David Cameron has encouraged a Commons select committee to investigate whether the Guardian has broken the law or damaged national security by publishing secrets leaked by the National Security Agency whistleblower Edward Snowden.
I've read that statement over and over and over again, and I still don't see what the double standard is. Both involve reporting on things of public interest, which, last I checked, is exactly what news organizations are supposed to do.
Mike, it's pure confirmation bias. Cameron is working with an assumption that he believes is a fact. It's what makes him dangerous because he's an authoritarian looking for heads to bust. Your logic and facts are invalid. You've slighted him by exposing the schemes he's had on national security.
That's what his agenda truly is. Cover up the crimes while he's in charge so that it doesn't come to bite him and there's no accountability for his lack of concern for his nation's needs.
I don't even have to read the entire article to basically tell you what the security agencies can do. Every last LEO has done quite a lot of damage to democracy.
The CIA has usurped democracy all over the world. It's biggest usurpation was Iran.
The FBI usurps civil rights. There's the COINTELPRO program, their use of the code name "terrorist" to usurp the right of activists and then there's the entire throw people in jail mentality that is prevalent in all of the LEOs.
And don't get me started on the DoJ...
Then I can name a number of people who have used the power of their position in government to destroy public discourse...
Richard Nixon E Howard Hunt Edward Bernays Murray Chotiner James Clapper Keith Alexander Woodrow Wilson George Bush Barack Obama Ronald Reagan
I could go on and on with other names thanks to the entire Watergate Scandal, the NSA scandal, the Espionage Act passed by Woodrow, Bush's usurpation of democracy, Obama's fourth term of Bush, and Reagan's Iran-Contra Scandal, but you see the point.
How can I trust the government when it does so much to destroy the public instead of help it?
Iirc, Anders Breivik in Norway was on trial for his crimes but the people didn't lose their minds. They told him to write his thoughts and present them to the public.
You could see how he terrorized people. Yet, since 9/11 we've been gripped with a paranoia that hadn't made us any safer. It's time to end it.
We need to get people to think again about what is happening to this country. The terror problem is mainly manufactured to help out the military-industrial complex far more than it helps the average citizen.
And what is happening is that people need to vote for a good candidate that represents their interests. The vote would undo some of the damage as we saw in the 1930s when the public had more power in politics.
But right now, we have an aristocracy of the top 5% who have a LOT of money from our system. So we need our democracy back or else we lose.
No. As far back as the early millenium, Japan had a CD rental service along with other parts to their economy that I can explain later. The RIAA is all American. It's not the RIAJ. Basically, this is going to my experience in the country. The computer has effectively taken over as a large library for people along with places like 2chan over going to Tsutaya for music.
I'd argue that there are other things to consider about the 2008 downfall.
For the past 30 years, people don't have the money to spend on music and their behavior has changed in how they consider them. They consider free music a cheap alternative and spend the money on larger consumables. So the very same money is still going to other aspects of the economy as shown above (or maybe grocery stores).
What would make the recording industry come back would be the things the lobbyists and CEOs don't really want in the RIAA... Namely, higher taxation on their profits, subsidized music, more work done in understanding consumer behavior in the economy, and less copyright advocacy.
That would problably put the RIAA out of business as it doesn't work to help them or their argument.
I'd argue that's the issue of neoclassical economics. Honestly, Obama isn't a right leaning centrist. He IS a right winger similar to FDR before he got a lot of problems from grass roots advocacy that forced him to turn into a progressive.
The problem is that the US spent the last 60 years decimating the left wing in America so it's splintered and weak. Unions were destroyed, Socialists were ostracized, and Communists were kept apart. With that out of the way, you get more right wingers that are more interested in the corporate machines that feed them. That's the entire problem of economics if you aren't careful. What you don't pay attention to can end up hurting your base.
Mike, I care for the articles, the research, and the economics that you hold to scrutiny.
But this just can't slide.
You see, that's not our intelligence community. That... Thing of LEOs is a beast that grew and grew into a hydra with many heads. We got the NSA as a result of the Second World War (give or take) and it's been working tirelessly to usurp democracy for generations.
James Bamford has great books on the subject. But the NSA doesn't CARE about the American people. It didn't in the 50s under Nixon, it didn't under any other president since and the American people have seen this exposed for the second or third time. This hydra cares only about the people that feed it and it isn't the American public. The public it serves has interest only in war and the money it receives in destruction.
To them, the Constitution is a piece of paper only meant to serve the needs of its master. It doesn't protect every single American born in the US.
So with all due respect, that isn't an intelligent thing to do. It also isn't intelligent to only serve the largest monetary interest. It's greed and dishonesty that brought down Nixon and even Reagan during the Iran-Contra scandal.
If we want an intelligence community, it would be with academics, researchers, and people interested in these topics without assumptions, without backwards thinking, and able to present ways to discuss these issues without trying to have power over others.
I don't know... Maybe it's a pipe dream now, but that sounds like something better than a drone strike in a foreign country with nothing more than a gut belief.