Electronic Burglary in the Senate 1391
earthworm2 writes "The Boston Globe is reporting that Republicans on the Senate judiciary committee have spied on confidential Democratic files for a year, studying their strategies and passing on the juicy bits to the media."
Patriot Act (Score:5, Insightful)
Wow! (Score:3, Insightful)
"A technician hired by the new judiciary chairman, Patrick Leahy, Democrat of Vermont, apparently made a mistake that allowed anyone to access newly created accounts on a Judiciary Committee server shared by both parties -- even though the accounts were supposed to restrict access only to those with the right password."
This is actually scary news for Americans!
Re:Confidential files (Score:5, Insightful)
Way to go GOP! (Score:4, Insightful)
Tell everyone that you're all for fair play, an even playing field for everyone but then read other people's confidential memos to gain an unfair advantage. How sleazy is that?
I wonder what Republicans who thought Bill Clinton getting a blowjob was worthy of impeachment have to say about Senators and their staffs committing crimes punishable by up to a year in prison?
Re:Confidential files (Score:5, Insightful)
besides, this isn't the same. if you correctly interpret the 2600 definition of hacking, the GOP folks should have disclosed the security vulnerability, not exploited it for their own benefit.
Re:Clueless... like a fox (Score:5, Insightful)
I worked down in the Pentagon for two and a half years. I thought I had a really good grip on political machinations, having read a lot of polysci theory and having always been marginally decent at manipulating people. When I got down to Arlington I realized that the political power players are like sharks in a vast tank full of guppies.
I couldn't even believe the level of shit that people were capable of doing, willing to do, and doing every day to advance their careers and positions. A clever honeypot trick like this wouldn't be a wondrous masterstroke to top off someone's career - it'd be a move executed before they finished breakfast!
Sometimes I'm really upset by our divisive and angry Two Party System; it seems like nothing ever gets done. Other times I am very, very grateful that the government is not one gigantic unified son of a bitch, because then all those manipulative, controlling and totally evil tendencies would be aimed squarely at me.
Having clearly marked opponents gives them something to aim for and exert their energy upon.
"I don't reveal my sources." (Score:3, Insightful)
"They're welcome to think anything they want," he said. "As has been demonstrated, I don't reveal my sources."
At least he's consistant in enabling criminals. A Bush administration official got Novak to blow the cover of a CIA operative involved in stopping WMD proliferation and Novak won't reveal his source in that case either. Whatta patriot!
as I've said for some time now (Score:3, Insightful)
Interesting how we are supposed to trust a government that doesn't trust itself, eh?
Gah. I'm moving to Emland. It's a small island off the coast of your imagination. Right next to the Citgo, across the street from the Chinese takeout/wireless internet cafe/pizzaria/gas station/home depot/Publix.
Bah.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Patriot Act (Score:2, Insightful)
WTF? Skylarov was probably looking at more than that for just demonstrating security flaws, not exploiting them like in this case.
Oh yeah, I forgot, the new computer security/terrorist/fear laws don't apply to those making them.
You can't have it both ways. (Score:2, Insightful)
Since the Republicans did it, it's a travesty.
Go figure.
Re:Confidential files (Score:5, Insightful)
Source code wants to be free (or so thinks 95% of the /. readership -- disclaimer: I'm part of that 95%), but I think you'd take an entirely different approach when you start talking about private memos.
If I access your computer and steal your private journals or letters to your sweetheart and leak them to the media is that "freeing information"? And don't go saying that they deserved it because it wasn't password protected (according to the article the techie neglected to put a password on the documents) -- if I steal handwritten letters to/from your sweatheart out of an unlocked filing cabinet does that make it ok?
The truely disgusting part about all of this is that the "Liberally-biased media" (in the eyes of Fox News and all the Conservative pundits) probably won't even pick up on this -- think we'll be seeing this on CNN or MSNBC anytime soon? I doubt it. Imagine the uproar if the Dems got caught doing something like this....
Clueless media (Score:5, Insightful)
A technician hired by the new judiciary chairman, Patrick Leahy, Democrat of Vermont, apparently made a mistake
That wasn't a computer malfunction. The computer and the software worked exactly like the way they were supposed to work.
Re:Confidential files (Score:5, Insightful)
Since both parties are stinkin liars, I don't think you can believe either story.
Novak again? (Score:5, Insightful)
> Commitee infiltrated opposition computer files for a year,
> monitoring secret strategy memos and periodically
> passing on copies to the media, Senate officials told The
> Globe.
> Novak is also at the center of an investigation into who
> leaked the identity of a CIA agent whose husband
> contradicted a Bush administration claim about Iraqi
> nuclear programs.
So, Novak leaks the name of a CIA operator for political gain to hide the fact that Bush lied about Iraq trying to buy uranium for nuclear weapons. Then he blows the cover of a CIA front operation to further his story. Why isn't this guy in jail?
More importantly, some Republicans keep doing crazy stuff like this. We still don't know which "senior Bush official" leaked the info to Novak, and Bush seems uninterested to find out who committed this crime. The Republicans have been desperate to bury Watergate's effect on their image, but stuff like makes it alive and well.
Re:WTF! (Score:3, Insightful)
Didn't a republican president resign over things like this?
No. A Republican president resigned over a massive illegal campaign of domestic spying and sabotage, of which the breakin to which you refer was only one small part; the coverup of that breakin was mainly intended to keep investigators from finding out about the overall campaign and all the other things they'd done.
I understand the tendency we all have now to compare every political scandal with Watergate (right down to giving scandals names of the form "_fill_in_the_blank_here_gate"); and maybe a whole bunch more illegal/unethical crap will be discovered that makes this current situation comparable. But right now, it isn't.
Re:Burglary? (Score:4, Insightful)
Oh Sweet Irony...Put Them In Prison (Score:5, Insightful)
Using the same Draconian laws that they themselves enacted, these people could end up serving hard time for their deeds, losing their rights to privacy, vote and carry a gun. That and losing their jobs and pensions, not to mention medical benefits, etc. In other words, as felons, they become no-ones.
That to me, is the definition of irony.
Re:Confidential files (Score:3, Insightful)
Particularly when I know it's illegal and I only dip in when he's in the bathroom.
Re:Confidential files (Score:1, Insightful)
I wonder what Bob Woodward would say about that.
Later,
Jason from Seattle
If you or I had done this... (Score:2, Insightful)
Why is it that when the Republicans do it, for _nefarious_ reasons, it's largely ignored/shrugged off? Where are the charges? Where the zealosy?
Double standards are great, especially when they cost people their lives to our Judicial system, while the true criminals get kickbacks and screw their constituencies.
Re:In other news... (Score:3, Insightful)
but on the plus side, he established the rights-stomping war on drugs, and as an added bonus went after peaceful protestors and tried to create a police state.
if only we could have another president like richard milhouse nixon.
sigh... i get all gushy just thinking about it.
You got a love it : "Glitch" (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:heh. (Score:5, Insightful)
Louis Freeh was also shown to be a partisan liar (Score:4, Insightful)
In case you weren't familiar with those, the WhiteWater scandals were shown to be completely baseless. As a matter of fact, several independent government agencies acquitted the Clintons of wrongdoing from the very beginning. Despite this, Freeh continuned to play up to his Republican buddies in Congress.
While we're meditating on this era, let's remember the outrageous scandals that neo-conservatives used to ruin a great presidency.
Re:Confidential files (Score:1, Insightful)
ACLs aren't supposed to make the rules - they just enforce them.
Admittedly, a political environment is a different problem.
Duh. (Score:5, Insightful)
By want, I assume that you meant took. Maybe yes, maybe no.
But when you competitor does, it's pretty clear that it's theft.
Re:Burglary? (Score:3, Insightful)
Trespassing *is* burglary, if you have is the intent to commit a felony (specific conditions vary by state). Given the possibility of jail time quoted in the article, this was a felony.
Re:Confidential files (Score:5, Insightful)
> about it along time ago.
Reminds me of that scene in the Simpsons when Bart and Lisa are arguing about hockey. Bart starts swinging his arms saying, "I'm going to swing my arms like this, and if you get hit, it's your own fault".
Simple point: these Republicans had no business digging through anyone's files. Saying, "oh, by the way, we've got access to some stuff that you don't want us to see. Hope you fix your security breach soon, or we're liable to dig through your stuff again!" isn't much of an excuse.
Unless these Republicans would like us to just assume from now on that they have no ethics and act accordingly.
No political fallout for these crimes (Score:5, Insightful)
In this situation, the Republicans come away looking like the sly rogues who "got away with it," and the Democrats look like beleasguered victims... and at the end of the day, most people would rather be the victimizers than the victims, and thus will identify with the Republicans.
The law & Prison (Score:5, Insightful)
So, when will we see the perps in prison? Not that Whitewater, this-is-just-a-camp-with-a-fence type prison, but a real-live fuck-you-in-the-ass type prison? (Probably never.)
I've said it before, I'll say it again: Republicans cannot be trusted.
I can't believe this isn't big news! (Score:5, Insightful)
There's a reply up there about "this is business as usual", but I can't think of any possible excuse or mitigating of extenuating circumstances for this sort of crime. Saying that "well it's been done before" certainly doesn't make me feel any better about it.
It's hard enough to take our government, and my role in it, seriously. Blowing off this kind of scandal certainly doesn't help.
Re:Way to go GOP! (Score:5, Insightful)
Tell everyone that you're all for fair play, an even playing field for everyone but then read other people's confidential memos to gain an unfair advantage. How sleazy is that?
I wonder what Republicans who thought Bill Clinton getting a blowjob was worthy of impeachment have to say about Senators and their staffs committing crimes punishable by up to a year in prison?
Wow, you say something I can agree with for once!
They won't think anything of it. You might have some real outrage from the handful of decent Republicans in the Senate (McCain, Snowe, Collins all come to mind), but the party establishment itself (which was taken over by the Southern religious right wing a long time ago) won't say a damn thing.
It's the same level of hypocrisy they use when they all fall in behind George-I-was-too-busy-snorting-crack-to-report-for -my-National-Guard-duty W. Bush, but bash McCain (or other Patriots like Senator Cleland) as being "unpatrotic". They actually ran attack ads against Cleland linking him to Bin Ladin -- the man lost three of his limbs in Vietnam! Yet how dare we criticize Bush for snorting crack and avoiding the war (not to mention his DWI) -- he's the President after all and you need to respect the office.
Hell, since I'm ranting, let's talk about yelling at the Dems for "blocking" Bush's nominates when the vast majority of them have been confirmed (rubber-stamped is more like it). The Democrats in the Senate have been a whole lot nicer to Dubya then the Republicans ever were to Clinton -- much to my dismay.
There are a few decent Republicans (mostly in the Northeast where they actually still stand for fiscal responsibility and haven't been taken over by the religious right) -- but they are few and far between -- and I won't vote for any Republican for Federal Office until they expunge the Southern Religious Right from the party. Which is really too bad because there are actually a few Republicans that I like and am in a position to vote for -- I hope Giuliani run's for Governor of NY and not the Senate seat open in 04. It'd kill me to have to vote against him, but I would because we can't allow the Republicans to continue to control the Federal Government.
What about electonic election memos? (Score:4, Insightful)
Hold On Now! (Score:5, Insightful)
Translation: "I didn't do it, but even if I did you couldn't prove I did anything wrong."
Now we see the moral *squishiness* of the individuals involved. If these files had been national security documents (government documents) or salary action documents (also government documents), would Miranda still claim that they were open season for anyone who wanted to read them?
Does anyone still believe that the USA Patriot Act will be used exclusively for criminal investigations?
Re:WTF! (Score:3, Insightful)
Good post. I think the majority of people get their info about Watergate from watching Forrest Gump. "Hmmmm. Someone is searching for something with a flashlight, then Nixon resigns...."
Re:Another thing.. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Confidential files (Score:2, Insightful)
I don't get it. I agree with the poster, but what I don't understand is that he gets modded as insightful. But if he'd posted the same point in regards to people using someone else's unsecured wifi without their explicit permission, he'd get modded as a troll.
Re:heh. (Score:1, Insightful)
Do you think these actions are unethical? Should someone be punished? Does the fact that Clinton was accused of something (and never found guilty) mean that what the GOP did in this case is okay?
The irony here is how piously ethical the Republicans always act. Yet this is completely unethical. Their only defense is that they claim to have told someone about it, yet kept exploiting the bug anyways. That is pathetic and this is truly indicitive of the lawless GOP.
Would a hacker who found an exploit on a government server be shown mercy if he claimed that years ago he attempted to warn the government of the flaw (yet kept exploiting it)? Of course not, time and time again hackers are prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. In the article the GOP attempts to obfuscate the situation by claiming there was no hacking involved, yet this is the truest form of hacking; acheiving a goal by using methods not intended by system design. Just because it was easy to get in, does not make it something other than hacking.
Hypocrites, all of them. How does an offtopic comment about Clinton get a mod of +5?
CyberGate (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:The goods (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Damn Republicans (Score:5, Insightful)
The devil (Score:5, Insightful)
So they are "government documents" but not "official business." And it's not stealing because they were "disclosed" by someone making a mistake setting up security. You heard it straight from the Senate Majority Leader's staff: If a sysadmin mistake allows you to get into a system, then everything in the system is freely "disclosed" and there's no penalty for copying it.
Also, documents can be "government" but not "official" - presumably the Republican Party is the only "official" government by now?
Re:Confidential files (Score:5, Insightful)
Some people consider this to be like Watergate, but I see it as far worse. The original Watergate crime was a single breakin relating to a political campain, this has to do with private internal discussion of Senators about matters of government. Ok, sure there might have been some real partisan politics mixed in, but the Republican staffers would have had to wade through a lot of messages to get to the parts they wanted to publish. I don't think that it's treason, but it's damn near.
Re:But the Patriot Act says that it's legal! (Score:5, Insightful)
I say if the media is so liberal, why doesn't it attack everything Bush does? Hell, I never even see anyone questioning anything.
I just want to know the status of a few things:
Where is my 9/11 report?
Where are the WMD?
What's the status of the anthrax investigation?
What's the status of the leak investigation?
I'm not disagreeing, just felt like bringing these up. This shit should be on the news, in the 45 minute loops, until the whole story is heard.
The current administration seems to have everyone so scared of terrorists, they've become distracted.
Re:Damn Republicans (Score:2, Insightful)
KY Jelly. Lots of KY Jelly.
Re:Damn Republicans (Score:5, Insightful)
The fact that members of Congress and the President routinely usurp powers not granted to them (or even worse, explicitly denied to them) is criminal and is a direct violation of their oaths of office. The fact that we, the citizens of the US, have allowed them to do so without punishment, is shameful.
Re:Point... (Score:3, Insightful)
Readily granted! That's what makes this thing so damned hilarious. The Dems are probably pissed they didn't think of it first.
All the more reason not to run computers containing extremely sensitive information on friggin' windows.
Time for a third party, if you ask me.
Be nice if it worked, but I think the power hungry are all the same world-wide. Ie, not the people you want in power.
Re:Confidential files (Score:2, Insightful)
How about they all get shipped to the USA's luxury resort in Cuba for a few months, while the citizens ponder the problem of the politicians breaking the very laws they enforce on us...
Re:It wouldn't be the political masterminds going (Score:3, Insightful)
This is why cringe when they are called "America's Leaders". A leader take responsibility for the actions of their staff.
That means if something is done that's illegal, even if they didn't know about it, it's still their responsibility.
No, they do not lead me. They do not lead the country, surely.
Re:Confidential files (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Confidential files (Score:5, Insightful)
If the files were supposed to be confidential, shouldn't they have been protected?
And if the Republicans are hackers doesn't that mean we should be supporting them??
Since information wants to be free and all.
You are probably trying to be funny, but what is not funny about this is if these computers were cracked by one of us and not a Republican staffer, these same Republicans would be howling for blood and nailing asses to walls. This is complete and total bullshit. There was a security problem that could be fixed and the Dems did not fix it. But the Republicans cracked their computers and shared confidential information. They broke the DMCA and several other anti-cracker laws in the process. Someone pointed out that the Dems have pulled this kind of thing as well, but two wrongs do not make a right. The staffers should be treated just as any other civilian would be in this case. And the Dem admin who refused to patch the machine should be fired and investigated to see if s/he is not part of this on the sly.
Some choice points from this article:
As the extent to which Democratic communications were monitored came into sharper focus, Republicans yesterday offered a new defense. They said that in the summer of 2002, their computer technician informed his Democratic counterpart of the glitch, but Democrats did nothing to fix the problem.
Other staffers, however, denied that the Democrats were told anything about it before November 2003.
He said, she said. Regardless of the truth, the Republicans had no right to crack computers just because the potential for exploitation was there. Republican prosecutors and judges would never accept this as a defense for a cracking case, in fact they would laugh as they sent Mr. Cracker off to Federal Pound-Me-In-The-Ass Prison and have done so repeatedly in similar cases. A cracker who informs his/her target of the potential exploit before using it to break into a computer is never afforded any kind of legal protection.
Reached at home, Miranda said he is on paternity leave; Frist's office said he is on leave "pending the results of the investigation" -- he denied that any of the handwritten comments on the memos were by his hand and said he did not distribute the memos to the media. He also argued that the only wrongdoing was on the part of the Democrats -- both for the content of their memos, and for their negligence in placing them where they could be seen.
"There appears to have been no hacking, no stealing, and no violation of any Senate rule," Miranda said. "Stealing assumes a property right and there is no property right to a government document. . . . These documents are not covered under the Senate disclosure rule because they are not official business and, to the extent they were disclosed, they were disclosed inadvertently by negligent [Democratic] staff."
Again, bollocks. These were confidential memos which were clearly meant only for their recipients, just like all office memos and business emails are. And I love the blame-the-victim here, where they try to put the blame on the Dems for having an exploitable computer. So by placing their confidential memos on a machine that can be cracked, they are in fact releasing this info to the public with no intellectual property rights (like copyright) asserted? Really? So if I crack the TIA computers that means the Republicans released the information for free into the public domain? The Microsoft Source that was stolen is actually legal, free, and clear? Can I get an affidavit from John Ashcroft to this effect?
All this adds up to prove that the Republicans' vaunted belief in the rule of law is complete bullshit. The party has been taken over by outlaws who seem to think the law does not apply to them. The fact that this kind of cracking can occur at the highest levels of government with NO investigation into prosecution leads directly to a determination of gross negligence on the part of Bush, since he is teh top cop in the country and it is his job to make sure the laws are enforced and obeyed, especially by the staff of his party members.
Having morality and ethics make one liberal?! (Score:5, Insightful)
I can't believe you said such a thing. Morality and ethics aside? What sort of argument is that? Having expectations that government work in a smooth and orderly fashion, in a manner that will express the will of the people, is not a liberal position. Saying "morality and ethics aside" is like saying "notions of civilization aside". If being conniving, crooked and dishonest are your ideas of how a political philosophy should work, please point me to the other side.
Moderating comments, vis a vis Karma (Score:1, Insightful)
You have a fundamental misunderstanding as to the point of the slashdot moderation system.
When you are thinking of moderation in terms of karma and that moderation's effect on that user's karma, you are, at best, misunderstanding the mod system. At worst, you are abusing the mod system.
As a point of reference, I would like to refer to the the first Slashdot troll post investigation [umass.edu]. Specifically, I'd like to call you attention to the following point:
Logged in people are modded down faster than anonymous cowards. Presumably these Nazi Moderators think it's more important to burn a user's existing karma, to silence that individual for the future, than to use the moderation system for what it's meant for : identifying "good" and "bad" posts (Notice how nearly all oppressive governments in the past and present do the same thing : marking individuals as bad and untrustworthy because they have conflicting opinions, instead of engaging in a public discussion about these opinions
The reverse is also true, as you have demonstrated by your comment.
it seems like nothing ever gets done (Score:2, Insightful)
The current Republican party pursues its vision as if it's the only on that counts. Moreover, there's little-to-no debate within the Republican party - it's as if they've got their marching orders from the Secret Government (Who pulls the strings of the Republican Campaign Finance Committee?) and are being dutiful soldiers.
I'd be just as annoyed if the Democrats were in the same position doing the same things.
As for the Supreme Court, only 3 justices are of any interest at all. Fortunately the other 6 balance each other out so true thought and deliberation can come through.
Re:WTF! (Score:3, Insightful)
This isn't Democratic Party data or Republican Party data, this is MY data, because it's sitting on MY server that MY tax dollars paid for and it's maintained by MY tech who is paid by ME. If democratic party strategists what to keep their "confidential" data on MY hardware they better expect problems. It's open to the public, although probably through the mechanics of a FOIA request, but FOIA doesn't apply to government employees, which these staffers clearly are. So quitcherbitchin.
Every time you sign on a government(read PUBLIC)-owned computer, you get a nice little blurb about how all your data on that system is government-owned when you login. Everything you put on that system belongs to the public. If you want to whine because other government employees saw that data, you friggin agreed to it at login. Whiners about this are dumber than a box of hammers.
If democratic strategists want to keep data about their machinations confidential, they can put that data on their own systems that communicate on their own networks that they pay for themselves. Same goes for republican party operatives. I'm not interested in paying for computer systems with public funds that are considered the personal property of any political party. They have plenty of money of their own and don't need me to subsidize their IT infrastructure any more than I should be subsidizing their other party activities.
I'm pleased that this happened. Political parties are not entitled to exclusive use of public resources.
"Politicians" are not "Leaders". :) (Score:3, Insightful)
Real leaders, usually, do not make good politicians. Real leaders don't spend time building concensus and spinning the decision and working with focus groups to sharpen the message.
You're correct about the leader having final responsibility for the behaviour of his/her people. But, when was the last time we saw anything like THAT in politics here?
A Conservative Replublican Says: It's WRONG! (Score:1, Insightful)
Instead, we Republicans should focus on tracking down the wrongdoers. Find all staffers who did this, and fire them. Find any and all politicians who knew about this and impeach them.
Re:What about electonic election memos? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:You can't have it both ways. (Score:1, Insightful)
The Diebold memos, however they were obtained, establish what amounts to a pattern of knowing violation of the election laws of several states. Running a
Republicans obtaining Democrats' internal communications serves no such greater good, and was not a case of whistleblowing. The Republicans weren't out to expose some sort of illegal Democrat conspiracy, they just wanted a heads-up on Democrat strategy (or is that "strategery?") in order to make themselves look better. This is electronic Watergate, nothing more, nothing less. And certainly nothing more grandiose or well-intentioned.
At the very least, it's a serious ethics violation on behalf of the Republicans who participated.
Re:Another thing.. (Score:3, Insightful)
I read it this way:
I suspect that there are lots of networks/servers in the Senate, including:
*individual Senator office servers (run by a technician appointed by the Senator or the party)
*caucus servers (run by the party for all the Senators of that party)
*senate wide servers (which I could see being run by the party in power, or by some civil service group, if this were done at the state level, but since its Washington, I bet it's the party)
*congress wide caucus servers (run by the party)
*congress wide servers (no idea who would run this)
*commitee servers...the Judiciary committee is a big, powerful committee which I bet has lots of documents. The chair of that committee runs the everyday affairs of the committee, so it makes sense that when it reversed to Democrat hands, the servers went under a technician appointed by the chair of that committee, who was a Democrat. As a way of simplifying things, they probably had a Dems only area, a shared area, and perhaps a Republican only area (which I suspect the Republicans didn't actually use; they would use their own caucus servers for party internal docs if they were smart.)
This is a lot of complex sillyness, but makes sense at some level. After all, would you approve of tax payer dollars being used to support computers which are holding documents which are inherently political? Though that does happen, it would have to, Senator/Rep offices do get a stipend for employees and equipment, and I can't believe that they do that good a job at keeping things separate.
(Often a politician has multiple phone lines if their offices, those supplied by the legislature for legislature business, and those supplied by his own campaign for political business.)
Both of you are right/wrong... (Score:4, Insightful)
They also trade some of that power to corporations and rich individuals in return (generally) for money so that they can buy votes so they can continue to get more power (or maintain the power they have).
Re:short sighted (Score:1, Insightful)
> Since information wants to be free and all.
if it comes to *private* communication.
Purposely offering music, software whatever, which is meant for the public is a completely different thing to private communication.
Re:Confidential files (Score:4, Insightful)
This isn't exactly a remote exploit, It is more like putting something on a public share that should have been on a private share.
Oh, really? So you know the exact nature of the computer glitch for a fact? Would you care to reveal your sources? Because the rest of us are pretty much guessing here. Or are you just pulling this out of your ass?
And I know that I have in bored times browsed around the various public shares at various workplaces and been appalled at the "private" information that was available.
I am sure that this is true. However, you are not supposed to be browsing around looking for unprotected shares to take data from. Even though you do not have to expoit any code flaws, you are exploiting other security flaws. Yes, doing this is illegal and it has been punished before. Yes, it does seem kind of silly. But basically when it comes to computers, or anything else for that matter, you are not suppose dto be browsing around where you do not have a legitemate right to be. To do otherwise is indeed wrong.
Even if this is what happened (perhaps the dems put this data in My Documents folders on public desktops running Windows 95 with those folders shared without a password!) it does not make the Republicans' accessing and use of the information kosher.
Re:Point... (Score:3, Insightful)
The Dems did think of it first - Filegate. They asked for FBI files, and the FBI handed them over. But wait, the GOP thought of it first - Watergate. But wait...
Asking the FBI for files seems pretty bad. But if you (Joe Average Citizen) do it, the FBI says "no," and then they open a file on you.
Hacking the email of the private communications of one of the two most powerful political parties in the world seems pretty bad. If you (Joe Average Citizen) do it, they put you in jail, and then throw away the key.
*shrug*
I'd rather have someone who I believed honestly wanted to do good - but had a hard time of it, because they got distracted by power, and used it wrong... than someone who can't even convince me that they honestly want to do good.
Hypocricy in the law (and enforcement) (Score:4, Insightful)
If any individual person (one of us, the slashdot reader, for instance) did something like this, we would be under investigation or arrest rather quickly. This is referred to in the media as "hacking". It doesn't matter one whit whether or not the victim was "wide open" or not. NOT have unbreakable defenses up on your computer does not make it A-OK for anyone to waltz on in and do whatever. It is considered a crime and many "hackers" have been prosecuted for this.
The Republicans are getting away with it. It is OK for them to do this but any human being (they aren't human) does the same thing and they're looking at jailtime.
Bullcrap! Say I. Equal enforcement of the law. Hacking into computers you do no own is considered a crime and it should be handled as such. It is obvious that Senator Hatch, hypocrit of all hypocrits, belongs in jail. His pukes did it (he probably thought it was cute and funny). How about I do it to his personal systems? Still funny? Still OK?
Re:Confidential files (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The goods (Score:5, Insightful)
You guys in the US have a problem - both your major parties suck.
Plus, you've got all these unelected bureaucrats behind the scenes, holding tons of power for decades, pulling the strings etc. Heh in a Disney movie those bureaucrats would be the evil Grand Viziers.
Heh and the US electronic voting systems are a big joke. With those crappy systems, sending UN/independent observers to monitor your elections won't help at all.
Re:Way to go GOP! (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, if I felt like they are going to vote with the religious right/big brother'ish Republicans (*cough* John Ashcroft *cough*), I would. In that case it becomes a lessor of two evils argument.
We have that problem where I live, and our state deficite is out of control. People vote for the "nicest" guys and then blame the national government for state problems when state officials can't get their jobs done.
I didn't say I voted for the "nicest" guy. My example was Giuliani who has been called many things in the past, but trust me, "nice guy" is not one of them.
I would love to see him run for Governor of NY because Pataki is a friggen idiot and our state always seems to put up weak Democratic candidates for Governor (how else would a Republican win in a state where Dems outnumber them 5 to 3)? McCall was an absolute joke -- Pataki crushed him.
However if Giuliani runs for the Senate seat as a Republican then I will be compelled to vote against him -- unless he's running against Adolph Hitler himself. Until the Republicans stop taking away our civil liberties, destroying the environment, and shoving their religious opinion up my ass I'm not going to do anything that would help them keep power in Washington.
oh btw- About that whole "Southern Religous Right", you do know that the south has been a mainstay of the Democratic Party for the last 40 years right? This only changed recently.
Actually that changed when LBJ signed the Civil Rights Act. He's even quoted as saying "We've lost the South for the next few decades." The Democrats that managed (or still manage -- Zill Miller is one of them) to stay in power are Republicans in all but name. At least the Republicans that stay in power in the Northeast actually stand for some of what their party (used to) preach -- fiscal responsibility being the number one item. How odd that the Democrats know how to balance a budget better then the Republicans?
Re:Clueless... like a fox (Score:5, Insightful)
I fail to see what difference it would make. Whether the Democrats laid a trap or not, the Republicans would have still violated computer fraud statutes and behaved unethically.
The Republican behavior would be particularly reprehensible because they keep running on "values" and "ethics". Unlike blow jobs in the White House, which are amusing but otherwise irrelevant, stealing political strategy memos is something that cuts to the heart of ethics in politics. If these allegations are confirmed, they would show the people involved to be completely unethical, and I would hope they'd get thrown in jail for it and barred from public office.
Re:Confidential files (Score:2, Insightful)
All this adds up to prove that the Republicans' vaunted belief in the rule of law is complete bullshit. The party has been taken over by outlaws who seem to think the law does not apply to them.
I think you're swinging a bit too wide here. One or two staffers (read: young, impulsive) stole the memos. I very much doubt anything was cracked unless you call accessing an unprotected pubic share cracking. It's not like the Senators themselves were sitting there performing DES cracks.
What Crime? (Score:2, Insightful)
If you put world readable documents in a public shared folder on a shared computer system, you have no right to complain when other system users read or copy them. You might as well post them on a bulletin board in the committee meeting room. Your intent is irrelevant, your actions are what count.
Re:Clueless... like a fox (Score:3, Insightful)
Cola Wars (Score:2, Insightful)
Hmmm...what if it is aimed squarely at us and the interparty bickering such as this is simply to distract us from the fact that both parties pretty much taste like chicken?
Pepsi and Coke's "cola wars" campaigns did the same thing by squeezing out the small soda manufacturers and turning the soda market into what is basically a shared monopoly. If either one ever came out on top it'd be shut down but as long as there's two of them it's somehow okay and we forget about all the other [lp.org] flavors [jonessoda.com] out [rccola.com] there [gp.org].
Re:The goods (Score:5, Insightful)
Whereas you'd be likely to get something a bunch of jokers whipped out in VB which can't even ensure that the total vote counts aren't negative. Already happened in the US.
Shouldn't it be treason to ship code of such low quality for _supposedly_ such a critical purpose?
But maybe it doesn't really matter - in many countries the choice is between Evil or Wicked. It's just to keep the people satisfied.
If you notice there's never a choice for "none of the above" or "reopen nominations".
Neither is there an option for a negative vote - you can't say "No". You can only vote for and never against. It'll be more useful if people could say No to candidates. That way you could actually win but have a net negative score. That'll be rather more useful than spoilt votes. Can't brag if that happens
Re:The goods (Score:2, Insightful)
Oh please .... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Clueless... like a fox (Score:3, Insightful)
Theft Or Sharing In the workplace? (Score:2, Insightful)
"information wants to be free" or
"this wasn't hacking, the tech screwed up" or
"these were public (govt) computers"
ask yourself this:
what do you think would happen if you just sat down at your boss's computer and started reading stuff? Suppose your boss is a state senator (making the machine one 'owned' by the public).
you'd be fired.
for a damn good reason.
the Reps who did this were doing something wrong and they knew it, or should have known it. The Dems were negligent in protecting themselves but that doesn't absolve the crime.
And I use the word crime very deliberately.
Re:The goods (Score:4, Insightful)
The newsmax story is rather improbable, if illegal leaking had been going on Kenneth Starr would have investigated it. In fact the only illegal leaking going on was by Starr's office. It is somewhat unusual for a prosecutor to demand immuity from prosecution themselves as a condition of dismissing charges, yet that is exactly what Starr did.
I have a theory that GW Bush is trying to be the worst President in US history by repeating every one of the worst mistakes of his predecessors:
- Watergate break in = Republicans spy on Democrats
- Vietnam = Iraq
- Reagan era deficits = Bush era deficits
- Hoover recession = Bush recession
- 1876 vote fraud = 2000 vote fraud
- Isolationism = Go it alone unilateralism
- Tea pot dome = Enron, Halliburton, Harken, etc.
Some day the lapdog republican news media will suddenly realise that Bush has sold them down the river along with the rest of the country.Re:The goods (Score:5, Insightful)
Yup. Few people realize that other parties exist. (I think it's funny they're called third parties, all of them.) USians have been raised to belive that voting for a third party is "throwing your vote away." Personally, I think it's the other way around. In truth, I really don't mind a two party system -- it's just that the two parties currently in power suck.
People can't find a candidate they trust, so when it comes time to vote, they either vote for the party their parents voted for, or the cute one. Unfortunately, they don't recognize the third party candidates' names because the Two Parties have made laws that make it tough for third parties to raise funds for a decent campaign.
Maybe this year I'll do a write in. CmdrTaco, maybe?
Yeah, I hate 'em. My state [geogia.gov] uses those stupid Diebold machines. *shudder*
Re:The goods (Score:5, Insightful)
Someone in Bush's whitehouse compromises an agent whose mission involves intercepting terrorists trying to buy weapons of mass destruction, compromising a front company set up by the CIA for such purpose, and you think it is the same thing. Even if the accusations from your questionable source are true, at worst it is making public investigations by people on the outside: it is not stealing internal papers of Congressman. It is not compromising national security. I thought Republicans cared about fighting terrorism. I guess that is just when it involves giving away defense contracts. When it comes to something that could actually be effective, it just doesn't rise to the same level of importance does it?
Not to mention the whole lying to Congress about WMD thing. Lying to Congress vs lying about an affair in civil court: which matters more? But since Bush lied in only 17 words, it doesn't count, right? I guess "I did not have sex with that woman." doesn't count either; I mean that is only 8 words.
Some of the stuff your link is talking about is public record anyway. I don't see indication of breaking and entering to obtain said files there. Even just obtaining the files in this case, was done illegally.
No one said Republicans have a monopoly on corruption in Washington, but they sure have perfected it.
Re:Confidential files (Score:5, Insightful)
- it was publicly disclosed that they were leaked -- Slashdot didn't steal the memo and then secretly use it to undermine Microsoft -- and
- more importantly, the Microsoft memos weren't leaked due to a security exploit -- they were leaked, not stolen -- and
- the programming community hasn't made any secret about exploits in Microsoft's security when they are found.
The Republicans' responsibility was to report the security breach, and to not exploit it regardless of whether it was fixed. (Leaving your door unlocked may be stupid, but it does not make it legal or ethical for others to steal your things.)This incident is really quite different from the Halloween Memo; it's much more akin to Cliton allegedy breaching the FBI files of political enemies. IMO, that would actually have been a valid foundation for an impeachment case
Both sides come out looking bad (Score:3, Insightful)
My take-away summary from the article:
Are there any places left with a government that has some semblence of ethics?
Re:Hmmmm (Score:4, Insightful)
Now as a network admin, I am in a position of trust. I can more or less poke around the system at will, read any files I'd like, and sift through everyone's email. While it is techically possible, if I were ever caught doing this I would be fired.
I'm not even sure I would get to clean out my desk.
This is not a matter of Joe Hacker forwards an internal memo. This is a matter of one competing faction within an organization abusing his or her access to a computer system. That is bad enough. They had to take it a step further and PUBLICIZE the information they found.
Joe Hacker is an outsider acting on his own. The Halloween memos and such, he has an informant on the inside. He may embarrass a company. He may steer a lawsuit. The worst damages are monetary.
Jane Insider, on the other hand, is committing betrayal. She is seeking to influence elections and the operations of government. All this while working for an elected official.
Both Joe and Jane should probably get an extended stay at Uncle Sam's Federal Resort. Joe for theft, Jane for treason. It doesn't matter WHAT party you are working for. You do not fold mutilate or spindle and elected official's documents.
Re:The goods (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm not a big Bush fan (not even a little one), but I have a huge problem with hypocracy, which our government is full of on all sides.
Don't discount the news because of the source. Check it out for yourselves on google.
Re:The goods (Score:2, Insightful)
I didn't go looking on newsmax, I just picked up the first result on Google. I dare you to do a search and find out the truth yourself. Do you really think there was any less corruption in the Clinton whitehouse than in the Bush whitehouse? Please.
And next time, try not redirecting - you responded to my choice of links instead of the topic at hand. Next time address the content and not the carrier.
A good quote from the article (Score:5, Insightful)
"There appears to have been no hacking, no stealing, and no violation of any Senate rule. Stealing assumes a property right and there is no property right to a government document. . . . These documents are not covered under the Senate disclosure rule because they are not official business and, to the extent they were disclosed, they were disclosed inadvertently by negligent [Democratic] staff."
These were not password protected files, they were on a network available to any members of the Judiciary committee. When the Republican's first learned of this (both sides were affected by the mistake) they fixed their files and told the Democrats to do the same. When they didn't, they took advantage of it.
It was unethical, but the only worse thing in politics is to be incompetent. Think for a minute now, if these had been paper documents which had been left alone in a place where any Senator could get to them, there would be no story here except that the Dems screwed up.
Re:Damn Republicans (Score:5, Insightful)
Women have had the right to work, but after WWII the family requires both spouses to work in order to pay the bills. That's not really any great leap forward for, uh, womankind. And for society as a whole, it's a step backwards.
I think I'm a neotraditionalist. I would gladly be a stay-at-home dad. But in my hypothetical family of the future, we probably couldn't afford that.
Do you see what I'm saying? Not that women must be kept at home. I'm saying that in terms of economic power, both men and women are so degraded nowadays that both must work to make ends meet. That's regressive. In other words, men and women are exploited equally. That's no victory.
Re:Mod Parent Up! (Score:3, Insightful)
So what? What's that got to do with the subject matter? You discount the news, without even trying to verify it, just because of the source?
Aw, for pete's sake! Do I have to spell EVERYTHING oput for you? [cnn.com]
"What's the big deal?" (Score:4, Insightful)
As I've read many times here on Slashdot every time someone comes to the defense of various enchroachments of civil liberties: "If the Democrats haven't done anything illegal, what have they to worry about?"
Wake up, for Christ's sake! This is how power given to the government is abused. It will always be abused, which is why we have to protect our privacy at all costs.
Re:Louis Freeh was also shown to be a partisan lia (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Clueless... like a fox (Score:4, Insightful)
Realize that now one party controls the executive, legislative, and judicial branch of our government.
Do we have a Two Party System anymore? And if you think we still do, will we for very much longer?
Re:Damn Republicans (Score:3, Insightful)
Human interaction is the basic unit (building block) of all economics, government, and personal relations. Without human interaction, there wouldn't be a reason to discuss what we're discussing right now, nor would there be a means to discuss it. Wealth, knowledge, and market presence (among other concepts) have no bearing on our lives and no logical meaning without human interaction. The issue is not what arbitary definitions the dictionary offers for "power" -- the issue is how "power" is applied to human interaction.
There are exactly two modes of human interaction possible: voluntary and involuntary. Every single interaction you engage in throughout your life -- working, playing, grocery shopping, holding a conversation, being mugged on the street -- every interaction must fall into exactly one of these two categories. Either the interaction was voluntary (meaning that no force was invoked and that no violation of individual soverignty has occurred), or the interaction was involuntary (meaning that force was applied as a means to an end, thereby violating individual soverignty). There is no logical exception to this rule.
Power, applied to human interaction, can only be defined as the "right" to initiate force as a means to an end: the "right" to engage an involuntary interaction, thereby violating individual soverignty. This is a clean, unambiguous concept. Those individuals who posess this "right" to initiate force hold power; those individuals who don't posess the "right" do not hold power.
Does Microsoft have influence on other people? Yes, of course. Do they posess the "right" to "influence" other people by invoking force? No, certainly not.
Re:Damn Republicans (Score:3, Insightful)
I'd say that an agreement between two sovereign powers to transfer control of territory constitutes a treaty. Of course, the President can't spend money unless Congress gives it to him.
Re:The goods (Score:5, Insightful)
A technician hired by the new judiciary chairman, Patrick Leahy, Democrat of Vermont, apparently made a mistake that allowed anyone to access newly created accounts on a Judiciary Committee server shared by both parties -- even though the accounts were supposed to restrict access only to those with the right password
Basically, someone screwed up, and as we know, computers will do exactly what you tell them to do, not necessarilly what you want them to do. Whether this thing was running Windows, Linux, or DOS, if the person setting up the system didn't secure the folders properly, they are going to be avilable to anyone. The only question is, if they were publicly available, was it really illegal, or wrong, for the Republicans to view them? Wrong, is probably easy to answer, it should have been obvious from the content of the files that they were meant to be confidential, but illegal is another story. It would seem that the Democrats did not take reasonable steps to ensure confidentiality, so can they really claim that the Republicans broke into thier system and stole the documents? Or is it just a case of the Republicans getting lucky because of this oversight?
And lastly, what ever happened to testing? If the tech had spent a few minutes logging in as different users, and checking that they couldn't get to specific places, this should have been found.
Re:The goods (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, both the major parties suck. And there's probably more of a problem there than you realize, since it seems you don't live here. My problem is this: Most people (maybe 60%, 70% of people I encounter) say, "I'm a Republican," or "I'm a Democrat." Never "I'm an independent thinker who can make individual choices on individual issues." It's amazing to me how many people think that not quite agreeing with part of their chosen party's platform is some kind of moral dilemma. I also know about 12 people who will mindlessly vote Republican because the party doesn't support abortion -- to the extent that if a rare Rep. candidate was pro-choice, they wouldn't have paid enough attention to know that and would vote for said candidate anyway.
Yeah, the system itself is a problem, but the citizens as a whole support it very, very strongly. And they do it automatically, too -- their opinions are so ingrained it usually looks more like indoctrination than free thought.
Re:The goods (Score:3, Insightful)
Universally respected... not the Judiciary any more... certainly not the Executive branch ... Legislative hasn't been respected since, oh, say 1777...
Let's think. Maybe you don't really mean "branch" of government. Maybe you're talking about Departments or Divisions.
OK. I'm trying here. Dave Brin claimed once it's the Post Office, but he's all wet.
... um ...
I think most Americans respect the Census department. But I can't quite see them leading a coup. "Stand up and be counted!" Well, it does have a certain ring to it...
OK, I'm on the wrong track here. Maybe you mean universally respected in terms of Power.
Universally respected as a Force of Destruction, perhaps? Oh! I get it! You mean the IRS!
Re:The goods (Score:2, Insightful)
Any economist will tell you that deficit spending is a standard prctice for the govt. to get out of a recession. It worked for Reagan and looks like it's working for Bush as well.
"Hoover recession = Bush recession"
However. that's not to say that the govt. creates recessions or boom periods. This is called the busniess cycle. It a function of a free market based economy. The govt. merely tries to dampen the cycle by playing with interest rates and tax rates, as well as spending money.
Evidence, please. (Score:3, Insightful)
It's really pitiful that on a supposedly geek-oriented site people are throwing around words like "burglary" and "broke into" without either evidence or explanation.
The only hard fact here is that the Democrats opened a security hole in their *own* machine - which the Republicans claim they were warned about a year and a half ago. The rest of this article is supposition, speculation and fear mongering.
This story is a coverup (Score:1, Insightful)
The Democrats explicitly state in their private documents that they opposed a judge "because
Republicans are only guilty of finding out about it.
Re:The goods (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:The goods (Score:4, Insightful)
Any historian will tell you that declaring war is a standard prctice for the govt. to get out of a recession. It worked for the great depression and looks like it's working for Bush as well.
Write your Senator (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:The goods (Score:3, Insightful)
I think two parties seems to be the equilibrium position.
.Maybe its a function of the particular voting system in America. It doesn't seem to hold in other coutries around the world. Recognising an equilibrium for these kinds of systems isn't easy of course.
Other Implications (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:The goods (Score:4, Insightful)
Any economist of any reputation will tell you that the promise of a tax cut in ten years time has negligible effect on the economy. Also a tax cut that benefits people with very high disposable income already has little effect since these people usually run out of things to buy long before they run out of money.
I could easily go out an buy a new car, but I would have nowhere to put it. I could have the kitchen redone if I wanted to put up with the house being a wreck for 6 months and the associated stress.
I don't think you will find many economists with credibility outside the far right who will claim that cutting inheritance tax stimulates the economy short term.
The Bush tax cuts were justified by claims that the Clinton surplus would stretch out as far as the eye could see. You can hardly claim that they are crafted to bring about a recovery from recession unless you are willing to admit that Bush and the admin are total liars.
Re:The goods (Score:5, Insightful)
But the Republicans got their independant council, remember?
Actually, as I recall, the independent council statute was passed after Watergate by a Democrat-controlled Congress. That statute had an expiry date which lapsed in the '90s. There were independent council investigations on every US president from Ford through Clinton. Nobody wanted it to be renewed because it had been used by both parties to whip the other party's presidents. If your statement were true, then when the expiration period occurred, the Republicans would have brought it back, as they have since come to dominate both chambers. You can't have your cake and eat it, too.
No one said Republicans have a monopoly on corruption in Washington, but they sure have perfected it.
Perfected? I don't recall people close to a Republican president finding themselves suicided. I have not heard of a poll being kept open in Chicago to ensure a Republican President had sufficient electoral votes to be elected. In my home state of Arkansas, I've not heard of the Republicans filing a last minute law suit before a court to ensure that certain polling areas were kept open after they were supposed to be closed. (This last number was perpetuated in Pulaski County, AR by the Dems because they alleged the polls weren't opened long enough, although a law is on the books that says that if people are in line to vote, the polls remain open for them to vote. Those that were informed to remain open were in heavily Democrat areas.)
Brilliant, absolutely brilliant. (Score:2, Insightful)
Everyone is all in righteous rant over Republicans raiding Democratic staffer computers, and not a peep is heard at the racist rants against Estrada and other minorities in the documents themselves.
Yes, that is *exactly* the case. (Score:5, Insightful)
Without this filter, we would each have to spend hours each day dealing with the un-discounted accounts of Bigfoot Performing Dark Rituals with Aliens on their UFO's to cause Devil Boy to Possess retired woman's Toaster in Desmoins.
So yes, unattributed "quotes" about unsubstanciated ideas that belch forth from untrustworthy sources can, and indeed must, be assumed to be crap, and therefor safe to ignore.
Re:Ahhh, the reputable Boston Globe (Score:2, Insightful)
It's all so clear now... the "mainstream" media, often derided for it's "liberal" bias, which in point of fact consistently shelters conservatives and lambastes liberals, and which is largely run by conservatives, ignores issues which are front and center on the world stage (when they put republicans in a bad light) or magnifies issues that are irrelevant (when they are even true) to attack democrats... yes, the "mainstream" media,
It doesn't need to ask people what they want, it just has to tell them.
status report update: please include (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The goods (Score:3, Insightful)
- Watergate break in = Republicans spy on Democrats
- Vietnam = Iraq
- Reagan era deficits = Bush era deficits
- Hoover recession = Bush recession
- 1876 vote fraud = 2000 vote fraud
- Isolationism = Go it alone unilateralism
- Tea pot dome = Enron, Halliburton, Harken, etc.
Sorry I forgot to mentionSeriously guys just what is there you think is positive about this guy? He has validated every critics claim that he was a dimwitted rube.
Even if this is not his fault, can't you see that the poor clown is just completely unlucky ? Just what has to go wrong before you GOP rubes get a clue?
So far he has not been caught selling arms to terrorists in Iran to illegally finance terrorists in Nicaragua. He has not fucked any interns or been attacked by a killer rabbit either.
Re:Ahhh, the reputable Boston Globe (Score:2, Insightful)
Of course the idea of a religious state is kind of repugnant anyway and should should be examined more closely in light of the facts that arguably* the most well armed religious state in the world is turning that military upon a civilian population who are unlucky enough to be of a diferent faith. call me troal but seems like more often than not religion is used as a justification of violance.
*some people seem to thin the united states is a religious state
Not illegal, just unethical (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:The goods (Score:5, Insightful)
means increased capital investment, which
results in improved productivity.
The problem with that theory on this go-round
is that the attractive investments are in
China, Thailand, and Malaysia, not in the U.S.,
so that the funds are flowing to improve
productivity where that improved productivity
is likely to maximize its profitable return.
And it ain't here, bubba.
Re:The goods (Score:3, Insightful)
But a suspicious number of opponents of Bush have died in mysterious plane crashes.
>I have not heard of a poll being kept open in Chicago to ensure a Republican President had sufficient electoral votes to be elected.
I guess having a Republican stacked Supreme Court make the calls in Florida doesn't count...
>In my home state of Arkansas, I've not heard of the Republicans filing a last minute law suit before a court to ensure that certain polling areas were kept open after they were supposed to be closed.
But the Republicans happily fought in the courts Florida to let absentee ballots with no postmarks counted, so long as they were submitted by the Military.
It is pretty obvious that both the Republicans and the Democrats are more than happy to break the rules if it helps them get power. But it is still shocking is how far the Republicans have willing to go lately.
Re:The goods (Score:3, Insightful)
Having said that, USA, in some sense, did have a coup. It was called the Civil War. There was almost a revolt at that time.
I don't see anything in the US system to prevent coups. Some military commander can simply go up to the President and say "I want you out of here" and that's the end of hte presidency. Hasn't happened but I don't see why it cannot happen.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Re:Damn Republicans (Score:2, Insightful)
Women have had the right to work, but after WWII the family requires both spouses to work in order to pay the bills.
I highlighted and bolded the erroneous presumption. As long as a family is fed and has a roof over their head, requirements are met. That was the financial requirement most families were confronted pre-WW II.
Its the American obsession with material posessions that has made it impossible to be satisfied without two salary incomes. "Oh, we need two gas-guzzling SUVs because we chose to live in a place without mass transit." "Oh, we need to save for our children's college education." "We need to put our kids in a private school." "We need to own a house in a nice neighborhood." "We need to cover that monthly cable and internet bill, entertainment system, and SOTA computer." "We need to vacation somewhere every year."
The US political system was never able to provide those luxuries for everyone back in the single-earner era. Its pretty stupid to rip down a system because it can't support your lifestyle expectations. Moderate your greed and perceptions, don't carp on reality because of a fantasy that never existed.
Re:Brilliant, absolutely brilliant. (Score:3, Insightful)
Right. Why should any of us worry about criminal behavior when we can worry about crass behavior?
I don't support what the dems did to Estrada but... Christ...
Re:The goods (Score:2, Insightful)
actually mr US president had the idea for the LoN i believe, but opted out when they wouldnt incorporate some of his points... (which were later attributed as the reasons it faltered.)
and the points were things such as not having germany pay reparations(sp?), nothing too insane...
Re:The goods (Score:3, Insightful)
No. They may not be perfect, but they're not full of shit. It's quite possible to attempt to report something without bias, and not actually all that hard to accomplish. It's just that nobody does it today, because it's much more fun to bias everything to the right. (Right? Yes. The liberal media is a lovely bedtime story, but it's just a bedtime story.)
> Do you really think there was any less corruption in the Clinton whitehouse than in the Bush whitehouse?
Why, yes. Yes, I do. Because if there had been any significant corruption in the Clinton white house, a certain independent prosecutor with a fanatical hatred of Clinton would have been all over it. He spent more than $10 million on an investigation of anything remotely to do with the Clintons and the best he could come up with was Clinton lying about having sex.
Whereas Bush would (if you read the actual documents) almost certainly have been arrested for insider trading twenty years ago if his daddy hadn't been VP. And the appearances of things, at least, haven't gotten any better.
-fred
Yes and No (Score:2, Insightful)
It is more than possible to live on one income.
Also of note is that I don't have an iPod or a Tivo. There are no game consoles in my house, no XBox, no PS2, nothing. I have a PDA but it is an old Handspring visor that someone gave me for free. I'm typing this post on my "good" laptop which is a 350 mhz IBM thinkpad, my "good" desktop computer is a 1 ghz Athalon that I bought 4 years ago and during that time I have never payed more than $20 for a PC game. No, that doesn't mean that I pirate them all, that means that I wait till the price goes down, or I get them as gifts. I don't have cable TV or satalite. I get one local channel barely. My TV is a measly 19 inches and that was also a gift that we didn't pay for. It's so old that you have to use an adaptor to get a DVD player attached to it. We DO have a DVD player, that was a splurge a few Christmases ago, but hardly any DVD's. We like to get them from the Library. I didn't have a cell phone until work got me one and they pay the bill, I have never had a pager. We don't have a long distance plan. We use an internet-based calling card that gives us 2.9 cents per minute (it's called onesuite [onesuite.com] if you are interested). I do have to admit though, that I pay for broadband internet. That's my one splurge. I get DSL from Verizon for $35 per month, but hey, everyone has their vices right?
So, I'm not trying to say how great we are or anything, my only point is that people can afford a lot more than they realize if they take a good look at things. In my opinion there is nothing more important in my life than making sure that my children have a good home and to me that means that they have a mother that can be there for them. I'm willing to sacrifice anything that I have to meet that goal. Sure, it means that I may not have the latest geek toys when they come out, but it also means that when times come along like last year when I was out of work for three months, I've got the money to cover it with out going into debt or sending my wife back to work. Also please note that this is just what I want for MY family. I'm not passing any judgements against people in other situations, or single-parent families, or women that want to work. Just know that saying "I can't afford X" is a lot like saying "I don't have time for X". We make time for what we really want to do, just like we spend money on what we really want.
Re:Damn Republicans (Score:3, Insightful)
For sure, you can sit on welfare and get your food stamps, and lead the zero-earner lifestyle.
Ironic, isn't that what the female adult of the family would be doing in your idealized world? (Fair implication, no, but you're the one bringing up strawman arguments.)
But simple things like owning a home are extremely hard to pull off without the financial strength of two.
Hard yes, but the argument is irrelevant. Its not a necessity in order for parents to raise children. Before WW II, the family owning property was significantly lower than today. It was only directly after WW II, that the homeowning trend amoung the middle class increased. Its a case of values. Is it better for the family collective to accumulate wealth at the expense of close rearing of children? If its a necessity, how did families exist before 1940?
Look, the reason why people own property is because they chose to work for it. Its not an entitlement that should be bestowed to a married couple and paid off of my wages. You know where you can go if you feel entitled.
You've overstated the case about the "needs" of modern life. If your TV is destroyed in an earthquake,...
You claim that I overstated my case about the exaggeration of necessity, and then you make it for me.
One thing I just thought of is the 40-hour work week. Maybe a reason we need two earners in a modern family is because those two are working less.
40 hr work week was a depression era policy. Can't explain why there needs to be 2 income earners when it has been in affect since WW II. Moms needing to work did not become a trend until the 1970's.
Re:The goods (Score:1, Insightful)
But this causes overheating, instability and problems. Already the IMF is concerned of the effect of large surpluses from the Clinton era being turned into world record breaking defecits under Bush jr. Even conservatives are troubled by the last of the big spender in the White House, if we are to believe the press.
Japan started purchasing US debts (ref the Economist) but has stopped since wild spending means the value of the dollar declines so the papers are less worth than it first appears.
Oh, and one more thing if I still have your attention. Not the whole world hates the US. A large number, yes, but not all. For instance I live on one such small European country where most have a very positive view on the US (and Canada) and the people. It would be nice then if you too did not treat us as garbage.
Thankyou.