I was debating making this also a ZTE thread, but I don't know if other people smush international issues together in their head quite as broadly as I do. Not that I think these are the same issue.
Whichever one orders their followers to stuff their corpse and put it on display behind glass at the Kremlin.
Stuff their corpse and raise it on stilts, however...
To heebietake: Putin's best life includes not getting overthrown. Having made his personal virility a core part of his political system he can't really do the Brezhnev president-for-life-drooling-on-TV thing. Hence, he needs a successor.
He could try to take over the body of a baby, like in Ghostbusters II.
"Found Putin's stratego, the master of evil
Try to rig my election? That's not legal"
He could try to take over the body of a baby, like in Ghostbusters II.
Putin does look a little like Vigo.
To heebietake: Putin's best life includes not getting overthrown. Having made his personal virility a core part of his political system he can't really do the Brezhnev president-for-life-drooling-on-TV thing. Hence, he needs a successor.
Surely he goes out fistfighting a tiger or something like that.
That would be kind of great, actually.
Hard to get right though. Like on Gladiator, things got delayed because the tigers didn't want to eat Russel Crowe.
So the part I've read (Part I) confirms that Russian hackers are just like hackers anywhere. They aren't gods. The old meaning of "hack" involved fooling around trying to do interesting things (usually involving writing code, not getting through security, because back then there wasn't any). Sometimes you'd come up with something useful. The current meaning of "hack" adds malicious intent, but it sounds just the same. Their hackers were lucky enough to target people clueless about computer security (almost any politician, most of whom have the IQ points of a whelk, and the ego of a whale) and found some useful stuff. Then of course the US "Intelligence" community went wild, because bigger budgets.
I'll read the rest when I have a little more time.
It is long-form flabby, unfortunately.
I really hate the IT attitude that people who get screwed by hacking get screwed because they are clueless. I've generally avoided problems myself, but I deeply resent that I have to be on constant guard for fraud whenever I open my email and that nothing ever seems to be done to the people who keep trying the fraud. There's no wall that not going to be breached if trying to attack it and failing carries no consequence.
Putin's best life includes not getting overthrown. Having made his personal virility a core part of his political system he can't really do the Brezhnev president-for-life-drooling-on-TV thing. Hence, he needs a successor.
I think this is contradictory. The second sentence implies he would rather burn out than fade away, so to speak. To preserve his legend he needs to get assassinated before he gets too old, like James Dean.
18: Oh, come on. Every one knows it was the CIA.
Or maybe the KGB.
I really hate the IT attitude that people who get screwed by hacking get screwed because they are clueless. I've generally avoided problems myself, but I deeply resent that I have to be on constant guard for fraud whenever I open my email and that nothing ever seems to be done to the people who keep trying the fraud.
My favourite example of this was when banks would ring you up with an automated message warning you about suspected fraud on your account and asking you to dial them back on a given number, which would then, obviously, ask you for security info. Exactly like a fraudster would do.
Thankfully they seem to have stopped doing this, or at least my bank has. They just text you a list of transactions and ask you to text back whether or not you recognise them.
GY doesn't just pwn you. He pwns you with a tiger.
I am dubious of the implication in the article that significant regime change is very likely when Putin dies or tries to retire. I assumed in the back of my mind, and I think many others did, that Cuba in its present form would end with Castro, and Venezuela with Chavez. Even Uzbekistan transitioned from 25 years of Karimov to another strongman. The top of the state being problematically personalized and cliquish doesn't mean it can't perpetuate itself.
Putin didn't have much institutional support when he became president, but he clawed his way to autocracy regardless. Someone he handpicks would inherit more advantages than he did.
This is probably covered in the article, but isn't Medvedev supposed to be the successor? I mean, he actually was the successor for a while.
Medvedev is only mentioned in other contexts in the article, but yes, there seem to be at least a few highly plausible contenders.
I think its a mistake to view state sponsored-hackers in the same view as one does regular computer geeks fucking around in their basement. I mean, yeah, there are similarities, but there are also things like substantial budgets available for buying zero-day exploits on the open market, and access to classic espionage operations capable of planting your code on the physical networks where they need to be, air gaps be damned.
25 is right. All kinds of systems seem to have been designed on the premise that nobody would do this or that bad act, because there's no possible way it could be profitable. Well, that's not necessarily the main concern.
22: I don't disagree, but AFAIK none of the cases you mention were/are "managed democracies" in the same way Russia is*; also survival of the regime may not preclude the overthrow of Putin personally.
The more interesting point to me was the paranoia of Putin's thinking.
*Venezuela? IDK, but it seems more of a classical semi-rigged one-party state.
I think Russia won't get as bad as Venezuela because it has more widespread education.
As bad with poverty, that is. Political repression-wise, I don't think you can say anything.
I did not know that. Then why does Venezuela starve so much more?
Now I'm expecting two graphs to prove 31 is wrong.
31: That part apparently is true at present. OTOH, wiki mentions famines in Russia 6 times, versus 0 for Venezuela. Also, this.
Honestly, that last one isn't very convincing.
If true, it may go some way to explaining why you thought Venezuela is poorer than Russia.
That it may. Still, pointing out that people eat three meals and don't feel malnourished isn't exactly a rebuttal of people saying they can't afford food and are undernourished.
What elements do you refer to with "managed democracy"?
I don't think I've mentioned this here before, and I suppose this is as good a thread as any:
I find the apparently widespread assumption that the Democrats will take the House weakly supported. Even assuming that current trends and polls hold up, why on earth wouldn't the Russians interfere at least as vigorously in this election as they did the last?
Say they mess with the voter rolls, or even the votes, what's the downside? Even if they're caught, half the country won't believe it happened no matter what they do, there's no provision for any kind of remedial election, and the beneficiaries would not be inclined to investigate even if they were not already engaged in covering up Russian malfeasance, which they are. Any chaos and dissatisfaction with the democratic process on the part of the Democrats is all to the good.
As far as I know, there's very little effort underway to measure potential election tampering, much less any action to prevent it. Exit polling is fairly spotty.
Personally, I'm planning for a Republican government until at least 2024.
GDP or even GDP per capita in an oil-rich country is not necessarily related to people's lives in any way. Just look at Equatorial Guinea.
39. I don't think people in the Russian security apparatus especially want US republicans elected-- sowing uncertainty that can be rebroadcast internally, sure; decreased competence, also sure. But at this point they're probably much more concerned with activity in the UK, since London is the primary banking locus for wealthy Russians.
Maybe there are people who'd like to see sanctions lifted and less American influence abroad, but those desires aren't going to translate into freestyle hacking of vote machines.
If I were a Russian operative with 100% control over voting outcomes trying to engender maximum chaos, I would give the Democrats exactly 218 in the House and 50 in the Senate.
42: No. In that scenario anything remotely within the realm of reason that Trump proposed would pass because there are always at least a few horrible Democrats.
Maximum chaos would be Trump with decisive majorities in the House and Senate because then even stuff well outside the realm of reason would sail through.
43: Another maximum chaos scenario would be decisive Democratic control of the House. It's not hard to imagine a constitutional crisis when Trump resists Congressional oversight.
39. All of that said, official indifference and the shambolic nature of US vote-gathering (mostly) but also counting is appalling. Voter suppression as a tactic is disgusting but apparently popular. That's a thousandfold bigger problem than Russian facebook ads and document theft.
I assumed in the back of my mind, and I think many others did, that Cuba in its present form would end with Castro, and Venezuela with Chavez. [...] The top of the state being problematically personalized and cliquish doesn't mean it can't perpetuate itself.
I would have never assumed this. Left-wing authoritarianism is usually a different animal, because it's institutionalizing a social revolution, much of which will have originally been popular with broad segments of the public. The personalization is as much about personalizing the original revolution as it is the existing government. It's why there's been a continuing Che cult in Cuba even though he's been dead for 50 years. As long the existing government can credibly use its force to assert the revolution is ongoing (which the Venezuelan gov has increasingly struggled to do), the current manager isn't that important.
On other Russia remark-- the road bridge connecting Crimea with Russia just opened. 7km and 5 km segments over water. Rail bridge not done yet.
30 prompted me to look closer and I saw something I haven't seen before. Venezuela's inflation-adjusted GDP per capita has been roughly constant since 1960! Not even Cuba has seen stagnation like that. In the same time, the same figure for the world and the US has tripled.
39: I can't quite tell whether you mean social media ratfucking or direct hacking of equipment.
If (A), then the answer is pretty simple: that sort of thing works best on unaware victims/marks. That's not to say that it has no effect otherwise, but conditions in 2016* basically conspired to create maximum possible effect. Those conditions don't apply in general, and people are hyper-aware of Russian meddling in particular. That's not to say that the effect will be zero, especially with Trump unwilling to allow us to defend ourselves (and the Greenwalds of the world exulting in it), but I don't see it as being a bigger effect than, like, shitty weather on Election Day.
If (B), then I'm not convinced that they've demonstrated anything like election-throwing power over vote-counting. Maybe we'll find out only too late, but assuming it now is treating a moderately capable enemy as Superman.
*hoi polloi utterly unaware; Obama unwilling to say anything because Mitch said so; FB and Twitter embarrassingly passive; media primed to slobber over any item that could plausibly evoke the words "scandal" and "Clinton"; pervasive cultural attitude that the 2016 election was "bad" because one choice was obviously better than the other, but the better one was shrill. Literally none of those apply anymore.
Gah, it just occurred to me that literally the only thing that would make the Greenwalds of the world care about Russian meddling would be if they caused Bernie or an exact equivalent to lose.
What a piece of shit he is.
Follow up to one section of 39: AP is eliminating in-person exit polling for the 2018 race in favor of an opt-in, online survey conducted in coordination with Fox News.
49: I was talking about at least A, possibly B. B is not technically difficult, or wasn't the last time I looked at it, which was a while ago, admittedly. By all reports, it hasn't gotten much better.
49. I agree with you on both A and B. The thing about B is that hacking into systems to get lists of voters is nothing, but it's about all the Russians were apparently able to do. In most places in the US you just have to have (and sometimes pay a little) to get voter rolls. How do you think the R and D parties get lists to send their junk mail to?
If you had the power to change vote totals, especially in an era of higher vigilance, people would notice. Vote totals are written down as well as recorded electronically. I would agree that restoring checkable paper ballots everywhere would be a good idea. We've always (I think) had them in MA. If there is a question about the totals it can be resolved from the paper ballots. If Putin is hacking those enough to change a bunch of elections along the "messing with" posts above (total control of the House by one or the other party), then he should just declare victory and elect himself President of the US.
Paper ballots would mean I wouldn't have to listen to the elderly tell me to be sure to push the "Vote" button to vote for the 56th time.
51.1 Well that's certainly reassuring.
52.2 For maximum chaos hack the vote totals and do it as sloppily and obviously as possible. Republicans will cheer.
40: Both countries in question are oil rich. That said, the Gini and Human Development scores do point to Russia being better.
37: I know little. I guess: continual active manipulation of social media, multiple puppet-show opposition parties, elections with relatively mild rigging (so Putin gets 67%, not 99-100%).
A thought occurred to me. If you were a Republican who wanted to use Voter ID laws to restrict the vote of people who vote for Democrats, actually cheating on the election, even if not by fake voters, is a very good way to get people to support your position.
But exploiting the Russia interference would entail recognition that Russian interference is in fact occurring, which in turn would entail disloyalty to the alpha shitgibbon.
Right, but I think that if the (very necessary) Democratic effort to counter Russian interference succeeds enough that public insists something be done, the next Republican step will be to stick voter-ID laws in with the something.
The Supreme Court's recent sports betting case is going to end up being a big deal in all sorts of ways.
Because of federalism or because he has an inside line on the Broncos.
We had a law saying you could gamble on sports but only in Nevada and Atlantic City, New Jersey. The Supreme Court overturned this law, because it was comically unfair. I've heard it had implications for things besides sports betting, but I'm just talking out of my ass.
In conclusion, bet on the Patriots to beat the spread because they cheat.
What parts of HAVA title III are invalid? The logic of Murphy is that if the feds want fair elections for federal officers, they should run them themselves.
I'm probably missing something on this . . .
66 The problem was that you couldn't gamble on sports in Atlantic City. That's why Christie petitioned for cert.
Mossy, what the Supreme Court decided is, roughly, that the federal government can't tell state governments what to do. Yes, they can tell them not to do stuff that persons (both human and corporate) can't do, like bribe the president. But they can't tell them what laws to pass or not pass.
Except for things like raising the drinking age as a condition of getting federal highway funds. They can still do that.
Can the feds tell states not to tax sales of goods over the internet? We'll find out, I suppose.
68-71 should not be taken as disputing 67.
71: Trump won't give money to Bezos.
So does that mean they can't tell states to help round up brown people? What about cities?
Huh. So couldn't there then be a federal ban, enforced federally, that maintains the historical state-specific exemptions? Or would that violate that recently crafted "equal protection for states" notion?
Thanks Charley, I don't get how this is a change.
One thing I haven't figured out is whether this means that states get to decide what counts as sports betting (and hence legal) or not. Because presumably other gambling is still illegal at the federal level. Or does this also impact the 2006 online gambling law?
But they can't tell them what laws to pass or not pass.
I mean, I know it's already been gutted, but isn't that what the VRA does? Are you saying that the precedent puts even the gutted VRA in constitutional doubt?
74 That's a strong argument I think, yes.
76 No examples of federal bans with specific state exemptions are coming to mind. Can you think of one?
78.2 I'm not sure how the XV Amendment figures in there. It may well be that our current court would eliminate the 'commandeering' sections of that as well.
79: Not exemptions, but there's VRA preclearance, not admittedly a great example under current jurisprudence.
Yes, they can tell them not to do stuff that persons (both human and corporate) can't do, like bribe the president.
And apparently not even that.
Non-commandeering is new-ish, in its current form. I don't think anyone knows where all it's going to go.
Mossy, the appeals court thought it was ok for Congress to say a state could pass a certain law, but not ok to tell them they had to pass a certain law. No difference, says the SC.
Honestly, I don't think Congress thought they were going too far out on a limb when they required state officials to do background checks on gun sales, which was overturned in Printz
It occurred to me if there are any states that get a lot of special exemptions it would be Alaska and Hawaii, which aided my googling. 29 USC 1144(b)(5)(A) explicitly exempts a named Hawaii law from federal preemption, does that count?
Yes, they can tell them not to do stuff that persons (both human and corporate) can't do, like bribe the president. But they can't tell them what laws to pass or not pass.
I think that's way too broad a statement, even as a generalization for lay consumption. At most, the federal government can't tell a State that it must affirmatively pass or affirmatively refrain from repealing an existing law *that is not otherwise illegal*. But Congress certainly can make the enactment of certain laws by the State illegal, which is exactly what, for example, the Voting Rights Act does.
Or, put differently, it's not that federal law, to apply to the States, must also apply to people or corporations.
So does that mean they can't tell states to help round up brown people? What about cities?
Yes, and anti-commandeering cases have already been brought in that area. But that was true of the law under Printz and the gambling case doesn't change the analysis much.
So couldn't there then be a federal ban, enforced federally, that maintains the historical state-specific exemptions?
Nothing in the recent gambling case holds or suggests that. Congress could (without violating that case) pass a law saying "gambling is illegal everywhere, except in Nevada." There could be a challenge to that (though I think a very weak one) under some Shelby County-like argument, but not an anti-commandeering one.
Aggh. That should be "Nothing in the recent gambling case holds or suggests that. Congress could NOT pass a law saying "gambling is illegal everywhere, except in Nevada."
And I give up, that's still confusingly wrong because of the period and trying to respond to the negative in Minivet's question! Fuck this, but what I am trying to say is that the recent case's holding is quite narrowly limited, and Congress could under current law, quite easily pass a constitutionally-valid statute saying "gambling is illegal everywhere, except in Nevada." The end.
Can it pass a law saying "Being brown is illegal, everywhere"?
No, but it wouldn't be prohibited because of federalism, it would be prohibited by the equal protection clause.
Or maybe it's a joke is about incipient fascism? In which case ... I guess we'll find out.
Halford, I'll grant that you've probably thought more about that than I have. I don't disagree with 88/9. I'm not sure we know the limits of non-commandeering, when what Congress is doing is arguably commandeering.
Because why google when lawyers are busy thinking for free?
Mossy, read this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Printz_v._United_States
Totally agree that it is a vague concept and that the whole idea of "commandeering" makes little sense. But to date, including in the most recent case, the doctrine has been kept very narrow.
94 - As I just said it's a vague and incoherent concept, as you'll agree after reading Printz. But the idea is basically that the federal government can't affirmatively require State officials to take affirmative steps to enforce purely federal law. So, you couldn't have a federal law saying "Every state must station a state police officer at the front door of every casino for there to be legalized gambling."
BUT Congress could pass the following laws: (a) "in order for gambling to be permissible in a casino anywhere in the United States, there must be a sworn law enforcement officer of a state or local government entity at the front door, or else the casino may not operate without violating federal criminal law" and (b) "if states wish to receive federal law enforcement funding, they must station a police officer at the front door of every operating casino in the State."
Confusing, right? But it's the kind of confusion that keeps Carp and me in the $$$$$.
Printz is confusing hell out of me. If there is a (constitutional) federal law, that law trumps all state laws, right? Why then are state governments not obliged to enforce that law?
Because when 13 colonies love freedom very much, they perform a special hug that unites them but still lets them have some space.
It makes more sense if you remember that much of the Constitution was carefully constructed by people who didn't want other people to tell them they couldn't own people.
the anti-commandeering doctrine established in New York v. United States (1992), which held that Congress could not command state legislatures to either pass a law or take ownership of nuclear waste
Why would Congress even want to do this? Are there some weird Hunger Games scenarios going on?
88-90 was a roller coaster, but thank you!
"The box to your left contains a bill and a pen. The box to your right contains nuclear waste. You have 30 seconds to decide."
Or, in the case just before the Supreme Court, Congress could have said "It is a federal crime to engage in sports gambling, except in Nevada." What it couldn't say was "Sports gambling is not illegal under federal law, but is legal only if authorized under a preexisting State law, and the Legislatures of the States are prohibited, in the future, from enacting State laws permitting gambling." That's what the new Murphy case holds.
103: Because they wanted states to form compacts with other states so that nuclear waste was properly disposed of in a cost-efficient manner instead of being stored on-site at nuclear reactors.
The small states hated it because it turns out that if you join a nuclear waste disposal compact, the nuclear waste dump goes in the state with the fewest voters.
So Printz says basically that state officials can just kind of opt out of any federal law they don't like? So the only way federal law can be enforced is for federal government to negotiate quasi-treaties with state governments? Or to build a whole duplicate federal bureaucracy under the president's direct authority? You people are ridiculous.
So Printz says basically that state officials can just kind of opt out of any federal law they don't like? So the only way federal law can be enforced is for federal government to negotiate quasi-treaties with state governments? Or to build a whole duplicate federal bureaucracy under the president's direct authority?
No. It doesn't say any of that. Take a look at the examples in 99.2 again.
99.2.b I interpret as a "quasi-treaty".
99.2.a: And who is enforcing the federal casino law? Can state law enforcement be required to shut casinos that don't comply with those provisions? Or will the DoJ have to send federal officers?
I don't see how those contradict 109.
I guess 109 should say "state officials governments/legislatures can just kind of opt out".
.Can state law enforcement be required to shut casinos that don't comply with those provisions?
It would depend on how the requirement is done. Directly, no. Indirectly, yes. And state officials can enforce the federal rule (as can, of course, the federal government).
But the broader implication of your point is just wrong. The federal government can and does affirmatively regulate lots of stuff, they just have to (and, in almost all cases do) have to jump through some federalism hoops to do so.
The feds can tell the casino what to do, but they can't tell the state to tell the casino what to do.
109 wasn't intended to imply that the federal can't affirmatively regulate stuff, obviously it does. My point is that this appears to be an absurd way of getting stuff done. And I don't see how this doesn't leave huge leeway for state governments (legally, if not practically) to sabotage federal policy in significant ways.
There is huge leeway for state governments to sabotage federal policy.
There's enough leeway for a truck to drive through even if that truck is loaded with health care coverage from people who are poor, but not poor enough for Medicaid.
What if the healthcare was in one-dollar bills?
If this decision gave any implicit or explicit state opt-out for federal laws in general, you would know it from the howls of drug warriors.
111. I would suggest that 99.2 is more of a Don Corleone "offer they can't refuse," or maybe the Piranha Bros. saying "nice federal revenue stream* you have there, too bad if something happened to it."
It's certainly an end-run around federalism, but it's closer to a threat than a treaty.
It's possible (I have vague memories of this) that courts have held that the threat has to be related to the thing the Feds want done. They can't say "put a cop in front of every casino or we'll cut off your aid to education." But IANAL, of course.**
** Sometimes every here seems to be one. Think of the billable hours wasted.
The * after "stream" refers to 124.3, which had its asterisk stolen by the Piranha Bros. in a daring daylight robbery.
And that would be the Fracotti Bros., not the Piranhas. *sigh*
The Piranha Act required all states to station law enforcement officers outside gambling establishments, or federal law enforcement funding would be granted. It was later amended to state that no gambling establishment should allow a law enforcement officer to perform his duties in the vicinity of a gambling establishment, on pain of the granting of state law enforcement funding. Finally, the law was amended to require that states post law enforcement officers outside gambling establishments lest they lose funding.
Senator Piranha was in business.
||
Michigan is paying FIVE HUNDRED MILLION DOLLARS in settlements to the 332 people assaulted by coach Larry Nassar.
Or more specifically, $425m to existing claimants and $75m held in reserve for future claimants.
|>
Are they just assuming they'll commit $75 million worth of abuse in the future or do they mean for past abuse that hasn't been brought forward yet?
There's no way to know who wrote 130.
Right, they're building it into the budget, like banks do for the fines they are charged for their many crimes.
128: where are they even getting half a billion bucks?
Until it's paid off, only generic cereal and skim milk in the cafeteria.
From the sports program? Yeah right.
I don't understand how Michigan State is connected with the various hospitals and clinics. For a large hospital system, $500 million probably isn't that hard. There's a reason health care costs so much here.
Apparently, my computer doesn't like to remember when I'm useful.