MI6 Boss Agrees with Mega..........

[vt]

Re: Terrorism destroying rights

Correct Woodsman. The right has received almost all blame, while the lamestream media has supported the left.

The right definitely deserves as much blame as the left, as I've said.

[santafe2]

Re: Terrorism destroying rights

Great thread with the left, the right, Europeans, N. Americans and even a nod to Frank Zappa. Possibly the sober truth is uniting.

[lakedaemonian]

Re: Terrorism destroying rights

Jeez.....you can't swing a dead cat up in this place without hitting a seemingly unlimited amount of pessimism and capitulation.

Sounds like quitting to me.

[Woodsman]

Re: Terrorism destroying rights

...Sounds like quitting to me.

I'm sorry if we've disappointed you lake. You must know something we don't. Then again, of course you do.

Anyway, one might be inclined to address this seeming capitulation with a downcast gaze and a slow pivot of the head (perhaps a "tisk, tisk" thrown in), but surely there are mitigating circumstances that add nuance. For my part, I might look to the fact that 1/3 of American history is now classified and 2/3s of the news reporting is effectively cowed or controlled by the state as my "excuse."

You and your colleagues must get a good chuckle at the degree of confusion exhibited by most of us, but hey, at least the pros can take comfort in the fact that the info ops are taking hold. I'm sure it's a glass half-empty, half-full thing, right? Part of that ever widening grey area the cloak and dagger snoops are always reminding us of, usually right after the politicians finish telling us how it's for our own good.

So do try and put yourself in our position for a minute. Here were are, a lifetime of thinking we're free citizens of a republic governed by laws and instituted by the consent of those governed, only come to find out we're not. One minute we believed we were protected by law and that the state and its agents were subject to that same law, the next we find out the joke is on us.

Now someone in possession of the real information on what was and what is can be forgiven for seeming a bit smug. When one is in possession of even a thin, "need to know" slice of truth so many folks will never have, I could see how tempting it might be to feel that way. But surely those among us given official approval to see and learn without blinders and cover stories might have some insight into how the rest of us little mushrooms (kept in the dark and fed shit) might feel.

The rest of us who must navigate the wilderness of mirrors without benefit of a map are a bit red in the face at being punked in such a comprehensive manner. Healthy as it is, it's still quite embarrassing to admit such naivete. For my part, I'd say "good thing they don't have my reaction on tape", but given the ubiquitous nature of the surveillance who can be sure?

Me, I just want to be a good American so I too can deny my personal moral responsibility and use my submission to those holding the mantle of legitimate authority as an appeal or mitigating circumstance. And lots of really important and I'm told very smart folks advise just that.

Federal Judge: Give NSA unlimited access to digital data
PC World, Dec 4, 2014 1:46 PM

The U.S. National Security Agency should have an unlimited ability to collect digital information in the name of protecting the country against terrorism and other threats, an influential federal judge said during a debate on privacy.

“I think privacy is actually overvalued,” Judge Richard Posner, of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, said during a conference about privacy and cybercrime in Washington, D.C., Thursday.

“Much of what passes for the name of privacy is really just trying to conceal the disreputable parts of your conduct,” Posner added. “Privacy is mainly about trying to improve your social and business opportunities by concealing the sorts of bad activities that would cause other people not to want to deal with you.”

Congress should limit the NSA’s use of the data it collects—for example, not giving information about minor crimes to law enforcement agencies—but it shouldn’t limit what information the NSA sweeps up and searches, Posner said. “If the NSA wants to vacuum all the trillions of bits of information that are crawling through the electronic worldwide networks, I think that’s fine,” he said.

In the name of national security, U.S. lawmakers should give the NSA “carte blanche,” Posner added. “Privacy interests should really have very little weight when you’re talking about national security,” he said.

I'm merely suggesting we do as this storied defender of the Constitution, a man known by his former law clerks as "probably America's greatest living jurist" advises.

What Hizonor da judge is basically saying, so long as you make yourself extremely boring and nonthreatening to those who find threats everywhere you have nothing to be concerned about. So long as you don’t exercise your political liberties in any way that upsets the status quo, you'll be good. If you're taking pictures of your cat, arranging Little League games, and exchanging fruitcake recipes – you have nothing to worry about from ubiquitous surveillance.

Conversely, if you insist in expressing these civil rights or do anything unorthodox or that might one day possibly have the potential to maybe in some limited and outlying circumstance be construed as a challenge to authority, well then you're just poking the hornet's nest and get what you deserve.

Now when probably American's greatest living jurist tells you to keep your nose clean, lay low and nobody gets hurt, I think it's sort of cruel to chastise folks for taking the advise to heart.

[lakedaemonian]

Re: Terrorism destroying rights

I'm sorry if we've disappointed you lake. You must know something we don't. Then again, of course you do.

Anyway, one might be inclined to address this seeming capitulation with a downcast gaze and a slow pivot of the head (perhaps a "tisk, tisk" thrown in), but surely there are mitigating circumstances that add nuance. For my part, I might look to the fact that 1/3 of American history is now classified and 2/3s of the news reporting is effectively cowed or controlled by the state as my "excuse."

You and your colleagues must get a good chuckle at the degree of confusion exhibited by most of us, but hey, at least the pros can take comfort in the fact that the info ops are taking hold. I'm sure it's a glass half-empty, half-full thing, right? Part of that ever widening grey area the cloak and dagger snoops are always reminding us of, usually right after the politicians finish telling us how it's for our own good.

So do try and put yourself in our position for a minute. Here were are, a lifetime of thinking we're free citizens of a republic governed by laws and instituted by the consent of those governed, only come to find out we're not. One minute we believed we were protected by law and that the state and its agents were subject to that same law, the next we find out the joke is on us.

Now someone in possession of the real information on what was and what is can be forgiven for seeming a bit smug. When one is in possession of even a thin, "need to know" slice of truth so many folks will never have, I could see how tempting it might be to feel that way. But surely those among us given official approval to see and learn without blinders and cover stories might have some insight into how the rest of us little mushrooms (kept in the dark and fed shit) might feel.

The rest of us who must navigate the wilderness of mirrors without benefit of a map are a bit red in the face at being punked in such a comprehensive manner. Healthy as it is, it's still quite embarrassing to admit such naivete. For my part, I'd say "good thing they don't have my reaction on tape", but given the ubiquitous nature of the surveillance who can be sure?

Me, I just want to be a good American so I too can deny my personal moral responsibility and use my submission to those holding the mantle of legitimate authority as an appeal or mitigating circumstance. And lots of really important and I'm told very smart folks advise just that.



I'm merely suggesting we do as this storied defender of the Constitution, a man known by his former law clerks as the "probably America's greatest living jurist" advises.

What Hizonor da judge is basically saying, so long as you make yourself extremely boring and nonthreatening to those who find threats everywhere you have nothing to be concerned about. So long as you don’t exercise your political liberties in any way that upsets the status quo, you'll be good. If you're taking pictures of your cat, arranging Little League games, and exchanging fruitcake recipes – you have nothing to worry about from ubiquitous surveillance.

Conversely, if you insist in expressing these civil rights or do anything unorthodox or that might one day possibly have the potential to maybe in some limited and outlying circumstance be construed as a challenge to authority, well then you're just poking the hornet's next and get what you deserve.

Now when probably American's greatest living jurist tells you to keep your nose clean, lay low and nobody gets hurt, I think it's sort of cruel to chastise folks for taking the advise to heart.

The only thing I know that far too many seem to have forgotten or never learned is the Edmund Burke quote:

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."

The thread that ties all insurgencies, revolutions, social movements, significant cultural changes, etc together is that both sides (the entrenched power and opposition to it) represent low single digit % of the total population.

You have previously stated your unwillingness to attempt anything tangible to effect change via legal means for whatever reason, but you continue to complain about it and pronounce it's inevitability.

Sorry, but it sounds quite similar to someone complaining about the sun coming up tomorrow, while failing to build or find some shade.

Outside of some limited feelings of catharsis, it seems like pointless effort expended.

[Woodsman]

Re: Terrorism destroying rights

The only thing I know that far too many seem to have forgotten or never learned is the Edmund Burke quote:

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."

The thread that ties all insurgencies, revolutions, social movements, significant cultural changes, etc together is that both sides (the entrenched power and opposition to it) represent low single digit % of the total population.

You have previously stated your unwillingness to attempt anything tangible to effect change via legal any means [fixed it for you.] for whatever reason, but you continue to complain about it and pronounce it's inevitability.

Sorry, but it sounds quite similar to someone complaining about the sun coming up tomorrow, while failing to build or find some shade.

Outside of some limited feelings of catharsis, it seems like pointless effort expended.

It's a stirring quote but I do wish those most fond of repeating it could see the irony in which it is usually received. Same for analogies of light and shadow. I think an appreciation of irony might have a genetic basis. One either has an ear for it or not. My favorite quote from Burke...well, one of them as there are so many chestnuts to pick, is this:

"Hypocrisy can afford to be magnificent in its promises, for never intending to go beyond promise, it costs nothing."

I used to see the "triumph of evil" quote all over DC back in my GOP days. Talk about irony. Can't say I ever saw the hypocrisy quote displayed in hardwood and scrimshaw, though. Certainly it's the more appropriate one.

Perhaps if I were I handed a shield and sword of impunity and absolute secrecy, might I hope to achieve the courage and wisdom of an Edmund Burke? Who am I kidding? The shield and sword is too heavy for these weak and scrawny arms to hoist. But what if my present livelihood and future dotage depended on the continual expansion and entrenchment of that impunity and absolute secrecy? Would even that motivate a mind so cluttered with doubt to act with the necessary certainty? No, I very much doubt it would.

Lake, it could be mere catharsis and you might just have my number. I understand that folks in your line of work have some limited psychological training, but I always assumed it was focused on techniques of manipulation and deception. In light of that, I'll pass on the free analysis and take it up with my own pshrink.

But in terms of the pointlessness of the effort extended, you and I are in perfect communion.