Labor Day weekend links

National defense, local police and firefighters, building inspectors, universal education, traffic lights, ensuring a basic retirement income, protecting food, water, and air, providing highways and roads, sanitation, responding to environmental threats, parks and libraries, investing in scientific research and technology, is hardly nothing.

#1.1 Zachriel on 2016-09-03 09:23 (Reply)

QUOTE:

Government Workers Now Outnumber Manufacturing Workers by 9,932,000

That's due to economies of scale. Manufacturing responds to economies of scale, while police, firefighting, education, medicine, still require individual attention.

This chart shows U.S. manufacturing continues to increase, even while manufacturing employment has largely decreased. The effect of the Great Recession is notable. Manufacturing rebounded, but manufacturing employment did not, due to structural changes in the industry.

#1.2 Zachriel on 2016-09-03 09:33 (Reply)

Public health is not an industry, true, but that doesn't mean it doesn't produce anything.

It produces a population that is healthy enough to work.

The World Bank and the IMF during their structural adjustment frenzy of the 80's and 90's slashed public health budgets in developing countries because health was listed as an expense in the budget. Those economists were so smart, they cut expenses!

Guess what? It turns out that when people are sick they can't work. Productivity dropped, people suffered, and economies were devastated. Oopsie.

#1.3 JM01 on 2016-09-03 14:13 (Reply)

QUOTE:

Why are movie stars paid more than firefighters? ... The lower pay of fire fighters and school teachers simply reflects the happy reality that we’re blessed with a much larger supply of superb first-responders and educators than we are of superb jocks and thespians.

Interesting argument. In the olden days, there were theater troupes who entertained people, and town musicians who struck up the band. Drama was handmade fresh every day.

The difference today is economy of scale. Due to the miracle of mass media, one troupe can entertain everyone. This shifts the competition to who can be that one troupe. There are far more excellent performers than there are available positions as superstars.

#2 Zachriel on 2016-09-03 09:47 (Reply)

QUOTE:

Newly Released FBI Interview Notes Shows Hillary Didn't Know 'C' Meant Classified

'C' stands for "Confidential", a level of classification.

#3 Zachriel on 2016-09-03 09:57 (Reply)

On marking classified documents, "C" doesn't mean "Classified"; it means "Confidential".

Since the DoD manual for marking classified is 171 pages, here's a very brief synopsis. A properly marked document is marked with the overall classification in all caps. (TOP SECRET, SECRET, CONFIDENTIAL, FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY (FOUO), and UNCLASSIFIED.) FOUO is not publicly releasable, but is still unclassified.
Within a classified document, each element (paragraph, figure, line in a briefing, table, etc.) is separately marked with a "TS" for Top Secret, "S" for Secret, "C" for confidential, and "U" for unclassified. There's much more to the marking process, but this is the overall gist of it.

For clarity: "[I]nformation whose release would cause “exceptionally grave damage to the national security” is classified TOP SECRET; information whose release would cause “serious damage” is classified SECRET; CONFIDENTIAL is the lowest category of classified information currently in use. RESTRICTED is an obsolete category that was discontinued in 1953."

Bottom line there is no marking "C" for classified. The rules aren't that difficult, and help ensure that releasable information is clearly defined.

#4 Mark on 2016-09-03 09:59 (Reply)

Don't get derailed by the Z troll. The headline refers to Hillary's excuse that she didn't know or understand the letter notation you succinctly described was the classification of individual items in a document, not the she didn't understand the literal meaning of the 'C'.

#4.1 Christopher B on 2016-09-03 12:23 (Reply)

This is relevant because there were documents found on the server that had the classification headings stripped but retained the internal markings. Hillary claims to have thought they were a form of footnoting.

#4.1.1 Christopher B on 2016-09-03 12:30 (Reply)

Re: Newly Released FBI Interview Notes Shows Hillary Didn't Know 'C' Meant Classified

So maybe she wasn't lying that she never sent or received email marked classified on her server - maybe she didn't understand the markings so she didn't know.

Actually, not all the markings are that innocuous so if she were just a little curious, she should have found out what that stuff meant. Of course she told the FBI that she didn't take the class on handling classified information. But (there is always a 'but') she did sign that she was briefed on the handling of classified information. I guess she forgot she took the class and all the material she was supposed to have learned - if she did indeed take it.

We also found out she didn't consider discussion of drone strikes as anything that was sensitive. If she did take the briefing, she should have had a refresher.

It seems clear to me that Comey's assessment that she was 'extremely careless' was obviously wrong. She was clueless or stupid or subversive (intentionally careless). Without more information, I think Hanlon's Razor is applicable here. Remember, she flunked the DC bar exam. But given her history, we should be wary of her motives.

#5 mudbug on 2016-09-03 10:01 (Reply)

mudbug: We also found out she didn't consider discussion of drone strikes as anything that was sensitive.

Indeed. Drone strikes were considered classified, even though everyone knew about them. They were on the front page of every major paper, and were openly talked about by officials with security clearances on the network Sunday talk shows. But they were secret, because the U.S. wanted to be able to 'plausibly' deny that they were invading the airspace of other nations. Silly? Yes. But that's diplomacy for ya.

#5.1 Zachriel on 2016-09-03 10:18 (Reply)

Clinton didn't know that. The best that can be said is she didn't care enough to find out or remember. That's Clinton for you.

#5.1.1 mudbug on 2016-09-03 10:47 (Reply)

It shows the over-classification and nebulous nature of classification. If they were talking about news reports about drone strikes, the government may still deem it classified (secret). If they were discussing the personality of a foreign diplomat they were about to meet, it may be deemed classified (confidential). And so on.

#5.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2016-09-03 11:12 (Reply)

It's not her fault, it's the system, right? What a sycophant!

She has the responsibility to know what is and what is not supposed to be revealed officially. Her ignorance about what is sensitive just shows how much care she took and interest in the subject. If that were the only example of this sort of ignorance, that would be one thing, but she transmitted other sensitive and much more classified information via her email. In spite of her claim that she was knowledgeable about security matters she showed no appreciation for security issues at all. She lost cell phones with classified data on them, she emailed in areas that were not secure, she allowed people without security clearance access to her emails, her staff sent computers with sensitive information on the by mail. She was a walking (when she was walking) security leak.

But none of that even gets to the lies she's told about every aspect of this whole affair, the extreme measures she took to keep her emails secret or deleted, or the stupidity of some the things she did.

#5.1.1.1.1 mudbug on 2016-09-03 14:04 (Reply)

mudbug: It's not her fault, it's the system, right?

Try to respond to the point raised, not your strawman version.

mudbug: but she transmitted other sensitive and much more classified information via her email.

So did Powell. So did aides to Rice. This indicates a disconnect between the procedures and actually being able to function in an official capacity in the modern world.

#5.1.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2016-09-04 10:10 (Reply)

Go back under your bridge

#5.1.1.1.1.1.1 anon on 2016-09-04 11:57 (Reply)

Actually, what should be focused on is that she told her questioners she has dementia from her concussion. Absolutely not a peep from the mainstream media about the fact she claims she has permanent brain damage that affects her memory and ability to understand. In fact, WaPo totally covered it up.

#5.2 Jim on 2016-09-03 14:00 (Reply)

Several news reports indicate that some of the file deletion was AFTER Congress started to get interested.

We get periodic business law training on my job, and one of the things emphasized is that if an investigation has begun or is even LIKELY to begin, NO documents, email etc are to be deleted. To delete documents after an investigation is beginning is a CRIME.

#5.3 jay on 2016-09-03 15:47 (Reply)

QUOTE:

Emails Show Clinton Fund Adviser Sought Diplomatic Passport

Of course he did. Douglas Band accompanied Bill Clinton in North Korea, a very dangerous country, in an ultimately successful mission to save two U.S. citizens. A diplomatic passport would have given him greater protection. He did not get a diplomatic passport, by the way.

Douglas Band is standing behind Kim Jong-il.

#6 Zachriel on 2016-09-03 10:11 (Reply)

Birds of a feather...

#6.1 mudbug on 2016-09-03 10:55 (Reply)

If you mean he took risks on behalf of the U.S. government and to help two American citizens being held by a dangerous and unpredictable foreign power, then sure.

#6.1.1 Zachriel on 2016-09-03 11:14 (Reply)

Government is an industry, but it's not run like one and it produces nothing.

Ah, but the government is run like an industry - a monopoly industry. As Adam Smith tried to teach us, capitalists are greedy people just like everybody else. Everybody wants as much as they can get in return for giving as little as they can give. You can either try to change human nature or you can channel that human nature into profitable ends. Kroger doesn't strive to offer you the lowest prices and highest quality out of some charitable instinct - they do that because they're greedy pigs who know if they don't you'll go to Publix or Food Lion or Walmart for your groceries. They're greedy and they want your money - they want your money so much that they will bust their hump working to get it.

Wouldn't it be more efficient to have only one grocery store offering only one brand of products - you don't have that wasteful duplication of services, the multiple delivery trucks driving loads of multiple brands and varieties of products (23 different kinds of deodorant for example), multiple sets of employees staffing multiple locations, etc. Plus the higher volume at the one single store would allow them to lower their margins so prices would go down. Right? Of course not. With only one store and no competition, what incentive is there to be efficient, to deliver the highest quality at the lowest price? Why would you not expect poor quality at high prices out of a monopoly?

And yet - "National defense, local police and firefighters, building inspectors, universal education, traffic lights, ensuring a basic retirement income, protecting food, water, and air, providing highways and roads, sanitation, responding to environmental threats, parks and libraries, investing in scientific research and technology" - these are all things that somehow ssome people believe our monopoly government can deliver with the highest quality at the lowest price. Seriously? I'll bet you don't buy your bread at the government bread store like the starving breadless Venezuelans do, do you? No, you go see those greedy capitalist pigs at Kroger who rip you off by offering tons of high-quality bread at rock-bottom prices. Why would any government service not improve by having some competition?

#7 Jerryskids on 2016-09-03 11:10 (Reply)

Jerryskids: Why would any government service not improve by having some competition?

So you would suggest armies competing to provide for the common defence? That was the system during the Feudal period.

#7.1 Zachriel on 2016-09-03 11:20 (Reply)

Actually we DO have a degree of friendly competition between branches of the armed forces. Reduces waste, helps keep everyone honest.

#7.1.1 jay on 2016-09-03 16:55 (Reply)

"Newly Released FBI Interview Notes Shows Hillary Didn't Know 'C' Meant Classified"

Hillary = Can't Understand Normal Thinking!

#8 B48 on 2016-09-03 11:43 (Reply)

Talk about burying the lede on that story about Clinton Foundation staffers requesting diplomatic passports:

“We had them years ago but they lapsed and we didn’t bother getting them,” Mr. Band wrote."

Uh, what??? Even in the same article, State Department said: "Traveling with a former president does not convey any special diplomatic status, the State Department indicated in a statement regarding the emails.

“Diplomatic passports are issued to Foreign Service officers or a person having diplomatic or comparable status,” the statement said.

“Any individuals who do not have this status are not issued diplomatic passports,” it said, adding that “the staff of former presidents are not included among those eligible to be issued a diplomatic passport.”

So how they have them previously?? They already HAD diplomatic passports earlier,but let them lapse? What?

#9 JM01 on 2016-09-03 14:21 (Reply)

ref 'Privilege'

"One ‘privilege’ example listed is asking Asian students, “Where are you from?”

Do these people even have a clue? Do they assume that foreign students are so fragile that they are terrified by these perfectly innocent questions?

I have done occasional work in Japan as well as Europe. I can assure you I have NEVER been insulted by someone asking me about where I was from, about customs, food or attitudes in the US. Why the hell would we assume that these are bad things to talk about to others? I've worked with plenty of Chinese, Indian, Japanese and Korean people and I don't think any one of them would ever be bothered by questions about their culture. They are rightfully proud of their culture (which suggests to me that SJWs actually have a hidden negative perception of Asian culture)

One the other hand, no one in France ever complimented my French, but that is, alas, my failing, not theirs.

#10 jay on 2016-09-03 17:04 (Reply)

What kind of Asian are you?

#10.1 Zachriel on 2016-09-04 10:13 (Reply)

Add Comment

Name
Email	(Your e-mail will not show in your comment)
Homepage
In reply to
Comment	By commenting on this site you agree to the site rules listed here. Email addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for email notifications. Quick reference guide: [i] italics [/i], [b] bold [/b], [u] underline [/u], [url] (web address) [/url]. More tips here. Enclosing asterisks marks text as bold (word), underscore are made via _word_. E-Mail addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for E-Mail notifications. To prevent automated Bots from commentspamming, please enter the string you see in the image below in the appropriate input box. Your comment will only be submitted if the strings match. Please ensure that your browser supports and accepts cookies, or your comment cannot be verified correctly. Enter the string from the spam-prevention image above: BBCode format allowed
	Remember Information? Subscribe to this entry

Maggie's Farm

Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page

Categories

Quicksearch

Links

Blog Administration

RSS Readers

Saturday, September 3. 2016

Labor Day weekend links