- The bombshell revelation puts an end to months of roiling speculation and frustration on the part of Democrats, who saw the director’s silence as a double-standard after Comey’s repeated disclosures in the FBI's investigation into Hillary Clinton’s private email server.
- In a dramatic moment at the beginning of a hotly anticipated House Intelligence Committee hearing on Russian interference in the U.S. election, Comey announced that he had been authorized by the Department of Justice (DOJ) to break bureau policy and publicly disclose the probe.
Lots of questions.
1. Does this mean Jeff Sessions signed off on the statement? What are his motivations for doing so?
2. How much of this was influenced by Comey's (highly questionable IMO) decision to announce they were re-opening the investigation into Clinton's e-mails just before the election?
3. How seriously should we take this? Is it simply a palliative measure (see question 1)?
4. Will announcing the investigation be an impetus for POTUS & Friends to start destroying evidence? After all, they've been using their own non-governmental servers and what-not (and those are just the ones we know about).
The first three are mostly unknowable, for now. Trying to do useful research in this arena has become fairly daunting, the signal to noise ratio is lower than ever. I gave up, I had other research to do. 4. They probably only started destroying evidence right around the time Trump (or someone he takes advice from, if such a person exists) gauged that not everyone in the world was writing off his early campaign days as an utter failure. Trump's problem is that it takes more than a year or two's worth of furious evidence erasure to whitewash a billionaire-level family empire's paper trail. He's in some shit, dude, even though he's bought leagues of people to assist with the effort, I'm sure. We'll probably hear from them after the gag orders get lifted. Yeah, they'll start by looking into Russia, but god knows what else they'll find.
In general the signal to noise ratio is unbelievable. I've been reading up a bit on positive psychology and even the various meta analysis performed don't agree with each other and it's just...what have we done to ourselves where we've obscured communication and underlying data to the point where people who aren't total laypeople can't even figure out what's going on...
Like any other long-running conflict between two groups (in this case, the elite and everyone else), the problem is one of each side trying to get an edge on the other. The Internet and mass communication as a whole is just another tool. Leaders have known for a long time how dangerous the press can be, but haven't really been able to get the upper hand until now as the tools have gotten more sophisticated (which comes in part to being able to tap into human nature, whereby we're wired to want an echo chamber).
This feels like wishful thinking to me. Either political party would rather a corrupt sociopath stay in power than torpedo their own political standing, so I don't really believe that the Republicans will do anything meaningful to Trump. At least not until it becomes costlier politically to stand with him, and I don't foresee that happening, well, ever.He's in some shit, dude, even though he's bought leagues of people to assist with the effort, I'm sure.
IMO this is just scandal for the sake of scandal. I mean you don't seriously think the FBI is going to come out and say that the president is a Russian agent. Even if it were true somehow it would have to be irrefutable like the Korean cult thing. The FBI couldn't even indicate Hillary when it was clear that she committed some serious crimes. So I don't see how this goes anywhere. It just makes the democrats look a little better to their core base and like idiots to the rest of the country.
Where is the irrefutable proof of Hilary's crimes? A lot of it comes down to the legal grey area surrounding her emails and the server. If you want to just speculate, then sure, she's as shady as they come. But in terms of proof, I've yet to see any.
That was my thought exactly (although I dispute the conclusion that Clinton had committed any "serious crimes").
Russia is a foreign adversary that intentionally manipulated our election process. If either of the participating campaigns of that election had contact with, or colluded to illegally influence that election, then they've essentially committed treason. Our electoral process is the hallmark of our republic. So yes, it's a reason to worry.
*sigh* That's fair. I guess I'm just bothered by the shit my country gets. Not that it's undeserved, apparently. I'm still coming to terms with the fact that Russia has committed this kind of ethical atrocity. Yet, having the power to put its man in charge of a powerful foreign country, they lack the finesse and theatrics to actually hide it. It's both an awesome and pathetic move.
As an American, I understand :) It can be frustrating, but honestly that's only true to the extent that you feel any emotional connection to your country. I've never really been good at the whole "loyalty to abstractions" thing. As a character from a book by one of my favorite sci-fi authors put it:I guess I'm just bothered by the shit my country gets.
The way I see it, anyone who's proud of their country is either a thug or just hasn't read enough history yet.
I think being proud of your country is like loving your family, friends, and neighbors. Just like the people in your life aren't perfect and you're not always gonna like what they do, you still want them to do well because you see the value in having them in your lives. Similarly, you can appreciate your country, the government that runs it, the citizens that are a part of it, the land that is in it, and want all components to succeed and create good things for the world. It's okay to be upset when bad decisions are made, through ignorance, carelessness, even malice. What's important though is continuing to try and encourage goodness and productivity and foster a mentality that lends itself to that goal.
The main difference to me is the examples you give are people, a country is not. You can be proud of what some people in your country have done, for example, but I think it's dangerous to lose sight of the distinction.
The distinction doesn't matter. What matters is discovering what makes something good and learning how to further foster that goodness. That means understanding that just because someone or something is flawed, it doesn't mean that they or it are without value, or more importantly, that redemption is out of reach.
That's a pretty heavy question that's taken people lifetimes to explore. :) I think long and short of it though, is that it's important for us to not lose faith in ourselves as individuals, to not lose faith in eachother as individuals, and to realize that changes of heart can come from the most unexpected of places and at the most unexpected of times. Because these changes of heart can be unexpected, can be positive or negative, and often seem to come at times when we're most vulnerable to the world around us, it's important to try to create an environment whenever possible that allows for positive changes and developments to take root. That said, it's still important to be guarded about who we trust and why, when and how we trust them, etc. Sometimes people make mistakes, which is unfortunate. Sometimes people act with ill will and malice, which is regrettable. By making good and healthy decisions about how we conduct ourselves around others and how we allow others to conduct themselves around us, we can go far in protecting ourselves, them, and society as a whole. Personally, I think the same philosophy applies to institutions, whether we're talking about families, schools, corporations, governments, or what have you. The scale might be different, in degrees of severity, time, etc., but I think much of the same mechanisms are there, as these institutions are a collective extension of our own individual humanities. Edit: Dala once played an amazing podcast about how over a long stretch of time people's brains literally change. It was all in the context of actual criminals and was very compelling. I'll have to see if I can't find the episode and share it with Hubski.
Invisibilia: The Personality Myth. http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2016/06/24/481859662/invisibilia-is-your-personality-fixed-or-can-you-change-who-you-are A new season of Invisibilia is about to start. If you listen to podcasts, this should be in your feed. If you don't, this is a great place to start a listening habit.
I guess I do, then. I'm not proud of Russia, especially with the way the things are in and out of the country, but it's still my country. Wicked or not, it is, and I am a part of it... Not sure if for long.that's only true to the extent that you feel any emotional connection to your country.
Sure, I understand...it always feels different if you or someone else from your country criticizes it versus an outsider.
Yes and no. I think we have to be conscious of the motivations, yes, but if morality is to have any meaning, it can't have an exception for doing a bad thing to enough people.
I like the idea but in practice it breaks down rather quickly when you try and apply it comparatively. Also, nation-states are not known to be moral actors. Morality isn't what has determined our participation in any conflict in the past. Moral connotations are used as justification during and after the fact but they are never causative. Until the UN or whatever comes after it gets some real teeth that overrides national sovereignty, it's just a fun thing to talk about. I don't even advocate for that, I'm not certain that a united world government would be a good thing. An additional point, when I try and analyze this with game theory, I can't imagine a scenario where a nation state benefits from being a moral actor. All being a moral actor does is restrict the number of potential moves you can make, which gives your 'opponents' advantage, because they know that there are actions you will not take, so they are free to walk all over those known vulnerabilities. Example, Mutually Assured Destruction doesn't work as a deterrent if one side states 'Even in the event of a hostile launch, we will not fire nuclear missiles.' It doesn't matter one whit that not launching missiles is the moral action. In fact in this scenario, it's MORE moral to say 'We will nuke you if you nuke us' because it prevents missiles from flying in the first place.if morality is to have any meaning, it can't have an exception for doing a bad thing to enough people.
I mean, this is true, but not really the point. After all, it's just as true in your day-to-day life as well.An additional point, when I try and analyze this with game theory, I can't imagine a scenario where a nation state benefits from being a moral actor.
But there will always be a difference in penalties from one actor to another. If you only hold a principle when it doesn't cost you anything, you can't call it your principle. At the very least, I wish we could stop pretending that we as a country have some kind of moral high ground when that is so clearly not the case.
Agreed on all counts. I'm trying to say that assigning morality to the actions of geopolitical actors is stupid. Self-interest is the highest virtue possible at that level, to the point of mutually assured destruction. I don't see a way out and if someone does please share with the group. Maybe Would be a place to start, but I can't see how that would progress into something that changes behavior on a scale that matters to issues relating to foreign interference in democratic processes.we could stop pretending that we as a country have some kind of moral high ground when that is so clearly not the case.
The answer to your last statement is right there--we stop saying that it's "stupid" to apply virtue to large-scale decisions.
Ok, replace 'stupid' with 'completely ineffectual' and what changes? I'm sorry to sound snarky about this, but it seems to be unsolvable. We're American. We're embarrassed by the actions of our political system/politicians. TFG is Russian, he's embarrassed by the actions of his political system/politicians. Now what? Go 'Our politicians are slightly less corrupt than yours because they aren't literally murdering rivals in the streets?' Sure, we can say that a lot, but then what? What value is drawn by comparing them? What value is there in saying, in isolation 'Our politicians are completely lacking in virtue.'