Posts by Slippery elver

US Dept of Housing screens sabotaged to show deepfake of Trump sucking Elon's toes

Re: During this time

Yes, but Putin doesn't want a neighbour. He wants a slave.

Is Ukraine being in Nato sensible? I think not (personally). I think a series of different pacts is what is needed to guarantee their security.

But can Putin be made to stop? Yes he can. Given that with very little real inconvenience, the EU and US economies have absorbed supporting Ukraine. Imagine if they actually mobilised?

Whatever you say, Putin has no excuse for invading. Were there things to be annoyed about? Yes. But aggression on this scale? Absolutely not.

Have the Ukrainians treated the Russian speakers badly? Yes. So apply economic pressure to have referenda - for example (before 2014)

And as for retaking the territory, totally understandable. Its Ukraine, not Russia. And it wasn't Ukraine that prevented them having control over their own country and needing to 're-take it'.

So lets stop making excuses for Putin.

However he's painted himself into a corner now. And that IS a problem. So something has to happen because 'unconditional surrender' of Russia isn't realistic. I'm sure Zelensky knows that. But lets help Ukraine get a 'reasonable' peace deal. Otherwise we've rewarded Putin's aggression and China will be in Taiwan in 2028.

Re: During this time

Except that, as Macron says, everything Europe is giving is aid, not a loan.

And the EU will provide aid until Ukraine decides to stop. Its not the EU fighting Russia to the last Ukrainian.

Trump isn't interested in ensuring this ends with Russia understanding that it can't do this again. Now nobody, EU or US has given enough to Ukraine to ensure this happens. And this, I believe, is the mistake. However Trump's "End this Now" makes no sense. He's not offering anything.

Strategically, Trump should see that ensuring Russia realises that starting this war was a bad plan is the outcome he should be after. Because that disuades Russia from attacking the Baltics and does provide a degree of hope for Taiwan.

His current capitulation to Putin will result in more instability, not less.

I'm struggling to see how he thinks this helps the US's strategic cause.

And on the basis of the current US policy, the US should have been completely happy for Japan to invade the whole of South East Asia in WW2. Because it only did so because the west was preventing it from getting the natural resources it felt it was entitled to. It didn't want to fight the US. It just wanted Oil and minerals from the Dutch East Indies.

From Trump's commercial perspective, beating Japan makes no sense. Just tell them off for bombing Hawaii and tell them to leave Australia alone. But after that, why bother fighting them? Absolutely no point.

The fact that the US has as much power as it does today, is based on the fact it was prepared to exercise it and hold others to account (however imperfectly) 80 years ago.

Soon the US will not be a trustworthy partner any more and (for example) the EU will not buy US military kit etc. Because who knows when Trump will embargo stuff. He's just too much of a loose cannon. Right now people aren't saying too much. But over time, the untrustworthiness will translate into unpicking dependencies on the US, which will reduce the US influence and power. Then people will just tell him (or his successors of similar mind-set) where to get off.

This is why the US population should be concerned. This erosion will be felt for a long time. China will be laughing.

I agree with much of what you say. However I do believe that he is acting in an unaccountable way. The problem is that the system doesn't make him accountable now, and his power (through patronage) is so large that the normal checks and balances that should prevent an abuse between the 'public accountability - every four years' have failed. Congress should be stopping him breaking the law. Where are they?

Regarding the 'company' matter. I totally agree that an inefficient public sector is sub-optimal - though less sub-optimal than for a company. And it is always wise to spend public money well. The issue I find is two-fold:

Firstly, the public sector has a moral duty to serve all the population - which necessarily makes it less efficient. The current approach from Trump and Musk has lost this key moral underpinning. If (as an example) you have to provide services to the 50% of people who are below average, then it requires that the services have lots of 'help' and 'cost' to allow these people to access the services. Even if they look 'inefficient'.

And I believe the US is rich enough to aspire to not have people starving (and homeless). Everyone can be dealt a bad hand, either at birth or during life.

And it isn't inefficient to prevent pandemics, or hold companies to account, or have internal audit within government itself.

Secondly, there is the 'externalities' issue. Musk just fires people on the lower end of the bell-curve in his companies. However in a country, this doesn't work. There isn't an outside void into which to cast people. Ultimately the country picks up the pieces or people starve (see the moral point above).

That, for me, is the key difference. A company RELIES on the state to provide the 'diaper'. And a company RELIES on the state to just absorbe all the trash that a company creates; unemployed people, environmental mess etc. Its not companies that pick up the pieces. Its the State that underwrites all of this.

For me this is the key difference between a Company and a Country. A country has responsibilities that transcend a political term and cover the whole of the population and a physical space.

People hand that responsibility to a State because it requires collaboration and co-ordination at a level no individual can achieve.

Companies wilfully ignore any responsibility not laid out in Law. A country picks up all the mess outside that.

But once a State begins to deny its basic responsibilities towards its population - what then? Do the population owe a duty of loyalty to it any more?

As an example, one of the basic responsibilities is to follow the law.

Maybe. However you do that by understanding first. Unfortunately M&T think you can run a country like you run a company.

You can't. There isn't an 'outside' in this scenario. For example, everyone you sack still has to eat. And reducing the federal budget does actually decrease GDP, and the tax cuts won't raise it. Everyone knows trickledown doesn't work.

The problem is also that Trump isn't the only person in charge. You aren't in a monarchy (last time I looked) so there is a process involving at least two branches of government that should be happening.

And as we know the end doesn't justify the means. There is a way to do things properly. This subversion of the process is corrupt (this is the correct word) and unless the US population reacts, the next time he'll subvert it to lock up or fire someone you love for something spurious. And then you'll wish the checks and balances worked.

Do you think the founding fathers envisaged one branch of government acting like this, unilaterally? It really is like the monarchy you left 250 years ago. One man doing what he likes and no parliament to stop him. Even the UK 250 years ago had more checks and balances.

The biggest microcode attack in our history is underway

Re: A fair analogy, but...

Please give examples...

Re: A fair analogy, but...

Question to you...

Is efficiency more important than doing things correctly - especially for a State apparatus which has to serve everyone, not a minority.

And secondly, is a broken moral compass a bar from office? Everyone has 'defects', but publicly proposing things that are breaches of international law is something else and not even underanding that this matters is the worst of it.

After all, we are only safe at all if the law has some sort of meaning. And once you've signed up to that concept, the you can't pick and choose. You can change things by following the process. But you don't disregard it.

Without the law then anyone can kill and steal from anyone. I'm not sure that Trump wants that. He still wants the law when it suits him.

Hardly! Nothing in the US is left. It's just a flavour of 'right'. Ultimately it's a question of common decency.

Ask yourself who, as a human being, is the better person. Can you honestly say that the bunch now in charge are 'good people'?

People advocating things that are against international law. There are other things, but this is the easiest example to give.

By using the easiest example you shine the light. If someone doesn't understand that you can't just bully your neighbours or take over someone else's land, the they have a broken moral compass and aren't fit for office.

Whether anyone else is better is moot. It's important to call things what they are. This lot have a clearly broken moral compass.

Re: Let me be the first to say

Not sure really. Actually part of the reason the state apparatus is so cumbersome is because it applies all these controls to itself to minimise the harm it might do. Unlike a corporate that only focuses on it's shareholders and couldn't care less for everyone else.

It's not clear to me that the state apparatus was particularly political in the US. Which is as it should be. It should be agnostic to who is in charge. It should aim to do the right thing for the American people and follow the law at all times, even if it's a bit expensive to do so.

That's why the people in charge of the different parts should be there to serve the people, not a party. You should judge them on that yardstick first. The most competent person is unfit for office if their first master is the president, not the people of the US.

Re: What is this article about again ?

I'm confused. Put aside Trump.

Do you disagree that Musk is doing unaccountable things that are likely against the law and removing and bypassing key controls designed to keep the American people safe?

And as a result aiming to leave a state apparatus behind that will be more corrupt because it won't have the controls it needs to be politically independent - remember that the apparatus is there to serve the people, not Trump (or any other political group).

The point is a general one about the controls and security needed in the state machine and the risk if these are purged and removed.

UK finds itself almost alone with centralized virus contact-tracing app that probably won't work well, asks for your location, may be illegal

Re: Of course, being centrally controlled

Everyone is focusing on privacy as though it were an objective in itself. Harriet Harman made a good point about specific legislation about use and deletion.

The Apple/Google model does not start from the point of what is required to manage the virus. Which, in my view, is the only place to start from. The virus has no ethics and privacy may well be in fundamental conflict with our ability to fight the virus. So what is more important, privacy or physical safety? That is the real question to ask. Then, give an necessary amount of information to manage the virus, you legislate to control that information as best as realistically possible.

But starting from a privacy or nothing point of view and ignoring what data is actually needed to fight it is absurd.

The role of government has always been to keep its population safe. I think it is Google and Apple who are wrong in terms of starting from what is needed as opposed to privacy at all costs and hang public PHYAICAL safety.