my grinded gears

[henry quirk]

Comments by The Lover of Law in another thread got me to thinkin' (by way of some cock-eyed association) about my high school days and my many wasted hours with D & D.

Specifically: I got to thinkin' about 'alignment'.

Just now: I typed in a two word phrase and -- TA-DA! -- found this...


http://easydamus.com/alignment.html


I know which I am (and I'm fairly certain what the Law lover is…BOO! HISS! Get yer yoke offa my neck!).

How about you?

[infinite monkey]

Neutral Undecided = I don't like 'em.

A neutral character does what seems to be a good idea. She doesn't feel strongly one way or the other when it comes to good vs. evil or law vs. chaos. Most neutral characters exhibit a lack of conviction or bias rather than a commitment to neutrality. Such a character thinks of good as better than evil-after all, she would rather have good neighbors and rulers than evil ones. Still, she's not personally committed to upholding good in any abstract or universal way

Fence-sitting sheep.

I think I'm Neutral Good "Benefactor" but I think how we view ourselves can be very different from how others view us.

A neutral good character does the best that a good person can do. He is devoted to helping others. He works with kings and magistrates but does not feel beholden to them.

Neutral good is the best alignment you can be because it means doing what is good without bias for or against order.

Neutral good can be a dangerous alignment when it advances mediocrity by limiting the actions of the truly capable.

henry, where might you put me? (No I won't get mad.)

[glatt]

Funny that you mention D&D. Hasbro, who owns the D&D rights, just filed a lawsuit against a production company working with Warner Brothers over its plans to make a D&D movie.

[henry quirk]

Check your forum mail...

[henry quirk]

HA!

[Ocean's Edge]

Lawful good when I was working - I still believe in that even though it doesn't win you many friends, or influence people

Chaotic Good in all other respects

[Lamplighter]

Originally Posted by glatt

I do remember "tailgate." It was "tailhook" though, and was in the Navy

OK, my bad... but it wasn't it the aviation side of the Navy ?

[Griff]

Originally Posted by glatt

Benghazi is a black eye, but the Republicans are milking it for all it's worth for purely political reasons. It's Monday morning quarterbacking. It's obvious now that things went wrong, but I don't think it was obvious then. As tw points out, we still don't completely understand what happened. But I think we should try to learn what happened there so it doesn't happen again. We shouldn't pick at it for political gain.

IRS: I don't have a problem with the IRS scrutinizing organizations that are trying to get out of paying taxes. Good for them. The only reason it's mostly a bunch of conservative groups is because that's the time period that a bunch of conservatives were forming new tax exempt organizations. Some of the information requests seem a little extreme, but that's what the IRS does. They ask for documentation. This is another politically driven non-story.

The API/CIA leak story is disturbing. I don't like how closed the Obama administration is. I'd like some more transparency. His administration has tried to go after more leaks than previous ones. I don't support that and am disappointed in him.

The military sex scandals aren't a reflection on the Obama administration. It's the military. Obama has been working hard to dismantle that old boys club, but it takes some time to change the culture.

I think glatt has it about right. The IRS thing might a big deal depending on what comes out. Turn it around, say Richard Nixon's IRS was sifting through various lefty orgs... At this point, I'm more concerned by drone executions than any of these.

[BigV]

Benghazi as a black eye, *shrug*. I can see an argument for that conclusion. That we can be invincible everywhere, an attitude I sense in the conversations I hear in the media, especially "conservative" media, is an expensive pipe dream. The bad that happened is not the bad that's being squawked about, notably about who knew what when and how did the talking points get changed. That part is ridiculous. How we could have better secured our facilities and our people is a much more important question, but that's not as interesting since it involves facts that are not unambiguously embarrassing to the Obama Administration, therefore, not newsworthy.

The IRS's behavior is also rational, though they seem to have been blind to the optics of such profiling-esque behavior. The rules distinguishing 501c(3) and 501c(4) (just from memory, don't quote me on the section names please) are vague, overlapping, and subjective. The IRS is charged to make judgements like this and I am glad to hear they're making informed judgements. One of the parameters for whether or not the "social good" organization qualifies for tax exempt status is that their political work not exceed 49% of their efforts. That kind of hairsplitting can only be done (to the spirit and the letter of the law) with lots of information, hence a lot of questions. Furthermore, someone who puts the name of an extremely popular political movement in the name of their outfit is begging to be asked about it, ffs.

The broad subpoena from the Justice Department that gave investigators extraordinary access to phone records of the Associated Press is the most troubling story in this list. There are several increasingly drastic steps that can be taken in such an investigation and it seems the Justice Department skipped lots of them, including informing the AP that they were under investigation. I like for the good guys to catch the bad guys, but I believe it is the beginning of the end when we make it easy for these good guys by acceding to their requests to skip the rules "just this one time, oh, come on, it's sooo important". That's a dangerous habit to adopt.

The military sex scandals are only scandals because in two recent cases the alleged perpetrators were themselves placed in positions of authority to prevent *exactly this* kind of bad behavior. That's what makes it scandalous, but the behavior is rampant. The most difficult aspect of this devilishly difficult problem is the abuse of power, the very power that makes the military work--respect for authority and the chain of command. I don't have any bright ideas as to how to make it better, this one makes me sad and angry.

[Griff]

I wonder how much budget issues really effected readiness at Benghazi? That would be a sudden flip of responsibility.

The AP thing is the biggest on the list. Benghazi looks like grandstanding. IRS? I dunno. Sex scandal has no reflection on Obama. I think he has mostly gotten a pass from the not Fox press up to now. The right wing is hoping something will stick by throwing everything at him but lumping all these things makes it look like pure partisanship, which it is but it shouldn't be so obvious.

[Lamplighter]

Griff, similar views are in Charles Blow's NY Times editorial today...

Scandalous vs. Scandal Lust

<snip>
That’s it — the gist of all three as far as we know at this point. These are not administration-enders.
People can be punished, or fired or even jailed, if Speaker John Boehner has his way,
but at this early stage signs are not pointing to any of those people being in the White House.

Even if I had hair, I wouldn’t be setting it on fire, not yet anyway.

[henry quirk]

Bengahzi: did four folks die because of negligence on the part of American elected/appointed officials?

If so: root 'em out and prosecute 'em.

-----

IRS: apart from the 'legalities' of what did or didn't happen, it might be prudent for folks who wanna 'band together' to do so without seeking 'approval' from the powers that be...that is: do you really need tax exempt status if you (mainly) wanna actively kvetch about the opposition?

-----

AP: I suggest reporters, instead of making appeals to the legalities of 'this' or 'that', simply, and quietly, act in ways that make it more difficult for law enforcers to 'dig'.

For example: get yourself a pay-as-you-go phone (anonymous account)...periodically dump that one and get another, and so on...the level of difficulty in keeping track of such shenanigans is a kind of deterrent to the digging the J.D. is accused of.

[henry quirk]

"I don't have any bright ideas as to how to make it better"

If the kids can't play 'right', then separate 'em.

Make the boys play 'there' and the girls play 'here'.

That, or let the girls shoot the boys.

[henry quirk]

"Well, if you aren't doing anything wrong and don't have anything to hide, then you shouldn't mind if the government takes a peek at emails, text messages, phone records, etc."

I've heard and read several permutations of the above. It's the end result of a specious line of thinking beginning with the idea 'secrecy' and 'privacy' are synonymous.

Forgive the vulgarity, but: there's nuthin' illegal, immoral, or unethical (nuthin' 'secret') about my bowl movements, but I still close the door when I have them.

The frequency of my movements, the length of time of my movements, the consistency of my movements, and the content of my movements, ain't no body's business but mine.

In the same light: if I am '*self-possessed', then I have a reasonable expectation my communications with another self-possessed individual are as private as I and the other choose to make them. That is: an intimate conversation (by text, e, or phone) will remain -- by definition -- private 'till I or the other choose otherwise.

Collecting records of when we communicate, how long we communicate, and (even though it is denied that such information is collected) the contents of our communications, implies my possession of 'me' (and that which issues from 'me') is somehow, 'not' mine.

If this is the case, then I do not own myself...a notion I have a rather LARGE problem with.



"But, Henry, such (meta)data collection is necessary, and, has led to ending at least one terrorist plot! Surely, you can't be against 'security'?!"

Well, some official claims a plot was foiled...I wanna see the evidence of this (which, of course, won't happen 'cause the plot, and all related information is, 'classified'...very convenient).

And: with such a depth and breadth of information 'necessarily' collected, one might think the whole Boston Marathon bombing could have been averted (if it, indeed, was a terrorist event with the enactors in contact with overseas cronies).

No doubt, collecting willy-nilly all manner of (meta)data 'can' improve security but, does the end justify the means?

Example: It is possible, well before labor, to accurately identify physical/neurological infirmities in the unborn. Since such assessments of the embryo/fetus/baby/whatever are possible, why not have pregnant women submit to testing and, if profound irregularities are found, have the 'whatever' terminated? Abortions for cause would -- in the long run -- save a god-awful amount of money (for everyone by way of lowering overall medical and health care costs) and the eugenic benefit (an increasingly healthy gene pool) would also benefit everyone.

The reason such a program doesn't exist (in America) is 'cause folks don't believe 'that' (cluster of) end(s) justifies the means.



"Henry, all this data collection is legal."

Embedded in 'it's legal' is an ass-backward idea, that being: because it's legal, it must be good. Perhaps I'm in the minority, but it seems to me sumthin' should be 'good' in practice prior to codification as 'law'.

Also: it seems naive to think because the powers that be promote sumthin' by way of legalizing it, this sumthin' is inherently 'good'. It's a naiveté born of dangerous, ill-founded, assumptions about the nature of power, and those who **seek it, hold it, and use it.



"Hey, corporations do this kind of information gathering all the time!"

Sure, but no corporation is empowered to jail me or kill me. At best (or worst), corporations can inundate me with tailored advertising, which I'm not obligated to pay attention to.



Fundamentally: what the powers that be do with (meta)data collection is no different than rifling through closets and underwear drawers. Beyond the fact the powers are peeking at your panties (or, reading your old love letters, or, judging your porn collection), they're in your home without permission.










*self-owned

**not a single person in the American system is 'in' power for any reason other than he or she sought it...every elected and appointed official wanted that position and worked to claim it...my point: these folks are not selfless types who only wanna 'do good' and 'serve'

[BigV]

I agree.