Trust me, I'm trying to do something about it. Problem is I live in Seattle, which is still effectively Obamaville, USA last I checked. Seriously, Seattlites LOVED Obama in 2008. Little bit less outrageous about it in 2012, but they still voted for him like crazy last election.
Just replace every mention of America with China and his song starts to sound disturbingly like a mostly factual warning to travelers about China's health hazards.
More on topic: it sounds like the smog in China has gotten as bad as how people portray the air in late 19th century London. Seriously though, why are they just dancing around the issue instead of, I dunno, dealing with the source of the smog. Shut down the polluting factories! You're a big government China. I know you've got the necessary weight to force those factory owners to change their tu-
...what do you mean, "most of the guilty factories are state-run"?!
Is that apology for the 2008 vote, the 2012 vote, or both?
And yes, Obama has turned out to be a complete schmuck. Going into the corrupt hellhole located Maryland and Virginia and trying to please everyone made him a complete sucker for the legacy industries (and any other special interest that approached him. At least it feels that way).
Given how blunt McCain's known for being sometimes, I wouldn't be surprised if this was spokesman Brian Rogers trying to do damage control where it wasn't needed. After all, what Rogers sees as potentially damning to McCain's career, might be seen by many others as a positive statement and get him more support.
... Actually, scratch that. Considering that there are many slimeball politicians who would twist McCain's words and make it look like he was calling for Obama to resign, doing this double-speak bull crap makes sense, given what goes on in that wackoland that exists inside the Beltway.
Given the fact that we've had to pry every single bit of information from the NSA that doesn't come from the Snowden documents and they've been more evasive than a politician in the middle of a sex scandal in telling us anything of substance other than regurgitating their already-debunked talking points. I mean, we really haven't actually been told much about their actions that would make us understand what the agency's doing, let alone why they're doing it (at least, nothing more informative than a condescending, parent-like "because we know what's best for you", or just effectively "because").
Sure, maybe the tech world, the Internet, and at least 53% of Americans polled in that YouGov survey don't really know what's going on inside the NSA. Maybe they are doing things for good, altruistic reasons (even if all current evidence points to the contrary).
However, considering all the negative information we do know, everything pretty much points to the NSA having "something to hide".
Hmm.... that "something to hide" is probably the NSA itself, now that I think about it. They kinda seem content to hide in the background and let the CIA be the public face of the American intelligence community, at least as far as the average ignorant American citizen's knowledge of US spy agencies are concerned.
Considering he's ex-Air Force, this is probably the best we'll get
I get the feeling this the best McCain's going to give us as far as calling for heads on the proverbial chopping block when it the intelligence community is concerned [moot point since Kirk Alexander's going to be retiring from command of the USS Surveillance in a few months anyway].
We have to realize that a significant portion of the jury is still out on whether or not Snowden's a traitor. I've met several individuals with security clearances who considered the man a traitor and are still as pissed as the rest of us when we find out about the NSA's shennanigans. Hypocritical? Yeah, but that's human nature.
And McCain's reasons for calling for Alexander's resignation are just as valid as everyone who wants the dear general gone for his "COLLECT ALL TEH DATA" Constitution-violating policies.
Think of it this way: from McCain's view, the issue here is the intelligence community's sheer incompetence when it comes to protecting sensitive information (among other things), and I have to agree with the Senator when looking at things from the security angle. The interviewer mentions Manning and Cablegate. This was three years ago. The fact that Snowden was able to do all the things he did three years after the last time someone got their hands on the US' dirty secrets shows complete incompetence on the part of the US intel agencies to learn from past mistakes.
I'd be calling for Keith's head on a platter if I were in McCain's shoes for those reasons alone. I mean, if you can't be trusted to keep your own dirty laundry under wraps (legality and whether Congress lets the NSA gett away with it is another issue), then any security measures you helped set up around real, honest to god issues of national security (i.e. military secrets, power grid systems, etc) are immediately seen as potential easy targets by foreign aggressors (it'll most likely be China or North Korea, but who knows in today's world).
In short, McCain's reasons for doing this aren't wrong, they're just not the reasons most of the tech world, or at least the majority of TechDirt commentators, want him to use.
Some countries take the spying way too far. Like the NSA doing, well, everything the Snowden Documents have revealed that the agency's done so far. Or the French's reputation for making industrial espionage practically an unwritten part of their economic policy since back in the Cold War.
Brazil's spying on foreign dilplomats from a decade ago sounds pretty SOP as far as surveillance/spying is concerned, imo, when compared to the absurd "COLLECT ALL TEH DATA!!1!" approach done by the NSA.
...putting it on AMC's website was probably the mistake. That's not where people look for stuff these days.
If people want to watch a show badly enough, I'd wager that they'd be more than willing to deviate from their usual interweb watering holes in order to visit the network's site to catch the latest episodes of the show.
I actually ended up doing that for CW's Arrow series, and I pay a visit to the CW website every now and again to check up on it.
Sure, streaming it from the CW's site forces you to watch commercials just like with cable. That's a given. However, I actually took the time to compare video quality from the network site against a few streaming sites, and I have to admit that the CW's video quality is much better than (most) of the streaming sites.
Of course, part of the MPAA's[well, cable network really] problem is that they don't aggressively advertise the idea that you can stream (recent) episodes of their current shows on their website. The only cable network that I'm vaguely aware of which actually markets the website successfully is the USA Network. For me, their best ads for the streaming/"visit our website for more stuff about the show" came from Burn Notice, which just ended last month after going for seven amazing seasons and one side-story movie.
The other problem is that once a show goes off the air and into re-runs, Hollywood tend to drop the show from the network website (supposedly to make room for new content, which makes sense). Which is why my younger sibling, who's a growing fan of the old Sci-Fi channel's Eureka, has to searching for streaming sites in order to watch it.
In other words, the problem isn't people don't necessary look for stuff on the network websites, it's that the MPAA et. al. aren't doing enough to get the word out for the Internet side of the equation. It seems reasonable to assume that if Hollywood was more outspoken about the streaming capability for TV shows on the network sites, that number of pirates steaming the latest episode would plummet because folks would have a viable, legal alternative.
Of course, this means that Hollywood would have to finally accept that the Internet isn't just another little gimmick to be scoffed at or smothered because it upsets the status quo. And who knows when they'll figure that out (if at all).
If ICANN starts going for the "least common denominator" approach to regulating online speech and behavior, instead of the "piss off, we're from the Internet" approach that's we've had thanks to the US and its "freedom of speech" helping guide things, then the NSA really has killed the Internet.
To be fair, I wouldn't be surprised if a few CIA assets ended up on the wrong end of a gun/sword held by their fellow Taliban/al Qaida/enemy of the day because of the Manning leaks, especially considering that Wikileaks didn't lift a finger to try and to protect the identities of anyone named in the cables they dumped on the net for everyone to read at their own leisure.
'course, the US couldn't acknowledge that the people who died as a result of the Manning 'cablegate' leaks were actually assets of the CIA/-insert alphabet soup agency here-, because that would mean we'd have to admit that CIA was operating in hostile countries such as Iran or North Korea.
But the NSA leaks, which are being released in a responsible fashion and not dumped onto the web in an unredacted form like a huge game of 52-card pickup (thanks wikileaks), resulting in people dying because of those leaks? Possible, but extremely unlikely.