their right to have private, cf. CONSPIRATORIAL, lives.
So Kevin... In light of the above. A question for you.
Is it considered unusual to think politicians need to be held to a HIGHER STANDARD needing DIFFERENT RULES if they're going to have relegated and delegated power over our lives?
RR
On 10/20/2016 11:30 AM, Razer wrote:
On 10/19/2016 12:45 PM, grarpamp wrote:
https://theintercept.com/2016/10/19/is-disclosure-of-podestas-emails-a-step-... youtube-dl https://soundcloud.com/the_intercept/disclosure_glennnaomi_v1
Some news organizations, including The Intercept, have devoted substantial resources to reporting on the newsworthy aspects of the archive of emails of Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta that was published last week by WikiLeaks. Numerous documents from that archive have shed considerable light on the thought processes and previously secret behavior of top Clinton campaign aides and often the candidate herself. While the significance of particular stories has been debated, there is no denying that many of those disclosures offer a valuable glimpse into campaign operatives who currently exercise great political power and who, as of January of next year, are likely to be among the most powerful officials on the planet.
Despite her agreement with those propositions, the author and activist Naomi Klein believes there are serious threats to personal privacy and other critical political values posed by hacks of this sort, particularly when accompanied by the indiscriminate publication of someone’s personal emails.
That's the downside of having power in a corporatist shitstem and it applies to their whore politicians too. Hillary Clinton is a public person in a high profile position. She HAS NO "Personal emails" afaic. Just like a corporate director has to get up at 3 am while in mid-fuck of some prostitute he hired for the night and get on a plane to 'put out a fire' threatening the corporation, someone whose secretary of state or president HAS NO PRIVATE LIFE.
Nor should they.
Rr
-- Kevin Gallagher PhD Candidate, Department of Computer Science New York University Tandon School of Engineering 2 MetroTech Center, 10th Floor Brooklyn, NY 11201 Phone: (757) 202-8961 Email: kevin.gallagher@nyu.edu Key Fingerprint: D02B 25CB 0F7D E276 06C3 BF08 53E4 C50F 8247 4861
On 10/20/2016 09:50 AM, Kevin Gallagher wrote:
Hello Razer,
I actually don't disagree with you at all. I agree with the "transparency for the powerful, privacy for the weak" mindset that is so ingrained in cypherpunk culture. I was just wondering where we draw the line between the powerful and the weak.
For me that line needs to be drawn where the power over one's personal rights is delegated to a government.
There is no doubt in my mind that the criminals currently running for government positions in the U.S. are powerful, and therefore need transparency, but this brings about a few questions in my mind. Is one powerful because they are related to someone who is powerful?
Could be. Neil Bush's bank in South America has quite the chokehold on certain parts of the South American economy. If so, at
what point does the relation become "too distant" for someone to be considered powerful?
What say we use the government's standard for Drone Wars. They kill whole family and tribal blood lines... or try to. Charlie Wilson's Haquannis... al-Awalakis, other members of the bin-Laden family have been killed though I'm not sure of their direct relationship to terrorism. Is there something other than money or political
power that can be considered a source of power? These are just considerations I want to think through, and I was wondering what your take on it was.
Sigh... Theo Roszak proposed that money and power are really just substitutes for, or ways of obtaining, life extension. But that doesn't mean age is considered wealth and power in Capitalist societies (though it sure does in the few undamaged tribal societies left) I ascribe to the idea that accumulation of wealth and political power (which is for the most part the equivalent of social power over society and it's individuals) for the sake of those items dynamic in controlling the continuation of wealth and power (hence social control) in the hands of oneself and one's friends is a pretty good place to begin, anyway. That implies for a start, that the wealth and power aren't shared voluntarily by that group and they conspire to keep it that way (in private). Monarchies and dictatorships are examples. The US is essentially a two faction soft dictatorship. 'Soft' in the sense that the dictators, neuropsychologically preened for media 'candidates' Americans get to select from, have the manufactured consent of of the masses that they have the right to rule.
My question was honestly not meant as a critique of your viewpoint, just a clarification so I can think these ideas through. I'm sorry if it offended you.
No offense... I'm just a little testy about the upcoming two-faction of a one-party state erections, and everyone who actually thinks it matters in any real sense of the word. It's made me a bit defensive.
To answer your question directly: No, that's not unreasonable. I agree with you on it entirely. I just want to consider the implications of things such as family relationships, and where the lines are drawn.
Thanks,
Kevin
On 10/20/2016 12:41 PM, Razer wrote:
On 10/20/2016 08:56 AM, Kevin Gallagher wrote:
This is an interesting argument.
For clarification on your opinion, do their children have private lives or have they been forced into the spotlight based on nothing but who their parents happen to be?
Let me put it this way. The warmongering bitch so-called progressive liberals will vote for probably hahahaha-ed about the drone assassination death of anwar al-Awalaki's 19 year old son who'd never been charged with a crime. (more recently that Yemeni taxicab driver who just happened to pick up the WRONG person)
Does that hint at my answer your question how I feel about the human scum offered up as US dictators-of-corporate policy and their corporatist bffs, and their right to privacy?
Get this. Fascist HAVE NO RIGHTS (because they grant you none you can really exercise freely, usefully) and that fucking well includes their right to have private, cf. CONSPIRATORIAL, lives.
So Kevin... In light of the above. A question for you.
Is it considered unusual to think politicians need to be held to a HIGHER STANDARD needing DIFFERENT RULES if they're going to have relegated and delegated power over our lives?
RR
On 10/20/2016 11:30 AM, Razer wrote:
On 10/19/2016 12:45 PM, grarpamp wrote:
https://theintercept.com/2016/10/19/is-disclosure-of-podestas-emails-a-step-... youtube-dl https://soundcloud.com/the_intercept/disclosure_glennnaomi_v1
Some news organizations, including The Intercept, have devoted substantial resources to reporting on the newsworthy aspects of the archive of emails of Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta that was published last week by WikiLeaks. Numerous documents from that archive have shed considerable light on the thought processes and previously secret behavior of top Clinton campaign aides and often the candidate herself. While the significance of particular stories has been debated, there is no denying that many of those disclosures offer a valuable glimpse into campaign operatives who currently exercise great political power and who, as of January of next year, are likely to be among the most powerful officials on the planet.
Despite her agreement with those propositions, the author and activist Naomi Klein believes there are serious threats to personal privacy and other critical political values posed by hacks of this sort, particularly when accompanied by the indiscriminate publication of someone’s personal emails.
That's the downside of having power in a corporatist shitstem and it applies to their whore politicians too. Hillary Clinton is a public person in a high profile position. She HAS NO "Personal emails" afaic. Just like a corporate director has to get up at 3 am while in mid-fuck of some prostitute he hired for the night and get on a plane to 'put out a fire' threatening the corporation, someone whose secretary of state or president HAS NO PRIVATE LIFE.
Nor should they.
Rr
Thanks for the reply! I will consider these things. The only thing that worries me is the proposal that we use the same criteria as the people we are claiming to be criminals. Implicate the whole family for the sins of one... It just don't seem like an improvement to me. It implies that people who are born to privilege are incapable of seeing the problems with the system and escaping it. I'm not sure that's the best way, but at the moment I don't yet have an alternative, so I will just think about it for a while. Thanks, Kevin On 10/20/2016 01:16 PM, Razer wrote:
On 10/20/2016 09:50 AM, Kevin Gallagher wrote:
Hello Razer,
I actually don't disagree with you at all. I agree with the "transparency for the powerful, privacy for the weak" mindset that is so ingrained in cypherpunk culture. I was just wondering where we draw the line between the powerful and the weak.
For me that line needs to be drawn where the power over one's personal rights is delegated to a government.
There is no doubt in my mind that the criminals currently running for government positions in the U.S. are powerful, and therefore need transparency, but this brings about a few questions in my mind. Is one powerful because they are related to someone who is powerful?
Could be. Neil Bush's bank in South America has quite the chokehold on certain parts of the South American economy.
If so, at
what point does the relation become "too distant" for someone to be considered powerful?
What say we use the government's standard for Drone Wars. They kill whole family and tribal blood lines... or try to.
Charlie Wilson's Haquannis... al-Awalakis, other members of the bin-Laden family have been killed though I'm not sure of their direct relationship to terrorism.
Is there something other than money or political
power that can be considered a source of power? These are just considerations I want to think through, and I was wondering what your take on it was. Sigh... Theo Roszak proposed that money and power are really just substitutes for, or ways of obtaining, life extension. But that doesn't mean age is considered wealth and power in Capitalist societies (though it sure does in the few undamaged tribal societies left)
I ascribe to the idea that accumulation of wealth and political power (which is for the most part the equivalent of social power over society and it's individuals) for the sake of those items dynamic in controlling the continuation of wealth and power (hence social control) in the hands of oneself and one's friends is a pretty good place to begin, anyway.
That implies for a start, that the wealth and power aren't shared voluntarily by that group and they conspire to keep it that way (in private). Monarchies and dictatorships are examples. The US is essentially a two faction soft dictatorship. 'Soft' in the sense that the dictators, neuropsychologically preened for media 'candidates' Americans get to select from, have the manufactured consent of of the masses that they have the right to rule.
My question was honestly not meant as a critique of your viewpoint, just a clarification so I can think these ideas through. I'm sorry if it offended you.
No offense... I'm just a little testy about the upcoming two-faction of a one-party state erections, and everyone who actually thinks it matters in any real sense of the word. It's made me a bit defensive.
To answer your question directly: No, that's not unreasonable. I agree with you on it entirely. I just want to consider the implications of things such as family relationships, and where the lines are drawn.
Thanks,
Kevin
On 10/20/2016 12:41 PM, Razer wrote:
On 10/20/2016 08:56 AM, Kevin Gallagher wrote:
This is an interesting argument.
For clarification on your opinion, do their children have private lives or have they been forced into the spotlight based on nothing but who their parents happen to be?
Let me put it this way. The warmongering bitch so-called progressive liberals will vote for probably hahahaha-ed about the drone assassination death of anwar al-Awalaki's 19 year old son who'd never been charged with a crime. (more recently that Yemeni taxicab driver who just happened to pick up the WRONG person)
Does that hint at my answer your question how I feel about the human scum offered up as US dictators-of-corporate policy and their corporatist bffs, and their right to privacy?
Get this. Fascist HAVE NO RIGHTS (because they grant you none you can really exercise freely, usefully) and that fucking well includes their right to have private, cf. CONSPIRATORIAL, lives.
So Kevin... In light of the above. A question for you.
Is it considered unusual to think politicians need to be held to a HIGHER STANDARD needing DIFFERENT RULES if they're going to have relegated and delegated power over our lives?
RR
On 10/20/2016 11:30 AM, Razer wrote:
On 10/19/2016 12:45 PM, grarpamp wrote:
https://theintercept.com/2016/10/19/is-disclosure-of-podestas-emails-a-step-... youtube-dl https://soundcloud.com/the_intercept/disclosure_glennnaomi_v1
Some news organizations, including The Intercept, have devoted substantial resources to reporting on the newsworthy aspects of the archive of emails of Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta that was published last week by WikiLeaks. Numerous documents from that archive have shed considerable light on the thought processes and previously secret behavior of top Clinton campaign aides and often the candidate herself. While the significance of particular stories has been debated, there is no denying that many of those disclosures offer a valuable glimpse into campaign operatives who currently exercise great political power and who, as of January of next year, are likely to be among the most powerful officials on the planet.
Despite her agreement with those propositions, the author and activist Naomi Klein believes there are serious threats to personal privacy and other critical political values posed by hacks of this sort, particularly when accompanied by the indiscriminate publication of someone’s personal emails.
That's the downside of having power in a corporatist shitstem and it applies to their whore politicians too. Hillary Clinton is a public person in a high profile position. She HAS NO "Personal emails" afaic. Just like a corporate director has to get up at 3 am while in mid-fuck of some prostitute he hired for the night and get on a plane to 'put out a fire' threatening the corporation, someone whose secretary of state or president HAS NO PRIVATE LIFE.
Nor should they.
Rr
-- Kevin Gallagher PhD Candidate, Department of Computer Science New York University Tandon School of Engineering 2 MetroTech Center, 10th Floor Brooklyn, NY 11201 Phone: (757) 202-8961 Email: kevin.gallagher@nyu.edu Key Fingerprint: D02B 25CB 0F7D E276 06C3 BF08 53E4 C50F 8247 4861
On 10/20/2016 10:26 AM, Kevin Gallagher wrote:
Thanks for the reply! I will consider these things.
The only thing that worries me is the proposal that we use the same criteria as the people we are claiming to be criminals. Implicate the whole family for the sins of one... It just don't seem like an improvement to me.
It isn't. But it's a starting point to hold the people who accumulate power for self-advantage (ie psychopaths) accountable for their power by not allowing them a right to wield that power without panopticon-like observation. It implies that people who are born to privilege are
incapable of seeing the problems with the system and escaping it.
Some people 'escape'. It's usually glaring obvious who those people are, and there aren't many. Even fewer manage to avoid falling back into that comfortable 'nest' of affluence. I'm
not sure that's the best way, but at the moment I don't yet have an alternative, so I will just think about it for a while.
We need to start somewhere. Start with the people who have the power and have the ability to violate OUR privacy at their government-legitimized whim. Let's get some equality between the gander and the goose so to speak, or OUR gooses get cooked. Recently there's been a reporting, by the Intercept and ACLU notably, about the violation of NODAPL's privacy and safety by COINTELPRO-like ops and data gathering on activists by, ahem, Cloudflare, and others. Leonard Peltier, in his letter of support for the Sacred Stone encampment made a POINT of warning everyone that the end result of that sort of domestic spying may create more "Leonard Peltiers". The same is very true for the BlackLivesMatter folks. They COULD very much end um the next gen of "Geronimo Pratts" and other Black Panthers. Imprisoned for decades for crimes they had no part in because the government was able to fabricate 'circumstances'. I suspect the Useful Idiot organization New Black Panthers are tasked with that endeavor whether they understand it or not. Rr
Thanks,
Kevin
On 10/20/2016 01:16 PM, Razer wrote:
On 10/20/2016 09:50 AM, Kevin Gallagher wrote:
Hello Razer,
I actually don't disagree with you at all. I agree with the "transparency for the powerful, privacy for the weak" mindset that is so ingrained in cypherpunk culture. I was just wondering where we draw the line between the powerful and the weak.
For me that line needs to be drawn where the power over one's personal rights is delegated to a government.
There is no doubt in my mind that the criminals currently running for government positions in the U.S. are powerful, and therefore need transparency, but this brings about a few questions in my mind. Is one powerful because they are related to someone who is powerful?
Could be. Neil Bush's bank in South America has quite the chokehold on certain parts of the South American economy.
If so, at
what point does the relation become "too distant" for someone to be considered powerful?
What say we use the government's standard for Drone Wars. They kill whole family and tribal blood lines... or try to.
Charlie Wilson's Haquannis... al-Awalakis, other members of the bin-Laden family have been killed though I'm not sure of their direct relationship to terrorism.
Is there something other than money or political
power that can be considered a source of power? These are just considerations I want to think through, and I was wondering what your take on it was. Sigh... Theo Roszak proposed that money and power are really just substitutes for, or ways of obtaining, life extension. But that doesn't mean age is considered wealth and power in Capitalist societies (though it sure does in the few undamaged tribal societies left)
I ascribe to the idea that accumulation of wealth and political power (which is for the most part the equivalent of social power over society and it's individuals) for the sake of those items dynamic in controlling the continuation of wealth and power (hence social control) in the hands of oneself and one's friends is a pretty good place to begin, anyway.
That implies for a start, that the wealth and power aren't shared voluntarily by that group and they conspire to keep it that way (in private). Monarchies and dictatorships are examples. The US is essentially a two faction soft dictatorship. 'Soft' in the sense that the dictators, neuropsychologically preened for media 'candidates' Americans get to select from, have the manufactured consent of of the masses that they have the right to rule.
My question was honestly not meant as a critique of your viewpoint, just a clarification so I can think these ideas through. I'm sorry if it offended you.
No offense... I'm just a little testy about the upcoming two-faction of a one-party state erections, and everyone who actually thinks it matters in any real sense of the word. It's made me a bit defensive.
To answer your question directly: No, that's not unreasonable. I agree with you on it entirely. I just want to consider the implications of things such as family relationships, and where the lines are drawn.
Thanks,
Kevin
On 10/20/2016 12:41 PM, Razer wrote:
On 10/20/2016 08:56 AM, Kevin Gallagher wrote:
This is an interesting argument.
For clarification on your opinion, do their children have private lives or have they been forced into the spotlight based on nothing but who their parents happen to be?
Let me put it this way. The warmongering bitch so-called progressive liberals will vote for probably hahahaha-ed about the drone assassination death of anwar al-Awalaki's 19 year old son who'd never been charged with a crime. (more recently that Yemeni taxicab driver who just happened to pick up the WRONG person)
Does that hint at my answer your question how I feel about the human scum offered up as US dictators-of-corporate policy and their corporatist bffs, and their right to privacy?
Get this. Fascist HAVE NO RIGHTS (because they grant you none you can really exercise freely, usefully) and that fucking well includes their right to have private, cf. CONSPIRATORIAL, lives.
So Kevin... In light of the above. A question for you.
Is it considered unusual to think politicians need to be held to a HIGHER STANDARD needing DIFFERENT RULES if they're going to have relegated and delegated power over our lives?
RR
On 10/20/2016 11:30 AM, Razer wrote:
On 10/19/2016 12:45 PM, grarpamp wrote: > https://theintercept.com/2016/10/19/is-disclosure-of-podestas-emails-a-step-... > youtube-dl https://soundcloud.com/the_intercept/disclosure_glennnaomi_v1 > > Some news organizations, including The Intercept, have devoted > substantial resources to reporting on the newsworthy aspects of the > archive of emails of Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta that was > published last week by WikiLeaks. Numerous documents from that archive > have shed considerable light on the thought processes and previously > secret behavior of top Clinton campaign aides and often the candidate > herself. While the significance of particular stories has been > debated, there is no denying that many of those disclosures offer a > valuable glimpse into campaign operatives who currently exercise great > political power and who, as of January of next year, are likely to be > among the most powerful officials on the planet. > > Despite her agreement with those propositions, the author and activist > Naomi Klein believes there are serious threats to personal privacy and > other critical political values posed by hacks of this sort, > particularly when accompanied by the indiscriminate publication of > someone’s personal emails. > That's the downside of having power in a corporatist shitstem and it applies to their whore politicians too. Hillary Clinton is a public person in a high profile position. She HAS NO "Personal emails" afaic. Just like a corporate director has to get up at 3 am while in mid-fuck of some prostitute he hired for the night and get on a plane to 'put out a fire' threatening the corporation, someone whose secretary of state or president HAS NO PRIVATE LIFE.
Nor should they.
Rr
On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 12:41 PM, Razer <rayzer@riseup.net> wrote:
Is it considered unusual to think politicians need to be held to a HIGHER STANDARD needing DIFFERENT RULES if they're going to have relegated and delegated power over our lives?
Don't forget another type... engineered power. One example... In the US since the late 1980's, the glorified "debates", aka: a few minutes each of useless drivel spread over an hour or so, the only same room convos people are allowed to see, perhaps the defining moments in American Politics before the elections themselves... are a joint scam created and run by the two big parties under exclusive and secret contracts. They designed the rules to exclude all other candidates, and disallow their own candidates to participate in any other outside debates, such as the one occurring on October 25. There's not been a third party american presidente since 1870... that's 150 years of scam. And the US Congress is similarly partied out. All under the same circle jerk style agreements. They win, You lose. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_&_Equal_Elections_Foundation http://freeandequal.org/2016/10/free-and-equals-presidential-debate-will-be-... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commission_on_Presidential_Debates http://www.nytimes.com/1987/02/19/us/democrats-and-republicans-form-panel-to... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election_debates https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election_debates,_2... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens'_Debate_Commission
On 10/20/2016 09:57 PM, grarpamp wrote:
On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 12:41 PM, Razer <rayzer@riseup.net> wrote:
Is it considered unusual to think politicians need to be held to a HIGHER STANDARD needing DIFFERENT RULES if they're going to have relegated and delegated power over our lives?
Don't forget another type... engineered power. One example...
Not to pick the fly feces out of the pepper. Engineering, social (which covers a lot of ground you know? Like engineered economics ... neuropsycholgical programming through advertising, shiny toys easy revolving credit, lifelong consumer debt slavery) is how you get people to relegate... Creating a politics where ... how did Ben Franklin put it?
And of what kind are the men that will strive for this profitable pre-eminence, through all the bustle of cabal, the heat of contention, the infinite mutual abuse of parties, tearing to pieces the best of characters? It will not be the wise and moderate; the Iovers of peace and good order, the men fittest for the trust. It will be the bold and the violent, the men of strong passions and indefatigable activity in their selfish pursuits. These will thrust themselves into your Government and be your rulers.
...where no one EXCEPT total psychopathic scumbuckets would participate is another kind of engineering. Franklin said the act of PAYING people to be executives in government alone would be enough to accomplish that engineering feat. He DOES go on...
And these too will be mistaken in the expected happiness of their situation: For their vanquished competitors of the same spirit, and from the aame motives will perpetually be edeavouring to distress their administration, thwart their measures, and render them odious to the people.
Opposition to Executive Salaries (June 2 1787), Antifederalist papers http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/documents/1786-1800/the-anti-federalist-papers/opp...
In the US since the late 1980's, the glorified "debates", aka: a few minutes each of useless drivel spread over an hour or so, the only same room convos people are allowed to see, perhaps the defining moments in American Politics before the elections themselves... are a joint scam created and run by the two big parties under exclusive and secret contracts. They designed the rules to exclude all other candidates, and disallow their own candidates to participate in any other outside debates, such as the one occurring on October 25. There's not been a third party american presidente since 1870... that's 150 years of scam. And the US Congress is similarly partied out. All under the same circle jerk style agreements. They win, You lose.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_&_Equal_Elections_Foundation http://freeandequal.org/2016/10/free-and-equals-presidential-debate-will-be-... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commission_on_Presidential_Debates http://www.nytimes.com/1987/02/19/us/democrats-and-republicans-form-panel-to... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election_debates https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election_debates,_2... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens'_Debate_Commission
For clarification on your opinion, do their children have private lives or have they been forced into the spotlight based on nothing but who their parents happen to be?
It would be hard to find anyone that would not agree with a strong sense that kids should always held private.
applies to their whore politicians too. Hillary Clinton is a public person in a high profile position. She HAS NO "Personal emails" afaic.
There is the question of who should be doing the review and marking... as to private/personal be it "recipes, kids, tv", "shop talk with buddies over beer, including deep politics", and actual work... the high profile person? their staff? some independant body? the public? The answer, balance, and trust there may come in seeing how transparent they choose to be regarding their actual work. Wrapping their official work and after parties in secret by default... Well, there you have your answer.
On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 08:30:44AM -0700, Razer wrote:
On 10/19/2016 12:45 PM, grarpamp wrote:
https://theintercept.com/2016/10/19/is-disclosure-of-podestas-emails-a-step-... youtube-dl https://soundcloud.com/the_intercept/disclosure_glennnaomi_v1
Some news organizations, including The Intercept, have devoted substantial resources to reporting on the newsworthy aspects of the archive of emails of Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta that was published last week by WikiLeaks. Numerous documents from that archive have shed considerable light on the thought processes and previously secret behavior of top Clinton campaign aides and often the candidate herself. While the significance of particular stories has been debated, there is no denying that many of those disclosures offer a valuable glimpse into campaign operatives who currently exercise great political power and who, as of January of next year, are likely to be among the most powerful officials on the planet.
Despite her agreement with those propositions, the author and activist Naomi Klein believes there are serious threats to personal privacy and other critical political values posed by hacks of this sort, particularly when accompanied by the indiscriminate publication of someone’s personal emails.
That's the downside of having power in a corporatist shitstem and it applies to their whore politicians too. Hillary Clinton is a public person in a high profile position. She HAS NO "Personal emails" afaic. Just like a corporate director has to get up at 3 am while in mid-fuck of some prostitute he hired for the night and get on a plane to 'put out a fire' threatening the corporation, someone whose secretary of state or president HAS NO PRIVATE LIFE.
Nor should they.
May be Trump with his love to "drain the swamp", would consider all government expenditure as a valid, legitimate target for fully detailed, transaction by transaction, publication? Including of course direct (government bodies, individuals) and indirect (all private and corporate contractors etc) payments. Every expense, every receipt for everything - although perhaps excepting payment to prostitutes?
On 10/20/2016 04:12 PM, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
May be Trump with his love to "drain the swamp", would consider all government expenditure as a valid, legitimate target for fully detailed, transaction by transaction, publication?
He'll run the US government just like he runs his businesses. Intentionally opaque... blacked out.You won't know he's totally fucking peter-principled and his advisors, like the econ advisor whose a director for a hedge fund that thinks the fund's benefit is more important than a retirement accountholder's, will run the show. Hillary Clinton is even scarier. The only vote truly worth casting is a 'none of the above' vote leaving the 'victor' ruling the US government and it's people with 5% or so of eligible US voters having voted for the winner, and insurrection in the streets. It can't come soon enough. Rr
On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 08:30:44AM -0700, Razer wrote:
On 10/19/2016 12:45 PM, grarpamp wrote:
https://theintercept.com/2016/10/19/is-disclosure-of-podestas-emails-a-step-... youtube-dl https://soundcloud.com/the_intercept/disclosure_glennnaomi_v1
Some news organizations, including The Intercept, have devoted substantial resources to reporting on the newsworthy aspects of the archive of emails of Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta that was published last week by WikiLeaks. Numerous documents from that archive have shed considerable light on the thought processes and previously secret behavior of top Clinton campaign aides and often the candidate herself. While the significance of particular stories has been debated, there is no denying that many of those disclosures offer a valuable glimpse into campaign operatives who currently exercise great political power and who, as of January of next year, are likely to be among the most powerful officials on the planet.
Despite her agreement with those propositions, the author and activist Naomi Klein believes there are serious threats to personal privacy and other critical political values posed by hacks of this sort, particularly when accompanied by the indiscriminate publication of someone’s personal emails.
That's the downside of having power in a corporatist shitstem and it applies to their whore politicians too. Hillary Clinton is a public person in a high profile position. She HAS NO "Personal emails" afaic. Just like a corporate director has to get up at 3 am while in mid-fuck of some prostitute he hired for the night and get on a plane to 'put out a fire' threatening the corporation, someone whose secretary of state or president HAS NO PRIVATE LIFE.
Nor should they.
May be Trump with his love to "drain the swamp", would consider all government expenditure as a valid, legitimate target for fully detailed, transaction by transaction, publication? Including of course direct (government bodies, individuals) and indirect (all private and corporate contractors etc) payments. Every expense, every receipt for everything - although perhaps excepting payment to prostitutes?
participants (5)
-
grarpamp -
jim bell -
Kevin Gallagher -
Razer -
Zenaan Harkness