yes. “is.” bravo.
It is safe to assume that when it is financially imperative, Congress will fund what it wants to fund. And take away from those it deems unworthy.
This is a stochastic process.
However, if it looks like the billions and trillions being sunk into an organization that neither respects nor informs the body funding it, then I would hope that a perfect shitstorm is brewing. Note my emphasis of looks like, because appearances are EVERYTHING, here.
It might not be a storm brewing, though. You can bet that at some point, the battle lines will be more clearly drawn, and the NSA-backers will square off against the Bernies & people for what’s right and good in the world. And then, the backroom stuff intensifies, and if the super-secret-spy-on-everybody-and-their-lovers proponents have their way, then this all just simmers back.
The only way, really, to get any reform is to draw up an NSA scandal even bigger than what Snowden has uncovered. It’ll have to be on a more personal, “The NSA killed JFK” kind of scale. Or “The NSA tampered with world markets and shifted stocks in favor of the Bilderberg Group.” Or “The NSA conspired to DOS NSA-unfriendly candidates’ websites.” Or something like that. Put them in the negative light, make them have to answer more questions, and become publicly even more deceitful than they already appear.
Without that, with all this logical conversation about Snowden stuff, it will all only go so far. Nothing’s going to really happen unless they’re scandalized in the political/social arena.
3 Likes
If they want to play hardall with the Constitution, the next time any of these guys are brought up before any sort of committee, ask them direct questions; then if there’s any sort of evasion, slap them with a contempt charge, put 'em in a cell, and every time they demand to see a lawyer, tell them that the matter is “being looked into”.
1 Like
It strikes me that a good way to throw a spanner in the works might be for everybody to write THOUSANDS of emails containing the magic words: terror, bomb, communist, kill the president, etc., and just overload them.
Where does the NSA even get the money to do what it does? I thought the US had big issues agreeing on a budget recently, isn’t it obvious for these congressmen that they should stop funding it with billions of dollars? It looks like the agency is in charge and sets the rules, instead of the democratic powers…
Pathetic fools, all of them.
When the highest office in the land continuously lies to the American people, obfuscates the truth on the nature of its activities, runs wars without congressional approval, works hard at strengthening its powers well beyond the scope of what it was initially intended to do, it should not be surprising to see the same sort of attitude to power, elected officials, and that utterly ridiculous side-show called participative democracy percolate down to other large governmental agencies, such as the NSA. The scope of the spying is a surprise, but the NSA’s dismissive attitude towards the equally obfuscating, mostly subservient, mostly utterly corrupt elected members of the US Congress is not.
4 Likes
Yeah, well, the same thing has been suggested in the 1990ies when infos about the Echelon system leaked.
“Only the poor have anything to fear… that’s 99% of you…”
No, it isn’t.
From day one it was is the NSA’s goal to collect everything from everone. They worked hard for decades to develop, maintain and expand their capabilities, using a lot of very smart people and untold billions.
For all practical purposes you can call that ‘unlimited resources’.
They’ve put themselves in a position where they don’t have ‘to stay ahead of the game’ as such, by now they can pretty much define, control and run ‘the game’ themselves.
Arguably, from, say, 1950 on there isn’t one bit of communications and computing technology that hasn’t been developed without the NSA monitoring and evaluating it in some way. Not to mention being discreetly involved in the development. Or the technology they are developing themselves. And the pre-1950ies stuff was easy enough to analyze for them.
These guys are really, really good at what they are doing.
Problem is, they’re not the good guys anymore (if they ever were), and they’re not doing good.
2 Likes
That sounds a lot like the NSA begging to be put down. Are they some kind of career suicidal when they bullshit their boss?
But you know only foot soldiers ever get put on trial. Yea, put 'em in a cell, that’ll teach their bosses a lesson!
1 Like
And they’ll just spin it to their advantage, getting lucrative book and television deals with their rock star lifestyles…there is no shock anymore…
They aren’t afraid of congress that’s laughable. Given their data collection capabilities, along with basic forgery skills, the “gotcha” nature of our entire current political climate, any number of, or any individual congresscritter can be “nuked from orbit” via a simple strategic leak of an ill advised phrasing or inside joke. Any Republican who ever wondered out loud if maybe there should be some limit on the second amendment, any democrat who ever uttered anything that might offend the professionally offended wing of that party, this is essentially everyone, even if they never did anything a reasonable person could construe as “wrong” now, toss in the fact they are all lawyers, many of them crooks.
The NSA therefore has essentially 100% effective career destruction capability of any and all who would oppose them, correct? Never mind if they resort to some sort of dirty tricks. A lot of us grew up in what we believed was a free country, and we often still act like it is, but it isn’t, and hasn’t been for some time now. At least five or ten years. The president thinks he can have you killed if a secret court says it’s OK…
Even worse, he was supposed to make that sort of thing BETTER not worse. What recourse do we have? Vote for the more traditionally authoritarian party which has long given the military and political elites whatever power they request? Sure that sounds like it will make it better.
Write something like that, and I wonder if it’s smart to post it online? IBM’s Watson AI, combined with the google search technology and ubiquitous data collection, they{1} see my name, cross reference whatever other silly things I’ve said online…
1: I hope we’re not there yet but clearly when Big Brother arrives completely he will be an all seeing AI serving some secretive behind the scenes masters, at least in the beginning at some point they’ll be serving him, and we’ll have gotten exactly what we deserve.
2 Likes
NSA can have all the dirt on politicians they want – it won’t change a thing. People who support the Left will dismiss it as Right propaganda and vice versa.
Twenty years ago it could have killed careers. Now, people who vote brag about worse things on their Facebook pages and they are not going to care. At worst, politician says he is sorry, writes a book, becomes TV pundit and retains clout. If he is unrepentant, he won’t go anywhere.
Shaming as a political weapon is a blade that has been dulled. It will only rattle the rival side, but does nothing to shake the believers, Left or Right.
2 Likes
I do not think twice about saying what I think about this online or any other way. I refuse to do that. They may get to record the existence of my every utterance, location, human contact, and meal - but I still own the power of free speech, and by God, I’m gonna speak freely! To them, about them, near them, and to anybody I choose. Because, if my personal power is limited and my personal rights are violated (literally) up the wazoo, then if I can at least set an example of fearlessness that’s what I probably should be doing.
I’m am not afraid of these guys - I am extremely pissed at them. I believe you should also speak fearlessly and I hope you see it the same way.
Jump to the Right? Hardly! This mess is utterly bipartisan! Here’s the text of the email I got from Marco Rubio on the NSA scandal:
"Thank you for taking the time to contact me regarding leaked reports concerning the National Security Agency’s collection programs to safeguard our nation. This is an important issue and I am grateful for your thoughts as well as the opportunity to respond.
As you know, it was recently leaked to the media that the National Security Agency has collected phone record metadata as a tool used to track terrorists. This dangerous national security leak allegedly came from Edward Snowden, a contractor working for the NSA with a top secret security clearance. As we continue to learn about the information that Snowden had access to, it is important to consider both the national security perspective and the protection of individual privacy granted to U.S. citizens through the Constitution. As a member of the Select Committee on Intelligence, I have been briefed on these programs and know that they are valuable tools used by our government to protect the U.S homeland. Please know that I will continue to follow this situation closely and ensure that any privacy concern is heard and addressed appropriately.
It is an honor and a privilege to serve as your United States Senator. I appreciate you offering your opinion on this important issue. If I can ever be of assistance to you, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
Marco Rubio United States Senator"
And my response, which I post here in front of God and everydamnbody:
Dear Senator Rubio,
You do not ‘represent’ me, let alone my interests or anyone else’s. You serve only your own ambitions, you selfish, self-important prick. And apparently, you have either never bothered to read the Bill of Rights, or else you have chosen to disregard it entirely.
Therefore, you, your beloved NSA, and the Select Committee on Intelligence can absolutely kiss my American ass. Obviously, you know where to find it. But please feel free to call any time for detailed instructions.
Sincerely,
Alice Weir United States Citizen
6 Likes
Nicely done! And vote with your feet. Here’s how not voting can effect change.
In the USA, we are taught to vote, no matter what, and we are demonized if we don’t vote. That is an old superstition.
The core element in the voting sentiment is mathematically true: We are told that the more votes a candidate gets (“get out the vote!”), the better their chances of winning. True.
But guess what… the reverse is true, too.
The more votes a candidate DOESN’T get, the worse are their chances of winning.
Like, duh, right?
Not only this, but the more people who don’t vote, PERIOD, the more that increases the volatility of the voting system, and therefore decreases any one candidate’s chances of success.
If it’s an entire system that you despise, full of people you cannot in good conscience vote for, then you do have a viable third option: DON’T VOTE. But you have a responsibility that comes with that choice, too. You have to ensure that OTHERS don’t vote in that election, too.
If the government is full of scoundrels and bad choices, and only scoundrel candidates are knocking on the doors, then your responsibility as an American is to NOT VOTE FOR THAT GOVERNMENT!
I have already made plans to vote - but to do it this way:
- In all cases where more than 2 party’s candidates are available, vote for the third party.
- In all cases, vote against the incumbent.
That way, we fire them all. It won’t make a real difference if all that happens is that the Dems and Reps switch places, thus the 3rd party votes as first preference. I don’t even have to like or approve of aid third party, because they’re all a possible improvement over the present mess. That would be enough to throw them out of whack and also get rid of everyone who played this “Um, who, me?” game and allowed this NSA thing to drag on unopposed.
(I’m not voting for anybody, but voting against all of them. Same idea, different method.)
Edited to add: Also doesn’t interfere with awjt’s method above, should you choose that one instead.
3 Likes
I like it. Just “don’t throw your vote away”! LOL.
Now, these rules get dicier (“dice-y-er”… I don’t know how to spell dicier so it looks right) the closer you get to the local level. At the truly local level, it makes no sense to differentiate candidates into D and R. It’s preposterous. So, at the local level, you really need to do your homework as a voter and citizen. Read the local papers, talk to people, even talk to the candidates and find out what their angle is. Sometimes, there are good ones.
Occasionally, in lucky areas, there are good people at the national level, too, who identify D or R. OCCASIONALLY, such as Bernie (not D or R but I) or Elizabeth Warren, or Jim Jeffords way back. It’s rare, and these people are subject to the same Washington DC bullshit that everyone else is, so treat them with a block of salt.
I’m just trying to say that my exhortations not to vote are not an inflexible suggestion. There are cases when it’s useful to vote for one of the plain vanilla candidates. But do your research, and never vote blind. It’s better not to vote than vote in a slate. Far better to go third-party or not vote at all, if you don’t know what you’re doing.
Good conversation, AliceWeir, thanks. AWJT
1 Like
I understand that Congress wraps itself in lots of layers of bureaucracy to prevent itself from actually making laws, and that the NSA has enough data to make almost anyone look like a monster. Still, in the more naive parts of my imagination picture a senator saying, “Here’s a bill that permanently strips your agency of all funding. It gets voted on on Tuesday. I expect thorough and accurate answers to every question on this list before then.”
1 Like
Thanks to you , too.
With the recently-extended National Defense Authorization Act with its near $700 billion budget and authorization for the President to order any citizen apprehended on US soil and held indefinitely without trial. In Congress, only 3 Democrats and 12 Republicans voted against it!
At the state level, however, Governor Jerry Brown, in CA, called for a state law to ban any cooperation whatsoever at state level with this monstrosity. It passed overwhelmingly, with exactly 1 dissenting vote. That’s 80 members - 54 Democrats, 25 Republicans, and 1 vacant seat.
So, there are some positive actions that can be taken at the state level. MOC’s running in the next election are certain to begin grandstanding and claiming positions their votes last month absolutely deny. But, we only have to fire them en masse once to get the message through loud and clear.
2 Likes
