Saturday assorted links


The situation of Snowden is very telling at how broken whistleblowing is within the NSA and/or other arms of the security state. Clearly, he had the public interest at heart. But to ensure that the whistle actually got blown, he deemed it necessary to do ... exactly what he did.

Does anyone honestly believe the public would have found out about the massive extent of illegal activities within the NSA et al had he gone through traditional/formal channels to blow that whistle?

Even for those who welcome the spy state and are indifferent to the significant threats it likely implies for a variety of freedoms and even the ability for electoral/representative democracy to function much at all as intended, it should have been debated openly, and the ways in which the NSA et al flout Congressional authority, and more especially how they never receive legal sanction against their law breaking, is very troubling. They work for us. We make the rules, and they both follow and enforce them. It's their job. Zero accountability within the security state seems to have become the norm.

Except for the little fact that there wasn't anything illegal there, and he wasn't whistle-blowing but rather revealing secret information he was contract bound not to reveal.

Details details.

> Except for the little fact that there wasn’t anything illegal there

Except that courts have ruled that there was:

This is old news. If you believe yourself qualified to comment on this issue, how do you not know this?

", how do you not know this?"

Because I know something you don't. See, I don't get all my news from Zero Hedge or RT.


Segregation was legally enforced. Didn't make it right. Slavery was legally enforced. Didn't make it right. Surveillance state is legally enforced under secret courts. Doesn't make it right.

Not much that was illegal, under the IC odd interpretation of what words like "collect" means and given that the law is whatever FISC will agree to, yes. However, that's equally consistent with "behavior that Americans thought was illegal and didn't know that waa being authorized by secret and classified interpretations of law." Similarly, "not illegal because we managed to keep it from being ruled upon by a court by hiding it, and then made moot because the law was changed to make it illegal and we stopped or to retroactively legalize it in other cases" are also forms of "not illegal" where whistle blowing is a reasonable term.

Sometimes, though you will argue not here, the scandal is what is technically legal but not known to people or oversight.

Historically the executive branch (beginning with Washington) did so with virtually no oversight by other branches, let alone the public at large. The whole point of representative democracy is precisely to empower representatives to work these things out.

No one voted for Snowden and he had only his own irresponsible view of the public interest at heart. He needs to be held to account by the public. If he is charged with a crime and a jury agrees with him, then the jury can acquit him.

Assuming that the representatives actually wanted to do their job, the NSA was hiding the information that would allow them to do it.

I would be quite content to allow a jury to decide the issue. Especially considering that it's unlikely that he would be found guilty. In which case, I highly doubt that the powers that be would leave the decision to a jury. But maybe they will surprise us?

It's not only likely, but almost certain, that he would be found guilty.

What he did was not whistle blowing. It was downright treason.

Chelsea Manning's crimes, pertaining to the US's dealings with its enemies, are plausibly treason. Edward Snowden's actions, pertaining to the U.S.'s dealings with its populace, become treasonous only if you want to make the argument that the Federal government is legally the enemy of the people.

The claim that the NSA was deliberating hiding the information is debatable. Whether Congress is doing its job adequately is for the voters to decide. So it is incumbent on the critics of Congress to convince voters, not arrogate the right to represent them and illegally act in their name.

If federal prosecutors are not even prepared to charge Snowden with a crime (because they don't think that they can win the case), he's got no legal worries (I'm sure he'd have an army of lawyers prepared to defend his rights pro bono). So he can come back to the US and enjoy a ticker tape parade from people like you.

Is it debatable that the head of the NSA lied to Sen Wyden of the oversight committee about NSA collection? And was he held accountable?

Go back to your liberal and libertarian traitors. May Donald trump Hillary!!!

That was supposed to be a reply to "Troll me". I am actually libertarian, and agree with the whistleblower statements of "Troll me". The Donald support is out of spite, following a wimpy congress that has abrogated its responsibility to declare or not declare war, and lost its grip on the purse string.

You are not actually libertarian if you support Donald, whether out of spite or not. Donald has made unequivocal statements in favor of all the controversial spying, that the claimed whistle-blowers are all traitors, and says he would definitely enter troops and engage in unapproved torture, war spending, and bombing techniques without Congressional approval.

I have no patience for even trolling support of that buffoon, or for the people who latch onto half of his self contradictory statements whilst ignoring the other half because they are blinded by glamor, charisma, and wishful thinking.

I'm not a Trump fan, but I think you badly mischaracterize the Trump phenomenon. Glamor? Charisma? OK, some wishful thinking, for sure.

So far, something like 10 million people have taken the active step of voting for the guy, despite a relentless, months-long concerted effort from almost all quarters of 'polite' society to take him down.

The "finger in the eye" to all of that may be a big component of his appeal.

That and the ole "you're being ripped off by shadowy forces" wheeze, a political staple (see Sanders, Bernie) that plays particularly well in or current era of competing claims of victimhood.

I don't see how that is inconsistent with glamor and charisma being a big part of it.

One of the few things Donald has been consistent on is that he has consistently referred to Snowden as a traitor and Soviet agent, supports expanding the Patriot Act and surveillance, and wholeheartedly agreed with the Obama Administration in forcing Apple to decrypt the phone.

Any support of Trump because people actually favor Snowden is baffling to the extreme. He is the candidate most likely to give us either the old Russia or today's Russia. I greatly dislike Hillary, but every one of her faults he has even larger.

There is an old Russian fairy tale, where somebody discovers an egg sized object, and an old timer explains that the object is a grain of wheat (or perhaps another cereal) from the old days. This is consistent with the Russian attitude about enjoying today, because tomorrow will be worse.

Today's SJW leaders bring us yesterday's Russia. Almost everything the government does, uses my money to make my world less livable for me.

The current president was and is an empty suit. He wrote some essay about how he was worried about getting a rental car when attending a Democratic national convention, because of credit problems and not having a credit card. That should tell enough. His (2012) ridiculing of Romney's prescient statement about Russia being the greatest foe was consistent with his administration's overall foreign policy competency.

The final 4 candidates were analogues of Cesar Chavez, Cristina Kirchner, Berlusconi, and Nehemiah Scudder. Socialist, Family Dynasty, Populist, Religious Nut (but otherwise the most libertarian, probably since Eisenhower). There is no good choice for a libertarian, only the adage that my enemy's enemy is my friend.

The only thing I can do as a libertarian, is to practice a crusade against bonds used to finance deficits, or vote with my wallet and leave the country, as the few 10K's we pay in taxes are used for evil and stupid purposes.

#4 - It's pretty telling to see what are the backgrounds of these "latin musicians": 1 Colombian, 6 Puerto Rican, 2 Cuban-American, 2 Mexican, 1 Cuban, 2 Mexican-American, 1 Spanish-Filipino, 1 Dominican-American, 1 Dominican-Puerto Rican-American. I think it says a lot about what is considered latin music and what does the "latin" label imply in the United States.

4. Is Latin music going mainstream?

Surely that article is not about Latin music going mainstream but about the mainstream going Hispanic - demographic replacements in other words. The US is just a lot more Latin than it was when Ricky Ricardo was on TV every night. More so than when Gloria Estefan was making millions. More so even than when J-Lo had her butt on every magazine in the country but was still claiming to be Jenny from the Block.

Has there ever been a time when Latin music has not been mainstream?

Lucy, is that you?

Latin music has been on the verge of going mainstream -- I'd say since the 1940s. Every time popular anglo music starts to get stale, someone jumps up and says, the age of Latin music has arrived. Ricky Ricardo was part of one of these Latin wavelets. Then Anglo music finds a new creative angle, and Latin and music goes back into the basement. The fact is, the stuff is incredibly stimulating in small doses, but after 15 minutes of blaring horns, dinky, repetitive percussion, and some sweaty guy in an open shirt hollering "mi corazon!", anyone with a brain is saying "Get me out of here!"

Pretty much this. As is the case with almost all "ethnic" music.

PS: What's this "anglo" s**t that's being used these days? That's not even the right nationality, never mind ethnicity (and certainly not race)

I suppose someone could say "Anglophone" but that sounds excessively pedantic just as almost nobody says "Hispanophone" in ordinary conversation and uses shortcuts like "Latin." The term "Latin" should be equally troublesome to a literalist like you.

Ok thanks for explaining that "anglo" is short for anglophone.

Although I doubt that is how it's used. Blacks, are not called "anglo", by the people who use that word. Nor Ricky Martin, even though he speaks English (I assume)

Not sure what the crazy woman wants to accomplish with her obsession about height. I know it is correlated with income, but if the people really are 'leet they should already have that, plus it is the minimum wage in those cities anyway. Other that that, anyone could just wear boots or something to be able to reach slightly higher objects. Plus I think people systematically overstate their true height relative to what it would be if their head hair is shaved off and they are not wearing any shoes or socks.

Has anyone tried decompiling the app? It probably isn't that exclusive but maybe that is how she got off the waiting list.

Many women are attracted to height. Men and women use physical attributes as a first cut for dating, especially with these apps. Fine for her, but her repeated obsession with it does make her complaints about douchey men on the service a bit ironic, at least if she thinks that men who only date attractive women and complain about profile photos and want measurements listed are douchey. Of course plenty of men are the reverse as well, being picky physically but mad when women are too.

Height correlates with penis size and you can't very well have that included as a dating site metric. Sorry short guys, it's just true. But yeah, she's obnoxious. Perhaps, guys don't message her back because she isn't especially attractive.

#4. This is Latin music:

Most great music in today's globalized world is not recognizably ethnic. Those musicians that do choose to focus on their own ethnicity don't seem to be making hit music. There is great music being made by musicians in Latin America or who have mestizo ethnicity, but they aren't the ones trying to be ethnic. Similarly with musicians from Europe. I hear some hit music coming from artists in Italy or Sweden, for example, and the artists may be ethnic, but their music isn't recognizably ethnic at all.

Billboard seems to be pretty much behind the wave I believe. Reggaeton has been going down, like Hip-Hop, for like a decade already. Even the Latins now listen to EDM. Bonus, I once went to a Daddy Yankee concert. He came three hours late, apparently drunk, sang for less than an hour (or was it playback? hard to say) and then just left.

#4 It's interesting that Hispanic Americans spend more on music per capita than White Americans and other Americans (with less disposable income). Same situation as with cinema visits.

So are both of these more of a function of

a) Age Distribution (which would be the boring and obvious explanation, and so probably correct)

b) Hispanic Americans still being more keyed into actually going out and paying for physical stuff and experiences than Whites, who have tilted more to sitting in their bedrooms and living rooms with their Netflix and Youtube and Kindle and Steam (and piracy).

If the POTUS can lie for the "good" of the people, why not collect some meta data to find terrorists?

monoray zincirli caraskal

excellent submit, very informative. I ponder why the other experts of this sector don't notice this. You must continue your writing. I'm confident, you've a great readers' base already!|

Comments for this post are closed