Today
on Fareed Zakaria they aired a clip of a debate between Fareed and
Edward Snowden regarding the question of whether or not the
government should have access to an encrypted device, as was the
issue with the iPhone that belonged to the San Bernardino attackers.
Edward Snowden took the position that encryption should be
unbreakable, using the argument that computer security is of primary
concern for our security, which in a way kind of struck me as ironic
coming from Snowden. But be that as it may, that is not what I saw
as the critical point. What he seemed to be suggesting was creating
something that did not include a back door. I am not sure how old
Snowden is, but perhaps he should be reminded of something.
Snowden
spoke of our security. Yet he seemed to completely ignore the fact
that unbreakable encryption is not just something that we could
create. There are others out there with the knowledge and, perhaps,
the motivation to create the same thing. What we should be
concentrating on is how to go about breaking unbreakable encryption.
Because some day that is what may be critical to our security.
I
have this feeling that Edward Snowden's analysis on this issue lacks
as much maturity as did his decision to leak classified data. One
wonders if he will learn eventually.
Yeah, I know, that film is over 30 years old. But apparently it still has relevance today. Giving our lives, and our security, over to a machine is perhaps not wise.
113 comments:
"Giving our lives, and our security, over to a machine is perhaps not wise."
And yet we have the Pentagon working away on autonomous war machines, ‘killer robots’ if you prefer that term.
We have no way of knowing what the future will bring for computer capability. I don't know what the Pentagon is working on, but whatever is created should maintain a way for humans to retain control.
Sure, the idea of unbreakable encryption for security purposes sounds good on the surface, but what if someone uses that technology to create something that can be used as a weapon against us? It is the flip side of the argument that creating a key can be used to harm us. Snowden seems to only look at this from a viewpoint that assumes it is America who has this technology.
"… whatever is created should maintain a way for humans to retain
control."
The term ‘autonomous’ means systems that make their own kill decisions. I think they intend, for now at least, to make sure that humans can regain control, but surrendering control over the kill decision is the whole point of having an ‘autonomous’ system in the first place. There's been no decision to produce such systems, but, then again, they don't have the technology yet to produce such systems. But, they are working on it, however far any such system may be from implementation. (Way back when the Russians came up with a system that automatically turned the tank turret on their big tanks and fired at any laser source that was detected ‘painting’ the tank for our first generation smart weapons--I think it was glitchy and never went into general production though.)
I agreed 100% with Snowden and thought Zakaria's argument was uninformed nonsense. Once the principle is established that someone has a right to your confidential information under particular circumstances, there is no way to limit their access under any circumstances.
Aaargh! I have tried to change the font on that first paragraph umpteen times. It looks fine in edit mode, but when I look at the live post it still remains in the original font. *sigh*
I think I permanently zapped my edit access to the blog, but if you are able to edit the post in raw HTML mode, you'll probably see a font tag that you can rip out.
Ahhh, I feel the need for a debate coming on...
Once the principle is established that someone has a right to your confidential information under particular circumstances, there is no way to limit their access under any circumstances.
Hogwash. The limit is always there unless there is a court order mandating the turning over of data or access to data. The FBI had that court order in the San Bernardino case, but Apple was balking at complying.
The idea of unbreakable encryption works fine in theory for security purposes, but what happens in the future when such technology could be used in, say, the autonomous robots Lee mentioned?
but if you are able to edit the post in raw HTML mode
How do I do that?
Hmmm. Seems you can edit post templates in HTML, but not the post itself. Sorry ... out of ideas. Maybe try cutting the offending paragraph and saving to see if it's ok. Then paste the paragraph back in, but making sure you're only posting plain text, e.g. via Notepad.
P.S. Wargames is a real blast from the past. Remember seeing it in the cinema, the year after I started working with computers. Same year I got my Crockett white jacket with rolled up sleeves. On second thoughts, some aspects of the eighties are best forgotten ;-)
(P.P.S The reCaptcha just asked me to identify all pictures containing pick-up trucks. So now we gotta understand Americanese to post? ;-)
Wargames is a real blast from the past.
lol! Yup. It was just the start of the computer geek becoming leading man material.
On second thoughts, some aspects of the eighties are best forgotten ;-)
That was also the era of big hair. :)
(P.P.S The reCaptcha just asked me to identify all pictures containing pick-up trucks. So now we gotta understand Americanese to post? ;-)
Really? It never talks to me anymore. Maybe just press enter?
"Once the principle is established that someone has a right to your
confidential information under particular circumstances, there is no way
to limit their access under any circumstances."
This does not logically follow. Next thing we know you'll likely be telling us that it's suddenly going to become legal for tired old male pedophiles to assault little girls on account of transvestites might be allowed go into the womens' rest rooms. Does not follow.
Indiana was not a demographic that shoulda been all that favorable to Trump, and he kicked Cruz' ass in Indiana anyway.
Yeah, time to re-figure the odds; odds on bet Trump gets his 1,237 delegates.
*shakes head sadly*
I'm thinking that bet may be right. The only good thing about that is that it makes my vote in the general election an easy decision. Anybody but Trump.
So Lying Ted is gone. My bet on Preznit Trump just got a boost.
Yup, Cruz dropped out. I imagine there are some Republicans out there in deep mourning.
As for me, I can only hope that the next President will make history as the first woman to be elected president.
Well, we still don't know what gender that thing squatting on top of Trump's head is ;-)
Yeah, looks like I'll be voting for Hillary, or, maybe I'll get lucky and my state will be over-the-top for one of the major party nominees, enough that I can afford to waste a vote on voting for somebody I'd prefer. But, if it looks at all like it's a real contest between Trump and Hillary in my state, then I gotta vote for Hillary.
Well, we still don't know what gender that thing squatting on top of Trump's head is ;-)
ROFL!
They do say orange is the new black, but seriously? I don't think they meant on the top of one's head.
But, if it looks at all like it's a real contest between Trump and Hillary in my state, then I gotta vote for Hillary.
We can only hope that many of Bernie's supporters feel the same.
I expect The Bern's supporters will vote for Preznit Trump. Especially when The Donald reveals in a Tweet how Hillary assassinated MLK. Things are gonna get real strange.
Speaking of strange (except not really), Trump's fawning over Lying Ted in his victory speech last night was a sight to behold. The ink was hardly dry on his last anti-Cruz slurs before suddenly Cruz was "a great guy". The one I really can't wait to see is where Mitt Romney has to extol Trump's suitability for the presidency. That degree of about turn takes a special kind of slimeball.
Kasich's dropped out. He's not gonna prevent Trump from getting the 1,237 delegates on his own. Politico.com So much for the Republican #NeverTrump movement.
A small change in subject for a moment...
They are evacuating a city of 80,000 people in Canada due to a large wildfire. Apparently there have been very dry conditions and shifting winds, which make it difficult to fight.
That's a lot of people.
Things are gonna get real strange.
They already are.
So much for the Republican #NeverTrump movement.
Yes, they crumpled up like tinfoil.
I have to say I'm more than a little depressed about the poor judgement of so many Americans. I always felt that in the end they would choose half way decently.
Btw, Lee, there was a Frontline special on last night about Yemen and one other country(forget which one). Saudi Arabia, maybe? I didn't notice it in the TV listing until after it was over, so I missed it. Did you happen to watch? If so, was there anything new?
I didn't notice it. I think I was distracted by the Trump thing. I'm like you; I think it's more than just a bit depressing that Trump could actually win a major party nomination. That's gotta make us look bad overseas.
Lee: "I think it's more than just a bit depressing that Trump could actually win a major party nomination. That's gotta make us look bad overseas."
In the media for sure. And most people too have a.f.a.i.k had the image of Trump as something of a clownish novelty that would be sidestepped when things got serious. Even I, who take a much greater interest in the US primaries than the general european (can't speak for other continents but my guess would be they are in general even less informed), couldn't see this coming until very recently.
I have to add that in at least swedish media the sole focus on Trump has been the outrageous stuff. I've seen stuff on Youtube and in US media where he comes off much more sane on some topics at least. But in local media it's ONLY been the outrageous stuff reported. So yeah, the Euro press and much of the people are gonna think you're an insane country.
Moving on to the general election. I came across this that claims Trump leads Hillary by 41 to 39:
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2016/trump_41_clinton_39
"Trump now has the support of 73% of Republicans, while 77% of Democrats back Clinton. But Trump picks up 15% of Democrats, while just eight percent (8%) of GOP voters prefer Clinton, given this matchup. Republicans are twice as likely to prefer another candidate."
I have no idea about the credibility of the source. But I do feel that Trump has been under-valued in many polls in the primaries and came out stronger than expected (or stronger than hoped for). And he DID crush his republican counterparts solidly and effeciently - one by one. So while I might hold Hillary as a favourite against him I certainly don't feel it's a safe bet.
Lee: again: "I think it's more than just a bit depressing that Trump could actually win a major party nomination. That's gotta make us look bad overseas."
On the other hand, what options were there. Cruz is even scarier and while Trump uses bluster Cruz actually meant the stuff he said. Kasich we nnever really got to know. Another Bush? Bush is a very bad name abroad after GW and he really seemed a "low energy person".
I can't see that there was a palatable choice in the whole lineup, really. Carson? I never got to know him.
Who of the 18 starters would have been your choice and why?
Scott Rasmussen, in addition to being a well known and generally reliable pollster, is also a sometimes very conservative, very Republican, Republican pundit. Sometimes he lets his wants get ahead of his polls. He's got Trump out front, I'd say we've run across another of those times.
Don't know that there was anybody among the 17 original Republican candidates whom I'd have voted for, maybe Kasich, but he had some selling yet to do.
Keep in mind that Trump was, at the end there, getting barely a majority of the Republican primary voters--maybe 25% of the general voting population and he was getting just over half there--make it 13-14% of the general election population. Hillary got more votes than Trump did, and she was in a generally rather more boring primary.
Here's a thought: What Republican is gonna want to poison his own well within the Republican Party by accepting Trump's invitation to run as Veep?
Back to an earlier topic ...
[Lynnette]: "Ahhh, I feel the need for a debate coming on..."
Maybe. (As long as Lee keeps his paedophilia to hisself, which of course he won't).
[Lynnette]: "Sure, the idea of unbreakable encryption for security purposes sounds good on the surface, but what if someone uses that technology to create something that can be used as a weapon against us?"
This point is academic, like Zakaria's argument (exactly as Snowden pointed out). There is no point debating whether we should have unbreakable encryption. That bridge was crossed over forty years ago. We do have it. What's more, it's available as a practical open source algorithm that anybody can use with absolute ease. The USA used to try to limit export of encryption technology -- which was a very considerable pain when I worked for a US multinational and every single hardware and software sale (even ones not originating in the US) had to be checked against a "denied parties list". But those days are long gone.
[Lynnette]: "Hogwash. The limit is always there unless there is a court order mandating the turning over of data or access to data. The FBI had that court order in the San Bernardino case, but Apple was balking at complying."
The Apple thing was a bit of a side show. It would not be very practical for iPhone users to have to remember very long encryption keys to protect their data. So Apple's cryptographic implementation generates one of its encryption keys from a short pin code. The FBI merely wanted Apple to allow a simple brute force attack on the pin code, without risking the phone wiping itself. The lesson is to not use an iPhone if you are interested in serious encryption. Use of an appropriately long key would make it impossible for Apple or anyone else to hack it. Of course, a US court could compel anyone to reveal their private key, no matter how long. That's why data centres around the world guarantee their users that no data will be stored in, or transmitted via, the USA. Your government has a bad name when it comes to respecting data privacy. The rest of the world uses unbreakable encrpytion and keeps its keys safely away from US jurisdictional control.
[Lynnette]: "The idea of unbreakable encryption works fine in theory for security purposes, but what happens in the future when such technology could be used in, say, the autonomous robots Lee mentioned?"
Autonomy and encryption are orthogonal concerns. I seem to remember from some time back that it turned out that US military drones were using a horribly insecure protocol across some satellite uplink. Do you fancy having the Russians take control of your drones? Probably not. The degree of autonomy implemented on a drone is a whole separate concern.
"As long as Lee keeps his paedophilia to hisself…"
You been learning new debate techniques from Trump it would seem; not exactly an improvement over your old habit of merely insisting on the truth of things you knew to be false.
I came across this that claims Trump leads Hillary by 41 to 39:
On the news tonight they were saying that Hillary leads Trump by 13%. This is also the figure I had seen on CNN's website, I believe. I guess I would tend to believe them.
But it is a long way until November. Anything can happen. I would, of course, like to see that gap widen.
Rasmussen told Romney he was gonna win. He didn't.
[Petes] There is no point debating whether we should have unbreakable encryption. That bridge was crossed over forty years ago. We do have it.
Point to you. That was poor phrasing on my part. I suppose if you go out long enough with a string of numbers it would take even a super computer quite some time to hit on the correct sequence.
What I was trying to get across with the post is that we cannot cede control of our lives to technology. Obviously there are some things where higher security would be desirable, like those robots, or the drones, or infrastructure such as power grids.
But what is more sacrosanct about an iPhone than a private home? Why should law enforcement not be able to break into, or access that data, as long as they do have a search warrant? The reason search warrants were made a requirement was to protect the innocent by forcing law enforcement to have some valid evidence to search the private space of an individual or business. That protection is already written into law.
When Snowden talked about "unbreakable encryption" it seemed to me that he wasn't talking about the technology but the act of law enforcement being able to access data from these devices. Meaning they should not be allowed to have any access under any circumstances. And I think that is just as short sighted as his leaking of data was.
The rest of the world uses unbreakable encrpytion and keeps its keys safely away from US jurisdictional control.
That's certainly their choice. But I have also noticed that they are very happy when we share intelligence with them pertaining to possible terrorist attacks. Do they stop and question us on how we obtained that intelligence before they use it?
Has Blogger comments gone back to the bad old days? I've posted two replies to your comment, Lynnette, and they seemed to have "taken", but now they're gone again. Maybe they'll reappear when I post this. Would be a pain to have to retype.
Nope, definitely gone. What a pain. I'm sure I wasn't dreaming -- I even saw the comment count update. Bah! Took ages to type :-(
Here's a quick summary:
1) Unbreakable encryption exists. It cannot go away. Apple could have broken into the particular iPhone in question only because it uses a much weaker form of encryption. In the general case neither Apple nor anyone else could do it, even on their own manufactured devices.
2) Therefore there is no general way for law enforcement to hack encryption.
3) The US government could try to force Certification Authorities to provide them a list of all private keys used for asymmetric encryption. This would be self-defeating as you'd just get new certificates issued in other jurisdictions.
4) "The rest of the world" doesn't mean other governments. It means commercial bodies and individuals too. Fatally compromising electronic security on which global enterprise depends is not a solution to the FBI's perceived troubles. As I said, everyone would just start using different security.
5) This issue is hurting US business. We are not talking about paranoid geeks worrying about US government snooping. Many ordinary commercial users of cloud services won't go near US providers even if the data is stored outside the US. The US government can, and has, compelled US companies to reveal data held by them in other countries. As you might expect, customers have told US providers to go get stuffed. This is not pettiness -- many businesses are bound by law to protect confidentiality. Even the mighty Microsoft has had to cajole users with promises of European data centres where they (Microsoft) will not have access to the data. (1).
6) In summary, the whole debate is a non-starter. Unbreakable security exists. The genie cannot be put back in the bottle. The US government has no control over it and they will shoot themselves in the foot if they try.
‘Unbreakable security exists.’
Unbreakable cyphers exist. But, they have been in use among the crowd that wants to secret data since WWI, and they do not depend on computers.
Bloomberg Antisemitism is declining in Europe; it's being replaced by antipathy towards Muslims. Total levels of prejudice do not seem to have dropped, may even be trending higher. But, the European Jews are getting a much needed break.
[Lee]: "they have been in use among the crowd that wants to secret data since WWI, and they do not depend on computers."
You'll probably eventually notice that I don't plan to sacrifice brevity in order to satisfy yer nitpickiness. P.S. The verb is "to secrete".
Recent FiveThreeEight predictions about Trump.
Future FiveThreeEight predictions about Trump.
;-)
For Marcus: Forget polls; polling this far out is a fool's game anyway. Cruz was polling within a couple of points of Trump in Indiana going into that final week or ten days, and instead of gathering steam he fell apart. Think on these things instead of putting your faith in polls this far out.
"P.S. The verb is 'to secrete’."
Only if you're oozing. Merriam-Webster
And that's true even if you're British
And, even if you had been right… We all know what it means when you're down to harping on spelling errors--and that's even if you had been right, which, need I point out--you were not.
I don't often post links to the writings of E.J. Dionne because he's such a damned liberal through and through. But, in this case…
I found a couple comments saved to my email that weren't here, Petes. They looked to be the same so I just copied one. Here it is:
"What I was trying to get across with the post is that we cannot cede control of our lives to technology."
I take that point but I don't see the relevance here. Sorry for parroting Snowden again, but this is not a technological choice, it is a simple mathematical fact. Unbreakable encryption exists.
"But what is more sacrosanct about an iPhone than a private home? Why should law enforcement not be able to break into, or access that data, as long as they do have a search warrant?"
Because it would be like having a search warrant for Medusa's Lair. The iPhone was just a poor example with weak security. In the general case, unless you are a super-computing Perseus, a search warrant is no use to you.
"When Snowden talked about unbreakable encryption it seemed to me that he wasn't talking about the technology but the act of law enforcement being able to access data from these devices."
I think that's where we're at loggerheads alright, so I went and listened carefully to the clip you posted again. I'm pretty certain he is saying that the two points are inseparable. Unbreakable security exists. The only way law enforcement can get general access to it is to have some sort of back door -- a "master key" -- which defeats the utility of encryption for everyone. Modern commerce depends on secure communication, and the general trust on the part of participants in that security.
"That's certainly their choice. But I have also noticed that they are very happy when we share intelligence with them pertaining to possible terrorist attacks. Do they stop and question us on how we obtained that intelligence before they use it?"
You're assuming "they" are other governments. I'm talking about GlaxoSmithKline and their drug patents, the local hospital and its medical records, me and my online bank transactions. Even if I agreed that the government had a right to that information under limited circumstances, the knowledge that a mechanism existed for subverting the encryption would be enough to destroy trust in the whole system.
Fareed Zakaria's "iVault" example got it exactly backwards. Back in the old days, you had to trust that your bank was able to maintain physical security over their vault. You hoped it was deep underground, watched by an army of security personnel. Now the information vault is not only in full public view, but Zakaria is saying there should be a master key that can open any vault in the world. But don't worry, only your trustworthy, hacker immune, friendly US government will hold it. Uh, does anyone see the problem here?
Posted by Petes to Still Healing at Thu May 05, 05:25:00 am
The US government can, and has, compelled US companies to reveal data held by them in other countries.
What kind of data has the US government wanted to look at?
[Lee]: "Only if you're oozing. Merriam-Webster
And that's true even if you're British"
Um, maybe checked yer links again ... they both agree with me.
[Lee]: "And, even if you had been right… We all know what it means when you're down to harping on spelling errors--and that's even if you had been right, which, need I point out--you were not."
LOL. And we all know what it means when you stick to yer guns, even when yer own links prove you wrong. If MW had an entry for "Lee" I suspect it would say "invincible obstinacy in the face of an irrefutable argument".
[Lynnette]: "I found a couple comments saved to my email that weren't here, Petes."
Yup, that was the one. Ta.
[Lynnette]: "What kind of data has the US government wanted to look at?"
That particular case was a narcotics probe. It's mentioned in the WSJ article I linked. However, I see the WSJ does the same as the FT and won't let you read direct links without a subscription. But Google it and it works. Try this link, and hopefully its the item at the top of the list.
I happen to know the Microsoft guy at the European end of that request from the US gubmint. Microsoft got their lawyers involved in resisting the attempt ... it just didn't get to be as high profile as the Apple thing for some reason, maybe because it didn't concern a potential terrorism threat on US soil. But you can see from the WSJ article that it has caused Microsoft considerable trouble with wooing European cloud customers.
I guess I shoulda looked down lower. It seems my spelling is considered ‘obsolete’ now. (²Etymology: 18th Century: variant of obsolete secret to hide away) Told ya once I had a tendency to fall into archaic usages and phrases, spellings too; I think I mentioned that too; comes from growin’ up in the backwoods. So, the best we can say for ya is you're again reduced to harping on spellings. That's good ‘nuff for now. We all know what that means. And, besides, my spelling wasn't exactly wrong, just archaic.
Trump makes a play to butter up Hispanics. Eats a taco bowl from the restaurant in Trump Towers. Yeah, right, like that's gonna work.
Might as well try to get the black vote with pictures of fried chicken and watermelons.
And, just by the way, Chris Christie is becoming rather more likely to be Trump's Veep nominee--lots of Republicans are putting out the word they won't even consider it. I think I said earlier that Christie was more likely to be angling for the slot of Attorney General, but he may havta bump it up a notch and accept the Veep nomination on account of nobody else will take it. (Still, gotta be rankling Christie that Trump's treated him with such obvious scorn to date.)
And on the subject of seconds… Turkey's Prime Minister, Ahmet Davutoglu, is resigning his post after only 20 months in office. Apparently he wasn't advancing Erdoğan's agenda for the empowerment of Erdoğan as President at sufficiently vigorous pace.
That particular case was a narcotics probe.
Ahh, I see. Yeah, that earlier link to the WSJ article required me to sign in or subscribe, but this later link worked fine. Okay, so the request was in the case of a criminal investigation, rather like the San Bernardino iPhone case. I suspect that if Edward Snowden hadn't leaked the information about the NSA scooping up data no one would ever have known it was being done, except those who might have been the targets of criminal investigations. That's not to say that I approve of indiscriminate data collection. It's not just an invasion of privacy but a waste of resources, such as time and money, on the part of the US. But I do feel that given sufficient evidence of possible wrongdoing where a court would issue a search warrant the request for private data is not totally unreasonable.
I will not go so far as to suggest that anyone who chooses a cloud based storage site in the EU is trying to avoid detection of criminal behavior, but I can see where that might be the case at some time. If that does occur it will be up the the EU to determine whether or not private data can be accessed by law enforcement, either from the EU or anyone else.
And, just by the way, Chris Christie is becoming rather more likely to be Trump's Veep nominee--lots of Republicans are putting out the word they won't even consider it.
I can understand that. It might be the nail in the coffin of their political careers. Especially if Trump runs against Hillary and ends up losing by a wide margin.
[Lynnette]: "But I do feel that given sufficient evidence of possible wrongdoing where a court would issue a search warrant the request for private data is not totally unreasonable."
Maybe it's just me, but it seems not only unreasonable, but outrageous. Fine, if the court has any jurisdiction. But in that latter case we are talking about a private individual who is not a US citizen nor living in the US, storing e-mails on a server which is not in the US, who just happens to use Microsoft as their e-mail provider. The US government's justification for demanding access to their e-mails is that Microsoft is a US company. I'd be more than happy for the US to make their case to the appropriate foreign law enforcement, as is done for, say, extradition requests, and let a court in the appropriate jurisdiction decide if the case stands up. Anyway, as I say, it's all good news for European cloud businesses, as people won't touch American ones with a barge pole.
Pete: "There is no point debating whether we should have unbreakable encryption. That bridge was crossed over forty years ago. We do have it."
For sure. Heck if we're talking about short messages in script only then even I could construct an unbreakable "encryption" using one time keys. Not hard at all and completely impossible to break.
Obviously for larger quantities of data such home made one time keys are not usable. But the thing is completely unbreakable encryption (for script messages) hasn't been available for a mere 40 years but long before that.
Lee: "For Marcus: Forget polls; polling this far out is a fool's game anyway. [...] Think on these things instead of putting your faith in polls this far out."
Interesting. But I believe the main point is mute. You cannot compare Trump to Romney and say that Trump needs to do what Romney did and more. Trump hasn't been doing anything Romney did period. It's a whole other game. Therefor I can't see that article as anything more than... well, wishful thinking.
Might well be that Hillary beats Trump. But that article doesn't describe why, IMO.
"…Trump needs to do what Romney did and more…"
Ya kinda missed the whole point of that article. Oh well….
Republicans are taking names and keeping lists. Politco.com This ain't gonna be over come January.
I'd be more than happy for the US to make their case to the appropriate foreign law enforcement, as is done for, say, extradition requests, and let a court in the appropriate jurisdiction decide if the case stands up.
I would agree with that.
See? We have no problem compromising, why can't our governments
There should be a "?" at the end of that line.
This ain't gonna be over come January.
You may be right. Both former Presidents Bush are saying they will not be attending the Republican convention.
I was talking to my hair stylist today, who is a Trump supporter, about the way things are trending. Other than our mutual friend, Lee, she is the first out right Trump supporter I have actually talked to. I asked her why she supported him and basically her answer was that she wanted someone who would shake up the establishment. She was tired of politicians who said they were going to do something, but then never followed through when they were elected to office. She felt that Trump was telling it like it is and making people be "real". When I said that I didn't care for him because of his derogatory comments about people her response was along the lines that the media had blown that out of proportion. I said, no, these were things he said, there was no media hype involved. She just refused to listen to this. She has it in her head that Trump will change Washington. When I tried to tell her he wasn't well liked, and it's hard to get things done when nobody wants to work with you, her response was that everyone in the world liked him. I just said, no, the only one who liked him was Vladimir Putin.
*sigh*
It's been a long day, I feel the need for a nap coming on.
"Other than our mutual friend, Lee, she is the first out right Trump
supporter I have actually talked to."
I dropped into a local store's pickup window to pick up some parts I'd ordered, and the guy behind the desk asked me how things were going. I told him that Trump was still running for the Republican nomination and looked like he was gonna win, but on the other hand the weather was beautiful for this late in the spring, and that made up for it.
Got some seriously cold stares from a couple of the locals hangin’ out in the pickup area. We didn't talk though.
Yeah, I kinda got that too when I dared to criticize him.
It looks like there may be some serious cracks forming in the GOP. While many Republicans won't vote for Hillary there are some who are saying they won't vote in November at all, not if it's Trump on the GOP side. That says quite a bit about his lack of standing in some quarters. It also might end up being a vote for Hillary anyway. There is also the idea of a third party candidate floating around again.
"It looks like there may be some serious cracks forming in the GOP."
So it does appear. Serious fighting over who gets the carcass, this on the theory that there will be valuable loot I suppose, or even that it might yet be resurrected and made to serve new masters.
I suspect they may be living in a fools paradise with those thoughts.
Just a quick change of subject again.
It appears that the wildfire in Canada is widening. I mention this because I suspect it is another symptom of climate change and we will be seeing more of this kind of thing in the future.
Now, off to plant some garden. We had a hot dry wind yesterday with 90 degree temps. But today should be more spring like with temps in the low 70's.
"…the wildfire in Canada is widening…"
I'd noticed that. I was wondering if the Canadians had, in this century, followed the U.S. Forest Service in the misbegotten ‘put out every fire’ policy or if it was merely a function of the widespread death of trees from diseases and infestations that're ranging further north these days. I'd meant to look that up, but haven't yet. In either case, they've got forests full of dried fuel for the fire.
A speach by Europes' greatest leader:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EbINrdyAXlE
And no - it's not the self-serving soon to be replaced and ever more disliked Merkel on the cover of Time magazine I'm talking about. I'm talking 'bout a real leader.
There's an odor of burning wood in the air tonight. Nobody that I can see in the neighborhood has a fire going. I suspect it may be the smoke from Canada. It was supposed to reach us today.
I was wondering if the Canadians had, in this century, followed the U.S. Forest Service in the misbegotten ‘put out every fire’ policy...
The fellow they interviewed on the news tonight was saying that they are trying to just control the critical areas and letting the rest go. Although it does look like they haven't quite managed that. There are some devastated neighborhoods already.
Wildfires were always Mother Nature's way of cleansing the forests and starting new growth. But human's have gotten in the way of that by living within the danger zones.
They're saying so far that the burned area is the size of Hong Kong.
I started to listen to that video, Unknown, but I was starting to fall asleep at the end, so I don't know what his solution to the mass immigration was going to be. For some reason he reminds me of Donald Trump.
I can understand that people are worried, but I'm not really so convinced that the mass immigration into Europe is to take over the region. As far as I can see it is a reaction to some pretty awful conditions in the areas from which they are migrating from. For the most part I think the people would prefer to remain in their home countries if given any good choice.
"But humans have gotten in the way of that by living within the
danger zones."
The U.S. Forest Service fell into that policy almost by accident. They were opposed from the very beginning by the locals living in the western states with large federal land holdings because they kinda got in the way of locals who wanted to log the forests, graze the meadows into deserts, and divert the water supplies onto private land. They were being starved for funds into oblivion at the behest of western congressmen when a great western wildfire broke out in the early 1900s (burned out several towns as well as hundreds of ranchers) and the Forest Service got a whole bunch of very good publicity for their efforts to save some local towns, and the people in and around them. The Forest Service liked good publicity (and it got them funding voted over the objections of the locals) and thus a bad policy was born.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
"For some reason he reminds me of Donald Trump."
You are not the first to make that comparison.
Lynnette: "I can understand that people are worried, but I'm not really so convinced that the mass immigration into Europe is to take over the region."
Regardless of wether it's an intentional agenda (which I agree is far fetched) or just a natural consequence the result would be the same. We're seeing the results already and they are always a generation behind what we do right now.
In any case the economic collapse of Sweden within 2 years time will speed things up and you'll get a window into the future.
There are people who agree with you about the economic collapse of Europe.
But maybe his reasons aren't the same as yours.
The Forest Service liked good publicity (and it got them funding voted over the objections of the locals) and thus a bad policy was born.
Why do I get the feeling this happens more than we would like to think?
"Why do I get the feeling this happens more than we would like to
think?"
Because it happens more often than folks would like to think. For instance, the Republicans' favorite economic theory ‘supply side’ economics was installed as Republican doctrine because Reagan got elected twice promising it would work. (Never did; never will, as 90-95% of the economists in the world will tell you.)
... ‘supply side’ economics was installed as Republican doctrine because Reagan got elected twice promising it would work. (Never did; never will, as 90-95% of the economists in the world will tell you.)
One could just look at all of those ghost cities in China, built for all of those non-existent residents, to see a good illustration of that. If you build it they will come doesn't always work in the real world.
Well, Reagan needed an economic theory that would satisfy the ‘small government, libertarian’ wing of the party (of which he was a nominal member, notwithstanding that he built up a larger federal government under his own watch), so they decided to just pretend that would work ‘cause they liked the sound of it. (Worked for the Republicans as a faerie tale they could run on for a couple of decades, that much it did; but their failure to make it work as real economics in the real world has a lot to do with preparing their ‘base’ to accept the bullshit lines being fed to them now by Donald Trump.)
Well, it appears that Chris Christie has been found a spot in the Trump administration. Never mind that Trump hasn't been elected yet. A minor detail.
Transition team is a temporary job. Keep watch for a more permanent job offer may yet be coming.
I read that the European Song Contest will air in the US this year. It's held in Stockholm this year and I remember PeteS commenting on it in the past.
A Blogger with atmittedly good contacts in at least the Swedish armed forces has claimed he's been informed by contacts in "security circles" there are fears of a possible terror attack against it. Source in swedish:
http://cornucopia.cornubot.se/2016/05/inofficiella-varningar-om-terrorhot-mot.html
I might note that the Blogger himself points out that it's information from several sources and that it might even be normal caution based on the nature of the ESC-arrangement. However he also says that he himself wouldn't attend the arrangement and he's actually not prone to exaggeration a.f.a.i.k.
I view it as loose talk and probably speculation so far. But as for a possible target I can't really think of a "better" one here in Sweden (from Daesh's perspective) than the ESC because of the media coverage and propaganda value if an attack were to take place - it would be viewed not just as an attack on Sweden but one on Europe (and Israel who participates) as a whole. I take for granted security will be tight though and hopefully there won't be an attempt and if there is hopefully it will be twarthed.
Sweden is short on real targets I guess. (I'd be looking at some of those hydroelectric dams if I were Da’esh)
Lee, not exactly short on targets if they wanted to inflict maximum damage on the Swedish economy. One of them hydroelectric dams might then be an option, nuclear sites another. But I'd guess mass transit systems would the the most obvious one. The subway in Stockholm duriing tourist season.
The thing here is that an attack on the ESC wouldn't be just an attack on Sweden, but on Europe. And even if they couldn't get a bomber into the main arena it's feasible they could still strike at crowds outside or transit systems to stop the event. There's at least 300 million viewers watching in real time and news networks from every nation in Europe in place. And US networks for the first time. If they could strike even on the other side of town it would possibly stop the ESC and in any case get huge coverage.
Now we know Daesh are into propaganda. That's the reason I see the ESC as a viable target for them. That said I'm not convinced they would try and I don't think they would succeed with an attack at the event itself.
I think in the near term the way most likely target will be the football EC championships in France this summer. Much for the same reasons but on a bigger scale: huge global interest, huge media coverage and France itself is a priority target which Sweden is not, at least not in the same way.
I was just talking to someone today about the fire up in Canada. As I'm sure you all know it is in an area that is part of the oil shale boom. In fact, Fort McMurray could be labeled a boom town, similar to what has happened in North Dakota. The fellow I was talking to has done a lot of hunting in that region. Apparently it is full of immigrants from Pakistan and Syria who have been working in the oil industry there, as well as buying up a lot of property, such as retail businesses. Quite a few of the original residents have relocated. He was saying that the Pakistanis do not like Americans at all and that he was made to feel rather uncomfortable while in town.
He wasn't sure how much of that area would be rebuilt, as the oil has been pretty well recovered already.
There was a suicide bombing yesterday in Grozny.
"He was saying that the Pakistanis do not like Americans at all …"
We have provided Pakistan way too much financial aid over the years, and not enough madrassas.
Now that Trump seems loccked in as the GOP candidate and Clinton as the DEM candidate I think we can move the discussion away from the GOP primaries. In the general election, if we take for granted (can we do that or could there be surprises?) it will be a contest between Trump and Clinton, what odds would you put right now?
If we limit it to those two and guess in percentage terms who the likely victor will be, what do you say? I know, I know, it's mere guesswork but let's try.
I'd go for a 70% chance of a Clinton presidency and a 30% chance of a Trump presidency.
I give Trump that 30% chance mainly based on how he has seemed to beat the odds so far. But I have a big doubt as to what success he will have with rallying the non-Trump (not to mention the #nevertrump) GOP voters. Will they come out in force for him because they think he's the "lesser evil", or will they just not bother voting at all? I have no take on that yet.
What do you think?
"I'd go for a 70% chance of a Clinton presidency and a 30% chance
of a Trump presidency."
The betting sites are giving odds around there about now. I'd say that was conservative, and gives Trump all his real odds and a little more. I'm looking for a fairly low turnout on the Republican side. I don't know if the Democrats who wanted Bernie will flock to Clinton from fear of The Donald, but I'm definitely looking for a suppressed turnout for the Republicans.
3 reasons Trump can win against Hillary
Now, having linked to that article, which has a certain logic to it, I will say that people I talked to over the weekend who can't stand either of them are talking about abstaining. So Lee's prediction of a low Republican turnout may come to pass.
Seems fairly in line with what I thought.
Lee: "I'm looking for a fairly low turnout on the Republican side."
Lynnette: "So Lee's prediction of a low Republican turnout may come to pass"
I have heard some "establishment" Republicans even suggest they would go with Clinton rather than support Trump. But I have to wonder, will they really do that?
The main reason I can think of why the GOP establishment would be "forced" to reluctantly back Trump are the supreme court nominations. Possibly the voters could also be swayed to reluctantly vote Trump for that reason. Or what do you make of that?
Supreme Court nominations are usually only prime movers among the serious ideologues. I don't expect that to move those who support Trump, nor to seriously add to their number.
OK, that might be so. Seems to me they should take that into consideration though, if they really wanted to further their cause.
On a completely unrelated topic I found this clip hilarious:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qd1SVUXFgr8
It's a young conservativeish girl who conducts an interview at the Södertörn High School (university equalivent) in Stockholm about "identity politics". Södertörn could be said to be the epicetre of political correctness in Sweden and it's quite funny to see the students struggle with the questions asked.
Click for english subtitles.
It does look like some in the Republican party are calling for unity and supporting Trump. It will make it rather interesting in November, if that is the case, to see the results. If they follow through with that strategy and Trump loses it may prove that the Republicans are, indeed, out of step with most of America.
Unifying a party is all well and good, but it has to be done behind a set of values that the majority within that party can agree with. A divisive candidate seems a strange way of attempting that.
Södertörn could be said to be the epicetre of political correctness...
lol! Yes, I'd say so. The interviewer is quite obviously not 7 years old, and certainly doesn't appear to be male. Nor is she over 6 feet tall. However, she could be Japanese, if she holds Japanese citizenship. I don't see why those questions are difficult to answer.
One thing, Marcus, what did the fellow mean with his reply of "soft" to two of the questions? Slang, perhaps? Error in translation?
Japan does not grant Japanese citizenship to white people; they have a firm rule ‘bout that.
Seriously?
What if you marry a Japanese citizen?
Usually you bring her back to The States when your tour of duty ends.
Worth the time it takes
Capitalism’s Great Crisis ― TimeOnline
That was an interesting article, Lee. As strange as it may seem I have to wonder if those people who are so set on voting for Trump because they want a shake up of the status quo aren't basically saying the same thing. As are the Bernie supporters out there. They just aren't sure what it will take to accomplish it.
I also have to wonder if we aren't all a little guilty of contributing to the problem by our efforts to make money by letting money work for itself, instead of creating hard assets. That is, we the shareholders have wanted to see those share prices increase, without really considering if they are warranted or not.
Perhaps one of the first steps to reform is to look at our lives and decide to be happy with less rather than continually pursuing more. Invest for the future rather than spend for today.
One of capitalism's flaws (system isn't perfect) is it's tendency to favor the concentration of wealth. Capitalism evolved from feudalism and retained this flaw in its DNA (figuratively speaking). The right-wing crazies on FoxNews and Radio-Right-Wing howl consistently about the government ‘redistributing’ income.
Well, that's one of the things that government's supposed to do, help to mediate one the basic, inherent flaws of capitalism.
Lynnette: "However, she could be Japanese, if she holds Japanese citizenship."
It's not like in the US where there's no american ethnicity. In Japan the people are ethnically japanese and they are also national japanese. If a caucasian were (which is unlikely) to actually receive citizenship they would not become a japanese but rather a japanese citizen. They'd still be caucasian and the japanese would see them as such.
If she asked that questions in Japan my guess is you couldn't find one person who even contemplated any other answer than no.
Lynnette: "what did the fellow mean with his reply of "soft" to two of the questions? Slang, perhaps?"
It's a bit unusual to use it that way but it means about the same as if he would've said "cool" as in he's cool with that, no problems.
Well, that's one of the things that government's supposed to do, help to mediate one the basic, inherent flaws of capitalism.
And one of its main tools is taxes. They are used to fund not only infrastructure maintenance to aid in economic development, but are also used to support those who are in need of a helping hand. I understand that many religious organizations are also helpful in aiding those in need, but they do not have the deep pockets that the government usually has. I say usually because there are times when the budget may be lean.
But for many years politicians, at the behest of many voters, have avoided proper taxing. It may be something to keep in mind come November.
(Yeah, I know, that last was a pipe dream. Most people don't pay attention to the nuts and bolts of the serious issues, being more attracted to the snappy sound bites fed to them by slick candidates.)
Marcus,
Got it. With the Japanese question I was just looking at it from the citizenship standpoint. And I thought maybe the "soft" thing might have been something like that, where I just wasn't up on the slang in Sweden. :)
Post a Comment