crutchy writes: Ron Paul's message of freedom and liberty is very compelling, and I am still a supporter of Ron Paul, but Stefan Molyneux explains why Ron Paul's election to POTUS would likely have been a setback for the libertarian movement. There is shameless plugs and the usual ranting, but if you can see past that there is also an intelligent argument about the futility of trying to "reduce the power of the state by using the power of the state". Libertarianism is a good thing on a personal level. "Freedom is a personal project" and not something you can contribute to my merely ticking a box on a ballot paper. The state isn't merely some mindless out-of-control destructo-machine on a collision course to gobble up "We The People". You can't have some brave representative climb on board and turn it out of harms way. "[The state] isn't some inanimate object that you can get a hold of". "The state is an ecosystem of wildly invested self interest". If Ron Paul were elected President and he "could somehow get Congress to do its thing and privatize the Post Office" for example, "the postal workers would go on strike and no welfare checks would be delivered and no social security checks would be delivered", etc and there would be massive social unrest till the state either backed down or took the postal workers to task with brute force, and if the latter occurred the impression of libertarianism ingrained in people's minds would be one of fascist state brutality. Whilst I agree with a lot of Stefan's philisophical arguments, there are holes; in the case of the postal worker strike, the assumption that no welfare and social security checks would be delivered ignores the prevailence of electronic payments. I also doubt that his anarchy utopia is even remotely plausible; as Peter Schiff once responded to an anarchist interviewer, even in anarchy people band together to protect themselves and when people form social structures, authority takes shape (whether you call that authority "government" or not is irrelevent). Stefan argues that even if government could be would back to what the Founding Fathers envisioned, the clock would simply start ticking again towards what we have today, and he is no doubt right, but I would argue that even if you could completely eliminate government, the seeds of authority would re-emerge in humanity's natural tendency to socialize. I personally think Ron Paul was a good presidential candidate (especially relative to everyone else). He may not have been able to achieve all of his goals, but some of them (such as bringing the troops home) are within powers of the President, and I think he would also have used the presidential veto power to block as much wasteful spending as could reasonably be expected. He also may have been able to lobby Congress to legalize competition to paper money, which would be an important first step in making the Federal Reserve irrelevant.
crutchy writes: In an interview with Dale Gavlak, a Middle East correspondent for the Associated Press and Mint Press News, Syrian rebels tacitly implied that they were responsible for last week’s chemical attack.
From numerous interviews with doctors, Ghouta residents, rebel fighters and their families.many believe that certain rebels received chemical weapons via the Saudi intelligence chief, Prince Bandar bin Sultan.
The rebels noted it was a result of an accident caused by rebels mishandling chemical weapons provided to them.
The perf_swevent_init function in kernel/events/core.c in the Linux kernel before 3.8.9 uses an incorrect integer data type, which allows local users to gain privileges via a crafted perf_event_open system call.
crutchy writes: The Federal Reserve Bank's own advisory council admits QE has made things worse for the US economy and that it may be difficult for the Fed to taper QE without causing further pain for consumers and businesses.
crutchy writes: Gold priced in US dollars going down, DJIA peaked and starting to fall... almost seems like 2008 all over. The cause may be different but the Fed may not be able to bail out the banks a second time, and increased Fed stimulus may drive up interest rates (already starting to rise) which would cripple the US government with interest repayments on the national debt.
crutchy writes: Is the "fiscal cliff" just a distraction? The real cliff would seem like a currency crisis as defined by the Triffin dilemma.
The US has enjoyed huge financial advantage and potential for more than half a century, but I really feel sorry for American youngsters, who are set to inherit a financial disaster the likes of which the world has never seen before.
crutchy writes: No doubt millions of viewers watch Bill O'Reilly for two reasons:
1. because he's entertaining in the same way as a clown at a circus is. It's not what he says, it's how he berates his guests and loses it night after night. I'm sure he could increase his viewer ratings even more if he physically assaulted someone... maybe a grieving widow of a soldier killed in Iraq. Of course Bill has absolutely no idea that none of his viewers take him seriously as he's deluded in his egotistical fog and thinks he's God's gift to journalism, but that's also the reason why his brand of entertainment is so unique... his ignorance of the laughter that results from his outbursts is sort of analgous to the Truman Show in a way. The problem with comedians like John Stewart is that their humor is deliberate, whereas Bill is like a comedian that believes his own jokes, which is truly priceless and it's not surprising that Fox gave him a prime time slot.
2. because he gets on his soap box night after night and makes a complete fool of himself, and viewers watching feel better about themselves... his says something completely rediculous and I think "wow I would never say something as stupid as that, especially on TV" and it makes me feel better about the world I live in because if a twit like Bill O'Reilly can make it on television, anyone can
...but what about the children!?
If you're a parent who allows their children to watch his filth, you should be ashamed of yourself, but what about the parents that don't care (as mentioned by Bill when talking with Marylin Manson here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G6n5Oi4714o)? Being as young and impressionable as they are, they may not realise that what spews out of Bill O'Reilly's mouth is complete and utter nonsense.
Should he be taken off the air... for the children?
crutchy writes: "Security researchers released two tools at the Defcon security conference that can be used to crack the encryption of any PPTP (Point-to-Point Tunneling Protocol) and WPA2-Enterprise (Wireless Protected Access) sessions that use MS-CHAPv2 for authentication."
"Marlinspike's advice to businesses and VPN providers was to stop using PPTP and switch to other technologies like IPsec or OpenVPN. Companies with wireless network deployments that use WPA2 Enterprise security with MS-CHAPv2 authentication should also switch to an alternative."