I've just listened to the original version for the first time. What leads you to the conclusion that it's "pretty clear that respect means sex"?
To me, he could mean she gets used to living without him when he's on the road and treats it like her home when he gets there, instead of theirs. If he's going to give her most of his money, at least she could make nice.
Implied is the statement that the end justifies the means. But how do you weigh the proportionality of measures taken? Do you adopt a utilitarian point of view, looking at, say, deaths prevented? Is anything game, or should agencies be expected to uphold a code of conduct, bill of rights or exclude entire categories of information? How do you assess what is or isn't a threat to a country and thereby something it needs to be protected from? What is a country - the president, the party, the government, its citizenry, businesses?
Second, with the popularity of invoking "national security" as an authority argument, how can these agencies ever be accountable? Who watches the watchmen? Are we to trust agencies reporting on the number of e.g. terrorist incidents prevented, especially if the information sources are opaque and there's an obvious conflict of interest?
Third, given the existence of programs like MK Ultra and Cointelpro, is it really safe to say agencies won't try to overreach? With examples like the Stargate program ("Men Who Stare At Goats"), should we have faith they know what they're doing?
Of the roughly dozen questions, I'll try and hit a few points directly to sum up where I believe we ought to be, based on my relatively narrow understanding of US political sciences - please note that many answers to your questions will vary by country and their own democratic maturity.
While I don't agree that there was an implication of the end justifying any type of means, it seems we have already taken a utilitarian point of view. In short, the intelligence community is not allowed to circumvent the constitution and relevant laws (i.e. deprive citizens of their established rights); this is largely in part from the Fourth Amendment (unlawful search or seizure). As legal precedent is an inherently moving goalpost vis-a-vis judicial interpretation, this is a continuous battle in which citizens are aided by transparency and scrutiny of ongoing government programs.
One need not look any farther than the Snowden cases to realize that there is still a strong clinging to this ideal of public transparency, as well as the mountain of evidence that the government ought to be audited to prevent, or at least cease, illegal operations such as PRISM. Judges watch the watchmen - largely in closed-door FISA court hearings, it seems. This bothers me.
However, to think that there is zero benefit to these programs is parallel to naively thinking they are wholly good. I'm willing to wager that there are physical / kinetic and digital events that occur every week which would terrify the average citizen. Transparency is good, don't get me wrong - but there is only so much that some can stomach before feeling ill.
Stay involved in local / state / federal politics. Make noise about things you feel are unjust. Asking good questions is a good thing, but action is what makes the gears turn.
I think we're basically in agreement: neither of us thinks we should be naive about these agencies, as they definitely aren't. Intelligence/security agencies have a purpose, but shouldn't become zealots. And they should be trusted, but verified as the KGB used to say.
> Stay involved in local / state / federal politics.
Not an option for me - I'm geographically challenged. One thing to be envious of with the American system is you guys can affect a great deal, from judge and sheriff appointments to the president. Your post is a good reminder not to take it for granted.
Aside from the usual Guardian dalliance with identity politics, this article comes across as either nihilistic, or making the case for contentment with what we've got rather than to strive to improve oneself. The latter is perhaps what we collectively need to hear as an alternative to the productivity porn, but it's a depressingly low bar to me.
All of these can be true at the same time:
* holding yourself to a standard
* striving to better yourself
* caring about your own mental health
* giving yourself time to rest/recover
* being kind to yourself when it comes to past failures
The article goes a bit too far with lowering expectations.
our discourse often seems to lack the nuance, that two opposing ideas can (and should) be held in our heads at the same time.
that we should hold ourselves in unconditional positive regard and that we can strive for more
imo, this article is attempting to push the pendulum back towards the positive regard as, and i would agree, the author feels that were too far into striving
> the usual Guardian dalliance with identity politics
I especially liked the "people who live in bodies" bit (or "black bodies"!). Your body is not a house that some "real you" inhabits. You are your body. You are bodily. That's part of what it means to be human is a bodily creature. There is more to you than the bodily (pace materialists whose view of the bodily itself is deficient and mechanistic even as strictly bodily), but it is a part of you.
I don't know where this strange, almost dualistic "othering" of one's body (to borrow their term) comes from, but it does square with the gnostic hatred of the body and the physical world that is in vogue. Perhaps a combination of envy and an overreaction to the cult of the body.
> global payment network that is horrible to deal with
With proper regulation, banks can have maximum terms on holding money mid-transfer, limits (or even abolition!) of transfer and withdrawal fees, etc.
It is possible to designate a product as an essential service or utility. It's just that the US government has chosen to not apply that kind of regulation to a lot of essential products like banking and telecoms, much like it hasn't chosen to enforce anti-trust laws, remove tax avoidance provisions, deal with corporate capture or reform the healthcare, education and electoral systems.
In essence, it's a people problem all the way down. Technology is incapable of solving those, which is why blockchain is a solution looking for a problem.
I worked with some folks that did IVR systems and they were mostly doing their best with the resources and constraints they had to make the thing useful. They were measured by dropped calls, they did not like them.
The weaknesses were mostly just ordinary business stupidity.
The marketing department demands that the first option allow the caller to express interest in buying a product.. nobody ever does that but then it takes up the primest real estate in the system #1 on the first level of the tree.
Of course anyone with a billing enquiry needs to enter the account # so that the collections department has the opportunity to intercept.. but after the arrears lookup nobody in the call centre is willing to pony-up the resources to make the system retain the account number that was typed in so every customer has the then say the damn number after having just typed it in!
To be clear, I wasn't putting the blame with IVRs or their designers. I was specifically speaking to the UX that results from businesses programming them and the menu options they set up. Like you say, those are constrained by what the business itself wants, which in turn is constrained by cost management philosophy.
At least #1 option is better than having to hear an announcement to press 1 to hear about how Bank of America supports the Military… when you call in for support (yes it is actually happening right now, try it). Whoever would want to hear that when they want assistance with their issue, unless they or their family is in the military?
Yes, but the US also measures unemployment differently. People are culled from those statistics much faster in the US than in Belgium.
> lower per capita income
True, but that's not caused by indexation of wages (COLA) alone - I'm not even sure it's a statistically that significant. It's down to a combination of factors, such as market size, startup culture, taxation, social welfare...
> These across-the-board mandated policies do impose a cost, they make the economy as a whole less flexible and decrease employment, at the margin.
The Belgian economy is less flexible by default, because it's constrained by three languages, seven governments, a total area slightly larger than Maryland and a population roughly equal to Ohio's.
Whether it's a cost is debatable, if Belgians on average live almost three years longer, on average have cheaper and better education, etc. If you compare the quality of life [0], Belgium is ahead of the US in many metrics except precisely cost of living,, housing size and wage. All I'm saying is: economical statistics don't paint the whole picture.
To me the stunning part is the assumption the common denominator can decide on what is or isn't quality entertainment. Going by that metric, the Bachelor, Love Island, the various talent shows and the Great British Bake-off are all beacons of culture.
Star Wars is pop culture, knights-in-space, high-octane, good vs evil. Of course it wins a popularity contest. To be clear: I'm not dissing Star Wars. It was just made to appeal to the masses and sell action figurines. It targets broader audiences. Star Trek has always been niche.
Great British Bake-off is pretty entertaining (at least the celebrity version). Of course I watch all these British celebs in a bunch of comedy panel shows like QI, 8 out of 10 Cats Does Countdown, Would I Lie To You, Taskmaster, etc, so seeing them flail around trying to bake something is entertaining to me.
Maybe the next big step is creating AI-driven cargo ships that can independently get stuck in the Suez canal.
On a more serious note, I can't shake the impression that would be a logical next step for all long and medium distance freight, be it road, water, air or space. Whether it's a good or mature idea is anyone's guess.
> Perhaps someone gets depressed every three months near end of quarter when their hours get cut?
As someone who's been clinically depressed, your examples seem contrived to me. Are they based on any specific evidence, and if so, would you please share with the group?
To me, he could mean she gets used to living without him when he's on the road and treats it like her home when he gets there, instead of theirs. If he's going to give her most of his money, at least she could make nice.