by liberal japonicus
I found this article incredibly interesting, but had to laugh when I read this
In an unusual collaboration, this year the team brought along an ancient DNA expert to sample for ancient pathogens.
As always, topics other than dissing elderly experts on DNA are always welcome.
LJ, you ageist bastard.
More seriously, one of the funny things about working in the genomics field is how often I get that “man, I wish I had thought of that” feeling.
I suppose it’s just another example of how the collective unconscious sweeps us all along.
It takes one to know one, perhaps.
Ageist bastard or ancient DNA expert?
There’s never a hyphen around when you need one.
When is “respect for the aged” day again?
Also, too, there’s something that is the “first to go”, but I forget what it is…
The punch line?
Ancient DNA expert Newton “It’s really very simple”
Gingrich had some nice things to say about the weather during prehistoric times to make us feel a little better about possible global warming.
Unseasonably muggy, but balmy .. and “fine”, he said:
Here he is as dinner:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wXTAAYhZhIA
Digby makes an interesting point–imagine a Christie Administration with NSA surveillance powers
link
Imagine a Christie Administration with NSA surveillance powers
Good reason not to vote for Christie. If Christie were elected President, he’d certainly have enough power to abuse his office. Remember the Bush administration? The Reagan administration? The Nixon administration? J. Edgar Hoover? They found plenty of ways to abuse their office without being “given” power. They took it.
This is why I find this conversation so frustrating. Do you really think that an abuser of power wouldn’t already be able to find a really good way to abuse power? Come on.
Good reason not to vote for Christie.
COINTELPRO ran from 1956 to 1971. The latest round of objectionable NSA programs have run for, what, ten years, under both Bush and Obama.
Voting for the “right guy” doesn’t appear to be the issue.
It ain’t about whether the guy in the big chair is, personally, an “abuser of power” or not. Power has its own agenda.
imagine a Christie Administration with NSA surveillance powers
I wonder if that doesn’t suggest that you need to develop bureaucracy that has very few appointees and make hiring and firing related to strict civil service laws rather than at the whim of the appointees. The GWB scandal seems to have taken place because Christie was able to place members of his close political circle into the commission and they had the ability to fire people, so, as some of them testified, they were afraid to refuse the order because they thought they were going to be terminated. They also failed to consult with the NY side, particulary Foye, so any built in checks were bypassed.
The unfortunate side-effect of creating such a bureaucracy is that there will be an inherent conservatism in responses. One might argue that the FBI under Hoover is a counterexample to this, but the FBI under Hoover was a virtual fiefdom, and Hoover could (and did) blackmail anyone who threatened to reduce his power in the FBI.
The NSA program, authorized under statute, and carried out with court orders, is not the same as COINTELPRO.
russell, you may like Judge Leon’s opinion that the NSA actions are unconstitutional, and his opinion might be upheld (probably not), but it breaks new ground in the law. Pauley’s opinion is based much more solidly on current law.
I’m interested to see what happens, and happy for the law to be challenged, but equating COINTELPRO with the NSA program doesn’t bear out.
Allow me to clarify my point:
Historically, and also in the current-day case of the NSA programs, the abuse of power has had little to do with the party or the personal goodness or badness of the President, or basically any particular federal office-holder.
This is especially true when the abuses occur in programs that operate in secrecy.
So, simply voting for “good guys” is not an adequate remedy.
That is the point of comparison between COINTELPRO and the NSA programs. If you don’t like that analogy, no doubt many others can be found.
Or, no analogy at all is needed. As noted, the NSA programs in question have operated under both “good” and “bad” guys. The choice of which is the good and which the bad guy is left to the individual preferences of the reader.
Historically, and also in the current-day case of the NSA programs, the abuse of power has had little to do with the party or the personal goodness or badness of the President, or basically any particular federal office-holder.
Allow me to disagree. J. Edgar Hoover’s abuse certainly extended through administrations of Democrats and Republicans. The abuse of power in my long adult lifetime, under Nixon, Reagan, and Bushes (especially Bush, Jr., but we can’t forget that Bush Sr. was involved in Iran-Contra), are significantly more spectacular and frequent than abuse of power under Democrats. And, sure, the government is a large organization, and there are good and bad people there, and people who have power, both in government and corporations, sometimes abuse it.
“The abuse of power in my long adult lifetime, under Nixon, Reagan, and Bushes (especially Bush, Jr., but we can’t forget that Bush Sr. was involved in Iran-Contra), are significantly more spectacular and frequent than abuse of power under Democrats.’
I agree in general, but “less abusive” isn’t “not abusive at all”. These guys all have each other’s backs to some degree anyway–Nixon went off the deep end over the Pentagon Papers, which were about the lies told about Vietnam by Democratic Administrations. The Obama Administration goes after Manning and Snowden, but not Bush torturers.
Also, even if you think that Democrats are all perfect little angels, Republicans sometimes win. And then they’d have access to all that data collected under the Democrats.
Allow me to disagree.
I share your opinion that (R) administrations are prone to more flagrant abuses of power.
My point, once again, is that, especially as regards abuses of secret programs, simply voting in good candidates is not a sufficient remedy.
Voting for good candidates is indeed not a sufficient remedy. Especially if you are looking only at one office, rather than a broad spectrum of elected offices. But it still may be a necessary condition.
A “good guy” (on whoever’s definition) may still abuse power. But a “bad guy” will certainly do so more. And thus make eventually rolling back that abuse more difficult.
Similarly, lack of of turnover in office is a problem. The abuses in the FBI couldn’t be addressed until Hoover died — he had amassed so much power, and was so willing to abuse it, that nobody dared fire him. It’s a pretty strong argument for term limits (for all that I think they have some serious negative side effects).
Similarly, lack of of turnover in office is a problem. The abuses in the FBI couldn’t be addressed until Hoover died — he had amassed so much power, and was so willing to abuse it, that nobody dared fire him.
One way in which Hoover’s abuses were addressed was a law limiting FBI directorship to ten years.
Again, it’s important to distinguish between a secret program that is conducted pursuant to legislative and judicial authority, and operations like COINTEL (and Iran-Contra, and Nixon’s burglaries) that were blatantly illegal, and were actually designed to cause harm, and to stifle dissent. It’s fine with me if people don’t like the NSA data collection program, but it’s just wrong to equate it with COINTEL.
Had to put this somehwere, so open thread it is.
http://news.yahoo.com/u-appeals-court-kills-net-neutrality-152413671.html
….which were about the lies told about Vietnam by Democratic Administrations
Wait. Hold on here. Can we get a re-play here? Perhaps speak a bit louder and repeat it?
I’m not quite sure I heard that…old age perhaps…that and the bitter tears for the millions who needlessly died as a result of those lies.
The problem is institutional.
Mostly “Democratic Administrations,” but IIRC the Pentagon Papers also go back to the GOP Eisenhower Administration, in which Nixon was Veep. So he wasn’t just protecting the opposition, he was saving his own ass.