Given the looks of that mole, I sure hope this Ron Paul supporter has health insurance
UPDATED: Like most people, I was freaked out when I first heard about what the National Security Agency was doing. But as we learned all three branches of the government had approved it -- unlike President Bush's sketchy executive order that enabled him to run his warrantless wiretap program from 2001-07 -- I became more ambivalent. And as we learn that Glenn Greenwald's story is unraveling (Key Facts Turning Out to Be Inaccurate) -- exposing things is only useful if we're being given the whole truth, and whether or not the NSA didn't "enlist nine tech giants, including Microsoft, Google, Facebook, and Apple, in a massive program of online spying" seems to be still seems to be in question -- it's becoming increasingly apparent to me that Edward Snowden is less of a whistleblower and more of an anti-government kook with an anti-government agenda. No one is happy that our privacy is being eroded. But the Constitution was not written when today's technology existed. Nor was it written when the threat of nuclear weapons existed. Perhaps calling Snowden a traitor is a bit much. But he's a Ron Paul supporter, which is practically the same thing. (When you proudly boast that Americans who can't afford or stupidly don't buy health insurance deserve to be sentenced to DEATH if they get sick, that's about as traitorous as it gets.) Like I said, I'm ambivalent about this whole thing. But let's just say the irony of his fleeing to China to escape the tyranny of the U.S. government isn't lost on me.
P.S. Am I a "hypocrite" about this? Apparently no more than the rest of the nation The truth is, I am more comfortable with a president I trust and who has shown he has similar values as me doing this than I was when Dick Cheney was president. (Putting the legalities of it aside, I don't fault Republicans who were more comfortable back then.) Could we all be wrong? Sure. But I don't think it's incorrect to base your opinions on past experiences.
P.S. Am I a "hypocrite" about this? Apparently no more than the rest of the nation The truth is, I am more comfortable with a president I trust and who has shown he has similar values as me doing this than I was when Dick Cheney was president. (Putting the legalities of it aside, I don't fault Republicans who were more comfortable back then.) Could we all be wrong? Sure. But I don't think it's incorrect to base your opinions on past experiences.
11 comments:
No, the story is not unraveling, unless by story you mean that a guy who worked for an NSA contractor spying on his fellow citizens turns out to be a bit of a kook. But that's not the real story, is it? The real story, which we've known about for a long time and which does not depend on the Snowden revelations (although these add something concrete to it), is that the US government has been systematically spying on everyone for the last decade and creating massive databases of emails, phonecalls, texts – and that huge amounts of our tax dollars are used to fund this data-collection program, and that much of the money goes to private contractors like the company that Snowden worked for.
The real story is that this is a terrible thing to do in a supposedly democratic state, and that the moment someone is president who is not Barack Obama, the shit is going to hit the fan. Can you imagine if a virulently anti-gay candidate got elected president and had at least nominal support in Congress (and this is not an outrageous scenario, even in a society that is trending in a good direction on gay rights) and had access to this kind of database along with a fanatical willingness to use it? That, Ken, seems to me to be the real story.
Why fixate on Snowden as a personality? The real story is much bigger than him.
It isn't that there is nothing to it but I don't get what we r gonna do--make it illegal and then sit back a the entire rest of the planets governments do it?
If you ask me, Barack Obama is a bigger traitor than Snowden. His job description is to uphold the Constitution, not find ways to undermine it. I have no sympathy for a government that lies cheats and steals information and flagrantly disregards the Bill of Rights in the name of "national security." That is the definition of treason.
@Anonymous 1: Certain details do seem to be unraveling -- the direct involvement of Microsoft, Google, Facebook and Apple, etc. -- but I don't disagree with you that I am letting WHO is behind this type of program does affect how concerned I am about it. That may seem stupid/partisan/wrong, but to me it's no different than saying I am OK with certain people babysitting my child but not others. Sometimes leadership does matter -- and if some feel this is scarier/worse than President Bush's warrantless wiretap program -- that Congress DID NOT know about -- then I can't argue with their opinion on that.
I get the same feeling about Snowden that I got about that creepy guy who confessed to the JonBonet Ramsey murder. There is something else going on inside that man's mind than what his words suggest.
I think you put it perfectly. Right down to the "Dick Cheney was president" line. I always tell my friends I don't blame Bush for anything that occurred during the Cheney administration.
You have just lost all my respect as a blogger,journalist and social commentator!!!!!
I agree with you Kenneth - let's trust the Obama administration implicitly with monitoring all our communication with no checks and balances. That's the best takeaway from this story. And then when a right-wing president who wants to target gays is elected years down the road (or an IT contractor who has a personal grudge against your family is hired by a left-wing one), you can reap what you've sown. We get the police state we deserve, and nothing makes that clearer than your response to this case (I've always voted Democrat, but nothing makes me sicker than the sheep mentality of "Obama good, Bush bad" on identical policies)
If you think I'm overreacting, it's happened before:
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2013/06/george-takei-nsa-internment-camp.html
Then again, maybe the PR flack issuing you & Boy Culture freebies is also whispering your ear about this on someone's behalf. Well, even if your civil rights are eventually violated, at least you won't have to worry about displeasing any future corporate media employers, and you'll still keep getting comped.
(I doubt you'll have the journalistic integrity to post something this critical - if I'm wrong, maybe there's still a glimmer of hope)
@Anonymous at 10:43 PM: That's not exactly what I'm saying -- and my views are more Bill Maher than Boy Culture -- but this is the Internet, so close enough!
...and there's this, hot off the presses. This story is no longer about one guy who people can try to discredit:
https://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/12/us/nsa-disclosures-put-awkward-light-on-official-statements.html
Thank you for posting my earlier reply. I mentioned BoyCulture because its blogger is even more dismissive - saying the leaker was "anti-government", so therefore he's "officially disengaged from this as of now." The blogger actually said "privacy is a thing of the past" - it's almost like he's doing a parody of a newsreader in 1984. And then he has the gall to complain about anti-gay police attacks? What about the next homophobic president who has this system in place to go after whoever he wants?
Curiously, just like you, he uses the same selectively reported takedown piece from The Daily Banter (?) to discredit reporting from The Guardian, the Washington Post and the NYTimes, all of which (with the occasional Judith Miller and Jason Blair aside) have been the top journalistic sources since the f----ing 1800s.
I look forward to further stories the Guardian says will be running from the source, which hopefully will shake more people out of their complacency.
There's no question it is not ideal. But do we want every govermnent contractor deciding when classified infomation should be made public?
Post a Comment