– The Q13 Fox news director who declined to air the recent police brutality video has resigned.
– 40 years of failure in the drug war. Now that legalization appears to be around the corner, this is where the next battle is likely to occur.
– A mysterious disease has infected the poppy harvest in Afghanistan, although I’m not on board with any wild conspiracy theories involving Joe Biden, who helped introduce this bill in 2006.
– Dominic Holden catches another Seattle Times reporter failing to do her job properly when covering a drug bust.
– Ezra Klein on the gap between young liberal Jews and older Zionists.
– As a fairly frequent Facebook user, I’ve been trying to follow the backlash against the company over its privacy concerns. One thing I certainly agree with the anti-Facebook camp about is that the application is buggy – as hell. It’s probably the buggiest web interface I’ve ever used, and it wouldn’t surprise me at all if the security is just as bad. But what I’m not sure I fully grasp yet is the actual threat posed by having the information we put on Facebook shared with third parties.
I deal with issues like this in my day job (I’m an IT manager at a financial services company), so I tend to see a distinction between the importance of keeping something like financial information private and not letting a marketing person determine which demographics are most likely to say they like The Jonas Brothers and Lost. If Facebook is not properly securing user passwords, or collecting enough information from people that identity theft becomes easy for a hacker, that’s one thing (and that may be true, but I haven’t seen that alleged yet). But I tend not to put anything on Facebook that I wouldn’t say out loud on a Metro bus. Someone who had access to my profile could learn a bit about me, but I don’t see how they’d have anything of any real value besides a few data points for doing large scale analytics.
Maybe I’m just different from most people in that respect. It doesn’t bother me much if people I don’t know see my pictures, but others probably do. Facebook very blatantly defaults to having things public rather than the other way around. But I think we should recognize that this approach is why Facebook succeeded. When people began setting up their networks, it was remarkably easy to find your friends and get hooked up with people you haven’t seen in years. A community web site that tried harder to protect people’s privacy just wouldn’t have taken off the way Facebook did.
Wow–
President Obama is only -13 in todays Rasmussen.
27% Strongly Approve
40% Strongly Disapprove
Where is wingnut Klynical now??
The FB dustup is really about trying to rein in advertising connectivity, and not about authentic and real privacy issues. I go by the rule of the EFF that if you don’t want anything essentially public, don’t make it so online. Knowing that anything you put into cyberspace can be accessed by someone somewhere under or without authority can be viewed and made public, you live a more public socially conscious life.
I think some people have an issue with 3rd party applications using their FB identification to encourage your participation. I notice now when I go to a web blog like HuffPost, it shows a list of my FB friends that also goes to Huffpost and that’s not even with being logged in on Huffpost to comment. So how does Huffpost know who my FB friends are?
More directly, an old group of friends had started a page about my H.S. band. They posted pictures and one of my co-workers, apparently goes through her friends profiles to see what we comment on and then goes to the page. She took a picture that the group posted of me and downloadeded it to her computer. I quickly changed my settings so that she and my ex can’t see photos where I’m tagged. The last example is one of the simple, but irritating realities of Facebook and people being nosey. The Huff Post thing is probably what people are complaining about.
I was hoping you’d report the highest 1 month federal deficit in history
or the nice article on the Tea Party woman from Seattle
or obama totally muffing the Iran nuke thing
Hi Lee.
Who’s watching the watchers?
Do we have have the right to know who’s googling us, who’s using our data.
Do we have any claim to the data that describes our lives?
—
Our Facebook, MySpace, LinkedIn profiles helpfully provide all of the demographic data needed to enable every other kind of breach of privacy. Including identity theft.
These “Privacy Is Dead: Get Over it” talks by private investigator Steve Rambam are the best overviews of the state of the art that I’ve seen.
HOPE Conference Nov 2006
HOPE Conference 2008
Rambam gives realworld examples of common practice today. Such as tracking our movements via our cell phones to infer our realworld social networks by proximity.
If these talks don’t give you pause for thought, nothing will.
Honestly, though, Rambam’s 2008 talk doesn’t cover the worst of it. You’ve probably heard of Seisent and ChoicePoint. They track everything about everyone in North America.
Everything.
Everyone.
I don’t mind that this data is being collected.
What I do mind is that I don’t have any rights to this data. The data about me is essentially me, an aspect of me, it’s mine.
But I don’t know who’s looking at me.
I don’t know how this data is being used.
I don’t have any right to look at it myself.
I had my checks and some other stuff stolen a while back. Anyone who’s ever tried to clean up their credit history knows what I’m talking about.
In my mind, that this data is being collected is a done deal, can’t be undone.
What I’d like is some government over sight, some notion is that someone is watching the watchers.
—
I know, I know: Pointing out the obvious makes me a sweaty paranoid kook.
I fought to retain voter privacy. I thought that was important. The last island of privacy in a world without privacy.
But people prefer the convenience, expense, and uncertainty of mail balloting and internet voting over their privacy.
Oh well. Things change.
righton @ 4
Please be patient.
Paying off your party’s wars (Iraq, Afghanistan, the middle class) will take some time.
spyder @ 2
I agree with your (and the EFF’s) policy. But then I’m a geek. As an early adopter, I was burned a long time ago, and learned my lessons.
The grievance with Facebook is they’ve repeatedly changed their disclosure policies. Many people have this silly notion that there’s a social contract, some sense of honor, common decency, a commitment.
Of course, they hadn’t yet met Mark Zuckerberg (creator of Facebook).
Lee,
Your link to Ezra Klein is most appreciated. I find him to be one of the most lucid political commentators out there today, and your link to his discourse on how to think about today’s Netanyahu Israel captures my feelings. I want to be pro-Israel; Israel is surrounded. On the other hand, for fuck’s sake, how does the Israeli government think it can win with its current Palestinian policy?
nice (horrible nhs) article on how the fabled british NHS is failing them
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/hea.....urope.html
jason at 6; Obama’s 10% of gdp deficit has little to do w/ the Iraq and Afgan wars; its part of it, but Obama is spending us into poverty, well beyond anything Bush did.
and nobody buys the lefty spin that all this overspend is to correct the bush errors; i get the Keynesian arguments, but Greece proves the folly of spendnig too much; our spending now is on acorn and soft goofball stuff; at least in the great depression we built enduring structures; semi invested; right now its just paying off his lefty base
righton @ 10
Obama cut your taxes. You trash him. That’s gratitude for you.
You’re aware that Greece is in Europe, right?
righton @ 9
Come on. This isn’t hard.
I’d like to say that I’m disappointed. But I’ve read your other comments, so my expectations were already pretty low.
Like in America, Britain’s food policy is killing its people.
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2.....-n21.shtml
One doesn’t haven’t imagine how much worse the British would be without universal health care: One only needs to look at America.
—
I know, I know, big words, complicated ideas. I’m sorry. I’ll make this easy for you.
Our low fat, high sugar diet is killing us. We make the problem even worse through subsidies for cheap sugar (high fructose corn syrup).
—
I keep expecting a “free market” Republican to show up and demand that we stop all these market distorting subsidies.
Still waiting.
payday loans place “money tree” shut down in kemper freeman’s bellevue. discount gun shop selling guns and ammo 2 blocks from kemper’s mall. a bit less convenient getting the financing for the guns & ammo but somehow bellevuians soldier on.
Lee
KUDOs ..
The Ezra Klein piece is wonderful, it truly captures the real dilemma for those of us who are both Zionists and progressives.
I believe Klein’s ideas were spoken best by Yitzak Rabin after shaking hands with Arafat. The then PM of Israel said he shook Arafat;s hand so because peace with the Palestinians was the only option that would protect Israel as a Jewish State and protect Jewish ideals.
Gandhi advised oppressed people to use non violence ONLY if they were very brave. Israel and Palestine both need some very brave leaders.
@12,,,do you understand the english language? If so, then read the back of the fucking label on your food. If people are too stupid to figure out whats good for them and what isnt, than that is their own problem.
nanny stater you seem to be..
Wrongon and other teabaggin’, right wing fools are of course WRONG:
http://voices.washingtonpost.c.....ed_by.html
and..
same link…
Hi “Dr Dre” @ 14
So you agree that high fructose corn syrup causes negative health side effects.
Phew! What a relief! Usually fact based arguments get The Right all worked up. And, frankly, while long suspected, the research is pretty recent and the evidence is just now starting to pile up.
“Read the label” is good advice. Like you, I also believe in shared responsibility.
Producers must accurately report what’s in the food. Thank God for those liberal food labeling laws. It’s weird to think some in our society still oppose such common sense measures.
And consumers must make wise choices.
That said, I do have sympathy for consumers.
I was just in Ohio. I don’t know that it’s the fattest state in the union. But, well, damn. What explains their size? Individually, we all have the responsibility to make smart choices. But how do you explain the self-destructive behavior of an entire population?
I have four non-controversial explanations:
#1 – Evolution
Humans crave sugar. Our bodies need glucose as fuel. Up until recently, sugar was scarce. So we evolved to eat up all the sugar we found.
Alas, now that sugar is abundant, we haven’t (yet) evolved/adapted to not binge on sugar whenever possible.
(Note that although both taste sweet to us, fructose is not glucose.)
#2 – WalMart
Have you been in a WalMart? There aren’t a lot of choices. I checked almost every single food product. They ALL contained high fructose corn syrup. I couldn’t find a single “healthy choice”.
(And the produce comes from China. Bleh.)
So, you being a conservative, please explain to me how consumers are supposed to make smart choices when the only options the “free market” provides are bad and worse?
#3 – Children Shows
Do conservatives, such as yourself, believe that children are innocents? Sugar, Inc. markets to children. True, most all producers, under pressure from us wicked liberals, have agreed to stop advertising directly to children. But they’re clever. They get to children through alternate methods, like comarketing with toys.
You seem very well educated, so I don’t need to tell you that marketing to children works fabulously well and that hooking a child early ensures they grow up an addict.
#4 – Government Policy
Food made with cheap sugar is our official government policy.
In the 70s, the recommended food pyramid was changed to low fat and high sugar. People more or less, eventually, follow the expert advice they get, if repeated enough times.
The original motivation was probably well intentioned. (I’m not so much a conspiracy theorist to think the agriculture lobby was complicit in the same way the tobacco industry was.) But the truth is that change accelerated the obesity epidemic.
Meanwhile, who’s telling consumers that sugar kills? A few authors. Some sketchy web sites. Weird academic research. You know, the typical “conspiracy theory” crowd.
Given conflicting, incomplete information, how are consumers supposed to make wise choices?
I was fortunate. Both my girlfriend and mom are health zealots. High fructose corn syrup isn’t even allowed in my house. Years ago, we spent a huge about effort finding alternative products. It wasn’t easy. But they do taste better.
Cheers, Jason
Oh BOY!
ylb; its more fairly a Hobson’ choice; Greece cannot spend the way it has been, nor can it borrow; so its only 2 choices are raise taxes or spend less. When we hit the point we cannot float our debt to the rest of the world, we’ll face same problem/choice.
“Dr Dre” @ 14
About this personal responsibility religion of yours…
The same “people are stupid” argument is made against providing health care to everyone.
My dear friend, who has a rare cancer, is back in the hospital this week, fighting for his life. He’s a “downwinder”. He, like many others, have been exposed to pollutants from Hanford, and developed weird forms of cancer.
Although direct cause and effect can never be proven in any single, particular patient, our poisoned environment is killing our people.
I believe our nation needed those nuclear weapons.
But what of the people who have been indirectly hurt by what our society did out of necessity?
Please explain to me my friend’s “personal responsibility” of being in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Tell me who’s going to raise his kids if, God forbid, the legacy of our policies killed their father.
Cheers, Jason
My issue with Facebook is the ever eroding wall of privacy. When I signed up, Facebook had a certain set of privacy rules, that over the last year, they kept reworking and making it weaker and more porous each time.
Don’t change the rules out from under me.
The last straw from was, when i posted something and it had the key word “IPOD” or “Hannity” and you went to the Ipod or Hannity community fan site, there was my post automatically cross posted without my permission.
19 – I agree! (A miracle.) Gee if only this country could make the right choices. Cut defense spending which does very little to increase the productivity of the economy or raise taxes on the wealthy who have benefited the most from right wing policies.
A little of both would be most welcome. Then people with money would be only too happy to buy our debt.
I’d absorb that entire interview which makes yet another salient observation that the 6 times in history this country has had something close to a balanced budget – a recession soon followed.
Government spending and borrowing is (gasp) essential to making a modern economy work. An economy of masters and serfs is NOT what most people want to return to.
Except for maybe billionaire right wingers and their credulous lackeys.
jason, sorry bud, its isn’t bad food in UK; its poor health care; read the article….all the factors….fewer machines, fewer doctors, longer lines, intentional rationing, and the darn thing still costs a fortune.
we need to redirect ours far more radically than reversing obamacare; need to reverse to a market based healthcare system; where if i have the sniffles, i don’t get a free doctor visit, or if a 90 yr old wants a hip replacement, maybe its not free.
@23
jason, sorry bud, its isn’t bad food in UK; its poor health care; read the article….all the factors….fewer machines, fewer doctors, longer lines, intentional rationing, and the darn thing still costs a fortune.
Actually, the UK health care system costs way less than ours. And numerous surveys have shown that people in the UK would prefer their system to ours.
we need to redirect ours far more radically than reversing obamacare; need to reverse to a market based healthcare system; where if i have the sniffles, i don’t get a free doctor visit, or if a 90 yr old wants a hip replacement, maybe its not free.
You’re talking about entirely replacing the insurance system. Good luck with that. Can I watch while you haggle with your doctor over how much he’ll charge you for that life-saving surgery? I’m sure you’ll have plenty of leverage in that bargaining session. Bring extra chickens!!
@5
That’s an interesting talk from Rambam (I’m watching the 2008 one). It’s stunning what some people put online, but I think my initial point stands. There’s nothing in my Facebook profile that a) can’t be found easily through other means (my birthday, home town) b) reveals key identity theft components (SSN, passwords, address, phone number, financial info) or c) has value for anything other than general demographic/marketing purposes).
righton @ 23
Please try harder. Use google. Ask the right questions. Consider the source. (Flogging NHS is a national past time, particularly with conservative (in the UK sense) outlets like the Daily Mail.)
You’re being had, and it’s painful to watch.
There are many valid criticism of the UK’s NHS, but you’re way off the mark.
Life expectancy – UK 79.4 vs USA 78.2
Cost of healthcare per capita – UK $1,675 vs USA $4,271
In sum, the UK gets more for its money.
As for the criticisms…
Stuff like wait times in Canada and the UK are complete nonstarters. Service is needs based. It’s called triage. Medical ethics 101. (As though we don’t have wait times in the USA.)
This market you advocate… What market? When was healthcare in the US market-based? Please explain how that system worked.
You confuse incentives with markets. There are proven ways to improve healthcare outcomes and reduce costs.
The biggest is the capitation model. Reward care providers for keeping people healthy. Versus our current “fee for service” system. (I’d provide a link, but I want you to expend a little effort.)
Where market based solutions do apply is in the supply chain, not patient care. Pharma, equipment providers, etc. should compete tooth and nail for the highest quality at reasonable prices. Thankfully, your hated “Obamacare” will undo the big wet sloppy kiss (corporate giveaway) Bush gave Pharma.
There’s a lot of excitement about “quality of care”. Lots of jargon and it’s hard to keep current. The short answer is continuous improvement through data gathering and analysis. My day job is electronic medical records, I help build the infrastructure that will enable this. (Yes, it’s pretty exciting.)
Another thing I’m excited about is the adoption of improved procedures and techniques. These are usually very low tech. Stuff like hand washing regiments and using checklists. The book “Better: A Surgeon’s Notes on Performance” by Atul Gawande is a great read for laypersons, kind of a “The Toyota Way” for healthcare.
Another thing I find interesting is preventing fraud. Switching to a single payer system will eliminate most of the fraud in our (USA) system. But we still still greater transparency and accountability. I regard this as an accounting problem.
—
As management prophet Peter Drucker has taught us, waste is immoral. You can either advocate and participate real solutions to real problems.
Or you can continue with your silly partisan motivated agitprop. While people die.
Your choice.
Hi Lee @ 26
Yea, I’d agree that your Facebook profile alone isn’t a problem. I will note that social engineering, using just the data people post about themselves, has been used to hack accounts. The Sarah Palin emails are a notable example.
I was chewing on your OP last night.
You have access to people’s financial data. Perhaps even mine. But I would have no way to know if you’re looking at my data.
I have access to people’s healthcare records. Perhaps even yours. But you have no way to know if I’m checking you out.
The best we can do is keep track of what people look at. Which is not a common (enough) practice and provides little comfort. With our current tech, there’s really no way to prevent peeking.
I find this current situation unacceptable. We should not be in a position where we have to trust the benevolence of anonymous service providers tucked away inside a corporate (or government) hegemony.
Stories of inappropriate (illegal) peeking are legend. And common place.
My girlfriend works in healthcare. She went to another, unconnected, hospital when she had some surgery. Because she knows how her peers behave and didn’t want them peeking at her records.
It gets even more invasive. Airport security people now have full body scanners. (Won’t help with security, but it is more pork for cronies. Woot!) Frickin lazers and parabolic mics can be used to listen to my private conversations.
Etc.
I’ve resigned myself to accepting that someone’s watching, listening, observing me at all times. (Even it’s just automated.) I figure living as publicly as possible is my armor to any potential retribution to my rubble rousing.
But I can easily imagine cases where that kind of attention would be unwelcome.
So, in sum, I’m glad for the Facebook brouhaha. Even though their poor judgment is a minor thing, it’s raising awareness about privacy issues in general. Which is much overdue.
Awwwww…. More right wing family values from a Gringrich (!) Republican:
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpoi.....hp?ref=fpa
Poor guy was being challenged by a teabagging auto dealer who said he was “a liberal” for voting for the bailouts.
The stress must have forced him into the arms of a wanton woman! He could not abstain!
As a general rule, I’m not that upset that people can find out some basic information about me, as well as my friends, likes, and dislikes. I figure it’s just a bit more like living in a small town, where everybody knows you.
My complaint has always been about the ease in which the credit industry has allowed thieves to use basic information to steal you blind. In the old days, you could reveal your social security number without danger. Heck, we used to have to recite it during college registration process to prove we were the student who’s registration packet we were picking up – thereby revealing it to every student worker at the adjoining tables, and any other student in line behind us. But nobody could use that information against you because to get a loan, you had to go into the bank and prove your identity to a real person in order to get the loan.
With the advent of “modern” face-less banking, the combination of the name, address, and social security number is all anyone needs to know in order to take out a loan in your name. Sure, the banks take a hit sometimes when they lose money to identity thieves. But they make lots more money in interest and loan fees by being able to mass-market their products and make the application process a spur-of-the-moment purchase. They also have reduced their losses by passing the risk of loss to the victims – requiring them to “prove” they didn’t take out the loan or receive the money, and in many cases refusing to accept the proof once offered. Many victims eventually give up after many months of effort and cutting their losses by just 50%.
But I DO know a woman who has been bedeviled by a persistent imposter and identity thief. Her husband (now deceased) was a prominent minister, and she carries on aspects of his ministry. This imposter and his wife changed their name to match that of her and her husband. For years these imposters went around the country, using the minister’s reputation to defraud churches and believers. When it became widely known that the minister was deceased, they switched to arguing that he was the son of the minister, adding a Jr. to his name (and now claiming that the minister’s wife was actually the wife of the son).
But in this case, the internet is both a blessing and a curse. The minister’s widow can’t really keep her basic information private, as she has an active ministry which serves people around the world. This means her picture, address, e-mail, and phone number are posted publically on the internet, and the imposters at times have adapted part of this information to create an appearance of being intimately familiar with the things they should know about her and her late husband. But the internet has also allowed her to post warnings to people about the imposters, so that the quickest google search would put people on warning as to with whom they are dealing.
righton @ 23
Sorry, I’m not done yet.
Despite your ideological faith, markets are not a magical elixir cure all.
I have two examples of market-based strategies leading to worse medical outcomes.
There are cheap and feasible cures to diseases which are not profitable enough. So these cures have yet to become available. Because publicly traded Big Pharma tend to only develop meds which have the potential of huge profits. Anything less would be punished by Wall Street.
Treating disease, vs prevention, is more profitable. Imagine all the lost revenue if people changed their diet from processed to fresh foods, thereby not developing diabetes, hypertension, strokes, heart conditions, etc. Imagine the negative effects on (select, crony) businesses if we stopped the corn subsidies, thereby indirectly encouraging people to adopt more healthy lifestyles.
Unconscionable.
Our nation’s addiction to petroleum and high fructose corn syrup are very similar. Both are heavily subsidized. Companies in both sectors are insanely profitable. Both are detrimental to our national and social interests. In both cases, our society would improve immeasurably by removing the “free market” subsidies.
I know this is asking a lot, but I’d be pleased if you “free market” types thought more about incentives (the design of markets), creating wealth (versus just transferring it), directing the profit motive of businesses (which is a glorious thing) towards improving society.
It’s a weird thing, as a liberal, being more pro-business than so called conservatives. Well, it is the Third Millennium. Your ideologies are tired and weak. Whereas mine are fresh and vital. Being the competitive type, I’m pleased that you guys are running the wrong direction.
To you, probably not much risk from FB. But what about to a teenage girl? There is a huge amount of stalking and harassment on the internet. “Doctor Science” over at Crooked Timber proposes a “reasonable teenage girl” standard, rather than a “reasonable man” standard, I think she’s got a point:
http://crookedtimber.org/2010/.....ent-317414
http://crookedtimber.org/2010/.....ent-317570
Both those discussions are pretty good.
Also, I like Danah Boyd’s comments:
http://www.zephoria.org/though.....-rant.html
@32
Very good point. Thanks.
@28
There’s a lot I could say on that topic with respect to my current job. But I can’t say it online. :)
So, in sum, I’m glad for the Facebook brouhaha. Even though their poor judgment is a minor thing, it’s raising awareness about privacy issues in general. Which is much overdue.
Yeah, absolutely.
@29
YLB,
He was arguably the most overzealous drug warrior in all of Congress. I’m absolutely thrilled to see him resign.
Chickens are coming home to roost for Obama and his spiritual mentor. Obama thought he’d stuck inconvenient Jeremiah Wright down in Goldy’s gimp cellar with Stamn where he’d neither be seen nor heard. Them Jews, said the Rev, ain’t going to let him talk to me.
But unlike goddam Stamn, the Religious Wright is back. Goddam America.
I know when Hoover’s Depression began and how long it lasted: ~3 years of Hoover and ~8 years of FDR. Liberal economist John Kenneth Galbraith attributed the 1929 crash and subsequent depression to bad regulation. Benjamin Strong of the Fed, Galbraith said, wrongly crippled credit markets after 1927.
Montagu Rabbit’s Lords of Finance blames Strong and other central bankers for crashing the world economy by throttling growth via the gold standard.
Activist progressive Hoover and retro conservative Grover Cleveland couldn’t stop their depressions. Cleveland waited for unregulated markets to correct themselves. They didn’t. Hoover, after (as YLB writes) hoping that local volunteerism would help the unemployed until markets bounced back, used the Big Government sticks of regulation, tax policy, ag policy and tariffs to put markets back together. Didn’t work.
What did work briefly was FDR’s use of Hoover’s banking regulations in 1933. The bank holiday, straight outta Hoover’s treasury dept (Republicans stayed around at Treasury to help FDR) and FDIC finally stemmed panic. FDR used Hoover’s plan because FDR had no plan of his own, other than cutting Hoover’s Keynesian spending and raising taxes in a depression to balance Hoover’s Progressive budget.
FDR’s mega-regulatory scams, I mean schemes, were shot down by the Supreme Court that included progressives such as Brandeis and Cardozo voting in unison against FDR’s Blue Eagle. Most of the Court shot down FDR’s AAA that threw millions of black sharecroppers and white-trash tenant farmers off land for which farmers were paid to not grow food while, FDR said, 1/3 of our nation was ill-fed.
YLB’s probably right that 1936 GNP rebounded to 1929 levels, but that was after the Supreme Court’s invalidation of the New Deal’s twin regulatory towers.
Then in 1937 the economy crashed again. Some say it’s because FDR tried again to rein in spending. Others say it’s because new Social Security taxes crippled consumer spending.
YLB admits that unemployment throughout FDR’s first eight years bounced around or above 15%.
The point again is that, despite or because of Progressive Era regulation, the Great Depression happened. Despite the flood of New Deal regulation, Hoover’s Depression continued through eight years of Roosevelt.
(The point of mentioning the Sherman Act was to establish a template: regulations have unintended consequences. Regulation is not a magical panacea for perceived market failure. To naively assume that regulations are sure correctives for economic problems is to give in to magical thinking. To abandon the reality-based world in favor of a simple-minded faith-based world.)
Actually one Sidney and one big swingin’ Dick.
Everybody remembers Sidney Blumenthal, aka Sid Vicious, aka Grassy Knoll. S. Blumenthal tried to kneecap Christopher Hitchens after Hitchens tried to tell the truth about Bill Clinton.
But there’s also Big Dick Blumenthal:
That’s from the Conscience of HA, Brother Puddy. He was trying to tell you that Blumenthals all look alike: Dick and Sid are doing a con.
Here’s Richard Blumenthal’s con, straight outta your own Huffington.
Hear an echo? Blumenthal’s scam resonates. Why, sounds just like a con from closer to home, our own McDermott.
Here’s more.
And more.
Hi The Raven @ 32
Long time. Hope you’re well.
Great link. Danah Boyd is one of the smart ones.
Zuckerberg’s “radical transparency” is a corporate profiteering mutant variation of David Brin’s “Transparent Society”.
Boyd correctly points out that Facebook took away people’s choice. Facebook also does not inform you how your data is being used (accessed) or by whom. Which is my chief complaint.
It’s the modern panopticon. They (Facebook, Seisent, Choicepoint, NSA, etc) watch us. But we can’t watch them.
Brin’s Transparent Society is that everything is open and we watch each other. Multilateral disarmament.
My analogy is to fairness in a marketplace.
Today’s privacy (demographic database) infrastructure is asymmetric; I don’t know who’s using my data how. Just like with markets, that asymmetry leads to an imbalance of power, towards the person with the greater knowledge.
Brin’s advocating restoring symmetry; everyone knows everything about everyone. Making everyone equally powerful.
It’s a little bit like posting online. Anonymous cowards act like trolls. But everyone behaves when real names are used.
Use the example of a stalker. Imagine some high placed gay bashing closeted priest or politician. They’re preying on the innocents. But in a transparent society, it’d be really, really tough to do undetected. Because potentially anyone could inspect and audit your behavior.
“Sen Vytters, even though you’re married, I see that you’re texting your intern at all hours of the day. The texts are sexually explicit. Please explain.”
Or “Mr Vince, why are you doing searches for Annabell and haunting her highschool, in violation of your parole terms?”
What I’m about to say makes me unpopular…
I reluctantly advocate the Transparent Society approach.
It’s too late to protect people’s data. We don’t have the awareness, the laws, the norms, the precedent.
And, most importantly, the data is already collected. We can’t uncollect it. Retooling all this data, and the entire data gathering and aggregating infrastructure, using some unproven technology, isn’t feasible or affordable.
I hold this position with some regret.
Back in the 90’s, anticipating European style privacy protection laws being adopted in the USA, me and a buddy prototyped a personal privacy management toolchain. Disclosure of one’s data would be in one’s own control, negotiated, and journaled (to permit auditing for compliance). It even managed personas/aliases, so that you could reveal facets of yourself, without the ability to correlate those facets later. (The ability to deanonymize demographic data is worth big money for the advertisers.)
Alas, Cheney was installed as President and any thought of protecting the citizenry was tossed out the window.
(We also didn’t have a business model. Nor an idea on how to spread adoption. Look at the struggles Open ID and others are having to get a sense of the challenge. But at least we had the idea. And if we failed, maybe someone else could have succeeded.)
In sum, Boyd’s criticism of Zuckerberg’s policies being solely in his own (corporate) self interest is spot on. He, and others, champion openness, for all the little people, to better profit from us, giving nothing in return. Do as I say, but not as I do. The worst of both possible worlds.
Unfortunately, protecting people’s privacy simply isn’t feasible any more.
So I (currently) believe the only way forward is Brin’s Transparent Society. It empowers the people. It’s fundamentally humanistic. It’s an honest recognition of the pickle we’re in. It’s feasible.
jason
I love freedom. Freedom to buy the toaster i want, to replace the ACL i tear, to eat corn and its by products. Only via the slippery slope of socialism are you able to butt into my business. Just as with colleges getting Fed $$$ and being bound to them, once we get gov’t healthcare, then they can tell us what to eat and not eat.
We have a history and constitution predicated on personal freedom, with clear prohibitions on power of government (ooops, that gets whittled away by every generation of dems)
The general welfare clause is not an excuse to butt into every part of my life.
The market is the most efficient allocator, even when painfull. And the stock market crash is not a symptom of an unregulated industry but rather fraud and misrepresentation (of risk). So tell me, woudl you rather have Costco provide healtcare, transit, eyeglasses, or have the federal gov’t do that? Yeah, i’d pick Costco or any firm facing compettion;
pudge/cynical/puddy
@ 36
So the fix for suboptimal regulation is no regulation?
Hot tip: No regulation, no marketplace.
@ 37
Huh? I’m sorry, but who cares?
righton @ 39
re: Costco vs The Government
False choice for the win!
re: Freedom
Speaking of the Constitution, it also mentions wealth and prosperity. They meant us, the people. Not corporations. You don’t think corporations are people, do you?
re: Markets
You didn’t explain how the costco provided healthcare system would work.
re: Corn
Corn is proof that God loves us. I LOVE corn. My mouth waters just thinking about it.
We used to walk outside, pick it, shuck it, boil it, and eat it.
Inexplicably, my cousin manages to eat every single kernel, picking the cob clean. Me, my face gets covered in butter, spices, and corn bits.
Alas, that’s not what we’re talking about here. But you already knew that.
@39
I love freedom. Freedom to buy the toaster i want, to replace the ACL i tear, to eat corn and its by products.
Everyone loves that freedom. But people who truly understand freedom also protect it for all choices – not just the ones that we see ourselves making. People should have the freedom to grow marijuana and sell it. People should be able to marry someone of their own sex. People should be able to have an abortion before a fetus develops into a sentient human being.
Only via the slippery slope of socialism are you able to butt into my business.
Bullshit, authoritarianism and socialism are mutually exclusive. You can have authoritarianism without socialism and you can have socialism with minimal authoritarianism. Fascist Italy was a corporate-run right-wing society that had far less freedom than any modern socialist European country does today.
Just as with colleges getting Fed $$$ and being bound to them, once we get gov’t healthcare, then they can tell us what to eat and not eat.
They can do that with our without government health care. We started banning public smoking long before many of the countries that have government run health care started to. You’re just inventing formulations out of thin air. There’s no actual evidence backing up anything you’re saying. They’re talking points solely intended to discredit the idea of government regulation. And you’re too dumb to figure that out.
We have a history and constitution predicated on personal freedom, with clear prohibitions on power of government (ooops, that gets whittled away by every generation of dems)
Actually, the modern Republican movement has done more to strip away personal freedom than any other political movement since World War II. Why? Because they’re the backlash against what was the most freedom-expansive movement since World War II – the Civil Rights movement.
The general welfare clause is not an excuse to butt into every part of my life.
Ok, so I assume you’re hopping mad about the drug war. And I’m sure you’re furious about how Republicans tried to stop I-1000, the death with dignity initiative. And I bet you get filled with rage about how the Bush Administration aggressively spied on American citizens through the telecom providers.
The market is the most efficient allocator, even when painfull.
That’s true for the things that we want, but not for the things that we need. That’s why a system where you have to barter with your doctor over life-saving surgery doesn’t work out the same way as one where you barter over the price of a car (which you can walk away from).
And the stock market crash is not a symptom of an unregulated industry but rather fraud and misrepresentation (of risk).
And this recent stock market crash happened after regulations that prevented financial service companies from taking on too much risk were removed. Everyone knows this. It’s not a mystery why it all happened.
So tell me, woudl you rather have Costco provide healtcare, transit, eyeglasses, or have the federal gov’t do that?
Again, I would rather have the federal government either provide or heavily regulate the things in life that we can’t live without, health care, roads, police, fire, a justice system. And be hands-off for the things that we merely want.
Your belief that the free-market solves everything is an overly simplistic faith-based belief. If you want to join an adult conversation here, where facts matter and history is seen without blinders, I welcome it. But I don’t think you’re capable. You believe what you believe because you want to believe it, not because it’s backed up by facts or reason.
righton @ 39
Oh yea. Good job looking up capitation model. It’s also a market.
Since that system rewards wellness and prevention, versus corporate predation on the sick, it probably doesn’t meet your approval.
Oh well. To each their own. Part of me hopes you get what you’re wishing for.
Whiplash alert: The Depression post @36 isn’t as out-of-the-blue as it seems. It’s a continuation of discussions so far back that they almost can’t be found.
The take-home message from the earlier discussion is that YLB, for maybe the first time ever, was trying to make sense. Correctnotright wasn’t even trying. Senseless as usual.
Which brings us to Jason Osgood, who may or may not be Jayson Blair in drag. In previous visits Osgood has sounded like the kid who normal kids used to beat up at recess. That’s not FAIR, he always seemed to be saying. You’re MEAN! I’m TELLING!!!
This is better …
… but not good enough. It’s a reminder that a little Pollan is a dangerous thing.
Osgood’s been on this Pollan/Schlosser/Food Inc. HFCS rant before, back when he was always running to the principal. But repitition doesn’t make the rant true.
Just because Pollan asserted that our Western HFCS petro diet causes the ‘diseases of civilization’ doesn’t mean he proved anything. He didn’t. Pollan’s toxic little food manifesto (published after Omnivore) and Jason Osgood’s toxic little rantlets, are just tarted up Jayson Blair. Maybe not full-frontal fabrications, but amounting to about the same thing, which is almost nothing.
Good thread.
One caveat, AFIK the claim that there is some harm done by fructose vs. glucose lacks evidence. If anyone knows of any real evidence. please email me or post over at SJ.
FWIW .. a number of other liberal causes are also shaky, eg
evidence vs. asbestos. One fomr is bad, the other is not.
silicon breast implants .. no evidence .
agent orange .. AFIK, not harmful
depleted uranium same
……………….
When has anyone here called for an implementation here of the British system? Actually we have that here already – it’s called the VA. Horror stories abound but it has its good parts and I don’t see military personnel agitating for a free market system of vouchers, tax-advantaged savings programs coupled with market-based catastrophic insurance coverages – or bartering chickens.
I don’t see anyone anywhere wanting to exchange the system they have for the one we have. I understand it’s more likely that the U.S. system is the laughing stock of the developed world.
hi sj @ 45
My awareness started in the 80’s, probably with the book Sugar Blues. As you can see, there’s a dozen follow up books. About the same time, my (not yet troglodyte) brother studied the effects of sugar and fake sugar while at the Univ of Wash. Lots of bad stuff: addiction, depression, fake sugar makes your body over produce insulin, etc. Aspartame (Nutrasweet) is particularly noxious. (Ha. Just scanned the wiki entry. Looks like my brother was right, even back then.)
For a long time, my opposition to HFCS was based on market distorting subsidies (because we hate Cuba) and the ecological impact.
The best summary about HFCS’s health effects I’ve seen is Dr Robert Lustig’s seminar Sugar: The Bitter Truth.
Alas. Whereas Lustig gets A++ on content, his messaging, um, needs work. As I learned the hard way, pinning the blame on the belligerents sabotages the message. He should omit stuff like “The Coca Cola Conspiracy”, even though it’s true, to better spread his message.
Fortunately, there’s this awesome Sugar: The Bitter Truth (The SHORT Version) that just explains the biology at work. Really, really good.
There are lots of other resources. Wikipedia’s entry on the health effects of high fructose corn syrup is a really good place to start.
pudge/cynical/puddy @ 44
Haha. Eerily close to the truth. Have you been stalking me? Weird if true. But I should tell you now, I’m not into dudes. Sorry.
In fact, I was beat up as a kid. A lot. Both at home and at school.
Fortunately for me, weight training, a sustained growth spurt, a huge reservoir of pent up undirected rage, and some guardian angels all worked to my advantage. Turns out that bullies stop picking on kids that kick their asses.
To this day, I still can’t abide by self righteous thugs picking on the little guy. My Achilles Heel. If you were smart, you’d figure out a way to use that tidbit against me. (Not likely.)
But I do want to congratulate you. Another cause of human suffering for you to deny! Happy day for you.
Let me ask you this:
What is it with you trogs and denying objective reality?
It’s not just anti-intellectualism. Nor is it just pro corporate shilling. In fact, none of your people’s little pet jihads have anything in common.
The best thesis I’ve seen, by Digby, is that your shared delusions are some sort of community building exercise.
Care to comment?
YLB @ 46
The VA has made HUGE improvements. Now it’s a shining example of excellence.
Little pet jihads? Denying objective reality? Anti-intellectualism?
All this because pudge/cynical/puddy suggested that Pollan and Jason/Jayson are blowing second-hand CO2 out of their afterburners?
pudge/cynical/puddy @ 44
Haha. Eerily close to the truth. Have you been stalking me? Weird if true. But I should tell you now, I’m not into dudes. Sorry.
In fact, I was beat up as a kid. A lot. Both at home and at school.
Fortunately for me, weight training, a sustained growth spurt, a huge reservoir of pent up undirected rage, and some guardian angels all worked to my advantage. Turns out that bullies stop picking on kids that kick their asses.
To this day, I still can’t abide by self righteous thugs picking on the little guy. My Achilles Heel. If you were smart, you’d figure out a way to use that tidbit against me. (Not likely.)
But I do want to congratulate you. Another cause of human suffering for you to deny! Happy day for you.
Let me ask you this:
What is it with you trogs and denying objective reality?
It’s not just anti-intellectualism. Nor is it just pro corporate shilling. In fact, none of your people’s little pet jihads have anything in common.
The best thesis I’ve seen, by Digby, is that your shared delusions are some sort of community building exercise.
Care to comment?
Jason Osgood@48,
Before you claim to know the poster verify the posting… Puddy not there since #19.
You LOSE!