[olegru]

Winstonm, on 2017-January-06, 17:53, said:

But it seems you prefer to accept one person's version (a person known to get his facts wrong, i.e., Trump) over the intelligence services.
Why would accept his version?

No. I am not accepting any version. There are more than two possible answers on the original question. My answer is “I don’t care.” Let me elaborate.
I am aware that countries are spying on each other. We spy even on our allies. Russia not pretends to be our friend. So, the fact that Russian spies are working against us is not a secret for a long time. I don’t need intelligence agencies to say it again. Russians certainly could do the hacking if they found DNC to be interesting target for them. It also could be done by Chinese spies, Israeli spies, other countries spies and even our local group who thinks that hacking DNC would fit their purpose.
So information that our intelligence agencies believes it was done by Russian spies does not present serious interest to me. I would be happy if our intelligence agencies prevented hacking. I would be very interested if they proof the link between hacking and the team Trump. But seems like they don’t even have proof of their version who did the hacking and play instead children game “I guess it was him.” They may be right or not, but nationality of successful spy is not an important question for me. I much more concern about the fact that he was successful.
Now. What exactly was the evil act performed by enemies on our election? Did they manipulate votes? Not, as far as I know, their intervention was limited by releasing the information that one party of our election did not play a fair game. The correct information…
Maybe if Team Clinton played by rules, “Russian” hacking of the DNC server would not be such a damaging issue? Seems like we much more interested to find a whistleblower but not look at the problem. Even if whistleblower was foreigner spy with evil purposes, we still have an issue. Two issues, at least. Cheating is one. Security is another one.
Foreign spying is an issue too, of course, but it is not a new issue and it the most probably will exist until world would consist of countries with different interests.

[Zelandakh]

olegru, on 2017-January-09, 09:29, said:

So information that our intelligence agencies believes it was done by Russian spies does not present serious interest to me.

The report has given us some additional details. As I have heard it, the intelligence agencies have been following the Russians for some time and noticed certain patterns of mistakes that they make. The DNC hacking matched this pattern. One of the biggest mistakes made was not dismantling the infrastructure after the job and this contained enough additional information to track back the operations fairly precisely.

There are basically only 3 plausible scenarios that I can think of.
1. The government agencies are lying to us;
2. A third party was able to use the Russian mistakes to lay breadcrumbs implicating them while remaining hidden;
3. The Russians are responsible.

As Winston has already written, these scenarios are not equally likely. However, all are certainly possible. There may also be additional reasonable possibilities that I have not yet considered along with a few scenarios that, while theoretically possible, are so unlikely as to be safely ignored.

[Winstonm]

Zelandakh, on 2017-January-09, 08:50, said:

Is that really the only example you can think of? Even before the word disinformation entered the wider English usage following Reagan's campaign against Gaddafi, we had such things as the U2 incident, the deal regarding Turkish bases after Cuba, the Gulf of Tonkin (probably, it has not been confirmed), the Shah and the Soviet-Afghan War. There are most likely many better examples too but I am hardly an expert on American history. You really ought to know far more examples than me.

I didn't (and still don't) feel much like going through a list of the times that information was denied or held back or altered by a U.S. president or his spokespersons. Those are quite different scenarios from the development of information by the intelligence agencies themselves, whose mission is to provide non-partisan information. Has this worked perfectly? No. The influence of the Bush administration, most notably by Dick Cheney, on the final product the CIA delivered on Iraq weapons is an especially egregious example.

Here, though, is the rub. The government is comprised of individuals, and we place leaders into positions of trust. At that point, character matters, in fact, I would say it is the crucial piece. We now have a man going into the highest office who has shown by his history and continuation of similar actions and beliefs that he is totally untrustworthy and unqualified to hold and wield this kind of power. I cannot imagine accepting his word about much of anything - and he is the one questioning the intelligence reports and trying to lay blame on the DNC for allowing itself to be hacked.

IMO, doing anything to support his spin on reality is to contribute to Trump's gaslighting, and that is a serious matter.

[ldrews]

Do you truly believe that Republicans are characterized by "white supremacists"? If you wish to indulge in character assassination by association then we can both a field day. But I would expect better of you.

I do think that Republicans/conservatives must pay attention and heed the messages from the Democrats/liberals if they want to remain in power.

Would you agree that the quality of life, both economically and socially, has deteriorated significantly over the last few decades for the average person in the US? If so, then would that not be evidence that the policies and approaches being pursued during those years are not working well? And therefore alternative policies and approaches should be tried?

[alok c]

Zelandakh, on 2017-January-09, 09:43, said:

The report has given us some additional details. As I have heard it, the intelligence agencies have been following the Russians for some time and noticed certain patterns of mistakes that they make. The DNC hacking matched this pattern. One of the biggest mistakes made was not dismantling the infrastructure after the job and this contained enough additional information to track back the operations fairly precisely.

There are basically only 3 plausible scenarios that I can think of.
1. The government agencies are lying to us;
2. A third party was able to use the Russian mistakes to lay breadcrumbs implicating them while remaining hidden;
3. The Russians are responsible.

As Winston has already written, these scenarios are not equally likely. However, all are certainly possible. There may also be additional reasonable possibilities that I have not yet considered along with a few scenarios that, while theoretically possible, are so unlikely as to be safely ignored.

OR the 4th option-Russians are extremely intelligent & extremely dumb at the same time.

[Winstonm]

Zelandakh, on 2017-January-09, 09:43, said:

The report has given us some additional details. As I have heard it, the intelligence agencies have been following the Russians for some time and noticed certain patterns of mistakes that they make. The DNC hacking matched this pattern. One of the biggest mistakes made was not dismantling the infrastructure after the job and this contained enough additional information to track back the operations fairly precisely.

There are basically only 3 plausible scenarios that I can think of.
1. The government agencies are lying to us; Conspiracy theory
2. A third party was able to use the Russian mistakes to lay breadcrumbs implicating them while remaining hidden; Conspiracy theory
3. The Russians are responsible. Expected from ex-KGB and an enemy state

As Winston has already written, these scenarios are not equally likely. However, all are certainly possible. There may also be additional reasonable possibilities that I have not yet considered along with a few scenarios that, while theoretically possible, are so unlikely as to be safely ignored.

I would venture to say that secretive conspiracy theory likelihoods can also be safely ignored.

[Winstonm]

ldrews, on 2017-January-09, 10:40, said:

Do you truly believe that Republicans are characterized by "white supremacists"? If you wish to indulge in character assassination by association then we can both a field day. But I would expect better of you.

I do think that Republicans/conservatives must pay attention and heed the messages from the Democrats/liberals if they want to remain in power.

Would you agree that the quality of life, both economically and socially, has deteriorated significantly over the last few decades for the average person in the US? If so, then would that not be evidence that the policies and approaches being pursued during those years are not working well? And therefore alternative policies and approaches should be tried?

My take is that the most damaging thing about this election result is that it has legitimized the most abhorrent aspects of our society in much the same way that Germany allowed the National Socialist Workers Party to legitimize antisemitism and other extremes hatreds, and the Republican Party is culpable for giving similar hatred a voice.

I think an examination of history would point directly to the Reagan administration as the beginning of the decline on the middle class, although I don't think the policies were meant as an attack on the middle class, that is how they evolved. The policies initiated then have continued and been largely adopted by both parties, or in some cases, given only token resistance. Change is certainly needed. Intelligent people can admit error and change their views.

A demagogue is not the answer to the problems - he only creates a different set of problems.

[Zelandakh]

Winstonm, on 2017-January-09, 10:07, said:

Those are quite different scenarios from the development of information by the intelligence agencies themselves, whose mission is to provide non-partisan information.

Is it? I assume you are aware of the famous 1981 quote from William Casey. Do you really believe that the CIA would no longer be willing to mislead the people if it meant getting critical disinformation over to America's enemies?

[Winstonm]

Zelandakh, on 2017-January-09, 11:51, said:

Is it? I assume you are aware of the famous 1981 quote from William Casey. Do you really believe that the CIA would no longer be willing to mislead the people if it meant getting critical disinformation over to America's enemies?

1. The CIA rarely if ever directly addresses the public
2. The CIA is one agency. In this instance 17 agencies concurred.
3. Government conspiracies are not high on my list of concerns.

[ldrews]

Quote

Intelligent people can admit error and change their views.

Yes, but what about the other 99% of the population?

[hrothgar]

ldrews, on 2017-January-09, 10:40, said:

Would you agree that the quality of life, both economically and socially, has deteriorated significantly over the last few decades for the average person in the US?

No, I would not agree.

If we are measuring things in absolute terms, life is much much better for folks than it was 30 or 40 years ago. Scientific progress means that we enjoy any number of technological advancements that would have been unthinkable back in the 70s. I certainly agree that income distributions have skewed enormously since then. The middle class has been hollowed out and the working poor are much worse off relative to the rich then they once more, however, once again, in absolute terms they are better off.

When I see all this talk about "working class whites" and how bad they have it my thoughts always circle back to the following.

The rich are treating "working class whites" the same way that society has historically treated blacks.
And you know what, the working class whites don't like it...

[Winstonm]

hrothgar, on 2017-January-09, 13:30, said:

No, I would not agree.

If we are measuring things in absolute terms, life is much much better for folks than it was 30 or 40 years ago. Scientific progress means that we enjoy any number of technological advancements that would have been unthinkable back in the 70s. I certainly agree that income distributions have skewed enormously since then. The middle class has been hollowed out and the working poor are much worse off relative to the rich then they once more, however, once again, in absolute terms they are better off.

When I see all this talk about "working class whites" and how bad they have it my thoughts always circle back to the following.

The rich are treating "working class whites" the same way that society has historically treated blacks.
And you know what, the working class whites don't like it...

Richard,

What are your views on the conclusions drawn in Capital in the 21st Century by Piketty? Do you see the income distribution disparity as a result of increased market-based economic policies or something else?

[Winstonm]

One mistake I think recurs with the liberal-leaning media and that is trying to exaggerate every Donald Trump moment as some kind of momentous tragedy. IMO, it is much better not to try to produce news hourly and simple stay on top of the big things and go into those areas in depth.

After all, Kennedy put his brother in as AG.

[kenberg]

hrothgar, on 2017-January-09, 13:30, said:

No, I would not agree.

If we are measuring things in absolute terms, life is much much better for folks than it was 30 or 40 years ago. Scientific progress means that we enjoy any number of technological advancements that would have been unthinkable back in the 70s. I certainly agree that income distributions have skewed enormously since then. The middle class has been hollowed out and the working poor are much worse off relative to the rich then they once more, however, once again, in absolute terms they are better off.

When I see all this talk about "working class whites" and how bad they have it my thoughts always circle back to the following.

The rich are treating "working class whites" the same way that society has historically treated blacks.
And you know what, the working class whites don't like it...

There are many aspects of this that could be followed up on.

1. The distinction between "much worse off relative to the rich" and "in absolute terms better off": At the lower end, I think the "absolute" far out weighs the "relative". Having adequate food and housing is essential. Fretting about eating chicken baked in a simple over while others are being served lobster prepared by a chef is immature.

2. Stability and security are very important. I am not so sure that a child growing up in a lower end household feels more secure today than was the case in the long ago time of my childhood.

3. Working class whites are not being lynched, not literally at least. They are not being treated as badly as society has historically treated blacks. But many are in bad situations. It is true that "the working class whites don't like it". The way you phrase it has more than a little of "what goes around comes around" to it. Actually I have never understood that expression although I understand its intended meaning. It is not a good situation. Not for them, not for the country either.

Some people make bad decisions and pay a price for it. And we are responsible for ourselves. And so on. I have a bag of cliches, many of them true. But some times and places are better than others for offering possibilities. This one is maybe not so good for people at the low end. I think we, as a society, should try to do better at providing opportunity.

So I am not really disagreeing with you, but there might be more to say.

[helene_t]

hrothgar, on 2017-January-09, 13:30, said:

Scientific progress means that we enjoy any number of technological advancements that would have been unthinkable back in the 70s.

Since the 70s:
- pollution has been reduced dramatically
- passive smoking has become much less of a problem
- it has become much easier to be LGBT
- racism has become less widespread
- crime rates have gone down
- sex discrimination has been reduced
- parents (and teachers) have virtually stopped spanking children
- we don't have to teach school children what to do in the event of a nuclear attack

Money and technology are great but there are also other things that influences ordinary people's well-being.

[ldrews]

Quote

Since the 70s:
- pollution has been reduced dramatically
- passive smoking has become much less of a problem
- it has become much easier to be LGBT
- racism has become less widespread
- crime rates have gone down
- sex discrimination has been reduced
- parents (and teachers) have virtually stopped spanking children
- we don't have to teach school children what to do in the event of a nuclear attack

Money and technology are great but there are also other things that influences ordinary people's well-being.

• Average family income, adjusted for inflation, has gone down
  
• Labor force participation has declined
  
• Education quality, relative to other modern countries, has declined. (US now ranks 43rd in arithmetic/math competency)
  
• The US has lost a significant portion of its manufacturing capability to other countries.
  {*]The US has a higher per capita prison population than any other country.
  
• Inner city violence has increased. Chicago just set a new record for homicides in 2016,
  
• The US has been continuously involved in a foreign war/police action/whatever every day for the last 8 years.
  
• The US now has more than 800 foreign military installations.

Is this the tradeoff we make to get a more socially acceptable society? Everyone is respected and treated humanely but fewer people can find work because we cannot compete with other countries? That we kill thousandsm, perhaps 100s of thousands, of other countries' civilians in our attempt to be the world's policeman and enforce our vision of the proper way to live? That we continue to let our inner cities fester so that the cultural elites can feel safe, secure, and comfortable? That we continue to imprison a significant percentage of our population for what to me is essentially a medical problem?

[ldrews]

Quote

we don't have to teach school children what to do in the event of a nuclear attack

You are kidding me, right? With the US/NATO provocations against Russia currently going on I think we are facing the highest probability of nuclear war in the last 50 years. How far can we push Russia before Russia decides that peaceful co-existence with the West is impossible and they might as well get it all over with?

Of course, training children what to do in the case of a nuclear attack is probably useless. As the joke goes, find a doorway, bend over, and kiss your ass goodbye.

And Russia has been busy building nuclear bomb shelters all over the place. Maybe they know something we don't.

[hrothgar]

ldrews, on 2017-January-09, 16:36, said:

• Average family income, adjusted for inflation, has gone down
  
• Labor force participation has declined
  
• Education quality, relative to other modern countries, has declined. (US now ranks 43rd in arithmetic/math competency)
  
• The US has lost a significant portion of its manufacturing capability to other countries.
  {*]The US has a higher per capita prison population than any other country.
  
• Inner city violence has increased. Chicago just set a new record for homicides in 2016,
  
• The US has been continuously involved in a foreign war/police action/whatever every day for the last 8 years.
  
• The US now has more than 800 foreign military installations.

Is this the tradeoff we make to get a more socially acceptable society? Everyone is respected and treated humanely but fewer people can find work because we cannot compete with other countries? That we kill thousandsm, perhaps 100s of thousands, of other countries' civilians in our attempt to be the world's policeman and enforce our vision of the proper way to live? That we continue to let our inner cities fester so that the cultural elites can feel safe, secure, and comfortable? That we continue to imprison a significant percentage of our population for what to me is essentially a medical problem?

1. Average family income adjusted for inflation may have decreased, however, the market basket has not remained constant. (By which I mean that phones, computers, houses, cars, yada yada yada has all improved remarkably over the last 40 years)

2. Labor force participation has declined, however, this is expected as a nation gets older.

3. The primary problem with the US education system is that it is extremely stratified. Our top schools are (pretty much) as good as the top schools in other countries. However, we as a country are unwilling to invest enough resources to educate all of our children to the same level.

4. Yes, the US has lost a lot of manufacturing capacity. However, it was ridiculous to think that we could maintain the privileged position that we inherited because we didn't get bombed flat during World War 2.

5. Yeap. Our prison situation sucks

6. Yeap. There's ways to much violence in some of our major cities

7. Yeap. The US is involved in a lot of international conflicts, and associated with this, we have lots of overseas bases.

[MrAce]

helene_t, on 2017-January-09, 14:51, said:

Since the 70s:

- racism has become less widespread

I do not know about that part.

[kenberg]

helene_t, on 2017-January-09, 14:51, said:

Since the 70s:
- parents (and teachers) have virtually stopped spanking children

This is the one I didn't know about. With both my kids it was definitely my plan to not spank them I figured surely there is a better alternative. But good intentions do not always survive reality.

My youngest could be quite defiant. In frustration I shouted "Do you want a spanking". She stared straight at me, put her hands on her hips, and said "Yeah". Say what you will, she doesn't back down easily. A little paternal pride here.

I approve of discipline without spanking, I just wasn't always able to manage it.