Snowden defends mega spy blab: 'Public affairs have to be known by the public' Master spy blabbermouth Edward Snowden defended his NSA whistleblowing actions to the Council of Europe today. He told the human rights' parliamentary assembly in Strasbourg, via video link from Moscow, that he had a "personal duty to country, government and family" to reveal details about snooping methods employed by the US …
"Of course he does, once he has served his jail term for treason etc. Then he can live free,"
Well said.. I've said this before (and been flamed for it) but I'll say it again (and surely be flamed again) but what he did was an act of betrayal and he should be punished for it, not publicly lauded as some sort of hero.
Here's a timely thought....just over 60 years ago, the British government covertly acquired holiday photographs from members of the public, under the guise of a photography competition. The real reason was to get intelligence on what the beaches of Normandy looked like up close.
Let's say that you were alive back then, and knew about this ruse. What would you do? Shout about it in public? "It's a lie! There's no photography competition! The government are secretly gathering information to help them plan an invasion of Normandy!"
So AC, you think that today's world is just like WWII when Hitler was crushing people across Europe and committing genocide on those groups he did not like?
If you feel so happy about mass surveillance and gov organisations that act as if they are beyond the reach of the law, why are you posting as AC? Fancy a bit of privacy, perhaps?
Suppose the government in the 1930s had been gathering holiday photos so it had evidence of you kissing somebody in public.
Just so that if you said anything nasty about the Germans ( and so compromised the chances of British industry getting the contracts for those new shower blocks) it would have something to leak to the tabloids.
@YAAC
Your comment would hold if the authorities were specifically looking at somebody. The mass surveillance is not actively looking at people by the million, just establishing a cache of information.
If Mr Snowden were really in full disclosure mode, he would tell us how the authorities use that cache of information when the need arises.How do they search efficiently? How do the distinguish J Smith (Jack) from J Smith (John). Or Mahomet from Mohammed from Muhamed?
Lots of interesting data processing questions here, and there is a genuine public interest in how well it is being done.
"Let's say that you were alive back then, and knew about this ruse. What would you do? Shout about it in public?"
No, because we were in a shooting war, the details would be specific and the operation gathered crucial military intelligence on the enemy.
Whereas Snowdon revealed fairly non-specific details of a government spying on its own people during peacetime.
Apples != Oranges.
Here's a timely thought....just over 60 years ago, the British government covertly acquired holiday photographs from members of the public, under the guise of a photography competition. The real reason was to get intelligence on what the beaches of Normandy looked like up close.
You are incorrect: there was no fake photography competition and there was nothing covert about the way the photographs were acquired - quite the opposite - the Government broadcast an appeal over the radio. Of course the German forces knew exactly what was going on, however they were unable to determine which were the intended invasion beaches because the public were asked for photographs of any French beach. And if you think about it for a moment, this makes perfect sense, because then there would be pictures of secondary choices should the main ones have turned out to be unsuitable for whatever reason.
@ Jail sentence AC,
Right, because Snowden gave away to Al Qaeda a combat operation involving thousands if our troops. No wait, he didn't do that. Well, then he gave away an operation devoted to penetrating major terror groups communications. Well, actually he didn't do that either.
What he did give away was a worldwide network of surveillance that looks at and records the communication of ALL people, ostensibly in the hopes it can find a few terrorists. That network, and the secrecy around how it is used and can be used is a far more grave threat to our democracy than Al Qaeda can ever hope to be.
Disingenuous, false-analogy, NSA bast ard!
The "war on terrorism" is like the "war on drugs:" unnecessary, politically-motivated bullsh it. There is no "Normandy invasion" that Snowden damaged.
All he did was tell us that you record all our Google searches, record where we are every day, all the time using our cell phones, record everything we say online, keep records of everyone we call on the telephone, and inject spyware viruses into our computers.
I also happen to know that you that you read every one of our emails with a computer and analyze it t see if we say anything "interesting" to the government. I know because I did work in natural language recognition and I was almost hired to reduce the flood of false positives forwarded to your human secret agents. The guy who interviewed me took me to a bar that night, got real drunk, talked too much while bragging about his work, and wanted to fu ck me. (He could have, if he had been direct about it and not so drunk. Any man can do literally anything he wants to me).
After ten years of this illegal outrage, not a single terrorist has been stopped.
That's not "Normandy," assh ole. That's unconstitutional domestic spying. You people belong in PRISON.
Tell the NSA disinformation section to try harder.
-faye kane ♀ girl brain
On a simple point of fact - Snowden isn't charged with treason. The indictment against him doesn't mention that. And given the constitutional definition, it would be really hard to make such a charge stick.
By all means try him for "theft of gov't property, unauthorized communication of national defense information and willful [sic] communication of classified communications intelligence information to an unauthorized person". Let's have that trial - in public, with a jury. Then if he's convicted on those charges, the president can pardon him and we can all get on with our lives with a clearer conscience.
Not from the current administration, abuse of the Constitution is rampant there. Tapping AP reporters phones, putting the IRS to work onpolitical enemies, the bonuses to the VA managers while vets died because of cooked lists, the Benghazi lies where Americans died, trading 5 top terrorists for a deserter, it goes on...
And with each new scandal, Obama claims he just heard about it, is mad as hell and he will get to the bottom of it...
Let the downvote orgy begin, but Snowden will never get a pardon...
But he did the right thing, I applaud him!
Unfortunately, with the NSA/GCHQ and other intelligence agencies thinking themselves above the law, its going to be BAU for them and their surveillance methods. After all, if they can twist their laws around to assassinate one of their own citizens, they are basically free to do what they want.
"Unfortunately, with the NSA/GCHQ and other intelligence agencies thinking themselves above the law, its going to be BAU for them"
That is NOT the problem, nor the case.
The Agencies do not consider themselves ABOVE the law: They consider themselves working fully inside it and have been cleared to do so by the judiciary.
And THAT is the problem.
NAS and the rest don't care and don't think they can do anything wrong. So BAU as far as they can manage.
The only thing that has changed is companies that were happy to install a secret NSA tap in exchange for a bag of money now find that it's costing them money and even if they say there is no tap no one will believe them since that is what they would have to say if there was a tap. So we have US companies fighting the secret gag orders because it's costing them money.
There is no evidence of any consequence in the documents released either by Edward Snowden or later by the U. S. government that the NSA thinks it is above the law. Taken as a whole they reveal extensive surveillance programs, some of them applied to domestic communications, that in addition to being approved within by the agency's legal counsel were approved by the Department of Justice (and presumably, in general terms, by the President). The programs were held by the FISC to be lawful in most cases, and appear to have been terminated or modified when not. Program operation, including errors and excesses, were reported regularly to the DoJ and FISC.
In the search for bad guys we have tended to narrow the search rather too early and too much. To the extent there is a problem, it affects a major part of the Executive branch, a rotating and rather extensive group of Federal judges who serve on the FISC and its appeals court as additional duty. And that is before even considering the Legislative branch, which passed and re-passed the enabling laws. Whether they did so unknowingly, as some of the members now claim is largely immaterial, although I respect them less, as such statements show rather clearly that they were insufficiently attentive to their proper duties.
Last, of course, are the voters who elected both the President and the legislators, mainly on the basis of largely hollow promises to distribute benefits to all. And the voters are the same, more or less, as those who cheerfully share their personal information with Google, Facebook, Bing, Yahoo, Twitter, and other social media sites.
Things may be different in the UK with GCHQ, but aside from relatively inconsequential details I rather doubt it.
We begin therefore where they are determined not to end, with the question whether any form of democratic self-government, anywhere, is consistent with the kind of massive, pervasive, surveillance into which the Unites States government has led not only us but the world.
This should not actually be a complicated inquiry.
http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/may/27/-sp-privacy-under-attack-nsa-files-revealed-new-threats-democracy
http://www.bbc.co.uk/democracylive/europe-24385999
Surveillance is not an end toward totalitarianism, it is totalitarianism itself.
Hey, I'm quite happy to put my name (well, nom de plume) to a statement saying that, IMHO, Snowjob is a traitor and a criminal. I also don't care how many sheeple downvote it. Indeed, I would encourage them for three reasons - first, it is democratic for them to bleat their opinions; secondly, it is amusing; and thirdly, it simply confirms the following theory.
Simply put, the more intelligent and better earning a couple in the West are the less children they have (even the Lefties have noticed http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/07/smart-women-not-having-kids). Meanwhile, those of lower intelligence and limited or no income breed away with abandon. Socialism is always the politics of the low-income earners (and slackers), and as they outbreed and outnumber the intelligent so increases the levels of sheepleness. As the average level of intelligence drops so increases the levels of Leftiness. Such sheeple are always envying those that simply do better than them and therefore jump at the opportunity to rail at 'The Establishment'/ 'The Man'/ 'the bankers', etc, who they blame for all their failures. Hence their support for Snowjob and hence the large number of sheeple that will down vote this post, even though in doing so they are merely confirming their intellectual deficit.
Enjoy!
I think you will find it is the smart ones who are concerned by the over-reaching mind set of NSA/GCHQ/etc.
The dumb one of which you speak are too busy watching Big Brother/TOWIE/Geordie-whatever to care about that is being done in their name.
Have a down-vote, we all know you need some masochistic pleasure now you don't have Sun Microsystems to rant about.
"I think you will find it is the smart ones who are concerned by the over-reaching mind set of NSA/GCHQ/etc....." Definitely not going by the hysterical bleating you find on all the NSA related threads. Snowjob himself has always maintained the program's were all targeted and filtered, yet the sheeple post here such silliness as 'we are all being SPIED ON', 'we are all being HARMED'.
"....Have a down-vote, we all know you need some masochistic pleasure now you don't have Sun Microsystems to rant about." Did you miss Snoreacle's recent attempt to boost flagging software sales by buying a till vendor, in an attempt to force more of the same unpopular software on companies? Any of the Sun hardware engineers still left there must be crying at the idea of their decline from enterprise server designers to cashier 'specialists'. There's still plenty of post-Sun fun to be had with the ongoing tales of Snoreacle's hardware woes!
Downvoted.
Specific genetic disorders excepted, there is no real evidence that the less well-off whom you assume to be of below standard intelligence have children inherently less intelligent than the successful and well-off of whom you assume high intelligence.
And clearly worth another few downvotes for "Snowjob", "sheeple", and similar.
"....there is no real evidence that the less well-off whom you assume to be of below standard intelligence have children inherently less intelligent than the successful and well-off of whom you assume high intelligence....." Not so, your IQ is primarily inherited, just like looks and physical capability. Upbringing and education can be a minor factor, but not really enough to change the fact that if your parents are below the curve then you're just about guaranteed to be. And then there is a correlation between IQ and earnings - simply put, smarter people usually earn more. Don't worry, it's drummed into people at school nowadays to be anti-elitist, that we're all 'born equal', that all kids 'can be winners', but the reality is some kids are going to be smarter and grow up to earn more money just as some can run faster or are simply better looking. Think back to your school days, do you deny there were smarter kids in your class and those you simply never expected to amount to much? Nature simply doesn't do equal, it would be counter to evolution if we were all created actually equally capable.
So, if you accept evolution and genetic inheritance, and therefore that we are all not equal and do inherit many if our traits from our parents, then we are going to see smarter people earning more and in turn having smarter offspring who will also grow up to be higher earners. These are the people for whom the system works, therefore they are usually also the ones who have least interest in changing the system. However, those below the curve often seem to think the system 'fails them' (rather than they just failing to take best advantage of what the system offers), so for them the idea of 'tearing down' the system finds greatest appeal. Anything they can relate to 'The Man' or 'The Establishment' automatically becomes a tool of oppression in their conviction that they are being 'oppressed'. Being able to blame everything on 'oppressors' means they don't have to take personal responsibility for their choices. What better way to explain how you just can't get ahead than a 'secret system' that spies on you and is designed to keep you down?
So, as the high earners are breeding at a slower rate than the less able, unless those under the curve can be educated to be more capable then the average level of intelligence falls with every generation. The problem is we have also given in to a social meme that education is 'not cool', that to be smart or work hard is to be a 'geek' or 'nerd'. Hence we end up with a load of trendy herd-followers that simply bleat what they have been told is 'cool', as evidenced by many of the posts in these forums.
Earning is a distinctly imperfect proxy for intelligence. Of the many reasons that individuals have different incomes, intelligence is one. Others include personal choice of occupation, education and its availability, obligations assumed, e. g., to care for spouse, siblings, or parents, various kinds of discrimination (favorable and unfavorable), ambition (or its lack), luck, and doubtless others.
And while the genetic component of intelligence appears to be rather high, IQ, which is the basis for most studies that reach this conclusion, does not by quite a ways measure everything we can reasonably think part of "intelligence".
The point about uncoolness of eduction is well taken, but over the first 20 or 30 years of adulthood might not correlate well with either intelligence or economic success.
Matt,
I've upvoted you because I think you're largely right that IQ typically follows family lines. Continuous lifetime exposure to highly intelligent people should logically ensure you gather more of your potential IQ; conitnuous exposure to chavs that hate education, disrespect intelligence, and have no greater ambition than a slot on big brother is unlikely to help the same child fulfill as much of their potential.
However, IQ is not truly an indicator of likely lifetime earnings. I'd argue my dad is smarter than I am - he's certainly better at maths. He broke his arm on the way to the 11+, so spent most of his years as a factory worker.
I had supportive parents, and was lucky enough to pick a hobby that later became a highly paid career. I pay more in taxes than my parents ever earned.... But I'll never be smarter than my dad.
Equally, I'll not earn as much per year as Jade Goody did, but I'd have put good money on my being smarter.
"....I'd argue my dad is smarter than I am - he's certainly better at maths. He broke his arm on the way to the 11+, so spent most of his years as a factory worker....." In that case, what do you think he could have achieved if he hadn't broken his arm? You also mention that you had supportive parents, I'm guessing they also encouraged you to stand on your own two feet?
".....I'll not earn as much per year as Jade Goody did...." Not really a good comparison as, when their fifteen minutes are up, such 'celebs' face having to live off the income from their fifteens minutes or be declared bankrupt. Even relative stars, such as Martine McClutcheon, who had a musical career as well as TV, films, stage acting and even as an authoress, can slip up and end up bankrupt (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-21429928).
".....there is no real evidence that the less well-off whom you assume to be of below standard intelligence have children inherently less intelligent than the successful and well-off of whom you assume high intelligence....." Read more factual matter and less of the socio-political blogs.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inheritance_of_intelligence
http://www.brainskills.co.uk/IsIntelligenceInherited.html
http://haileyburypsychology.edublogs.org/files/2012/02/Genetic-Inheritance-and-Intelligence-2bc8o5q.doc
Intelligence is inherited. If you follow the nature-vs-nurture argument, if you inherit a low IQ then you stand a chance of increasing it by 'nurturing' (such as encouraging education). Now, do you want to try and deny thick people are less likely to get a good job than smart people? And if thick kids grow up in an environment where the attitude is 'study is for nerds', they are not going to progress through 'nurturing' and will therefore have less economic opportunities as kids from better off families that will expect and encourage their kids to study and make something of themselves. So, those at the bottom will breed kids that will stay at the bottom, those that encourage their kids to take advantage of the opportunities offered by education should push them up the ladder, but it's more likely the kids at the top will stay at the top (unless Daddy marries a model). If the smart Mums at the top end are not having as many kids as those at the bottom, it's a simple mathematical fact that the population's average intelligence will decline over time.
Yes, I know, it's just not PC and you really want it to not to be true, but it still is. Nature doesn't give a fudge about being PC. Have a down vote for being a sheeple.
So, if you want to call me an arse, which bit of the theory do you wish to disagree with? I do notice you seemed a bit short on actual counter theorems.
Do you really want to pretend all the kids at your school were equally good runners, were the same height, or were equally good looking? That some kids worked hard in class and others jerked around and played the fool instead? If you can't deny that then why do you find it so hard to accept that some of those kids were also smarter and destined to make better lives for themselves? More amusingly, why is it that you wouldn't want to accept that idea? Some people seem to be very ingrained with the strange idea that they should be guilty of their own successes and make excuses for the failings of others. If you can accept that smart people are going to have smarter kids as a simple genetic fact, and that smarter people are having less kids than those under the curve, then it is simple mathematics to see that can only mean an overall decline in IQ with time.
Or do you wish to dispute that Socialism is primarily a 'faith' of the poor? Sure, there are some rich types that pay lip service to the faith, such as Al Gore, but they seem more intent on making money off the gullibility of the faithful. So, the population gets less intellectually-capable as the 'underclass' outgrows the smarter and richer, and therefore you get the growth in Socialism. More Socialist sheeple means more likelihood of them flocking to these forums, especially seeing as the site has moved from being a primarily technical one.
Matt, I think you raise some valid points, but you come across as an arse. This detracts from the intellectual validity of your arguments.
One of the things you find if you care to look past labels such as Socialism, or as you prefer, 'Lefties' is that poorer people tend to care more about the people around them than wealthy people do. Wealthier people tend to be more focused on themselves, their family, and their firm than their community. These are generalisations, true, but they drive the behaviours that you describe. People thinking solely about their own situation, you might describe as free thinkers and intelligent, whereas you label those who have a different perspective with a demeaning title such as Sheeple. (Or, it may be that demeaning other people makes you feel temporarily superior, I don't know). People who care only about themselves will often forgo children to "get ahead" in their careers. In my opinion, this shows a lack of the intelligence you claim for them, as unless they are doing it for themselves, they're being cruelly exploited by the truly wealthy with the lure of success.
To assert that poor people are less intelligent or uglier than the wealthy is laughable at best and insulting in reality, and smacks of eugenics. My children went to private schools and I can tell you that there were some remarkably stupid and/or ugly children (and parents) at those schools. I'm a self-made man from an "underclass" background and according to your theory, there's no way my daughter would have been proxime accessit at the most prestigious girl's school in this country. I, as a now relatively well-off man, would also be expected to eschew any notions of wacky leftiness so that I don't become a Sheeple. On the contrary, I am a firm believer that we need to look after one another as a society, and that selfishness, narcissism, and a 'greed is good' mentality is what builds divisions and divisiveness in societies. Thankfully there are still lots of intelligent people having children - even if they don't fit into the social strata you'd expect them to.
I agree with you that people are not born the same. However, people also get different opportunities in life. I started out in your fiscal underclass but was lucky enough to be in the right place at the right time more than once, and worked really hard to achieve what I wanted to. Other people I know made bad choices or didn't get a choice, and thereby are less well off financially but are not necessarily less happy. You seem to be stuck in this 'poor people are dumb, and dumb people are lefties' mentality. I challenge you to look harder. Loads of dumb people buy into capitalism, and loads of very dumb people buy into extreme 'right wing' ideology.
I also see a different outcome to what you term a growth in Socialism. What you really describe is a growth in inequality, and historically when inequality gets too great bad things happen to the wealthy.
To your final gripe (about this forum), I think you miss the point entirely. This is definitely a technology issue, and perhaps the most important technology issue of our time. That is why it is right and proper that those with an interest should comment.
".....poorer people tend to care more about the people around them than wealthy people do....." Ah, another myth, I'm afraid. Simple proof to the opposite - charity is most common amongst the rich (and that was even before the tax advantages came into existence); street crime is most common in poor areas and is the poor preying on the poor. I'm sure there are many caring types in poorer communities (I've met plenty of them), but to say they are therefore more caring than the upwardly mobile is just a self-delusional, class warfare myth. Charity is an almost universal concept in human societies, probably due to our ancestors being group hunters/gatherers, and the success of capitalism has not diminished that urge.
"....People who care only about themselves will often forgo children to "get ahead" in their careers. In my opinion, this shows a lack of the intelligence you claim for them, as unless they are doing it for themselves, they're being cruelly exploited by the truly wealthy with the lure of success....." You could argue the exact opposite - that the poor that have umpteen children they cannot afford are exploited by the Socialist mantra that they 'deserve' to have children and it is 'only fair' that others pay for their recklessness. Surely it is more intelligent to limit your procreation to your circumstances rather than just have kids and hope someone else will pay all the bills? That's not eugenics, it's just commonsense.
"....To assert that poor people are less intelligent or uglier than the wealthy is laughable at best...." Did I say uglier? No I didn't, I just used looks as an example of how we are all born different and unique, that we inherit certain traits (looks, height, intelligence) from our parents, as an example of how genetic inheritance means we will also all have differing levels of IQ. I definitely did not say or even imply poor people were likely to be uglier than rich people, thanks. People usually have to achieve something to get rich, and whilst their offspring may inherit that money, if those offspring are not smart then that money will be frittered away and they will return to the lower end of the scale.
"....and smacks of eugenics...." Ah, standard response to unwelcome facts - accuse the messenger of being an 'intellectual fascist'! Full eugenics would be impossible in a modern, democratic society seeing as we cannot accept the idea of suppressing the breeding of those below the curve. Even in the tiny number of extreme cases where the courts take children from 'unsuitable' mothers or homes, the courts do not have the power to forcibly stops those same mothers having more children. But the only thing stopping us encouraging positive eugenics are outdated class warfare myths and socially-crippling mindsets that insist we must all be 'equal', despite the evidence that we most certainly are not.
"..... I'm a self-made man from an "underclass" background...." So what separated you from the others around you, what made you different? The answer is attitude and capability. In the West there is nothing to stop one of those from parents below the curve making a success by working hard. That is social evolution through education and opportunity, something I support, as opposed to the current welfare systems that almost lock people into staying 'at the bottom'. It doesn't help when society has trendy, self-crippling social concepts, such as the current prevalence of the 'being smart is uncool' and the 'They owe me benefits' excuse mindset. I'm betting that you had a very different mindset to those around you, that you worked harder and seized opportunities that others around you could not be bothered with or did not even see. In essence, you were smarter than them, and I bet you have a higher IQ than them too. After all, IQ is the measure of the ability to apply intelligence.
"....On the contrary, I am a firm believer that we need to look after one another as a society, and that selfishness, narcissism, and a 'greed is good' mentality is what builds divisions and divisiveness in societies....." Which is more of the myth that only Lefties care, that the Right are solely driven by greed. But, if you bothered to check, you would find the idea of Conservatism also involves caring about the community, about helping those that make an effort to get ahead. You'll often find a direct correlation between Conservatism and a patriotic desire to make their community and country 'better'.
"...Thankfully there are still lots of intelligent people having children - even if they don't fit into the social strata you'd expect them to...." Yeah, keep on fighting that class war, it's not like it's so last century. And the empirical fact is that women with higher IQs that achieve more are not having as many children as those with low IQs in poorer situations. Denial is not a good solution.
".... You seem to be stuck in this 'poor people are dumb, and dumb people are lefties' mentality...." Nope, it is a scientific FACT that poorer people in a society with opportunities are more likely to be of lower IQ than those that make a success of themselves. Like I said, think back to your school years and think about how even then you could spot which kids were going nowhere and which were more likely to 'get out'. The smarter ones - like you - take advantage of their opportunities and work themselves out of poverty. Making excuses for those that made 'bad choices' (what, was there no-one around to tell them it was a bad choice in your 'much-more-caring' community?) is just avoiding reality. There is also a very clear correlation between the popularity for envy politics such as Socialism and levels of income and social development. The poor are much more likely to be Socialists (or even Communists), and those that are making their way up more supportive of the system that has given them the opportunities (especially education) to move up. I can accept the idea of a poverty trap in countries where lack of educational opportunities does really limit the ability for even the hard-working to make it up the ladder, but in the modern West the educational opportunities have been in place for decades, what is lacking in some people is the will to take advantage of them.
"....I also see a different outcome to what you term a growth in Socialism. What you really describe is a growth in inequality...." What we are seeing is an increase in the number at the lower end of the gap if they do not take advantage of the opportunities offered to them. Telling them it is OK to stay at the bottom because 'it is all the fault of them rich people, look at the gap' is just denying the obvious. Think of two cars driving away from a stop, one car accelerates faster and will continue to stretch the gap, the gap grows with time simply because one car is faster. But Socialism does not say make the slower car faster, it wants to cripple the faster car down to the speed of the slowest or even the cars that remain parked. There is nothing to say a person from a poorer background cannot cross the gap to be at the top end of the scale, to be a 'faster car', as shown by yourself or people such as barrow-boy-to-billionaire Sir Alan Sugar. Surely the aim should be to move everyone up the scale rather than ranting on about how few people there are at the top end and how 'bad' it is that they can 'out-accelerate' the rest? Envy-driven politics just focus attention on the wrong bit of the problem.
"....and historically when inequality gets too great bad things happen to the wealthy....." And when that happens, it is not the poor that prosper, as shown by the French Revolution, the Russian Revolution, the Chinese Revolution, any of the many African 'Revolutions', or North Korea. What usually happens in one of those 'glorious Socialist revolutions' is that the people at the top end of the gap are replaced by people from the middle or lower ranges, who are simply smarter but more exploitative than their peers and dupe the masses into thinking 'we can all have cake'. The end result is usually no improvement for the poor masses who bear the brunt of any fighting, and usually an actual slow-down in development (such as in Russia and China) compared to capitalist democracies. Please do try and deny it is so. The fact is only democratic capitalism offers everyone the opportunity to have cake, it just doesn't guarantee it, but it is happy to teach everyone that wants to learn how to be a 'baker'. Not all the bakers will make it, some will end up with much more cake than others, and some will simply not ever be equipped to make their own cake, but will spend all their time moaning about those that can. The problem is the best bakers are not having children as fast as those that can't bake or won't bake, and people like you are blinkered by political correctness into not seeing that as an issue. If the point is reached where the bakers can't or won't give free cake to the growing number of non-bakers then you may get your 'glorious Socialist revolution', but what is more likely is the top bakers will see it coming and simply take their cake somewhere else. After all, plenty of the rich escaped the French, Russian and even Chinese Revolutions, who is to say the same won't happen elsewhere when the free cake slices start to get too thin?
==-
You make the same error as Ayn Rand—confusing "smart" with "greedy." I imagine you believe your own bullsh it, but I know it is not true.
Per 5 hours of psychometric tests, I am smarter than 99.94 percent of the people. I am definitely a socialist. All my smart friends (maybe 10) except one is a Liberal and about half are socialists. Two don't want to think about it. Go to any college not run by retards (like Falwell) or that have an agenda to push (like the LDS college), and you'll find that an overwhelming percentage of the professors are Liberals and many I've met are socialists (whether they use that word or not).
And if by "socialist" you mean, for instance, universal health care, I'd wager that virtually ALL college professors are "socialists." Every civilized country but the US and Burma have universal healthcare: it costs half as much when you cut out the insurance companies, the care has been shown to be better in study after study, and the other countries all wonder why America still clings to inefficient, adversarial healthcare financing in which only the rich get what everyone deserves and which society can afford.
The only way the repiglican party even manages to still exist is through a massive, cynical lies campaign by the rich via Faux News and AM radio (e.g., death panels), aimed specifically at American dimwits.
► The stupid people in this country are nearly ALL repuglican, just like almost all the intellectuals are Liberals.
Go ahead, don't respond to that, arrogant self-deluding loudmouth. Continue to believe that only dummies are liberal and smart people are all right-wing. Believing things that aren't true leads one to fu ck up, to make choices that don't yield the intended result, and I'd like very much for you to do that.
-faye kane ♀ girl brain
"....confusing "smart" with "greedy."...." So the poor thief that breaks into their poor neighbour's house is not greedy? How about the drug dealers in the poor neighbourhoods? How about the benefits cheats? Greed is not a bye-product of earning potential.
".....All my smart friends (maybe 10) except one is a Liberal and about half are socialists....." Gosh, and I bet you have a really wide group of acquaintances from all walks of life. Not. The sheeple tend to huddle together, so simply looking at your fellow sheeple is not really a valid sample.
".....I am definitely a socialist....." Are you, or are you really just a trendy follower of political fashion?
"....Every civilized country but the US and Burma have universal healthcare....." Oops! All those people you were smarter than (99.94%?) but you were too dumb to use Wikipedia to even check your facts before bleating (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_health_coverage_by_country). A lot of countries claiming 'universal healthcare' are actually using private insurance. I'm guessing the everyone but 'US and Burma' was spoonfed to you by someone you considered trendy and 'right on', and you unquestioningly swallowed it.
"....The only way the repiglican party even manages to still exist is through a massive, cynical lies campaign by the rich via Faux News and AM radio (e.g., death panels), aimed specifically at American dimwits...." Puh-leeez, leave the canned propaganda at the door. IIRC, Fox News is not the news channel in the States by a long margin, and there was an overwhelming tendency to pro-Obambi bias in the press during his first election, as shown by MSNBC's Chris Mathhews' notorious 'shiver up my leg' article. Though even that infatuation seems to have chilled - http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/05/28/did-chris-matthews-epiphany-send-a-chill-up-obamas-leg/
"....The stupid people in this country are nearly ALL repuglican, just like almost all the intellectuals are Liberals...." Apart from asking what proof you have for that, it is a long way from saying all those Liberals are also Socialists.
"....Go ahead, don't respond to that, arrogant self-deluding loudmouth....." Are you kidding!?!? You make such an easy target with you claims of being 'smarter than 99.94 percent of the people' yet being unable to do even simple fact-checking, your mindless rebleating of canned propaganda, and your complete failure to counter the actual points I raised. If you really did test out as smarter than 99.94 percent of the people I assume either the sample group of 'other people' were the comatose or that was when you still had the use of the left side of your brain. I should give you the 'Fail' icon but you're making me laugh so hard.
It's funny, though, how us Greenies actually check out as having the highest IQs. We're a leftie bunch. Not surprisingly, the lowest IQs are among the BNP voters. Seems the left/right divide corresponds to the high/low scale of IQ testing.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/2008/nov/03/greenpolitics-liberaldemocrats
Most modern democracies are a mix of capitalism and socialism. Even that flagship of the capitalist world, the USA, has a system of food stamps and social care.
Similarly, a nation like Norway, who has high taxes and high public spending still allows a socially responsible form of capitalism.
If you look at the Corruption Perceptions Index, you'll see that Norwegians also feel themselves to be in one of the most democratic nations in the world. So their socialism is a democratic constitutional consensus. They pay tons of taxes, and they have one of the best healthcare systems in the world, and have the lowest crime rates and the lowest levels of poverty. They're not exactly "lefties", though.
In some parts of Switzerland, they have a system of Direct Democracy, where the citizens vote on decisions in a system of weekly referenda polls. They still vote to raise their own taxes when they feel they need to.
I wouldn't exactly call Switzerland and Norway anti-capitalist, though! They're not struggling nations. Sometimes the socialist thing is the best thing, whether you're a capitalist or not. Utah have recently found out that simply housing the poor - ie giving them houses unconditionally, forever - actually works out lower in cost for the taxpayer, when given the crime, health, and other costs of homelessness. Also, welfare concepts that seem almost communist, such as Guaranteed Basic Income, have been championed by right-wingers like Sarah Palin and even my personal arch-enemy, Milton Friedman himself.
Being smart can certainly help one become rich. So can confidence, a posh accent, and good posture, if truth be told. But being smart doesn't necessarily mean one desires to be wealthy. Many of the world's top scientists (and lefties) prefer to give what they can to humanity and do what they enjoy rather than accumulate wealth.
Studies have shown that the more wealth one accumulates, even in a divisive unequal system where the odds are stacked in your favour from the start, it is a psychological phenomenon that one will always believe it is due to one's own skill and intelligence.
http://nymag.com/news/features/money-brain-2012-7/
There is very little evidence sociologically, psychologically, politically, or economically, that you are smart because you are right wing, or even that your success is due to your own intelligence.
"....how us Greenies actually check out as having the highest IQs...." Given that the Greens I have met over the last few decades have been the least of all political groups able to even outline there so-called political beliefs (beyond a lot of anti-capitalist bleating), I'd have to suggest the sample group were either skewed or lying. And as for the Liberals, given that as much as 35% of their so-called support turned out to be tactical voters from either Labour or the Conservative Parties (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/8658694.stm), I would have to suggest a lot of the high-IQ 'Liberals' were also nothing of the sort.
".....a nation like Norway...." Norway is awash with oil revenue, which is how they fund their social program's and also the reason for their high levels of income. The problem the Norwegians face is what happens when the oil runs out - will their politicians take measures in advance or will they echo pre-crash Greece and keep fiddling whilst Oslo burns? When the oil revenue disappears, along with the high level of income, you'll probably find the Norwegians will not be quite so happy to fund extravagant social programs through high taxation.
"....In some parts of Switzerland.... vote to raise their own taxes when they feel they need to....." I suggest you read this (http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/temperatures-rise-as-rich-face-tax-vote/28796356) before you carry on with that naive view of all the Swiss happily voting in high taxes.
Now, have you got anything that can't be debunked in five seconds or are you going to get back in your wigwam and leave the conversation to the adults?
Let me know when you debunk something :)
The Green Party manifesto is online and has been for years. They're not anti-capitalist, they're just social capitalists. They believe in higher taxes and higher public spending, not the abolition of the monetary system. It's a valid stance in a democratic system. Also, the Greens you met don't count as a debunk!
Norway and Switzerland are the more affluent side of Social Democratic Capitalism, I'll admit. But bear in mind that Norway's economy isn't based solely on oil. The money they've made so far puts them at one of the richest nations in the world per capita, and when the oil economy needs to change, they'll be one of the most ready nations.
However, over in Iceland, they chose democratically to abandon the austerity measures that were recommended by the IMF, and support a ground-up growth. It's been tough for them, but now their economy is back on the rise again, so it was definitely a valid decision, and one the population are largely pleased with. Even the IMF later admitted that the austerity measures had negative effects. It's not really anybody's fault, we hadn't had a crash like this before, and economists were just making educated guesses. They couldn't have done that without their president giving them the choice in referendum, and for that the IMF and austerity nations called him a terrorist. They love their president in Iceland, they won't let him retire!
In 2010, Labour voters abandoned Labour because they were too right-wing after the Iraq war. The Lib-Dems were the next hope. Up in Scotland, they got the SNP in, who are another Social Democratic party, run by a successful oil and banking economist.
As for Switzerland, again, we're talking about a democracy that the rich have to share with the poor. So unless you instigate a fascist government that's only there to serve a small percentage of the population, what can you do about it? Good or bad economically, they're making a democratic decision. As we saw in the 70s when people like the Beatles and Pink Floyd buggered off to America, there's only so high you can tax the rich. This is something the people who fill in their referenda every week have to learn, and if it doesn't work (and their elevator guy clears off), they will have to make that decision themselves.
Also, thanks to modern technology, I can talk to you directly from my wigwam. I'm there right now eating hemp and weaving beans with my pet whale. I know you right-wingers can be a little slow sometimes, but we're all special in our own way, right ;)
"Let me know when you debunk something...." I fear the only way would be to first get you to take a lot of anti-hallucinogenics, followed by you re-entering the education system from year one.
".....The Green Party manifesto is online and has been for years....." Which just enhances the fact that the Green Party and their deluded supporters are just a mish-mash of left-over Lefties, old-age hippies, and tactical voters, seeing as - despite that manifesto being online - NONE of them can tell you what their party's policies are. What, were they all 'saving too much energy' to go online?
"...They're not anti-capitalist, they're just social capitalists...." Funny then how they all fall back on 'redistribution' and 'social fairness' when asked anything about economics. There is a reason they're called Watermelons.
"....It's a valid stance in a democratic system...." Which their members can't actually talk about due to their not having a clue. The core Greens just like voting for whichever party they see as the most 'anti-establishment'.
"....the Greens you met don't count as a debunk!...." Oh, the usual 'ignore those Greens and only look at the Greens I want you to see' routine. You must have missed the bit where ecologist and former Greenpeace Canada president Patrick Moore described the Green movement (and Greenpeace in particular) as having long-since been hijacked by the extreme Left (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Moore_%28environmentalist%29#After_Greenpeace). As for the Green Party themselves, they have long spouted so much male bovine manure about science as to be permanently on the backfoot trying to pretend they haven't (http://liberalconspiracy.org/2009/06/09/is-the-green-party-anti-science/). It's really fun when you run into some avid Greenie and he insists that interview never took place, or the answers were all 'taken out of context' - probably your next claim, right?
I have a respect for Lefties like Bob Crow, the old RMT union boss, because he openly and honestly spoke his mind and practiced (quite artfully) what he preached. But the Greens just strike me as a party in denial, zig-zagging desperately to whichever point they think will get them votes and hide their Leftie roots and real ideals.
Ad hominem. Contains no rebuttal, only insult.
Straw man. Ask me, I'll tell you.
Again, just rubbish. Socialist economics are proven to work. Redistribution creates growth.
Once again, nonsense. Their members talk about it all the time.
No, I can't ignore people I can't see. They are not in a position to be evidence in this debate on account of the fact that you could have just made them up, or exaggerated their position, or be falling for confirmation bias. I cannot accept people you claim to know as evidence, therefore you cannot use them to debunk me in this debate. That you didn't even know this speaks volumes about you.
Again, they are Social Capitalists, not scientists. Feeding the poor and mitigating damage to the environment are their priorities. This is a natural way to feel about your fellow citizens, so it is a valid democratic stance.
If you ask a scientist to name a party that is often ignorant of science, he may name the Green party. But there are really right-wing people (a lot of them) who believe that 6-day creation talking snake thing. It's right-wingers that are suppressing scientific teaching in schools, and medical procedures from being researched. Greenies often believe in gods and goddesses and angels, but it wasn't a Greenie who stood in front of the world and said "God is on my side." before invading the living shit out of Iraq.
The right-wing are the anti-science people. Sure, we may get the odd homeopathy care centre, and restrict animal testing, but this is not on the same scale or level of damage. To be actually anti-science is to decry the scientific method itself, preferring the dogma of a Palestinian cult, with it's talking snakes and it's Revelations brimstone.
That is anti-science. That is the realm of the right wing.
The most intelligent people go left. Fact. Because I know smart lefties? No, only an idiot would use unverifiable people he "met" as an argument!
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289609000051
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
