June 21, 2013

It's not scandal. It is the apparatus of tyranny.

And this apparatus has been built over many decades, as presidents came and went, before it finally went turbo under the Bush regime.

I dispute that Republicans consider it a scandal. There might be a handful on the Rand Paul end who think it is. Most of them are with Cheney. They fully approve of the lucrative business for well-connected military-industrial-intel contractors. Republicans are all for plundering tax money for the national security state. They fully approve of total surveillance and total policing. They can't wait to get their hands back on it, without any limits or the pretend limits the government is purporting are in place. The only thing most of them think is scandalous is that the administration is pretending there are limits on this beast. They want no limits on the beast.

And just because it's "legal" doesn't mean it's not self-evidently unconstitutional.

June 20, 2013

I have said nothing about the glass, DNC Guy.

Go take your glass point to whoever said that.

1. Thank you for your permission to me to "may... be disappointed with the President." Actually, I'm not. I happen to know what the corporatist state produces, and don't expect mere elections to change the main outlines of corporatism (though it matters for a few other significant reasons). That takes mass movements.

2. That "Barrier of Protection for OUR President" (love the totalitarian rhetoric, do you really think it works?) happens to be standing exactly where the western side of the Berlin Wall stood until 1989. Don't imagine the symbolism is lost on ANYONE in Germany. And this wall, erm, sorry, barrier is there to assure NO PROTESTS in Berlin during the visit of the American CEO -- who has dispensed with rhetoric of change and is working hard to become interchangeable with the entire sorry crew starting with his admitted role-model, Reagan.

3. And you can go find a bunch of pictures! Seated, standing, whatever - I even overestimated the crowd initially. It's invitation only for 4000-5000 exemplars of the connected German establishment. Something they didn't do with Clinton, by the way. He could still speak to an open crowd, and he was president. But times change. And it speaks volumes about Berlin's attitude to the visit of the American CEO, because if they'd not done it this way, there would have been protests, not the jubilation as when the hope of not-Bush visited in 2008.

But I'll have to remember that - "It's not a wall, it's a Barrier of Protection for OUR President!" L-O-Fucking-L. Thanks again.

June 20, 2013

Some social psychology studies find...

That people are influenced into repeating an opinion they hear often.

However, the number of times they hear it is more important than the number of people actually saying it. A vocal minority can work almost as well as a majority in influencing the opinions of a large segment of the population.

This is why constant repetition of the exact same pre-chewed talking points, no matter how stupid, has become a central aspect of modern, "scientific" public relations. This form of saturation brainwashing is considered to work well enough that companies invest billions to do it on TV every year. (Would you like to save 15% on your car insurance?)

The right wing understands this extremely well. As do sophists in general, whether they are opportunists or just committed team players.

June 20, 2013

Obama in Berlin, 2008 vs. 2013.

Obama in Berlin, 2008:


Obama in Berlin, 2013:


Besides the relative extreme sparseness of the establishment crowd in attendance, note that on the far side of Brandenburg Gate in this photo, the wall has been re-created; possibly to prevent access to the unwanted?

I lived in Berlin for 10 years, by the way, so I know what I'm looking at. The 2008 crowd was estimated at 250,000, the 2013 crowd looks like 5 to 10.

A few more here that make it even more obvious:
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2013/06/berlin-obama-2013-vs-2008/66388/

Just FYI.

June 20, 2013

And as for Berlin, you have confused 2013 with 2008.

Obama in Berlin, 2008:



Obama in Berlin, 2013:



Besides the relative extreme sparseness of the establishment crowd in attendance, note that on the far side of Brandenburg Gate in this photo, the wall has been re-created, possibly to prevent access to the unwanted.

I lived in Berlin for 10 years, by the way, so I know what I'm looking at. The 2008 crowd was estimated at 250,000, the 2013 crowd looks like 5 to 10.

A few more here:

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2013/06/berlin-obama-2013-vs-2008/66388/

Howzabout you correct yourself on an obvious mistake?

June 17, 2013

#Snowden: Last Word For Today, and It's For You, DU...

"Unfortunately, the mainstream media now seems more interested in what I said when I was 17 or what my girlfriend looks like, rather than, say, the largest program of suspicionless surveillance in human history."

June 17, 2013

The "walk back" says nothing about what Nadler thinks.

It says he's very happy that the administration issued an empty assurance that contradicts the briefing he received earlier.

It doesn't say "the briefing the other day" was incorrect.

June 17, 2013

My, you get my first rec for you.

Yes, and not just Obama.

Congress.

The corporate media.

The supposed free press.

NGOs.

Movements.

The whistleblowers themselves.

Countries. The United Nations. The EU. The Brics. The Latin American states.

Like so many other institutions of the modern corporate republic, this calls for a lot of Committees... of Correspondance.

June 17, 2013

Board Philosophy: Just how much flooding constitutes flooding?

For board veterans and new people alike, participating in a place like this can raise some fascinating questions.

For example:

Hazarding a guess, most people probably would agree starting three threads at a time for a serious issue that stirs your passions probably isn't too much.

How many threads started does it take to cross a limit into the antisocial? At what point does the practice constitute an attempt at rhetorical bullying?

For those who engage in flooding, does the strategy work? Are there pitfalls, or is it all payoff?

Are there particular motivations that might be fairly common among board personas who engage in such practices?

As I said, fascinating questions!

Discuss.

EDIT: Also, extra credit for citing examples.

June 17, 2013

#Snowden: "I could be living in a palace petting a phoenix by now"

Second question to Ed Snowden during Guardian's Q&A...

"Why didn't you go directly to Iceland"

ANSWER: "Leaving the US was an incredible risk, as NSA employees must declare their foreign travel 30 days in advance and are monitored. There was a distinct possibility I would be interdicted en route, so I had to travel with no advance booking to a country with the cultural and legal framework to allow me to work without being immediately detained. Hong Kong provided that. Iceland could be pushed harder, quicker, before the public could have a chance to make their feelings known, and I would not put that past the current US administration."

This time they've run into a strategic thinker.

"Edward, there is rampant speculation, outpacing facts, that you have or will provide classified US information to the Chinese or other governments in exchange for asylum. Have/will you?"

ANSWER: "This is a predictable smear that I anticipated before going public, as the US media has a knee-jerk 'RED CHINA!' reaction to anything involving HK or the PRC, and is intended to distract from the issue of US government misconduct. Ask yourself: if I were a Chinese spy, why wouldn't I have flown directly into Beijing? I could be living in a palace petting a phoenix by now."