- DiD You KNoW THeRe'S AN ACCEPTaBLe LeVeL OF RaT TuRDS THaT CaN Go INTO CaNDY BaRS?
- What Most Syrians See Of Their War
Submitted by Eric Zuesse, Investigative historian and author of They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity.
What Most Syrians See of Their War
Here is a video of what most Syrians are seeing and experiencing of the war, and it’s titled “Living in the crosshairs, May 29th 2016 ENG SUBS” (the “ENG SUBS” means “English subtitles”).
It refers to attackers being the “Free Syrian Army” (who were founded by Riad al-Asaad, no relation to Bashar al-Assad — and spelled and pronounced differently — and he was a proponent of a fundamentalist Sunni Syrian constitution). It also refers to (and shows victims of) the “canisters” which the FSA is firing westward, from the Aleppo city area that the FSA controls, into the city’s “Midan District,” which is controlled by the Syrian government.
The FSA is America’s chosen group of fighters (Barack Obama’s terms for them are ‘the moderate opposition’ and ‘moderate rebels’, but they’re just the people that the U.S. government overtly back — not back covertly like Syria’s branch of Al Qaeda and some other groups). All these groups are trying to overthrow the Syrian government, and, though they often cooperate with one-another, like with Al Qaeda in Syria (called “Al Nusra”), and ISIS (also called “ISIL” and “Daesh”), the groups also occasionally attack each other, because each of the groups is trying to increase its territory and wants to emerge victorious to control all of Syria, or of as much of Syria as possible, in the final settlement.
Virtually all members of each one of these groups are jihadists, but different foreign countries are backing different ones of these groups, and America’s preferred group happens to be the FSA — the group that’s firing these “canisters.”
At 1:46 in the video, the flag of the “Sultan Murad Faction” is being flown; at 1:50 it’s the flag of Al Nusra. So, this time the groups are all working together, because of their shared goal of conquering the Syrian government in the Midan District, which they’ve apparently just done here, at least for the time being. The Sultan Murad group are backed by Turkey (which, under Erdogan, has become a fundamentalist-Sunni country, like the Arab monarchies are, but without the oil). Al Qaeda is mainly backed by the Sauds, U.S. allies against Assad.
Each of these groups is bankrolled by somewhat different financial interests, but all of those interests are united in their desire to overthrow the non-sectarian government that has been ruling in Syria, and that the U.S. CIA has been trying, ever since 1949, to overthrow and replace by a fundamentalist Sunni government (which will favor the fundamentalist-Sunni Sauds, our allies). Though the majority of Syrians have always supported a non-sectarian Syria, various factions of Sunni Islam in fundamentalist-Sunni foreign countries have (especially after the severe 2007-2010 drought in Syria, and the consequent intense “Arab Spring” anti-government movement in Syria during 2011) supplied weapons and fighters to jihadists to overthrow Assad, and they also finance propaganda to recruit jihadists from all around the world, to fight in Syria and maybe become heavenly martyrs in this ‘holy war’ or jihad, against the ‘infidel’ non-sectarian Syrian government, which, moreover, is led by the Shiite Bashar al-Assad — and all Shiites should be killed, according to such fundamentalist Sunni teachings (which originate in, and are led by, Saudi Arabia).
The United States is allied here actually with the Saud family who own Saudi Arabia, and with their friends the Thani family who own Qatar, and also with their friends the Sabah family who own Kuwait, and also with the six royal families who own UAE; and all of these fundamentalist-Sunni royal families are aiming to supply their oil and gas, and pipelines for oil and gas, selling into the world’s largest energy-market, Europe. Those pipelines would be built through Syria, which is the reason why the U.S. and its Gulf-state allies want to take Syria over, or at least to conquer enough of a strip through what today is Syria, so as to enable construction of these pipelines into Europe.
Whereas America’s goal in this is mainly to strangle Russia, which is the biggest current supplier of oil and gas into the European market, the main goal of the royal Arab families is to expand their markets, to grab a bigger share of Europe’s energy sales. Pipelined oil and gas tends to be cheaper and therefore more cost-competitive than trucked or shipped oil and gas; so, this is a “pipeline war,” to expand markets.
That’s what the Syrian war is all about. Whereas for America it’s to conquer Russia; for the Arab royals, it’s to supply a bigger share of Europe’s energy-imports. For Turkey, it’s to grab a share of the oil-sales stolen by these jihadists, oil from Iraq and Syria, and also to serve within NATO as the agents of royal Arab families, a bridge between NATO and the Gulf Cooperation Council. That bridge is a valuable and profitable function to fulfill.The millions of refugees that are being produced by this war, many of whom are fleeing to Europe, are just the results, basically, of this land-clearing operation in Syria, to get rid of the people who are supporting the current Syrian government, which is allied with Russia, instead of with the U.S. and its allies.
So: those “canisters” are intended to terrify enough Syrians to flee, so that (it’s hoped) enough land can be cleared of population, in order for the desired pipelines to be built.
And Syrians know this. Consequently, not only are the various jihadist groups despised by from two-thirds to around 80% of the Syrian public, but at least 55% of Syrians would vote for Bashar al-Assad to be the country’s leader, in any free and fair election — and Obama knows this, which is the reason why he has strenuously opposed democracy in Syria, and even Ban ki-Moon has (though very quietly) condemned Obama’s position that rejects democracy in Syria. Furthermore, the Syrian people overwhelmingly (by 82%, to be exact) cite the U.S. as being the main source of the immense suffering they face.
In other words: terrorizing the population is good, not bad, from the standpoint of the U.S. and its allies — and many Syrians know this. But the few anti-Assad fighters who loathe ISIS and who have been praised by the U.S. government don’t necessarily know or understand this. The few anti-Assad fighters who, for whatever reason (be it that they’re competing against ISIS, or maybe even that they genuinely detest ISIS) have tried to help the U.S. CIA against ISIS, have even been stunned to find the U.S. government uninterested. It doesn’t make sense to them.
To clear the land, terror is good, not bad; the CIA mustn’t get in the way, and they don’t. It’s one reason why those FSA fighters who had taken seriously the U.S. government’s anti-ISIS rhetoric, have, in many cases, subsequently become disillusioned, and cooperate now with al-Nusra and other such groups, which are only marginally less extremist than ISIS is. At least ISIS isn’t lying to them, like the U.S. government does.
Since the European governments are allied with the U.S., those governments are torn about what to do with the refugees that the U.S.-and-allied operation is producing (and is intended to produce). At least up till now, far more Europeans hate the refugees than hate the U.S. government, and so the problem is merely a political annoyance to EU leaders, not yet a cause for breakup of the Western Alliance (European countries’ alliance with the U.S. government), which still seems strong, and which is still strongly supported by Europeans (including even by the ones who hate these refugees — refugees who are result of that very alliance, which they support).
Though this land-clearing operation creates a nuisance in Europe, it’s far more than that, a life-and-death matter, in Syria. For Arab aristocracies, it’s being done mainly for business (it’s not about ideology, except Sunni versus Shia); but for America’s aristocracy, it’s mainly for power: conquering Russia, by getting rid of Russia’s allies, surrounding Russia, then going in for the kill — unless the Russian government first submits and posts a white flag of surrender (in which case the West will take over Russia’s oil and gas etc., ‘peacefully’).
Perhaps the Western Alliance will continue as it is. But maybe it won’t. For the millions of Syrians in the midst of the hell that Washington and its allies are causing there, a lot might depend on whether it will continue as it is. Without the Western Alliance, the foreign jihadists who are destroying their country would have to leave. Those jihadists are utterly dependent upon the support of Barack Obama, King Saud, Tayyip Erdogan, Angela Merkel, and the other leaders of the Western Alliance. None of those leaders can continue this ongoing invasion of Syria, without the continuing support of their Western comrades. The destruction of Syria is a team-effort. But maybe the team will fall apart before it can achieve the type of victory that’s required for real ‘success’. Which side will give up this war first?
One thing’s for sure: What Syrians see of their war is not going to endear them to The West. And this also means: it’s not going to endear them to Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the United States. Will it endear them to the EU? Certainly not if the EU turns them away as refugees. However, if the EU separates from the U.S., then maybe, just maybe, there can emerge favorable relations between Europe and the secular Arabs who have long constituted the majority of Syrians. The problem for them has been the U.S. government and the fundamentalist Sunni Arab royal families. The question then is: Will Europeans continue to be allied with them? Or, if not, then how soon will the Western Alliance break up?
- Goldman Finds That China's Debt Is Far Greater Than Anyone Thought
When it comes to China’s new credit creation, at least the country is not shy about exposing how much it is. To find the credit tsunami flooding China at any given moment, one just has to look up the latest monthly Total Social Financing number which include both new bank loans as well as some shadow banking loans. As we reported in April this amount had soared to a record $1 trillion for the first quarter …
… although as we followed up last month, it tumbled in April as suddenly Beijing slammed the brakes on uncontrolled credit expansion. It is unclear why, although the following chart may have had something to do with it: increasingly less of credit created is making its way into the broader economy.
No matter the reason for these sharp swings in credit creation, one thing that was taken for granted by all is that unlike China’s GDP, or most of its “hard” macroeconomic data, at least its credit creation metrics were somewhat reliable, and as such provided the best glimpse into Chinese economic inflection points.
That appears to no longer be the case.
In an analysis conducted by Goldman’s MK Tang, the strategist notes that a frequent inquiry from investors in recent months is how much credit has actually been extended to Chinese households and corporates. He explains that this arises from debates about the accuracy of the commonly used credit data (i.e., total social financing (TSF)) in light of an apparent rise in financial institutions’ (FI) shadow lending activity (as well as due to the ongoing municipal bond swap program).
Tang adds that while it is clear that banks’ investment assets and claims on other FIs have surged, it is unclear how much of that reflects opaque loans, and also how much such loans and off-balance sheet credit are not included in TSF. By the very nature of shadow lending, it is almost impossible to reach a conclusion on these issues based on FIs’ asset information.
Goldman circumvents these data complications by instead focusing on the “money” concept, a mirror image to credit on FIs’ funding side. The idea is that money is created largely only when credit is extended—hence an effective gauge of “money” can give a good sense of the size of credit. We construct our own money flow measure, specifically following and quantifying the money flow from households/corporates.
Goldman finds something stunning: true credit creation in China was vastly greater than even the comprehensive Total Social Financing series. To wit: “a substantial amount of money was created last year, evidencing a very large supply of credit, to the tune of RMB 25tn (36% of 2015 GDP). This is about RMB 6tn (or 9pp of GDP) higher than implied by TSF data (even after adjusting for municipal bond swaps). Divergence from TSF has been particularly notable since Q2 last year after a major dovish shift in policy stance.”
As Goldman concludes, its finding suggests that the Chinese economy’s reliance on credit has deepened significantly, and adds that “our projection of China’s debt/GDP ratio for coming years has turned more unfavorable as a result.“
* * *
For those curious about the details, here’s more from Goldman:
How much credit has really been extended?
Total social financing (TSF) statistics are supposed to be a comprehensive measure of this but their accuracy has been affected by recent events—in particular, the ongoing municipal bond swap program and an apparent rise in “opaque loans” and/or off-balance sheet lending by financial institutions (we will generally call such lending “shadow lending” in this report). Recent official comments suggesting scope for a more systematic compilation process for TSF also point to potential quality issues with the statistics.
The first data issue, i.e., municipal bond swap program, is relatively easy to address. It is mostly related to the different treatment of LGFV debt and municipal bonds in TSF statistics.[2] We have been adjusting for this factor by adding the municipal bond issuance for the swap program to the reported TSF to arrive at our measure of adjusted TSF, although the adjustment is not precise given uncertainty about the exact usage of the proceeds from the municipal bond swap issuance.
But the second issue, i.e., shadow lending by financial institutions, presents a much greater data challenge. In listed banks’ balance sheets, investment assets have been rising rapidly. Media reports (e.g., here and here) and disclosures by individual banks indicate that banks have embedded some of their loans to corporates in these assets, driven by regulatory arbitrage (our Banks research team has discussed these developments in recent notes).[3] In part reflecting this phenomenon, macro monetary data published by the PBOC has also clearly shown that the banking sector’s “claims on non-bank financial institutions (NBFIs)” (and also banks’ “equity and other investment”) have been rising rapidly in the last several quarters (for the PBOC data on these items, see this and this).
These observations have raised questions and triggered debates, often revolving around the following issues:
- How large is the system-wide size of “opaque loans” or, put another way, how much of banks’ NBFI claims is a result of opaque loans? In our view, it is not likely that all NBFI claims are opaque loans; they may be related to “financial round-tripping”—i.e., banks lend money to NBFIs (e.g., investment funds) that invest in financial markets and this money just circulates in the financial system and eventually comes back to banks without being “leaked” to the real economy. The “round-tripping” idea is indeed consistent with the corresponding very rapid increase in banks’ liabilities to NBFIs (Exhibit 1). It also dovetails with banks’ increasing tendency to allocate part of their capital to outside asset managers for financial investment in the secondary market (in what is called “entrusted investment” from banks), with the intention of boosting investment returns.
- Besides the “opaque loans” held on banks’ balance sheet as part of investment assets, how much additional credit is extended off banks’ balance sheets?
- To what extent is shadow lending (i.e., the on-balance sheet opaque loans plus off-balance sheet credit) already captured in TSF data?
These issues lead to the ultimate macro question of how much credit has in fact been extended to the economy. It is naturally almost impossible to conclude by looking at the asset composition of FIs, as by design it is hard to tell what assets represent opaque loans and (to a lesser degree) how much off balance sheet exposure there is. Increasing interconnectedness amongst FIs via various evolving “channel” set ups certainly makes the task no easier.
As the second chart from the top shows, M2 has become disconnected from loan creation in China. This has important consequences:
We adopt another line of attack at the question: Namely, we look at the mirror image of credit (which is on FIs’ asset side) and focus on “money”, a metric related to FIs’ funding side. The basic idea is that credit generation is effectively a money creation process. Without credit creation, the amount of money would normally be unchanged no matter what happens in the real economy and vice versa (see Box 1 for more discussion on the general credit-money relationship).[5] With this linkage extended, it is possible to come to a reasonable estimate of the true pace credit flow (at least from banks) to the real economy by looking at growth of broad money, or M2, as we did a couple of years ago.
There is a problem though with this simple proxy, i.e., China has been becoming much less banks-centric. M2, which is essentially banks’ deposits, is no longer broad enough to reflect all key funding elements as the financial system diversifies. In fact, recognition of the growing diversity of the financial system already led the PBOC to expand the coverage of M2 in late 2011 to also include NBFI deposits (vs. only household and corporate deposits previously), partly intended to account for the increasing importance of WMPs at that time. But even with that expansion, M2 does not sufficiently capture FIs’ funding sources nowadays for two related reasons: i) banks have been drawing a significant amount of funding from non-deposit sources such as money market mutual funds’ purchase of NCDs, which is not included in the current measure of M2 (Exhibit 2); and ii) NBFIs (e.g., investment funds, insurance asset managers) have been rising in popularity amongst households/corporates as saving and investment intermediaries, and their financial activity may not be fully reflected on banks’ balance sheet (i.e., conducted off banks’ balance sheet).
On the other hand, though, including all elements of FIs’ funding side would not be ideal either, in our view, as that would overstate the pace of money created from lending to households/corporates, because of possible “financial round-tripping” (as discussed above) and double counting.
Therefore, to deduce the size of credit flow to households/corporates, we construct our own measure of adjusted “money”, which is intended to be broad enough to capture increasing financial diversification but targeted enough to cover only funding that comes from and is owned by households/corporates.
Goldman then proceeds to explain how it comes up with its own, adjusted, version of a comprehensive debt creation number in China, aka following the money trail. This process, while complex, can be summarized as follows:
And quantitatively boils down to the following:
This is how Goldman explains the variation:
The broad trend of our measure seems clear, showing a significant jump in 2012 vs. 2011 and another, even bigger, jump last year vs. 2014. In comparison, M2 increased by only about RMB 16tn last year—a main reason for the difference is that a lot of “money” going into non-deposit financial channels is not included in M2. But in trying to follow the money flow more systematically as in our exercise, it seems clear that there was a lot of money created and circulating around amongst households and corporates relative to what the TSF shows, and this evidences that a very large relative amount of credit (as a % of GDP) was extended last year.
How does our measure compare with the TSF data? To allow apples-to-apples comparison, we need a couple of additional adjustments:
- We take out the FX loan portion of TSF (to match our RMB money concept), and also adjust that for the municipal bond swap program since mid 2015 as we discussed in the opening section
- We add entrusted loans that are included in TSF to our adjusted money flow measure (as the money flow measure does not capture company-to-company lending
Credit flow to households/corporates as indicated by our measure is not entirely aligned with what is implied by TSF data, but the two metrics are fairly close in 2011-2014 (Exhibit 5). However, there is a large gap of some RMB 6-7tn for 2015, suggesting that TSF data (even after adjusting for the municipal bond swap) misses a significant chunk of credit extended to households/corporates last year.
Our money flow measure points to much larger credit extended in 2015 than implied by TSF
We next extend our money flow measure to quarterly frequency—we can only go back to 2013 when relevant information is available quarterly and can allow the quarterly series to be consistent with the annual one. The quarterly comparison shows that credit indicated by our measure and adjusted TSF began to diverge meaningfully in Q2 2015 and continued to widen in Q3-Q4 2015 (Exhibit 6). It is probably not a coincidence that the divergence happened amid a clear dovish shift in monetary policy stance (7-day repo interest rate fell about 200bps between Q1 ’15 and Q2 ’15; Exhibit 7), the general accommodative stance in Beijing following the major growth slowdown in early 2015, and policymakers’ encouragement for more financial diversification and innovation to relieve corporate financing constraints.
Credit indicated by our measure started to diverge notably from adjusted TSF since Q2 2015…
What about in 2016?
It is not feasible to construct our adjusted money flow measure for Q1 ’16 yet given data limitations, but judging from the continued ytd increase in banks’ “equity and other investment” assets (which has been statistically correlated with the gap between our implied credit measure and adjusted TSF), it seems that as sizable as adjusted TSF was in Q1 (at about RMB 7.5tn), it might still understate the underlying credit flow to the real economy. In recent weeks, the regulator has announced some prudential tightening to discourage shadow lending activity, but how aggressively the regulator will implement the rules and the how effective the tightening will be remain to be seen.
Goldman’s conclusion, which probably does not need much explanation because it is simple enough: China’s debt is far greater than anyone expected, is the following:
An uncomfortable trend that has gotten more discomforting
The results of our analysis have a few implications for our macro outlook:
- In terms of short-term growth, our implied credit metric suggests that credit impulse to growth may be greater than that based on adjusted TSF, although the difference in magnitude may not be very significant.
- For monetary policy, given that lower wholesale interest rates tend to give rise to more shadow lending, to the extent that the authorities intend to contain the latter, the scope for a meaningful fall in 7-day repo interest rate seems more limited in coming months unless growth sharply slows, in our view.
- More worryingly, our implied credit metric indicates that the trend of China’s leverage has probably deteriorated faster than we previously thought, even though we had already expected the ratio to continue rising in the next few years. Compared to our previous estimates, the experience in 2015 suggests that the economy’s dependence on credit has deepened significantly and that it likely needs sizeable flow of credit on a persistent basis to maintain a stable level of growth. The chart below shows how much more unfavorable our baseline debt/GDP projection is now after incorporating our implied credit metric for 2015 vs. what it was based on data only until 2014.
- Such a scale of deterioration certainly increases our concerns about China’s underlying credit problems and sustainability risk. The possibility that there is such a large amount of shadow lending going on in the system that is not captured in official statistics also points to regulatory gap, and underscores the lack of visibility on where potential financial stress points may lie and how a possible contagion may play out.
Surge in shadow lending implies faster growth in debt-to-GDP ratio
In other words, not only was China lying about everything else, it was also fabricating its broadest credit creation aggregate, with the underlying “new credit” number turning out to be far greater than anyone had expected (or believed). And for someone as traditionally conservative and Goldman to warn that “that the trend of China’s leverage has probably deteriorated “, that “that the economy’s dependence on credit has deepened significantly and that it likely needs sizeable flow of credit on a persistent basis to maintain a stable level of growth” and that “such a scale of deterioration certainly increases our concerns about China’s underlying credit problems and sustainability risk“, must mean that China’s economy is about to fall off a cliff.
Because once the rest of Wall Street catches up to Goldman’s most striking observation that “the possibility that there is such a large amount of shadow lending going on in the system that is not captured in official statistics also points to regulatory gap, and underscores the lack of visibility on where potential financial stress points may lie and how a possible contagion may play out”, then all those concerns about Chinese credit (and FX, and economic, and bubble) contagion will promptly return front and center to the global arena.
* * *
One final point: in recent days it almost seems that Goldman has been doing all in its power to precipitate a mini Chinese meltdown, whether short or long-term (recall “Goldman Unveils The FX Doom Loop: Turns “Outright Negative” On Yuan Due To “Weak Link“” from Thursday night).
To be sure, the narrative over the past 6 months from everyone, has been “how stable” China has been. Well, Goldman just broke away from that very fragile game theoretical equilibrium in which everyone was desperately lying to preserve asset prices, by actually telling the truth and precipitating what will be the next crash.
Why, we don’t know. However, with China now the fulcrum in any local or global central bank decision, and also the underlying catalyst for any marketwide risk-off bout, we do know that what Goldman “discovers” and warns about, soon everyone else on Wall Street will do too, until it becomes common knowledge and risk assets reprice correspondingly. Trade accordingly.
- Despite White House Denials, FOIA Documents Prove Snowden Did Try To Voice Concerns With The NSA
Edward Snowden's story is one that most know by now – the NSA contractor who went rogue and instead of going through available channels to voice his concerns, leaked sensitive government documents that revealed how the US surveillance state operates for all the world to see.
Or at least, that's what the government's version of the story is.
In a Vice News exclusive, based on over 800 pages of newly released documents from the NSA and countless interviews, Vice News finds that there is much more to the story that the public isn't being told. Snowden, according to Vice News, did have both email and face-to-face contact with compliance over concerns, and the available options for Snowden may not have been adequate during the time Snowden was actually working as a contractor at the NSA.
At a bare minimum, Vice News provides valuable insight into the fact that while the NSA and other government agencies put on a public face that they were "sure" only a single email sent by Snowden, the investigation missed a lot of correspondence over time, and even a critical face-to-face interaction that wasn't documented until much later.
The following helps walk through what Vice News found, however we encourage readers to read the full piece at Vice News.
We'll start by pointing out a quick aside, and that is that Vice News also found as it received the FOIA documents, that the NSA admitted that it altered emails related to its discussions about Snowden – "unavoidably" of course.
In a letter disclosed to VICE News Friday morning, Justice Department attorney Brigham Bowen said, "Due to a technical flaw in an operating system, some timestamps in email headers were unavoidably altered. Another artifact from this technical flaw is that the organizational designators for records from that system have been unavoidably altered to show the current organizations for the individuals in the To/From/CC lines of the header for the overall email, instead of the organizational designators correct at the time the email was sent."
* * *
The single email theory that the government trotted out is a bit more complex, as it involved multiple people from different departments as an answer was formulated. Everything was set in motion when Snowden clicked the "email us" link on the internal website of the NSA's Office of General Counsel (OGC) to ask his question on April 5, 2013.
Snowden clicked the "email us" link on the internal website of the NSA's Office of General Counsel (OGC) and wrote, "I have a question regarding the mandatory USSID 18 training."
United States Signals Intelligence Directive 18 (USSID 18) encompasses rules by which the NSA is supposed to abide in order to protect the privacy of the communications of people in the United States. Snowden was taking this and other training courses in Maryland while working to transition from a Sysadmin to an analyst position. Referring to a slide from the training program that seemed to indicate federal statutes and presidential Executive Orders (EOs) carry equal legal weight, Snowden wrote, "this does not seem correct, as it seems to imply Executive Orders have the same precedence as law. My understanding is that EOs may be superseded by federal statute, but EOs may not override statute."
On the morning of May 29, 2014, after Snowden had gone public, the general counsel of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) Robert Litt, wrote an email to high level officials with a topic saying "What to do about Edward Snowden." In it the back and forth, NSA's general counsel Rajesh De, advocated for the public release of the Snowden email because De believed it was weak enough to call Snowden's credibility into question. However, Litt disagreed – for the time being… "I'm not sure that releasing the email will necessarily prove him a liar. It is, I could argue, technically true that Snowden's email raised concerns about the NSA's interpretation of its legal authorities. As I recall, the email essentially questions a document that Snowden interpreted as claiming that Executive Orders were on par with statutes. While that is surely not raising the kind of questions that Snowden is trying to suggest he raised, neither does it seem to me that email is a home run refutation."
Of course, Litt had his mind changed, as in a recent interview with Vice News Litt said "To the extent Snowden was saying he raised his concerns internally within the NSA, no rational person could read this as being anything other than a question about an unclear single page of training."
The NSA formulated a plan early on to get ahead of an interview Snowden had conducted with Vanity Fair by acting proactively and with certainty that Snowden's facts were't correct. However they would need absolute certainty that Snowden had not communicated his concerns, and approval from the DOJ to release the email – neither of which the NSA had at the moment Vice writes. So the NSA decided to dig further…
"We need great certainty about whether or not there is/was additional correspondence before we stake the reputation of the Agency on a counter narrative," a person from the task force replied in an email addressed to counterintelligence, the legislative affairs office, and the office of general counsel on April 9. "I am going to trigger an action for the appropriate organizations to do an e-mail search [redacted] to affirm that there is no further correspondence that could substantiate Snowden's claim."
Later, while preparing to respond to an NBC news interview fact checking inquiry, the NSA still couldn't confirm that there was 100% assurance that no further correspondence had been had by Snowden and the NSA about his questions.
"Raj, if you are looking for 100% assurance there isn't possibly any correspondence that may have been overlooked I can't give you that," an NSA official, whose name was redacted, wrote in response to De. "If you asked me if I think we've done responsible, reasonable and thoughtful searches I would say 'yes' and would put my name behind sharing the e-mail as 'the only thing we've found that has any relationship to [Snowden's] allegation. Give [sic] Snowden's track record for truth telling we should be prepared that he could produce falsified e-mails and claim he sent them. The burden then falls to us to prove he didn't (you know how that will end)."
Continued infighting between the NSA, DOJ, AND ODNI took place on whether or not to release that Snowden email, and the pressure only grew to make a decision as now Reuters was onto the single email issue.
"Reuters is now pounding the pavement over the email issue," she wrote. "[Brian] Williams clearly said multiple sources confirmed at least 1 email" that Snowden had sent raising his concerns.
However, about three hours before the NSA was to release the "single email", a special agent assigned to the NSA's counterintelligence division sent an email to other counterintelligence officials about additional Snowden emails found within divisions at the NSA Snowden had said he had contacted with his concerns. Roughly thirty emails were discovered from the security office that Snowden either sent or received, and although none were related to Snowden's concerns at the time, the fact that the NSA truly hadn't found any more emails was troubling. Especially since they had decided to go with the "one sole email" theory.
The confidence that the NSA would soon display publicly that it discovered only one email was not reflective of what was taking place behind the scenes. De was still looking for assurances that it was the only communication from Snowden — but no one could confidently say there weren't other emails that had been overlooked.
"I would encourage you to work with your staff to give yourself confidence that requests of your folks to check for records are/were sufficiently robust to underpin your personal level of confidence," someone at the NSA said in an email to De hours before Snowden's email was released. "l am not in any way suggesting that people did not take the requests seriously — they did, but they did so under time pressure."
Rogers was informed via email by someone at the NSA whose name was redacted that the plan, which was based on "dialog with the White House," called for White House press secretary Jay Carney to read a prepared statement and indicate that the one email Snowden wrote, "the same benign email that you and I discussed," would be released later in the day.
As Vice News reports, it turns out that more communications were located, but a person or people at the agency withheld these details, which contained important context about Snowden's correspondence, from the media and even from director Rogers.
About an hour after the Snowden email was finally released, and after the White House said only one piece of correspondence from Snowden had been located, other emails were found, one indicating that Snowden had a verbal communication with compliance that the NSA's counterintelligence investigation wasn't aware of. The NSA continued on the path of saying there was no further correspondence found about any concerns, although they did admit more and more information was starting to come to light that could have been missed. Senator Feinstein also piled on to that plan.
Snowden responded to the release of the email saying that it was "incomplete"
It "does not include my correspondence with the Signals Intelligence Directorate's Office of Compliance, which believed that a classified executive order could take precedence over an act of Congress, contradicting what was just published. It also did not include concerns about how indefensible collection activities — such as breaking into the back-haul communications of major US internet companies — are sometimes concealed under E.O. 12333 to avoid Congressional reporting requirements and regulations," Snowden said.
Snowden's statement resulted in a barrage of media inquiries to the Office of Public Affairs and dozens of FOIA requests seeking any additional material showing that he raised concerns. However, the NSA refused to entertain any additional questions, instead providing reporters with a copy of their prepared statement and the sole email.
What was further revealed, is that there were in fact other communications by Snowden. There was an in-person contact with an oversight and compliance training person that was uncovered, and although the compliance person brushed it off as complaints about trick questions on a test, however as Vice News states, it coincides with the timeframe where Snowden would have sent the email, and it was doubtful Snowden was agonizing over failing an open book test.
Then there was the in-person contact with Snowden. As the Oversight and Compliance training woman described in an email written a year later, he "appeared at the side of my desk in the Oversight and Compliance training area… shortly after lunch time." Snowden did not introduce himself, but "seemed upset and proceeded to say that he had tried to take" the basic course introducing Section 702 "and that he had failed. He then commented that he felt we had trick questions throughout the course content that made him fail." Once she gave him "canned answers" to his questions, "he seemed to have calmed down" but said "he still thought the questions tricked the students."
That may well have been what the exchange seemed like to the woman, though it is unlikely Snowden, who six weeks later would walk out of the NSA with thumb drives full of NSA secrets, was agonizing over failing an open-book test.
NSA records show that the OGC received complaints from Snowden about at least two different training programs within days, and that he knew they were speaking to each other about his question. However in its internal assessment of Snowden's communications, the NSA treated them as two separate incidents.
Vice makes the case that the email to the OGC and face-to-face communication could have happened the same day, however it has been difficult to confirm due to the timestamp issues in the FOIA request.
The NSA tried to make the case that Snowden should have known where to voice his concerns, due to sometimes mandatory training. However, the NSA stops short of saying that Snowden ever did complete the training.
Vice also makes the observation that the path Snowden should have followed according to the NSA may have been put in place in response to Snowden, so the available resources to Snowden may have been inadequate. And also, at the end of the day, it's not clear that the policies apply to contractors.
* * *
We'll leave it up to readers to decide what they believe, but there sure is a lot more unanswered questions than answers in this case – here is the full article at Vice News.
However, Edward Snowden, for one, feels better about the unveiling, although he remains adamant that there is much more to the story.
Wow: New documents prove I raised Constitutional concerns within the #NSA. For years, the @WhiteHouse denied this. https://t.co/EJEKJ1jW7Y
— Edward Snowden (@Snowden) June 5, 2016
Interesting that this still shows an incomplete history of the concerns I expressed. Simple incompetence, or did NSA destroy records?
— Edward Snowden (@Snowden) June 5, 2016
- Top Democrats Are Plotting To Oust Sanders, Convince His Followers To Vote Hillary
Submitted by Claire Bernish via TheAntiMedia.org,
In an election already fraught with controversy akin to a political soap opera, a report on Friday revealed top Democrats have begun plotting ways to force Sen. Bernie Sanders to exit the race without offending his loyal fandom to somehow align Democratic voters behind Hillary Clinton.
Though it might be an impossible task, politicians coordinating the effort don’t want to appear as if they’re trying to ‘strong-arm’ Sanders from the race, according to CNN. Citing “interviews” with unnamed “senators, House members, and senior party officials,” CNN reported the planners would attempt to convince the Vermont senator he stands no statistical chance at the presidency — and should thus persuade his legions of supporters to vote for Hillary.
Sanders’ fans — and a number of analysts — might beg to differ on his chances at actually winning the White House, considering both Clinton and Trump continue to poll at record-breaking rates of disapproval — and more voters say they’ll vote for either only because they dislike the other more. In fact, this plot stretches the bounds of sensibility — in several polls, Clinton runs nearly neck and neck with Trump, while Sanders trounces the billionaire.
Predictions run the gamut for who will ultimately take this election, but rumors persist that Clinton had somehow been ‘pre-selected’ for the role — and as tin-foil as that may appear at cursory glance, the theory isn’t devoid of evidence…
Hillary almost magically wins primaries where the vote had appeared too close to call.
Voters mysteriously find themselves ousted from rolls or have their party switched in an astonishing number of states.
A “Hillary for Nevada” logo emblazoned the sign-in sheet for at least one location in the state’s caucus, and Hillary supporters were allowed to participate without registering first — in flagrant violation of electoral law.
And those examples comprise just a fraction of the mountain of evidence.
Democratic establishment leaders have adamantly pushed for a Clinton nomination through the entire election cycle, despite a now-thunderous call for the former secretary of state to be prosecuted for a plethora of questionable — and probably criminal — activities.
Nevermind Clinton’s noticeable lack of support on social media platforms — the exact places both Sanders and Trump cultivate with stunning success — the establishment believes attaching popular Sen. Elizabeth Warren as running mate might be the ticket.
“She can take away [Bernie’s] power by showing there’s no division within the party,” said an unnamed source who supports the addition of Warren, as cited by CNN.
But there is division — indeed a deepening, widening chasm — and the exhaustive push to install Clinton inarguably drives that exact disjuncture. Sanders’ followers aren’t likely to be fooled by the superficial application of a Warren Band-Aid to the patchwork of reasons they would never stomach voting Clinton.
“One thing I’m slightly worried about is the tone and tenor of the convention,” said Clinton-backing Sen. Chris Murphy. “We’re going to need a very positive and unified convention. [Sanders is] going to have to send a very clear signal to his delegates that he wants them to be vocal and loud in support of Hillary in our convention.”
Such optimism doesn’t have much company, as some have predicted division in the party will erupt in violence at the Democratic National Convention in July.
Nevertheless, as the Party prepares to go forward with its campaign against Sanders — and as rumors circulate Hillary could face prosecution any time now — perhaps those anonymous top Dems would be better served finding the gall to align behind a nontraditional candidate than risk fracturing the Party beyond repair.
- This Is Where US Adults Get Their News From
As social media continues to become a larger part of many people's everyday lives, it's not surprising to see that users are now more than ever getting news from the social media platforms.
A survey by Pew Research found that 62% of US adults get their news on social media, which is up from 49% reported in 2012. Of the 62%, 18% responded that they often get news from social media, 26% said sometimes, and 18% said hardly ever.
The leading social media platforms where users get their news are Reddit, where 70% of users get news, 66% of Facebook users, and 59% of Twitter users.
From 2013, all platforms have grown the percent of users who receive news from the sites, with Facebook experiencing the biggest increase.
When looking at each sites' total reach, and the proportion of users who get news on each site, Facebook leads the way – Facebook reaches 67% of US adults, and 44% get their news on the site. Twitter only reaches 16% of adults, but 9% get news from the platform.
Users of Instagram, Facebook, and YouTube users are more likely to get news by chance, while LinkedIn, Twitter, and more likely to be looking for news.
Here is how the demographics break down for each social networking site.
Social media users also consume news through other news platforms, with local television being the most popular overall, and print newspapers being the least popular alternative news source.
* * *
It's evident that social media is becoming an increasingly popular way for people to consume news, although recent revelations about Facebook's suppressing of news raises cause for concern for those scanning the site for newsflow. Also, as Facebook usage and reliance for news explodes, one should keep in mind another thing: Facebook is watching, and listening.
- The Startling Truth About How Working Families Are Truly Faring In This Economy
Submitted by Michael Snyder via The End of The American Dream blog,
It is hard to live the American Dream when the deck is stacked against you. Our politicians stood idly by as millions of good paying jobs were shipped overseas, our economic infrastructure was absolutely gutted and multitudes of small businesses were choked to death by miles of red tape. Now, we are reaping the consequences. In America today, nobody has a job in one out of every five families, and there are more than 100 million working age Americans that are currency not working. And thanks to our transition to a “service economy”, many of those that are actually working are deeply struggling too. According to the Social Security Administration, 51 percent of all American workers make less than $30,000 a year. And the Federal Reserve says that 47 percent of all Americans could not pay an unexpected $400 emergency room bill without borrowing the money from somewhere or selling something. That means that about half the country is flat broke, and things get even more precarious for working families with each passing day.
Of course the plight of working families is not something that is new. Back in the 1950s and 1960s, wages and salaries earned by workers accounted for around half of all gross domestic income. But since 1970 there has been a precipitous decline, and during the Obama administration we hit an all-time low. In other words, the share of the pie being enjoyed by working families just keeps getting smaller and smaller and smaller.
All over the country, median incomes have been falling for years. This is putting an incredible amount of financial stress on working families, and we have seen poverty grow explosively in the United States during the last couple presidential administrations. According to one study, median incomes have fallen in over 80 percent of the major metropolitan areas in this nation since the year 2000…
A major new analysis of income in America published by Pew earlier this month found that more than 80% of the country’s 229 metropolitan areas have seen real (inflation-adjusted) incomes fall steadily since the start of this century. Some of the steepest declines in median incomes have been seen in cities hit by industrial decline – for example a 27% drop in Springfield, Ohio and 18% in the conurbation that includes Detroit. But, ominously, even fast expanding success stories have seen incomes falling.
The area around Denver, Colorado, has seen its population grow by 600,000 since 1999, but its median income has fallen from $83,500 to less than $76,000. Similarly Raleigh, North Carolina, is a fast-growing city buoyed by a cluster of research universities and biotech firms; the population has shot up from 800,000 to 1.3 million this century. Yet its middle class has shrunk from 55% of the population to 50%, and median incomes have fallen by more than $11,000 to about $74,000.
Once upon a time, the middle class was a solid majority in this country.
In fact, 61 percent of all Americans were considered to be middle class back in 1971.
But now, the middle class in the United States is becoming a minority for the first time ever…
“After more than four decades of serving as the nation’s economic majority, the American middle class is now matched in number by those in the economic tiers above and below it,” the Pew report said. “Since 1971, each decade has ended with a smaller share of adults living in middle-income households than at the beginning of the decade, and no single decade stands out as having triggered or hastened the decline in the middle.”
One of the big things that is destroying the middle class is the death of entrepreneurship. For decades, small business creation was one of the primary engines that helped fuel the growth of the middle class, but in recent years small business creation has fallen to depressingly low levels…
Fewer new businesses were created in the last five years in the US than any period since at least 1980, according to a new analysis (pdf) by the Economic Innovation Group (EIG), a bipartisan advocacy group founded by the Silicon Valley entrepreneur Sean Parker and others. Businesses that did form are also far more concentrated than ever before: just 20 counties accounted for half of the country’s total new businesses. All of them were in large metro areas.
“It’s hard to put into scale the collapse of new business formation. We have no precedent for that rapid and steep of a collapse,” said John Lettieri, co-author of the report and co-founder of EIG, in an interview. “It will have a ripple effect in the economy. You‘re going to feel that impact five, 10, and 15 years in the future.”
Of course just about every other economic indicator shows the dramatic decline of the middle class as well. As you can see from this set of charts from Zero Hedge, median family income, the labor force participation rate and the rate of homeownership are all way down over the last decade. Meanwhile, the U.S. national debt, the number of Americans on food stamps and healthcare costs are way up. Does that sound like a “healthy economy” to you?
Unfortunately, this is about as good as things are going to get. A major new economic downturn is already brewing, and layoff announcements at major firms are running 24 percent higher this year than they were last year.
The America that most of us grew up in is dying, and what we have seen so far is just the tip of the iceberg. I believe that much, much worse is coming. But our leaders just continue on with business as usual. They keep doing the same things over and over again, but they keep expecting different results.
What they are doing to “fix” things is not going to work, and that should be exceedingly apparent to everyone by now.
We need to start valuing working families again, and that means encouraging the growth of small businesses and encouraging the creation of middle class jobs.
Sadly, we have already entered the early stages of the next great economic crisis, and so things are going to get a whole lot worse for the working class before there is any chance of them getting better.
- Who Has Donated The Most Money To Bernie Sanders: The Unemployed
The grassroots support Bernie Sanders has amassed throughout his campaign to become the Democratic presidential nominee is undeniable. Sanders has been supported by small-dollar contributions throughout his campaign, and since donors who give $200 or less don’t have to have names publicized, little has been known about the donors. More than 1 million small-donor contributors gave nearly two-thirds of Sanders’ funding.
However, since Sanders relies on a fundraising tool called ActBlue, all donors must be disclosed regardless of the size of contribution. This has allowed the LA Times to perform an analysis on the donors behind the man who has given (and continues to give) Hillary Clinton so much trouble, and the result is stunning.
The study found that many donors resemble Emily Condit, 40 of Sylmar, who has contributed three times, $5 each. Condit, who has several physical disabilities, is among the largest single group of Sanders’ donors – those who don’t have a job. Out of the $209 million given to the senator’s campaign, about one out of every four dollars came from those not in the workforce, who include the unemployed or retired.
For the last 15 years since Condit left a job at NASA, her ailments have kept her from working. She depends on Social Security and lives on a tight budget but has found money for Sanders because she was drawn to his populist message. “I know very well now what it’s like to be a have-not, both financially and physically, and to fall through the cracks of society. Bernie Sanders is running on a platform to lift up the have-nots and to
improve the system of government we have, so that no one will ever be
left behind.” Condit said.The study also found that Sanders received just 2% from Wall Street, which shouldn’t surprise anyone. Because Sanders’ backers tend to donate multiple times, the average donar gave a total of $96 – the typical donor gave three times, but some gave far more frequently.
Not all were small however. Jeremy Abramowitz, a recent graduate from the College of William and Mary in Virginia, gave Sanders’ campaign more than $5,000 in more than 200 separate donations. Abramowitz said he started sending money after reading negative posts about Sanders on Facebook, and lost track of how much he was giving. “When somebody said something that annoyed me, I’d give an extra dollar. It just all added up.” – it’s unclear if Jeremy is living at home and can afford to donate due to not having to pay any rent.
So in an interesting if not incredibly ironic turn of events, Sanders is financing his campaign primarily through the government – and we have now come full circle.
- 'Dilbert' Creator Asks "What Exactly Is The Risk Of A Trump Presidency?"
As posted by Scott Adams via Dilbert's blog,
What exactly is the risk of a Trump presidency? Beats me. But let’s talk about it anyway.
Your Abysmal Track Record
For starters, ask yourself how well you predicted the performance of past presidents. Have your psychic powers been accurate?
I’m not good at predicting the performance of presidents. I thought Reagan would be dangerous, but he presided over the end of the Cold War. And I thought George W. Bush would be unlikely to start a war, much less two of them.
But it gets better. Even AFTER the presidency, can you tell who did the best job? I can’t. You think you can, but you can’t. And the simple reason for that is because there is no base case with which to compare a president. All we know is what did happen, not what might have happened if we took another path. You can’t compare a situation in the real world to your imaginary world in which something better happened. That is nonsense. And yet we do it. Watch me prove it right now.
So, how did President Obama do on the job? Was he a good president?
If you have an answer in your head – either yes or no – it proves you don’t know how to make decisions. No judgement can be made about Obama’s performance because there is nothing to which it can be compared. No one else in a parallel universe was president at the same time, doing different things and getting different results.
I’m not a fan of everything our president has done, but I feel as if historians will rank him as one of our best presidents. Definitely in the top 20%.
Wait, what? Am I crazy?
Many of you think Obama nearly destroyed civilization. You and I can’t both be right. But both of us can be irrational in trusting our opinions. We are literally comparing Obama’s actual performance to imagined alternatives that exist only in our minds. Maybe you think the imaginary president in your mind is way better than the real one, whereas I think the real one did well compared to my imaginary alternative.
That isn’t thinking. Science is pretty clear on that.
And how about your ability to predict the future of your own relationships? Most relationships end badly, so we know that the majority of Americans are not good at predicting the future. Have all of your relationships worked out the way you expected? Mine haven’t.
I think you’ll agree that humans are terrible at predicting the future. But that’s not the problem. The problem is that we think we are not terrible at predicting the future. Our certainty in the face of overwhelming uncertainty is irrational.
Do you think President Trump would be extra-dangerous to the world? If you have an opinion on that – either yes or no – you’re being irrational.
The FBI Profiler Approach
When FBI profilers are trying to figure out who perpetrated a specific type of crime, they can often narrow it down to people who have done the same sort of thing in the past. Arsonists have played with matches in their youth. Serial killers have probably been cruel to animals. Abusers have probably abused people before. Pedophiles have often been victims themselves. Patterns of this sort can be predictive, at least when viewed by experts.
Donald Trump has about five decades of track record in business that includes no violent acts whatsoever. Nor have we heard stories of any Trump temper tantrums in the business world that go beyond the scope of what any CEO does on a bad day. Somehow Trump built hundreds of business entities, amassed great wealth, and raised a great set of kids. And nowhere in the story is the part where he did something scary or dangerous. That sort of behavior doesn’t pop up suddenly when you’re a grandfather.
The Scary Talk
Trump does talk tough. He talks of expelling illegals from the country. He talks of waterboarding. He talks of bombing the shit out of ISIS. He talks about going after the families of terrorists.
But Trump also openly talks about the value of hyperbole (also known as bullshit). He wrote about it in The Art of the Deal. Trump tells us – in the clearest possible language – that he always sets the table for negotiating by making a big opening offer. If Trump is consistent with decades of history – and with what he says about his approach to negotiating – then his more extreme statements are just psychology. That’s what an FBI profiler would tell you. People don’t suddenly change their basic mode of operation at age 69, especially when it is working.
Chemical Cyborgs
In my view, we are already in the Age of Cyborgs. You probably have a friend who has one kind of personality without drugs (legal or illegal) and a completely different personality when using drugs, including alcohol. Maybe the drugs are curing depression, or anxiety, or loneliness, or something. But people are different when they are on them. That’s the point of taking drugs.
Trump doesn’t drink. He never has. He doesn’t take illegal drugs either. He’s the same guy at night that he is in the morning. He’s not a chemical cyborg with a personality that is driven by big pharma.
Clinton, on the other hand, is part human, part pharmacological grab-bag. Her personality is at least partly determined by whatever cocktail of meds and wine are in her system at any given moment. In other words, she is just like most adults. Our personalities are the product of the drugs in our system, for better or for worse.
Do you make the same decisions when you are tired? Do you make the same decisions when you’re angry, depressed, or in pain? Probably not. So if meds are fixing those conditions, those meds are also controlling your decisions. And that introduces risk.
Trump brings with him all the risks of being Trump, but he does seem to be the same person every day. Clinton brings with her all the risks of being Clinton, plus any extra risks from a glass of wine or doctor-prescribed meds. That risk could be nearly nothing. Or not. We have no way to know.
Scaring Foreign Leaders
I hear voters say they worry about Trump offending world leaders and triggering wars. But keep in mind that world leaders have been putting up with dangerous and shitty U.S. presidents for hundreds of years. It hasn’t been a problem yet.
One of the things Trump has going for him is that he’s a well-known entity. People hate surprises. Any foreign leader would know exactly what they are getting with Trump. Like Reagan, a President Trump would talk tough – for effect – but he is likable in person, and he has a strong bias to avoid any problems that are bad for business. China would have no problem with any of that. Putin would have no problem with Trump either. They know what negotiating looks like.
Do foreign leaders WANT a President Trump? Hell, no. Trump says he plans to negotiate better deals for America, which means worse deals for everyone else. Of course foreign leaders are going to tell us Trump is risky, scary, and anything else bad, just to stop him.
I doubt any foreign leader is literally afraid of Trump. But they might want you to think they are afraid of him, so you won’t elect him. Foreign leaders are not idiots. To some extent, they are playing us.
Racism
What about all of Trump’s racism? An FBI profiler would assume a person’s pattern of racism would continue, maybe worsen.
But Trump’s racism exists solely in the minds of his opponents. He has proposed no racist policies and he has no racist acts in his past.
Trump opposes illegal immigration. But he loves legal Americans of every color and flavor. He says so often. That’s not racism. That’s more like the opposite.
Trump did say Mexicans are rapists. But you’d have to be dumb to think he meant every single Mexican coming into the country is a rapist. Literally no one – ever – has believed all Mexicans are rapists. If you think Trump believes it – or wants us to believe it – you have abandoned any hold on reason.
But we agree that Trump says outrageous things, because doing so gets him elected, apparently.
Religious Discrimination
What about Trump’s idea to temporarily ban Muslim immigration until we figure out what the problem is? Isn’t that religious discrimination?
Yes, it is. But it is the legal kind because it would only apply to non-citizens trying to enter the country. And keep in mind that Islam – as commonly practiced in Muslim countries around the world – is not compatible with the Constitution of the United States. That’s different from the situation with Presbyterian immigrants, for example, whose beliefs fold neatly into the current system.
I don’t have an opinion on the best way to handle Muslim immigration because I don’t know how effectively we can screen people. But common sense says we should treat different risk classes in different ways. That’s the way we price car insurance, and it is the way we make all data-driven decisions. Ignoring risk is noble, but it isn’t always smart.
Trump also suggested creating a government list of which residents of the country are Muslim. That’s some scary shit. Until…you realize the government already has that list. You know they do, right?
And if they don’t, they can pull it together from existing Big Data any time they want. That risk is already baked into our current situation. The government knows what you are up to as well. They know your religion (with high probability), your spending habits, your porn preferences, and your health. Or at least they can know those things any time they want.
The privacy ship already sailed.
War Crimes
Trump famously suggested we use torture to fight terrorism. Torture is not legal. And he suggested going after the families of terrorists. That’s a war crime too.
Did he mean any of that?
Trump is always operating on the dimension of emotion and persuasion. He wants you – and the terrorists – to know he’s the most bad-ass player running for president. That gives him an edge in getting elected and it gives him a psychological advantage against ISIS. If you’re a potential suicide bomber, you don’t worry about President Obama killing your family. But President Trump? You’d better think this through.
Personally, I think it would be a terrible idea to torture terrorists (unless it works), and always a bad idea to target families. But saying you might do those things is effective both for winning a Republican primary and for keeping the enemy off balance.
I think I’ve mentioned that Trump says things for effect.
Risk of Business as Usual
Have you wondered why Republican Bill Kristol and others are looking for a third-party candidate who will guarantee a Clinton win over Trump? That’s probably because they know Clinton is in the pockets of the defense industry, and perhaps so are they.
The defense industry needs America to fight wars. History suggests Clinton will be a normal president who starts wars when the defense industry tells her to do so. Trump is less likely to play that game because he doesn’t need their money. That makes Trump the lower risk of starting a war. He has no profit motive.
When to Increase Risk
As a general rule, you want to keep risks low when things are going well and nothing is broken. But when things are heading in the wrong direction, sometimes the only way to fix the situation is to introduce a reasonable, entrepreneurial risk.
So, if you think the country is heading in the right direction, you probably don’t want someone like Trump as president. Trump is more likely to introduce change than Clinton. But if you think the government is broken, you might want some Trump-like entrepreneurial risk in your future.
Digest powered by RSS Digest
Saving...