Tuesday, January 14, 2014

"Once you pick a side you lose the ability to reason..."

"During an NPR interview, the NSA's outgoing deputy director John C Inglis -- the top civilian official in the NSA hierarchy -- admitted that the NSA's mass surveillance program had foiled a total of one terrorist plot (an attempt to wire some money to al-Shabaab in Somalia) in its entire history. But he doesn't want to get rid of his agency's program of spying on everything every American does, because it's an "insurance policy" in case someone tries the kind of terrorist attack that it might foil."



 "I'm not a member of a political party. That's intentional. Once you pick a side you lose the ability to reason and you start agreeing with whatever dumbass thing your team supports. Whenever I explain my reasons for not joining a political party, people scoff. So here's some recent science that supports my view. It turns out that people rationalize whatever their political party supports independent of the facts. And it's easy to test. "



"First and foremost, the surveillance state is robust. It is robust politically, legally, and technically. I can name three different NSA programs to collect Gmail user data. These programs are based on three different technical eavesdropping capabilities. They rely on three different legal authorities. They involve collaborations with three different companies. And this is just Gmail. The same is true for cell phone call records, Internet chats, cell-phone location data. 

Second, the NSA continues to lie about its capabilities. It hides behind tortured interpretations of words like "collect," "incidentally," "target," and "directed." It cloaks programs in multiple code names to obscure their full extent and capabilities. Officials testify that a particular surveillance activity is not done under one particular program or authority, conveniently omitting that it is done under some other program or authority.

Third, US government surveillance is not just about the NSA. The Snowden documents have given us extraordinary details about the NSA's activities, but we now know that the CIA, NRO, FBI, DEA, and local police all engage in ubiquitous surveillance using the same sorts of eavesdropping tools, and that they regularly share information with each other. The NSA's collect-everything mentality is largely a hold-over from the Cold War, when a voyeuristic interest in the Soviet Union was the norm. Still, it is unclear how effective targeted surveillance against "enemy" countries really is. Even when we learn actual secrets, as we did regarding Syria's use of chemical weapons earlier this year, we often can't do anything with the information...

Not only is ubiquitous surveillance ineffective, it is extraordinarily costly. I don't mean just the budgets, which will continue to skyrocket. Or the diplomatic costs, as country after country learns of our surveillance programs against their citizens. I'm also talking about the cost to our society. It breaks so much of what our society has built. It breaks our political systems, as Congress is unable to provide any meaningful oversight and citizens are kept in the dark about what government does. It breaks our legal systems, as laws are ignored or reinterpreted, and people are unable to challenge government actions in court. It breaks our commercial systems, as US computer products and services are no longer trusted worldwide. It breaks our technical systems, as the very protocols of the Internet become untrusted. And it breaks our social systems; the loss of privacy, freedom, and liberty is much more damaging to our society than the occasional act of random violence. And finally, these systems are susceptible to abuse. This is not just a hypothetical problem."



"While I had Bob on the phone, one thing I’d always wanted to ask him was how one went about becoming a member of the Bavarian Illuminati, since it’d long been rumored that he was the Secret Chief of this infernal and equally illustrious occult order of conniving supermen. “Bob,” I queried, “Are you the Head of the Illuminati?” “No,” he replied, in typical satiric fashion, “I’m the toe.” Not exactly the answer I was looking for, but just the same I asked if he could appoint me as an Illuminati High Priest, to which he didn’t hesitate one second: “You are hereby appointed.” And although this lofty position hasn’t improved my sex life or finances to any measurable degree, you must admit its one hell of an honor belonging to a secret order associated with Robert Anton Wilson...

A couple weeks before Bob’s death, a blog for him was started, which now appears as a swan song; his way to say farewell to all the people who had come to his aid during those final days. Bob’s last blog entry read: “Please pardon my levity, I don’t see how to take death seriously. It seems absurd… I remain cheerful and unimpressed. I look forward without dogmatic optimism but without dread. I love you all and I deeply implore you to keep the lasagna flying.” Hail Eris. All Hail Bob!"


"Piping hot tortillas filled with free-range chicken, grass-fed beef, uncured bacon, and cage-free eggs. Cold guacamole and sour cream. Hot sauce. No hormones. No antibiotics. That may sound a lot like Chipotle. In reality, it’s a burrito cooked and dispensed by Burritobox within a minute and it's available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. “We do not cook a frozen burrito. This has been a huge misconception from some people,” insists The Box Brands co-founder and CEO Denis Koci. “It's not possible to cook a frozen burrito in 60 seconds, nor would it taste good.”"

"Marijuana, already legal in two states and on the verge of legitimacy in others, may become a product that can easily be purchased via vending machine. A Phoenix-based company behind the pot machines, Endexx Corp., envisions a transaction unfolding like this: A woman in Colorado, where recreational pot is legal, uses an app on her iPhone to purchase an ounce of weed, then goes to pick it up at her favorite retail outlet. There, she encounters the vending machine and uses its touch screen to complete her order, adding a book of rolling papers and a cigarette lighter."

"In too much of the country, dispatching intimidating shock troops in riot gear has become the default response to protest."


"Why, despite an evolving national temperament on cannabis, have New York legislators remained so stubborn on the issue? And why have most states lagged so far behind public opinion in their efforts to roll back marijuana bans? To answer this question, it is necessary to examine a federal law passed by the US Congress in the 1980s that gave law enforcement agencies everywhere a moneyed interest in perpetuating all aspects of the war on drugs, including marijuana prohibition...

When Democrats in the New York State Assembly passed a bill in early 2012 to decriminalize possession of up to 25 grams of marijuana - the same amount that had already been "decriminalized" 35 years earlier - Senator Greg Ball was aghast. "In a community where we have children dying from drugs and alcohol it is simply unconscionable that any legislator would even consider decriminalizing marijuana," he stated in a press statement at the time. Aside from his concern for the children, Senator Ball has another stake in the drug war: He receives thousands of dollars in financial backing from the Police Association of Yonkers, the union representing the local agency awarded $155,521 in Byrne grant money in 2012.

Senator Dean Skelos, the majority leader in the Senate, also opposed the measure, citing an absurd fear of New Yorkers "walk[ing] around with 10 joints in their ear." Skelos received $10,000 in campaign finances from the New York Police Investigators Association, a collective of investigators spread out across the state who also gave a significant sum of money to drug warrior and former sheriff Senator Patrick Gullivan.  Public records reveal that nearly all of the Republicans who opposed the 2012 bill to decriminalize small amounts of cannabis receive backing from state law enforcement unions.

...no matter how well articulated the benefits of marijuana legalization - or even modest decriminalization - are, conservative senators in New York will have their judgment clouded by monetary incentives that can be traced back to the federal government's complex drug war financing scheme."




No comments:

Post a Comment