FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
No bio...
User ID: 675
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
1d ago
I heard of them back in the day, and have no memory of how they ended up. Definately interested in the effortpost.
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
4d ago
The post was filtered. I have approved it on the sole theory that you would have banned the person if you thought more than a warning was necessary, not in an endorsement of its worthiness.
It was ATF, not the FBI, but the attempts to entrap Randy Weaver demonstrably were part of the radicalization of McVeigh, although Waco was probably a larger factor and as far as I'm aware wasn't "entrapment" per se.
Not entrapment, no, but very clearly corrupt. There is overwhelming evidence that the investigation was being run as a PR operation, and this focus on generating press rather than law enforcement is the direct cause of the subsequent disaster. Not least because there is strong evidence that the crimes the Davidians were initially being investigated for were entirely fabricated by the ATF.
Waco is one of the worst law-enforcement scandals in American history. Federal Agents and their agencies very clearly committed numerous felonies in an attempt to curry favor with the incoming Clinton administration, and then to cover their asses when it all went horribly, horribly wrong right in front of the TV cameras.
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
14d ago
You beat me to it.
The FBI is and always has been a fundamentally corrupt organization.
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
14d ago
True, but media has also been undergoing a major structural disruption due to the internet for the past twenty years; they're desperately trying to do whatever it takes to keep eyeballs.
"whatever it takes" notably didn't involve breaking the story that the President was mentally incompetent, and before that it didn't involve breaking the story that the president's son was selling access to his father to foreign interests. In fact, there's no shortage of stories that could have earned the news corps an avalanche of eyeballs that they passed on for clearly ideological reasons. This argument that the media class is fundamentally mercenary and are just seeking to maximize attention and ad revenue might have been weakly plausible in 2014, but at this point it is pretty clearly an undead argument immune to any degree of contrary evidence.
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
16d ago
It's clear to the camera. It's not clear that the shooter, having just been blindsided, knocked flat, and then advanced on, had time and cognition to process the half-step back.
I opined at the time that I was willing to accept convictions like that one in an edge case for pragmatic reasons of keeping the peace. That willingness has pretty much gone away given subsequent events.
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
18d ago
For what it's worth, I also don't think you violated any rules.
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
18d ago
The same way I defend Trump's failure to fire the generals who admitted to lying to him to prevent his lawful orders from being carried out. My assessment is that the Bureaucratic layer is out of control, and I'm much more worried about getting it back under control than I am about ensuring that the Executive is giving maximally-good orders. Given the choice between assigning blame to the bureaucratic layer and assigning it to the executive for failing to punish the bureaucratic layer... If we punish the executive, how does this translate to the bureaucratic layer receiving accountability for their fuckups?
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
18d ago
Arguably Biden's pull out from Afghanistan was a move against that paradigm...and it was roundly panned by everyone, sometimes on dishonest technical ground, but really for spiritual reasons.
Your general point is correct, but every time this comes up I feel compelled to point out that it's the one thing I have and will always unequivocally praise Biden for. I've had some interesting debates with @Dean on the subject.
It has already happened, and other than the last item, they already did.
Now it appears that what Brennan told congressional investigators was false. The current CIA director, John Ratcliffe, who used to be one of the House investigators looking into the Russia matter, has declassified documents from Brennan’s time at the agency which show that, far from keeping the dossier at arm’s reach, Brennan actually forced CIA analysts to use it and overruled the analysts who wanted to leave the dossier out of the Intelligence Community Assessment.
Ratcliffe asked the CIA’s Directorate of Analysis (DA) to review the tradecraft used in producing the assessment. First of all, the DA found what it called “multiple procedural anomalies” in the CIA’s preparation of the assessment. There was “a highly compressed production timeline,” too much “compartmentalization,” and “excessive involvement of agency heads,” which led to “departures from standard practices in the drafting, coordination, and reviewing” of the assessment. Together, all of the “anomalies” “impeded efforts to apply rigorous tradecraft,” the DA concluded.
There was no doubt the FBI wanted to include the dossier in the Intelligence Community Assessment; the CIA self-investigation found that “FBI leadership made it clear that their participation in the assessment hinged on the dossier’s inclusion.” FBI officials “repeatedly pushed” to include the dossier in the assessment.
But career CIA analysts did not want to include the dossier. The CIA’s deputy director for analysis sent Brennan an email saying that including the dossier’s information in any form would threaten “the credibility of the entire document.” That was when Brennan made the decision to overrule his experts. From the CIA’s Directorate of Analysis:
Despite these objections, Brennan showed a preference for narrative consistency over analytical soundness. When confronted with specific flaws in the dossier by the two mission center leaders — one with extensive operational experience and the other with a strong analytic background — he appeared more swayed by the dossier’s general conformity with existing theories than by legitimate tradecraft concerns. Brennan ultimately formalized his position in writing, stating that “my bottomline is that I believe that the information warrants inclusion in the report.” [Bolding mine.]
Director Ratcliffe has also declassified a 2020 House Intelligence Committee report, which the CIA had kept under wraps, that outlined Brennan’s involvement in the dossier. The report, based on the committee’s interviews with CIA staff, said that “two senior CIA officers,” both with extensive Russia experience, “argued with [Brennan] that the dossier should not be included at all in the Intelligence Community Assessment, because it failed to meet basic tradecraft standards, according to a senior officer present at the meeting. The same officer said that [Brennan] refused to remove it, and when confronted with the dossier’s many flaws responded, ‘Yes, but doesn’t it ring true?’”
...For what it's worth, I think your prediction is probably accurate in the sense that you intend it. Buy as I asked last week,
Several of the effort-posts I don't have time to write any more are simple surveys of old discussions with links to the evidence answering the questions since. I have a pretty strong impression of how this has gone on balance, but it'd be better to have hard data to make the case.
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
18d ago
Use of the federal security agencies to illegally gain partisan political advantage against the opposition seems like a fairly bright line.
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
18d ago
I got I think two and a half books in. I enjoyed it greatly; I dunno, the (relatively low-key) yuri didn't bother me that much, and it seems to me that the term "mary sue" doesn't really apply to a doomsday-weapon superintelligent AI warship.
There will always be scissor cases, but if there is video evidence of a suspect pulling a gun or raising his hands in the air, then both sides of the culture war are somewhat more likely to agree on what really happened compared to when they just have to rely on eyewitness testimony.
Rittenhouse is the disproof of this claim. "somewhat more likely" offers some wiggle room, but we can see that it just isn't enough in practice.
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
21d ago
I meant more your present retrospective. I've been told my whole life by the authorities that he's a solid contender for best president of all time, only marginally edged out by Lincoln.
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
21d ago
But I am saying "two wrongs don't make a right", and I'm going to fight Trump just as hard on constitutional principles as I would've fought FDR back in the day had I been alive.
Do you believe that "Constitutional Principles" protect you or anything you care about now, or will at any point in the forseeable future? Do you perceive your position to be one of enlightened self-interest, or is it more a terminal values thing?
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
21d ago
I agree, but the general consensus does not impress.
I actually think Trump running again would be an extremely bad idea for a number of practical reasons. But more and more, I'm flatly unwilling to engage in the pretense that there's some civic foundation that future norm violations are supposed to be undermining, that even a single stone of those foundations still rests upon another. This perspective doesn't necessarily resolve in endorsement of further violations, but if I'm going to oppose them, I'm going to oppose them for real reasons, not fake ones.
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
21d ago
Government has always been a cow to be milked, and under the old patronage systems the corruption was far worse.
Notably, the old patronage systems often built large things of considerable value. The people being robbed by them often saw significant, tangible improvements in their standard of living as an offset. Can we build a Golden Gate bridge today? Can we build a national highway system? This is a legitimate question, I do not claim to know the answer. I'm worried about what the answer might be, though.
I think you are correct that actual criminals are a much more serious problem than mere fiscal-net-extractors. But as you note, insurance sucks and seems to be unfixable, and a lot of other things do too, and it's not as though the existence of a worse thing makes less worse things better. It is also, quite notably, not like the crime is actually being handled either.
Most of my life, I've operated off the assumption that even if these systems, both the fiscal handouts and the crime, are very wasteful but we're rich and we can probably afford it. The world I see around me seems a lot less rich now. Maybe this is the algorythm feeding me rage-bait, but it's not looking stellar for my actual family's finances either.
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
21d ago
Then again, this level of bad-faith interpretation was completely taboo, Before Trump. I'd hope SCOTUS would rule 9-0 "pfft, no - fuck off," but perhaps it's an Originalist-Textualist schism in the making and I just don't know it...
I think you underestimate the power of the emanations of penumbras. Or to put it another way, I am not kidding around when I say that the Constitution is dead. I do not believe it is capable of protecting me in any meaningful way from any number of bad things. Why should I expend effort to see it afford protections to those who are not me and not particularly like me either? I invite those to cleave to the document to continue sacrificing value in its name. I choose otherwise.
Right, but a third term is in flagrant disregard to the democratic principles the country was built around.
With whom does one submit a ticket to get an action or interaction with the government registered as recognizably, fully-legibly "in flagrant disregard to the democratic principles this country was built on", such that one can then make such appeals here? It seems a very useful imprimatur to have in one's back-pocket when disagreements arise. Note that I am not even necessarily disagreeing with you that Trump running for a third term should be labeled such! The problem is that if others are going to ignore my judgements on what constitutes "flagrant disregard to the democratic principles this country was built on", I am not clear on why I not ignore their judgements in return.
Reciprocity is the basis for most human relationships. There are some that can operate without it: husband and wife, parent and child, brothers, sisters and true friends. But you are not my wife, my parent or my child, nor a brother or a sister, nor a friend. Outside such bonds, even the Rightful Caliph could do no better then advocate coordinating meanness.
Best orcs are Project Long Stairs orcs. Wattsian P-Zombies that breed explosively and instantly learn and integrate any tactical behavior they observe.
More options
Context Copy link