Former CIA Director Blame Millennials Lack Of Loyalty For All The Government Leaks
from the it's-everyone,-we-all-kinda-hate-the-government dept
If all else fails, blame the millennials.
[T]he former head of the CIA has a theory about a possible root cause of the leak: Millennials.
Michael V. Hayden, who was the CIA director until 2009, said that in order for the agency to engage in the digital espionage described by the documents, the agency must “recruit from a certain demographic” — in this case, younger hackers brought on to help with these efforts.
“I don’t mean to judge them at all, but this group of millennials and related groups simply have different understandings of the words loyalty, secrecy and transparency than certainly my generation did,” Hayden told the BBC in an interview this week. “And so we bring these folks into the agency, good Americans all, I can only assume, but again, culturally they have different instincts than the people who made the decision to hire them.”
That's Hayden's response to the CIA leak, which exposed the agency's exploits and device-targeting tactics. Hayden's saying people used to trust the government more. That's what this breaks down to, even if couched in Hayden's implicit demand youngsters remove themselves from his lawn, but leave any and all government documents behind.
"Transparency" should mean what it's always meant. But "transparency" is defined by government agencies and officials harboring zero desire to engage in it. We spent years listening to Obama pat himself on the back for increased government obfuscation and secrecy, something he referred to as the "most transparent administration." The word "transparency" is meaningless in the government's hands. That's why almost anything of significance is revealed by leakers/whistleblowers routing around the "official channels."
"Secrecy" means the same thing it always has as well. The government likes it. Citizens are not quite as enthralled with government secrecy, especially considering more and more of their lives are open books. An example: anyone shot by a police officer will have their criminal record immediately delivered to the press while EMTs are still checking for a pulse. Weeks or months will pass before law enforcement agencies release the name of the officer whose gun "discharged," much less their disciplinary record.
People of all ages are likely tiring of the government's insistence on keeping secrets, even as it engages in mass surveillance, reinterprets privacy-shielding laws on the fly, builds massive biometric databases, and declares the Constitution invalid within 100 miles of the border. It's not just millennials. It's everyone.
"Loyalty" still means the same thing, too. But the government's used to receiving it unconditionally. It has spent years abusing it and is finally seeing the consequences of its actions. Millennials may be the least willing to show loyalty to a government that has already mortgaged their future, but again, this crosses all ages. Loyalty isn't something the government can demand, not when it's done as much as it has to demonstrate why it's unworthy of it.
Undeniably, leaking is easier than ever, with multiple journalistic outlets offering multiple ways for the anonymous to dump their documents and grievances. Engaging in some sort of age discrimination at the federal level isn't going to stop the flow of leaks.
What's happening now is a severely-broken system reaching its apotheosis. With someone else in the Oval Office, we likely wouldn't be seeing nearly as many leaks. Almost as soon as the administration makes a claim (or a tweet), a leaked document or comment refutes it. Agencies are going rogue. Confidential conversations with administration officials are being discussed on social media by those involved in them.
Trump's tweets about subjects of investigations and national security-related matters show he cares just as little for secrecy or loyalty. His refusal to release information the public's been asking to see (tax returns, divestment plans, etc.) shows he cares little for transparency.
It also sets an example for others. The administration is seemingly moving from one disaster to the next without indicating it has a blueprint for the future. This helps generate even more leaks -- and not just because ill-advised moves tend to produce interesting documents and irate government employees. The leaks are continuous because no one's worried the administration will ever locate the sources. The constant flow sends a clear message: those leaking info and documents -- and there are a lot of them -- feel the President and his staff are too incompetent, or too easily-distracted, to track them down. The CIA may track down the source of the leaked documents, but it's heavily-invested in its own secrets, which has nothing to do with the hurricane of disruptive activity taking place in the White House. But those leaking info related to the current administration have little to fear.
The administration has managed to make enemies of several federal agencies. Federal agencies are amazing at stonewalling. The best. If the administration thinks it's going to get assistance rooting out leakers, it's in for yet another surprise. And the administration will continue to be unsurprisingly surprised by the resistance it faces when it shows up with guns loaded, looking for rogue messengers.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: leaks, michael hayden, millenials, whistleblowing
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
On the other hand
In this case, placing blame on millennials is misdirection, when the blame should be placed on baby boomers, as well as their predecessors (and possibly some antecedents), for creating the laws/rules/policies as well as actions taken that they are now embarrassed about being revealed. That embarrassment might be from the US public. as some things are exceedingly stupid, or from foreign governments. as they might have used actual diplomacy rather than the shenanigans they actually did.
The only mirror they have is sort of like the one from Snow White, and when they ask who the 'fairest in the land is', except the answer is always the person doing the asking and the definition of 'fairest' has nothing to do with good looks. The thought that they might have to look into a public 'reflection' that exposes their complicity scares the hell out of them, as well as endangers their agenda; power, more power, absolute power.
Oh, and the largely farcical notion of National Security (there might actually be SOME National Security issues) is just more misdirection in most cases, and should be labeled National Embarrassment, as a more truthful analysis.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: On the other hand
On their watch they willingly aided/abetted the US government in criminally circumventing the law for purely politically expedient motives at the expense of every American citizens liberties.
Did Hayden (etal) swear oaths to protect/defend the US Constitution or did they swear oaths to obey criminal politicians?
Michael Hayden is a duplicitous disgrace!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Translation:
So in the end he is actually praising the millenials. Too bad the ones from the previous generations made sure the millenials (and everybody afterwards) would be thoroughly screwed and excluded from their 'we have the power and the money' club.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Translation:
This is common of every generation - the idea that the young are idealistic and stupid and can be manipulated into doing our dirty work. It has failed in the past, it has failed now.
Loyalty is a two way street - if the upper is disloyal to the lower, then they should not be surprised when the lower is disloyal to the upper.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Loyalty is earned, not owed
“I don’t mean to judge them at all, but this group of millennials and related groups simply have different understandings of the words loyalty, secrecy and transparency than certainly my generation did,” Hayden told the BBC in an interview this week. “And so we bring these folks into the agency, good Americans all, I can only assume, but again, culturally they have different instincts than the people who made the decision to hire them.”
It would seem that he's correct in saying that the generations have different ideas as to what those things mean, the problem is that the difference is not in his favor. If those pesky 'millennials' are more willing to expose wrongdoing than trust those that hire them to know better then that speaks well of their willingness to question what they're told, which is a good thing.
Sure sometimes there are good reasons for secrecy, but you can't honestly expect to get caught lying left and right, again and again, and think that people are going to trust that those in charge are worthy of their blind loyalty and trust.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Loyalty is earned, not owed
Sure sometimes there are good reasons for secrecy, but you can't honestly expect to get caught lying left and right, again and again, and think that people are going to trust that those in charge are worthy of their blind loyalty and trust.
Have you ever talked to a Trump voter?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Loyalty is earned, not owed
Trump voter
thankfully, when you say people you are speaking of a somewhat broader slice of humanity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Loyalty is earned, not owed
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Loyalty is earned, not owed
The word "republican" is an adjective. The noun for "member of the Republican Party" is "Republican". The adjective for describing that party, or one of its members, is "Republican".
The word "democratic" is an adjective. The noun for "member of the Democratic Party" is "Democrat". The adjective for describing that party, or one of its members, is "Democratic".
The phrase "the Democrat Party" is both ungrammatical, and a sign that the speaker either doesn't know/care about the rules of the language, or is biased against the party being spoken of.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Loyalty is earned, not owed
This partisanship, name calling, simple minded view of half the population of the U.S.
I can't fathom how oblivious you must be over the irony of referring to Democrats as simple minded.
Then again, it's what makes you such winners, amirite?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Loyalty is earned, not owed
Then they lost the election badly, lost congress, lost state elections.
So, does the democratic party decide that maybe this wasn't a bad idea or do they double down and scream racism, bigotry, ignorance even louder.
Guess what, keep talking like this and see your party completely become irrelevant, instead of just irrelevant as it is right now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Loyalty is earned, not owed
Guess what, keep talking like this and see your party completely become irrelevant, instead of just irrelevant as it is right now.
I could care less if we are irrelevant. After all, you winners are doing such a wonderful job! Let's see if I can summarize your accomplishments for you:
I think it's safe to keep talking the way I do. Because if that's what you define as winning, it's spot fucking on.
Fuckwit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Loyalty is earned, not owed
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Loyalty is earned, not owed
I totally agree - republicans sure got themselves into a big shittin mess. Too bad they didn't know that once they won, they'd actually have to work!
Who knew?
Time to earn your checks bitches! Got a pretty big list of things to not deliver on. The voters are watching (and presumably, laughing).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Loyalty is earned, not owed
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Loyalty is earned, not owed
we already are working on a levee system on our southern border that should take care of about a 25 foot rise in sea level
If you're talking about Hidalgo County, I'm not sure "working on" is accurate considering that the county merely sent DHS a letter in February essentially begging for money.
http://www.texasstandard.org/stories/in-hidalgo-county-border-wall-is-a-chance-to-finish-loca l-projects/
If the feds are to give the green light for the completion of Hidalgo County’s levee system, expenditures would have to be adjusted to today’s construction prices. Hidalgo County believes the additional 30 miles of levees and barriers would cost the federal government a little more than half a billion dollars.
Is this included in what Mexico's paying us?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Loyalty is earned, not owed
All true! Reports to the contrary are fake news by the dishonest media! Sad!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Loyalty is earned, not owed
You're mistaken. The US population is 324 million; 63 million people voted for Trump.
The election had 55% voter turnout. 45% of eligible voters did not vote at all, and there's a significant portion of the population that is not eligible to vote (people under 18, convicted felons, permanent residents who are not citizens, etc.).
A little less than 20% of the US population voted for Trump. A little more than 20% voted for Clinton.
All that said? Your overall point, that it's unfair to paint all Trump voters with a broad brush, is a fair one. There are plenty of people who voted for Trump reluctantly and who have been unimpressed with him.
It's certainly true that there are Trump supporters who will defend everything he says even when it contradicts some other thing he's said; hell, you don't have to scroll very far to find them. But generalizing the worst elements of Trump supporters as if they represent Trump voters in general is exactly the mistake Hillary Clinton made.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Loyalty is earned, not owed
Your grasp of the English language is obviously superior to my own as this was the point I was trying, however unsuccessfully, to make.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Loyalty is earned, not owed
My parents were one of that sad group. Didn't matter what nonsense Trump spouted, as long as Hillary wasn't president. I went third party because I couldn't justify either of the two major candidates becoming president.
I have no problem with a woman being president I do however have a problem with that woman being president.
I still say Hillary was the only person capable of losing to Donald. If any other candidate had been on the democrat's ticket they would have destroyed Trump.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Younger people understand that it's now possible to not only watch most people all of the time, but to go back to when they were not being actively investigated and piece together amazingly complete details of what they were doing.
In such a world it's even more important that warrant requirements be strictly observed. In the past you might have been able to think that the ends justifies the means when there is an immediate result, or information is quickly discarded. Now when personal information is collected in bulk and stored indefinitely, the privacy violation is immediate and persistent.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If the leaders of the Republican party can flagrantly break a solemn pledge that they themselves created (as happened when they refused to support the eventual 2016 party nominee for President) then how can anyone realistically expect the kind of honesty and professionalism from low-ranking government workers that is totally absent from their leaders?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Usually low-ranking workers in politics are more into legal ramifications and if a law will be shot down on constitutional grounds. In this case I can only imagine the current administration is seen as a bull in a china-shop. If you are telling someone that water turns to ice at 32 degrees or below and the person publically says he wants to ban ice at 0 degrees and you will be forced to make it hapeen, you would also feel the frustrations...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Don't tell me that there is no difference between Rand Paul, John Kasich, Ted Cruz and Donald Trump! Or John Edwards, Hillary Clinton and Barrack Obama for the democrats in 2008 for that matter!
The parties in USA are too broad to have much commonality, besides not being the other party. That is also why two primaries is the best way to assure the eventual election will always be between two evils rather than between two ideals: The primary-system is built on booting out the best candidates for not being enough "partyname x" and a few of the more interesting candidates to set up the lowest common denominator times two and pit them against eachother in the real election.
Don't get me wrong - it is more engaging than "x factor" - but the hang-over is four years instead of four days...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not "lack of loyalty"
Hayden didn't say "lack of loyalty", he said "different understanding" of loyalty. They might be valuing loyalty to the constitution (as their oath requires) and the public over loyalty to the government; if so his statement is still true.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If the leaks are the kind of "I heard the Director is NIS lie to Congress about what was actually happening" like Snowden, then they are being done for the right reasons.
There is a difference.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
...that only make him look bad...
Lying is bad.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
At best, it's at the same point Galileo was when he made his famous plea "And yet it moves!" and will eventually be proven -- but it has not been proven yet. Making policy on unproven science is foolish at best. But the thing is though, for every one Galileo who is proven right in the end, there are hundreds of scientists who are proven wrong -- often by themselves through further research.
That's being generous. Any scientific theory that the proponents have to lie about and engage in political shenanigans to silence dissenters cannot be a valid theory, since if it were valid, none of the lies and attempts to silence critics would be necessary -- the truth would be obvious to all.
Given that their predictive model that they are making predictions of doom from is less than 50% accurate, and they started making the predictions of doom when it was less than 3% accurate, believing them is madness at this point. The model cannot account for one of the greatest terrestrial influence on climate, which has 90 times the effect CO2 does. Until they can accurately predict things, their model is worthless.
That assumes that humans are causing climate change at all -- it could be entirely out of our control. They have also utterly failed to prove that the changes they predict will be bad ones overall.
Climate changes. It's what it does. Most so-called deniers aren't disputing that (though there is some evidence we're in a natural cycle), what they're disputing is the accuracy of the predictions of doom.
There isn't even a consensus among climate scientists that our climate is changing at all -- that often quoted 97% number is the result of fraudulent research. The actual number is closer to 32%, and is best stated as "Of the climatologists that have published papers claiming that our climate is changing due to human action, 97% agree with each other." The thing is, only about a third of climatologists have actually published such a paper, meaning two thirds DON'T agree with the 'consensus' going by that methodology.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
This XKCD is all you need to understand, those dashed lines at the end are where the flaws in the models, and that is deciding just how bad the changes will be.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Failed Science, Wisdom, & Intelligence tests all in one go.
If this really could be summed up in a simple chart it would be over with by now. Charts are like statistics, easy to use to tell a bald faced fucking lie.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The "correlation isn't causation" rule doesn't instruct you to ignore correlation completely, it instructs you to not stop looking just because you found one correlation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You are not all wrong if you are discussing simple terms. In complex environments relying on high correlation variables are often wrong. Lets back this down to a simple idea.
You have a broken pane of glass. Nearby there is a baseball. Now most people will immediately assume that the "evidence" implies that the baseball was the object responsible for the break, and in most cases that might be fine. Except, when you are wanting to force the last kid you saw with a baseball near your house to pay for it... well you have a whole different ball game.
The glass may have been shattered by something else and it is just a coincidence that there is a baseball nearby. Many innocent people rot in jail for stuff like this.
Like art, the evidence is entirely in the eye of the beholder. If you have a high fat diet, your Dr will blame your heart disease on it, when there are no studies conclusively correlating that fact. Your Dr will stop trying to learn why you have a problem and you will change your lifestyle and die of heart disease anyways because fat makes a fan-fucking-tastic scapegoat!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
What the fuck are you even talking about?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Confirmation Bias" That is what they were talking about.
Here is a helpful link to assist your studied.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If I wanted something spelled out, I'd ask a guy who knew how to spell studies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W5JqB6e5QwU
(P.S. Do not construe this comment as agreeing with your insane ramblings)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And you just ran into what I said: the rule says don't stop at the first correlation. While broken windows may be correlated with baseballs, they're also correlated with a lot of other things and there goes the "only one variable" part. And I'd argue there's a high correlation, because the vast majority of baseballs aren't accompanied by broken windows and the vast majority of broken windows don't occur around baseballs.
Suppose you have the same broken window and baseball. When you investigate, you find that 99% of _all_ broken windows had a baseball nearby. What are the chances that that broken window wasn't caused by the baseball?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Some maniac is in the brocess od smashing the window out with a hammer. The scientists observing this are in concensus that the hammer guy is the cause of the problem. They disagree slightly, though, in their estimates of how much of the window will remain unsmashed when the maniac stops.
Meanwhile, the denialists' evaluations vary from blaming nearby baseballs and rocks to saying the window actually isn't smashed at all and the scientists are just fearmongering on behalf of the window-replacement company.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Failed Science, Wisdom, & Intelligence tests all in one go.
If this really could be summed up in a simple chart it would be over with by now. Charts are like statistics, easy to use to tell a bald faced fucking lie.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Seriously, the 97% number is bogus, do they have a list of all the scientists in the world? Did they survey all the scientists? Actually, they didn't. So the number is pretty much made up.
And Bill Nye, the science guy, a big climate change cheerleader, is a mechanical engineer.
That being said, I think it is happening and we are contributing to it, but so what. Get off oil sure, maybe not build near a coast sure, but pay other countries? Nope.
It is going to happen no matter what, so do what we need to do to protect America.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
It is going to happen no matter what, so do what we need to do to protect America.
Better get to work on a bubble. Perhaps you can speak to Republicans on advice?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
A mechanical engineer who has put time to understanding hoe climate works, unlike the professional liars who attack him with ridiculously lame ad-homs like "he's just an engineer hurr durr." Seriously, I've heard Fox went so deeply into full-retard mode that they claimed that because he has an engineering degree, that it somehow meant he didn't understand math or physics.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Seriously, the 97% number is bogus
You're right! Extensive fact-checking of that number based on a wide variety of systemic reviews has shown that it might be a bit of an exaggeration, and clear stated consensus is closer to 90%, or possibly 80% at the very lowest. So I guess you win - climate change doesn't exist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So reviewed 10,257 scientists, then discarded all but 77?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The irony that you didn't cite a source appears to be lost on you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yep.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You're wrong.
The evidence for this assertion can be found at the following: Find it yourself.
If you object to my rebuttal but don't see the problem with you telling people to provide sources to support your argument, you might be operating just slightly under double-standards.
If you want to be taken seriously when making claims, especially if you're going to quote something, you need to back up your claims by providing the source so people can double-check it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/425232/climate-change-no-its-not-97-percent-consensus-ian-tutt le
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Thanks for the link, though after reading it I'm wondering where the first quote came from, as it seems to be from another article covering the same subject.
As for the article itself, following the link to the study itself, page 22 from the article, the Zimmerman/Doran study does not seem to be nearly as bad as the article implies. Yes the 97% only involved the group that self-identified as both in the field of climate science and had been publishing most of their papers on the subject, but as noted 'overall, 90% of participants answered “risen” to question 1 and 82% answered yes to question 2.'
(The questions themselves being:
So not 97%, but still the majority of those polled.
With regards to the other '97%' study mentioned, the article strikes me as pretty flawed on how they treat it. If the purpose of the study is to determine what the various stances listed are, then of course they're only going to focus on those papers which state a stance. If a paper doesn't take a stance either way for whatever reason, then it wouldn't be possible to include the stance taken by it. Narrow it down to that level and those that remain were pretty consistently in the 'yes it's happening, and yes humans are responsible' camp.
The mention of the PBL study likewise strikes me as misleading. Yes 'three in ten respondents said that less than half of global warming since 1951 could be attributed to human activity, or that they did not know', but the majority(page 8), 65.9% of those surveyed said that 51% or more was human related, with 32.2% in the '76-100% of global warming is caused by human actions involving greenhouse gasses' camp.
The final paragraph seems to want to have it both ways as well.
'Given the politics of modern academia and the scientific community, it’s not unlikely that most scientists involved in climate-related studies believe in anthropogenic global warming, and likely believe, too, that it presents a problem. However, there is no consensus approaching 97 percent. A vigorous, vocal minority exists. The science is far from settled.'
So they estimate that 'most' scientists in the field believe it's human driven and think it's a problem... but they're also a 'vocal minority'.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The question is, what does that mean? What will our future have in store for humans?
Then the models come into play, and the science gets very weak here. Will the oceans rise 2 feet or 30 feet? Will storms get much worse?
Keep in mind, after the hurricane hit New Orleans, the government rebuilt the levees there to the same specifications because there was no will to build levees that could handle a cat. 5 storm.
NY State government pretty much are vocal warming advocates, yet decided to spend billions to upgrade LaGuardia airport, which is right on the water.
Miami is building day and night. I choose not to kill our economy today to fight something that may or may not happen. I would rather give our children a strong economic future vs. something that is unknown.
Sure, renewable energy that is cost effective, improves air quality (although air quality in the US is the best it has been for 100 years) and clean water.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
That's impossible to you? In a field where you have to publish and be peer reviewed to be taken seriously, you don't think you can have a list of everyone working in the field?
"Did they survey all the scientists?"
You could check the surveys, of course, for example:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2013/may/16/climate-ch ange-scienceofclimatechange
Of course, the survey was of published papers, not individuals, and only covered people working in the field. That's fine - if I'm looking for consensus on what's causing my heart condition, I ask cardiologists, not chiropodists and I'd place more weight on the professionals who have worked long enough to build a decent reputation.
"And Bill Nye, the science guy, a big climate change cheerleader, is a mechanical engineer."
...as are a *lot* of the people denying climate change, some of them under the direct employment of oil companies and others who benefit from the current status quo. But, you just use that fact to reject the one side, right?
"It is going to happen no matter what, so do what we need to do to protect America."
You do realise that it's a GLOBAL thing, and isolating yourself won't protect you? That's fine,. other countries are seriously trying to reduce their impact on the environment, do hopefully we can counteract the negative impact from those ignorant enough to ignore reality.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Using their own figures and doing your own calculations (on the back on an envelope or with a spreadsheet) you'll see these discrepancies. Water (in its various phases) is a very interesting material, especially compared to other materials, including nitrogen/oxygen/carbon dioxide and earth and rock. If you have a look around, you can even get the raw data before it is manipulated and cleansed. Do this and with a bit of study, you can do your own data analysis.
Either, the physics related to thermodynamic reactions has dramatically changed or the basis of the models they use is completely screwed. Since the thermodynamic properties of materials haven't changed (as far as I know), I can only conclude that their models are screwed. Mind you, over thirty years of looking at computer models of all sorts, the latter doesn't surprise me.
Climate change occurs but I have serious doubts about the veracity of any models in current use by climate scientists.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yes, and the majority of what I've seen is in line with their predictions over the last couple of decades. Often on the lower end of the predicted range, but the temperature rises we've seen are in line with predictions.
Not the catastrophic things being predicted by mainstream press, of course. I'm talking about the actual studies.
"If you have a look around, you can even get the raw data before it is manipulated"
Ah, so you're only allowed to use data with no context before errors have been removed nor to allow for known problems so that you can see what you assert? That's interesting.
"Water (in its various phases) is a very interesting material"
Indeed. It's a greenhouse gas that exacerbates the problems because more is released into the atmosphere as temperature rises, causing a feedback effect and also leading to increases in certain kinds of extreme weather activity. Also, the warming and acidification of the oceans is one of the more interesting and more immediate effects we can see, while the more dishonest deniers focus purely on air temperatures.
"Climate change occurs but I have serious doubts about the veracity of any models in current use by climate scientists."
So, do nothing because some of the models may be wrong? You don't seem to be giving me any substance here, other than vague assertions that climate scientist are wrong about the very nature of what they're studying and problems with the models used. Do you have any specifics?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I am talking about the climate scientist catastrophic predictions. The ones that they will give you in public forums and private emails. Forget about the media enhanced ones.
Where did I make any statement about only using data with no context? You are a foolish man (or woman, even if you go by the name of PaulT) to make such an accusation. You obviously have never done any sort of data analysis, not even to check the methodology of error correction used, etc.
Without access to the raw data and what manipulations have been done, you can have no assurances that what they present to you is, in fact, correct. They may be fully compliant with good methodology, but as we have seen over many decades, replication is a serious problem in many scientific fields because of the stuff not supplied, including raw data and methodologies.
There are areas in which we can see specific problems that need dealing with. However, much of the who-ha being proposed will do nothing. It is grandstanding for the sake of grandstanding. Having had communications with a number of these climate scientists over the last decade or so, I think I would rather trust my local used car salesman than these climate scientists, which, I find, appalling. Over many decades, my respect for people working in many science fields has decreased as many of them have shown themselves to be no better morally than many politicians, lawyers and used car salesmen (on the same level as everyone's favourite law firm Prenda).
The substance is - if you have the ability - check their models and the long-term outcomes against the reality of the thermodynamic properties of matter and you will see large holes appears. Of course, you can be like all those "true believers" who worship at the alter of scientism and just accept that they are telling you no pork pies.
Enough said, I had only wanted to say, that you (PaulT) could actually fact check their long term predictions by your own effort without too much trouble.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You don't see how dumb what you just said is? Forget what the scientists have actually told the public, look at what the media crowed about them talking about privately - but forget the media?
Are you honestly saying that we shouldn't believe any science because some scientists had PRIVATE conversations that made it out to be worse than what they PUBLICLY said? We should ignore them because they said things to each other that they didn't say to anyone else?
Do you hold everyone else to that standard? If not, why not?
"Where did I make any statement about only using data with no context?"
When you said to use raw data without it being processed, thus removed of context.
"However, much of the who-ha being proposed will do nothing."
Almost all of it NOT being proposed by the scientists collating the data. Yet, you think those are the people who should be ignored. Strange. Are you one of those idiots who thinks we should ignore all climate data because Al Gore flies in a private plane?
"Enough said, I had only wanted to say, that you (PaulT) could actually fact check their long term predictions by your own effort without too much trouble."
I have, and I've not found any evidence to suggest that they're wrong about long term problems for the inhabitants of this planet. Instead of whining, you could provide your own evidence - something you've not bothered to provide, I've noticed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
There are many models done by these scientists. They are all different. They all can't be right, unless of course we consider multiple universes with different realities, in that case, they all could be correct then.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Because I haven't, at least nothing not coming from a study paid for by an oil company or whose methodology is found questionable. Would you like to provide some? You've apparently done all this research, but you're not backing up any of your claims.
"There are many models done by these scientists. They are all different."
Yes, and the majority reach the conclusion that the planet is warming faster than in previous cycles, and that this additional warming is caused by our activity. Some don't, but the majority point to this conclusion.
That's how science works, especially with something as complex as planetary climate. Scientists don't move in lockstep. In fact, any scientist worth his salt will try to question anything that people in his field have found, especially those with dramatic conclusions. They will try different models, different tactics, different data sets. That's called peer review, and it's one of the fundamental platforms of the scientific method.
Do you have any actual evidence that the majority of climate scientists are wrong, other than "they used different methods to reach differing figures (albeit ones that show the same trend"? Because your blather here has never included anything resembling a citation or explanation of the actual problems you have with them. The only concrete thing you've come up with is that scientists are "scaremongering" because of what they said *in private*, and that's one of the more ridiculous things I've heard in a while.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You keep going back to the original point of human caused global warming, which I have already agreed to.
This has nothing to do with the models themselves.
My point is the models, there are many of them with different predictions, and they all can't be correct. Additionally, the models are not scientific. With different predictions, obviously the results are not being replicated, and that is what science requires.
And as for peer review on the data used, that is incorrect. The former head of NOAA was very annoyed that some of the data couldn't be reviewed, because other people within NOAA didn't warehouse the actual data and data sets.
And when it comes to models, the ADA model used by the Clinton campaign that kept telling them they were going to win in a landslide. That didn't quite work out that well now, did it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Why would you expect them all to come up with exactly the same predictions? The trends are what's important, and that's clear. Different models are guaranteed to bring up differing results to some degree or another on something this complex and predictive.
"And as for peer review on the data used, that is incorrect."
Good thing that's not what I said, then.
You seem to be complaining about something you can't articulate, except to suggest that you'd expect all models to predict the same thing. Which won't happen. But, that's why there's a lot of different models. You literally appear to be rejecting the scientific method because it's working the way it should.
"That didn't quite work out that well now, did it?"
For a number of reasons. None of which have a damn thing to do with climate models.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Models are not of the scientific method. Unless of course, you don't know what the scientific method actually is. Do you need a citation for the scientific method?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Not really. You seem to have a poor understanding of everything else here, so anything you provided would be as useless as the lack of citation you've provided elsewhere.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I will break it down.
A: we both agree, climate change is happening and is being accelerated by humans.
B: You point to the models showing the horror that will ensue from this, you seem to believe the models are also following the scientific method, which is incorrect, because for that to be true, the results have to be able to be replicated. Since different models show different results, by definition, that is not using the scientific method.
Notwithstanding the faulty logic you use, I think sea levels will (and have already started to) rise. I don't plan on buying any beachfront property and wouldn't support any payments to current beachfront property owners, be it in the US or elsewhere.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You've done nothing of the sort - in fact, not only have you not proven anything, your rambling doesn't even explain what the hell you actually have a problem with. But, you're not namecalling instead of attempting adult discourse, so I know I can safely ignore you and leave you in your delusions.
"Since different models show different results, by definition, that is not using the scientific method."
Pleas, please, please read an actual definition of the scientific method. You clearly don't know what it is. Hint: different models reaching the same conclusions has nothing to do with it. Nothing whatsoever.
"Notwithstanding the faulty logic you use, I think sea levels will (and have already started to) rise."
...which is one of many impacts that climate change will have. Are you not concerned about the others (some of which, such as ocean acidification, is demonstrably already happening)?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Ah yes because he is a lowly mechanical engineer (could be worse he might have been a civil engineer) he can't possibly read, study, and understand any other subject in existence
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I think we should get off oil, one because I am tired of giving assholes who don't like us money.
I also think that climate change will continue happening, because the 3rd world and countries like China and India won't continue their advances, so what is the point of weakening the US to comply with caps when it won't make a difference anyway?
Europe and other parts of the world are much more at risk that the US is, not that I want to fuck them, but too bad, maybe people should not be living in areas that will be under water. Let them pay for it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Do you have any evidence for that, or are you just hoping they'll stop?
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jan/06/china-cementing-global-dominance-of-renewab le-energy-and-technology
Forget climate change, the air quality in Chinese cities is bad enough that this must be something they want to push if only for their own health. They mainly used other technologies because they were cheap, now that renewable sources are becoming equally viable on large scales, they will of course want to reap the benefits.
"Let them pay for it."
Yeah, the US caused a huge proportion of the problem, but because you might not be *personally* affected by the aftermath, fuck everyone else. No sense of responsibility, no clue of the wider cost and the effects they will have on you and your country in the long term, just sit back and watch them suffer until it's too late to respond before your turn arrives.
Let me guess, Trump voter?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I know China's air quality sucks, and their two largest rivers won't be able to support life in about 2 years. Hell, they have farmers growing red rice because of all the contamination in their groundwater, the farmers know it causes cancer but it is better to die of cancer later than starve today. That is a quote from a farmer growing the red rice that has had multiple children with weird forms of cancer.
America led the world in emissions because we were at the forefront of the industrial revolution. Sure, we fucked things up, but do you think the 3rd world won't do the same in their advancement? If not, should we pay it?
I think not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Are they stopping what they already promised? It's interesting that you assert they will never do things they already said they will do, to the tune of billions of dollars of their money.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/dec/02/china-says-it-will-cut-power-sector-emissi ons-60-by-2020
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jillbaker/2016/07/20/good-news-from-china-coal-has-peaked -and-emissions-will-begin-falling-after-2020-2022/#7905c6277905
"That is a quote from a farmer growing the red rice that has had multiple children with weird forms of cancer."
Yes, so it's even more imperative that China put as many resources into clean energy, at a rate much higher than anyone else. If their rivers and food supply are being destroyed, they will reduce as much as they need to stop that before it affects the whole country, it's just common sense. They will then sell the resulting technological advances on to others, while you operate on dated polluting technology, because you didn't want to pay for it.
"America led the world in emissions because we were at the forefront of the industrial revolution"
So, you admit that the riches of your country are based at least partly on the pollution you caused? Why, then, is it wrong to ask you to help clean up your mess?
"Sure, we fucked things up, but do you think the 3rd world won't do the same in their advancement?"
That depends, will the advances made by China and others make the cleaner technology more affordable? if so, why would they choose the pollutants?
"If not, should we pay it?"
We broke a lot of shit, but other people are going to break things too so we won't pay for the damage we already caused. Also, we won't make any effort to ensure that the other stuff doesn't get broken to begin with, we'll just sit back and hope everyone else sorts it out before we suffer ourselves.
Yeah, Trump voter.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I fully expect England to begin to be able to produce good wines again, and then when the conveyor in the Atlantic stops, to go into another mini ice age, just like has happened in the past.
Shit happens, either buy a swim suit or some ice skates, depending on your timetable.
How come no one has a problem terra forming mars, but us raising the temp on earth is out of the question?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yes, most people are happy to get stuff for free. Here's the problem - your economy will have problems one way or the other. Be it problems growing crops, imports, destruction of your own coastline, the resulting refugees and inevitable conflicts. You'll have to pay for it, whether you create a cleaner planet now or deal with the fallout later. The amounts and methods are under question, but the fact is you will have to pay something, and it's always cheaper to prevent a problem than it is to clear up the damage afterwards.
Again, it's a global problem, your isolationism won't magically protect you from the effects. The question is whether you want to mitigate the worst of it. Do you want to stop the oil tanker from capsizing off your best beach areas, or would you rather just pay for the cleanup of the spills and deal with the economic impact once it happens because you didn't want to pay for the safeguards?
"the changing weather"
Ah, so you don't know anything about the actual problem. Good to know. First hint - there's huge difference between weather and climate. The fact that there's been natural variations in local climate in the past also doesn't dispute the most problematic fact right now - the current changes are happening much more rapidly and at greater variations than happened last time.
"How come no one has a problem terra forming mars, but us raising the temp on earth is out of the question?"
Because Mars, as far as we know, is uninhabited, or at least not containing life that we depend on. Plus, it's not something that's actually happening right now at this moment.
There's plenty of life on Earth, and a lot of it has only evolved to be able to cope with a narrow range of temperature. The current change is outpacing the ability of life to change to cope with it, thus life on Earth is in jeopardy.
The planet will be fine. Its inhabitants are in some real danger, though. This includes you, or at least your descendants. That's the real problem here - some people are too narrow-minded to want to deal with a problem that won't hit hardest until after they're dead. They'll happily doom their great grandchildren for something they could deal with now, though, you're too cheap and lazy to do anything right now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You want to have surgery today for something that may (or may not happen to the extent that you believe in) in the future.
And what part of me wanting affordable, clean energy didn't you understand? Oh, and when did C02 become air pollution?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yes, indeed. The question is that, now that it's happening much more quickly and at greater levels than it has in the past, what will be the effect on the organisms who inhabit it? Again, the planet will be fine, but it may not resemble the one we know once you've finished destroying what's on it.
"Yes, we have to adapt, yes, we have to change."
You just don't want to help do that. I'll bet you're happy to pay for the things that are polluting it, though.
"You want to have surgery today for something that may (or may not happen to the extent that you believe in) in the future."
Yes, damn right I do if it's deemed medically necessary. I don't wait for a cyst or tumor to become malignant before I do something about it. More to the point, I don't wait until I actually have to have a foot amputated from diabetes before I change my diet.
People who do wait for the worst to happen tend to be the ones who have much bigger problems in the future, and pay heavily for it.
"And what part of me wanting affordable, clean energy didn't you understand?"
The fact that you didn't want to help pay for it, nor clean up the mess you already made is quite clear. I know you're happy for others to provide it for you.
"Oh, and when did C02 become air pollution?"
Since its chemical properties became known and we studied the effects of what it actually does at higher levels in the atmosphere?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You want to spend trillions of dollars on something without being sure it will actually be needed? I don't.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
OK... so, why? What's wrong? Why have predictions generally been keeping pace with reality for the last few decades if they're so far off? What alternative models would you prefer?
Details, please.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Out of curiosity, what was your stance on the Iraq War and the Bush tax cuts?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Meanwhile, the costs of doing nothing when it turns out we really, really did need to do something will be astronomically higher.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
The 97% number was a survey of actual, practicing climate scientists.
The 32% number was obtained by asking random "scientists" if they believed in climate change. Thing is, these were people like biologists or social scientists and such who, unless they devoted time to understanding climate science, are no more reliable than amy other layman on the street. This is more accurately called fraud.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
It means no such thing. But hey, if you're gonna lie, then lie big. Right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
There's a gif I've seen recently mocking the anti-vaxxer community. Basically, a guy's sat at a desk explaining to a woman "I have 1 million studies that say vaccines do not cause autism and one that says they do". "Aha!" exclaims the woman, grabbing the single study from the guy's hand, "I knew it!".
That's pretty much what we're dealing with here. If they're not trying to dismiss the whole thing as a money grab by scientists (itself ridiculous in the face of the massive amount of money made by those who profit from it being denied), they have no problem attaching themselves to studies that have been disputed many times, because they say what they want to hear.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So what's up with the loyalty of the Iraq war generation?
Why are they disloyal to their oath of service and the constitution, and do they really wonder that very few "millennials" are not loyal to them but rather to the country they have sworn to serve and its laws?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What are the biggest leaks in the past 10 years? Snowden, Manning and the defense contractor all happened under Obama.
Just saying.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Larger leaks took place under previous administrations, yes, I believe the purpose behind bringing up Trump is that so many leaks are happening during his administration, even this early into it.
Whether that be because it's easier, those doing so don't feel loyalty towards the WH, they don't figure they'll be caught because of incompetence on the part of the WH, or a mix of those reasons and more, it's pretty hard to deny that the current administration is leaking like a sieve, which ties in nicely to a former government director complaining about those darn kids and their loose lips.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
We wouldn't have all these problems if it weren't for...
If not for them, we would have gotten away with it!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: We wouldn't have all these problems if it weren't for...
Darn kids and their dictionaries, loyalty to country instead of government, and refusal to cover up wrongdoing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: We wouldn't have all these problems if it weren't for...
it was millenials.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How They Were Raised
The message is that those with power cannot be trusted and will screw you over, even murder, if you become an impediment to what they want. Should they be surprised when a nation of millennials doesn't buy this any more?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
When there's a trust issue, the problem so obviously comes from the person being lied to. /s
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
People Lost Faith in Government When ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: People Lost Faith in Government When ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Millennials are not the only one's.
The focus on millennials demonstrates the blindness of officialdom.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I think he's on to something.
I was born in '82, which makes me either a young Gen Xer or an old Millennial, depending on who you ask. And I've spent of my adult life bouncing from one independent contract position to another. I was fortunate enough to get a full-time position last year, but prior to that I had eight jobs in seven years through three different temp agencies.
When the company you work for isn't loyal to you, you don't feel any obligation to be loyal to it. I was loyal to my coworkers, I was true to my ethics, but I sure as hell was never loyal to any of those companies. Why would anyone be loyal to a company that has explicitly engineered his position to be disposable?
Edward Snowden was an independent contractor. I'm sure that's not the only reason he chose to leak the information that he did, but I think it was likely a factor.
We've got an entire generation -- maybe more! -- that's grown up without any notion of company loyalty. That's the inevitable result of the shift from full-time salaried employees to temps.
Charles Stross wrote about this at some length in a piece called Spy Kids back in 2013. It's highly recommended reading.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Charles Stross wrote about this at some length in a piece called Spy Kids back in 2013. It's highly recommended reading.
Well I was going to quote and comment from that article, but it seems they operate under a 'Only one freebie', and it demanded I 'log in' when I closed the link and then tried to open it again. As such anyone interested in that article(and it is a good one), make sure you get everything you want from it the first go around, you won't get another shot.
The quote I was considering however was about how loyalty is a two-way street, a reciprocal thing where if one group doesn't feel that the other has their back then they're not likely to feel any sense of loyalty to the other, in that case their employer, whether that be private or government.
With the increasing shift from full-time, lifelong employment to (perceived or real) 'Eh, we'll pay you for the moment, but if we can save a penny from hiring someone else don't expect us to hesitate' mindset among employers, again private or governmental, it's hardly a surprise that people wouldn't feel overly 'loyal' to the ones hiring them. After all, why be loyal to someone that sees you as disposable, someone that can be replaced with any of a number of other people?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
We can either be part of the problem or part of the solution. I choose to be part of the solution by refusing to play along with this crap or to permit social shamers to "correct" my attitude. Who's with me?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
When the govt. decides to disregard the Constitution, when staff lies to congress (Snowden said this influenced his decision to leak what he did) and when the government does things they shouldn't be doing, who signs on for that? Who believes in that.
Give people something to believe in, give something people trust, and leaks won't happen. The government has long failed the American people in that regard, which is why you see leaks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If you decide to go the route of government then you need to go in never having faith in it and treating it like a loaded gun being very careful where you point it. Because the Government does have some positive traits... when you need something destroyed, that is.
So remember... the very first step to destroying a nation is to create a government. All that is left after that is to time how low we all can dance this jig. And that jig is only up when enough citizens wise up and realize what is really going on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Maybe the problems is in faith itself. Maybe the way to go is to always question everything, all the time. The problem is that that leaves no room for consensus, and that means we cannot all get along, ever.
So maybe the issue isn't in faith itself, but in blind faith, in anything (eg. my country right or wrong). There are some times when there is more than one right answer. Sometimes, something we take for granted (on faith) turns out to be different when we learn something new.
The whistle-blowers help us get past the treachery of government, millennials or not. And they (governments) don't like that at all. Our problem is finding a form of government that actually works, in the interest of the people, rather than in the interest of the seated government or some subset of their constituents.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
You are definitely onto something...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Getting rid of government? Done. Look at what you've got now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
This has actually been tried in Cambodia by a chap called Pol Pot and his Khmer Rouge regime.
Ended badly. It seems you require state force to get rid of the state, but never seem to quite get round to the "ending the state" part.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That set an arguably bad precedent at a very early time in my life.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I am okay with it being said or played allowed, but no one should ever be forced to participate in the act and neither should people be harassed for it either.
We must, at all times, allow people to participate at their time and choosing, even if you do not respect their decision to do so.
No one should be forced or coerced to do anything that affirms, pledges, or voices support for anything they disagree with or vice versa!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What you get..
'FREE COUNTRY', DEMOCRATIC, personal freedom and RIGHTS, Streets paved with gold, ...., ...., ..... (FILL IN THE BLANKS)
Then lets add ...
ENGLISH AS A SECOND LANGUAGE..
The weirdest, hardest language to LEARN/UNDERSTAND/decipher when we have so many MEANINGS that say, MAYBE/Could be/MIGHT happen/.. And the '*' has MORE meaning and words after it, then any other..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
if there is any truth at all to the claims by hayden, the response of this generation to the anti-american nature of this despicable government is causing me to reconsider my opinion of these youngsters. maybe i have been selling them a bit short.
the original patriots of this nation suffered at the hands of their government from abroad exactly the same charges hayden levels and for very similar reasons. maybe we have a new generation of true patriots.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If the old guard thinks it is bad now...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: If the old guard thinks it is bad now...
do you know what happened to them??
Go look..
Many are in corp america..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: If the old guard thinks it is bad now...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: If the old guard thinks it is bad now...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: If the old guard thinks it is bad now...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Headline typo/grammar alert:
Was:
Former CIA Director Blame Millennials Lack Of Loyalty For All The Government LeaksShould be:
Former CIA Director Blames Millennials' Lack Of Loyalty For All The Government LeaksPersonally, I wouldn't capitalize "of", "for", "the" but people have become lazy. But it's "Blames" (singular) and "Millenials'" (genitive).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Headline typo/grammar alert:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Headline typo/grammar alert:
Citation?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Headline typo/grammar alert:
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/201 00521/0335209521.shtml#c45
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Headline typo/grammar alert:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Headline typo/grammar alert:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Trump era illustrates the failure of the old notions of "Loyalty"
Trump demands loyalty of a classic feudal nature, the loyalty to a king. There's a Persian(?) saying When at noon the Caliph declares it midnight, behold the stars!.
During the late middle ages we developed the notion of loyalty to a flag -- to a nation as defined by a territory or a people -- rather than the magistrate that governs it. In the United States, patriotism and treason should be defined by loyalty (or disloyalty) to the principles that we have defined as essential to our nation.
So, whistleblowers act in loyalty to the fundamental principles of the United States (many of which are enshrined, as clearly as could be done in 18th century language, in the Constitution of the United States).
Considering that most elected and appointed positions (and plenty of hired ones) require an oath to protect and defend the US Constitution, I think loyalty to individuals is misjudgement. It's loyalty to what best serves the nation and its fundamental principles that should be encouraged and rewarded. Sadly, people will fight for loyalty to themselves, whereas those principles don't without champions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The Trump era illustrates the failure of the old notions of "Loyalty"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Loyalty? To whom or what?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
He Has A Point
It was taught behavior... but they also taught us critical thinking skills. Questioning authority also means poking holes in the approach, the message and the intent.
Today with no child left behind, and instant access to fake news, critical thinking skills are from my interactions with today's youth (under 30 crowd) highly lacking. I ask them about history and they haven't been taught the lessons we learned. I ask them about government and they don't even know who represents them.
Today Snowden is a "hero", growing up JFK was. One fights to liberate for individual (or the Russian gubernment?), the other asked what you could do for the country and got us to the moon.
All that said, I see hope with a few of today's youth that are doing AP level schooling, have done their own research into history and do very well in questioning authority. Now it's this generation's responsibility, vote, take office and make it a better nation or sit back on social media and troll?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Loyal with people, not government
Another problem people have no freedom for choose their country or several countries or choose no country; and countries behave like cages with birds marked with which cage they owns them. Who becomes loyal this system?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Boomers aren't real trusting, either
But Hayden's wrong, no sane person believes that "the government" is all benevolent. You know the joke about the two biggest lies that come out of DC. "We're from the government and we're here to help" and "I won't come in your mouth".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]