There is an old saying that 'arguments from analogy are odious'; so let me make an 'odious' comment. Let's imagine that instead of a cell phone with contact information the person in this case had filled an old fashioned notebook made from dead trees. Would he be contending that the gov't cannot 'access' that information?
Well, perhaps. We'll see how the Supremes rule. But I contend that information storage on electronic devices is not more sacred than information made from cellulose and ink.
The NYTimes column today by Dr Krugman comes around to this same conclusion: Uncontrolled financial flows spurred by huge financial/banking corporations seeking short-term advantage is the reason that the planet is victimized by wave after wave of 'bubbles'.
The further development of your thought on nationalization of all robot/automated labor, Dr Cole, would be to regard the product that is created as a 'marker' in a relationship between the producer and the consumer. In the entire history of mankind, a basic problem has been that we cannot produce enough 'stuff' to satisfy the needs of everyone. Barring ecological disaster (a very, very big caveat!), we can today. So we are the first civilization to have to deal with a fairly equal relationship between producers and consumers. Frankly, if you mean that a government should 'own' all robot production, I'm probably not with you. But some reorganization to recognize that without consumers, no production/without producers, no consumption -- well, we have to do that.
Dear, dear Ms Saadawi, as much as my heart is with the crowds in Tahrir Square, crowds of earnest people do not make a government. It is institutions and elites who make a government. If a true change in government is going to happen in Egypt (or Syria or Libya) it will be because an alternative institution is capable of handling national problems (distributing electricity, seeing that people have food to buy, seeing that the currency is worth something). Show us the building blocks of the next government. Please.
I bet that you have read Mr Bill Keller's op-ed in the NYT of this date. He draws a link to much of the 'unrest' in the Islamic world (Turkey recently, Iran in '09, others), seeing them as rebellions of the young and relatively privileged against unresponsive old-style regimes. It seems to me to be a gigantic simplification. You are my principle source for 'informed comment' on the middle east, Dr Cole. Any thoughts on whether the best way to see this phenomenon as general or particular?
OMGosh! Left a comment on the Posting of 7/01 "Biggest Demonstrations in Egyptian History..." See that above Dr Cole had written an answer on 6/30. Thanx!
Dr Cole, I get the decision tree as it must appear to a sitting President who is faced with a Tahrir Square type occupation; excessive force strengthens the opposition argument but leaving the space in the possession of the opposition does the same. But I do not understand the divisions inside Turkey. One assumes that the constituency that elected Mr Erdogan generally supports the clearing of the square, for example, as Americans generally sided with Mr Nixon and the 'hard-hats' many years ago. Could you use a future post to help us understand the divisions that make this a larger conflict than Erdogan-vs-Secular-Elites? You are my go-to source for this kind of deeper analysis. Thanx!
There is an old saying that 'arguments from analogy are odious'; so let me make an 'odious' comment. Let's imagine that instead of a cell phone with contact information the person in this case had filled an old fashioned notebook made from dead trees. Would he be contending that the gov't cannot 'access' that information?
Well, perhaps. We'll see how the Supremes rule. But I contend that information storage on electronic devices is not more sacred than information made from cellulose and ink.
The NYTimes column today by Dr Krugman comes around to this same conclusion: Uncontrolled financial flows spurred by huge financial/banking corporations seeking short-term advantage is the reason that the planet is victimized by wave after wave of 'bubbles'.
The further development of your thought on nationalization of all robot/automated labor, Dr Cole, would be to regard the product that is created as a 'marker' in a relationship between the producer and the consumer. In the entire history of mankind, a basic problem has been that we cannot produce enough 'stuff' to satisfy the needs of everyone. Barring ecological disaster (a very, very big caveat!), we can today. So we are the first civilization to have to deal with a fairly equal relationship between producers and consumers. Frankly, if you mean that a government should 'own' all robot production, I'm probably not with you. But some reorganization to recognize that without consumers, no production/without producers, no consumption -- well, we have to do that.
Dear, dear Ms Saadawi, as much as my heart is with the crowds in Tahrir Square, crowds of earnest people do not make a government. It is institutions and elites who make a government. If a true change in government is going to happen in Egypt (or Syria or Libya) it will be because an alternative institution is capable of handling national problems (distributing electricity, seeing that people have food to buy, seeing that the currency is worth something). Show us the building blocks of the next government. Please.
I bet that you have read Mr Bill Keller's op-ed in the NYT of this date. He draws a link to much of the 'unrest' in the Islamic world (Turkey recently, Iran in '09, others), seeing them as rebellions of the young and relatively privileged against unresponsive old-style regimes. It seems to me to be a gigantic simplification. You are my principle source for 'informed comment' on the middle east, Dr Cole. Any thoughts on whether the best way to see this phenomenon as general or particular?
Thanx!
OMGosh! Left a comment on the Posting of 7/01 "Biggest Demonstrations in Egyptian History..." See that above Dr Cole had written an answer on 6/30. Thanx!
Well, Mr Snowden has original ideas about what constitutes a sanctuary. At the least, Ecuador and Hong Kong are a far cry from Switzerland.
http://www.freedomhouse.org/article/correa-continues-assault-freedom-expression-ecuador
More at the site. But I suppose the U.S. made them do it, as Flip Wilson used to say.
Dr Cole, I get the decision tree as it must appear to a sitting President who is faced with a Tahrir Square type occupation; excessive force strengthens the opposition argument but leaving the space in the possession of the opposition does the same. But I do not understand the divisions inside Turkey. One assumes that the constituency that elected Mr Erdogan generally supports the clearing of the square, for example, as Americans generally sided with Mr Nixon and the 'hard-hats' many years ago. Could you use a future post to help us understand the divisions that make this a larger conflict than Erdogan-vs-Secular-Elites? You are my go-to source for this kind of deeper analysis. Thanx!