<html><head><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body dir="auto"><div>On Jun 29, 2017, at 10:54 AM, John Clark <<a href="mailto:johnkclark@gmail.com">johnkclark@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</div><div><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif">On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 12:07 PM, Dan TheBookMan </span><span dir="ltr" style="font-family:arial,sans-serif"><<a href="mailto:danust2012@gmail.com" target="_blank">danust2012@gmail.com</a>></span><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif"> wrote:</span><br></div><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="auto"><div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">> </div>Political power simply shouldn't exist.</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"><font size="4">D</font></div><font size="4">eath<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> shouldn't exist either</div>, but at the moment I'm more concerned with does or doesn't than should or shouldn't.<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> </div>That's why I got so frustrated in the debate before the election when people <div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">kept </div>telling m<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">e</div> they were voting for the Libertarian or not voting at all because nobody should have that much power; but it was always clear as a bell that somebody <b>WILL</b> have <div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">that</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> much</div> power and the only <div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">control</div> we had on November 8 was <div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">to decide </div>if that somebody was a imbecile or not. </font></div></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>We don't decide that -- not in any meaningful way.</div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><div><font size="4">To my mind the correct choice was obvious<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> and it was to most American voters too, but unfortunately not to the Electoral College, so despite not having a majority or even a plurality of people behind him the imbecile became Presadent.</div></font></div></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div>My point is, once more, if you have this kind of power in one office or small group, expect it to be abused. It's a mug's game to think that power can be so concentrated and somehow it will be unlikely for someone bad to grab hold of it. Constantly ignoring this problem too is like arguing who should captain the Titanic after the iceberg hit.<br><div><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="auto"><div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">> </div>But do you think there should be anyone with such overwhelming power?</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"><font size="4">No of course not! But my opinion matters little, </font></div></div></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Well, if your opinion matters little, why bother sharing it here? </div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"><font size="4">like it or not the fact is somebody <b>DOES</b> have such </font></div><font size="4">overwhelming power<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> and that is very unlikely to change before the Singularity. And the thing that terrifies me most is that a airhead like Trump has the power to make a Singularity happen in the very next hour, but not the sort of Singularity we usually talk about on this list.</div></font></div></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Again, this is a reason for a lie radical critique of power -- rather than just whining over Trump winning. Do you believe someone power-hungry like Clinton would be better? Why? She's craftier, knows when not to say whatever thought crosses her mind, and already has a fairly bloody track record. (Granted, Trump will likely surpass her there, but that's because he (or his henchmen) is (are) now the one ordering drone strikes -- not because she had any sympathy for the victims of empire.) </div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="auto"><div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">> </div>This isn't like the president simply has a tiny bit more power than you or me. Instead, she or he can order the death of millions. Such power is dangerous... </div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><font size="4">Yes it most certainly is dangerous, and it's even more dangerous if the man with that much power is so stupid he couldn't poor water out of a boot if the instructions were printed on the heel.</font></div></div></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Let's try an analogy. Yes, some dictators are worse than others. That, however, should never be an argument for dictatorship. Some masters treated their slaves worse than others too. I trust you wouldn't have argued for merely having better masters over abolishing slavery. Now apply the same logic here.</div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="auto"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">> </div> it's foolish to believe that such concentrated power existing in the first place will be unlikely to attract the wrong people</div></blockquote><div><br></div><div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"></div><font size="4">Yes<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> but there is no bottom to wrong. There are insecure Email server type wrong people and there are </div>Chicxulub<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> extinction event type wrong people. We ended up with </div>Chicxulub<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">.</div></font></div></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Here we go again. There were reasons not to want Clinton in that you have ignored. When I talked to folks here in Seattle who didn't want her in, none of them mentioned her insecure email server. They feared her militarism, her love of police power, and her coziness with corporate elites. They also pointed to how fickle her view were. Save for abortion, she seems to reinvent herself -- and not in any way that seems like heartfelt changes, but rather political. She was against gay marriage, for instance, until suddenly gay marriage was found to not longer be unpopular. That's stuff to continue to ignore. It makes me think you're just a Clinton partisan.</div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="auto"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">> </div>The elite's desire will not likely go away, but can't each of us at least try to undermine the means?</div></blockquote><div><br></div><div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><font size="4">No please don't try, not if you think increasing the defense budget by 78 billion dollars will decrease the <span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif">elite's desire to project force. </span></font></div></div></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Where have I said that? Reread what I wrote. Do I have to explain it to you? I want the military abolished. Is that clear?</div><div><br></div><div>And my guess is Dave doesn't want a big military budget either.</div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex" class="gmail_quote"><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:12.8px"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">> </div>Why would _you_ want imperial subjects kept in line? You want to live under a well-oiled authoritarian regime?</span></blockquote><div><br></div><div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"></div><font size="4">That wasn't the question I was addressing , it was "are aircraft carriers technologically obsolete?". And my answer was no. </font></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>And Dave responded with why we don't need them anyhow. I responded to your cavalier dismissal of his point.</div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">> </div>When was the last time the military budget actually went down?</blockquote><div><br></div><div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"><font size="4">The answer is 2010 under Obama, the US </font></div><font size="4">military budget<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> has gone down every year since then. It was </div>20.<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">1%</div> of the federal budget <div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">or 4.6% of </div>gross domestic product<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> i</div><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif">n 2011<div class="gmail_default" style="display:inline">, but only 15.9%</div> <div class="gmail_default" style="display:inline"></div></span>of the federal budget <div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">or 3.3% of </div>gross domestic product<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> in 2015.</div></font></div></div></div></div></blockquote><br><div>Actually, I would look at the numbers -- not % of the total budget or the % of GDP. If my rent goes up when my salary rises by a proportional amount, I don't consider it as remaining the same. Nor would I consider my rent increasing if my salary dropped.</div><div><br></div><div>However, that said, the numbers support you here. Defense spending went down under Obama for several years. It by a huge amount -- and, no doubt, some of this was merely pulling more forces out of Iraq. Then the budget started to rise again and I bet it will continue to do so.</div><div><br></div><div><div><div style="line-height: normal;"><div style="line-height: normal;"><span style="line-height: 20px; background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">Regards,</span></div><div style="line-height: normal;"><span style="line-height: 20px; background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);"><br></span></div><div><div style="line-height: normal;"><span style="line-height: 20px; background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">Dan</span></div><div style="line-height: normal;"><span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);"> Sample my Kindle books via:</span></div><div style="line-height: normal;"><font color="#000000" style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);"><a href="http://author.to/DanUst" style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">http://author.to/DanUst</a></font></div></div></div><div><div style="line-height: normal;"></div></div></div></div></body></html>