I appreciate this site, as it's so much less polluted with biases that come from large corporate agendas. I have to say that articles like this seem to run counter to what I had hoped this site stood for. In my naivety I would like to think that the creators and contributors to this site genuinely want to improve society by highlighting abuses by the wealthy and powerful. Sometime the articles posted here are entirely unhelpful in this vein. There's something deeply hypocritical about taking a stand against a group that you fault for (at times)rushing to elevate a situation to hostility without cause by encouraging people to act in a hostile manner without cause to demonstrate their frustrations about it. Where does this process end? Do you expect the police to back down from hostile citizens because they understand their sins? Would you? Ratcheting up the hostility is not going to lead to fewer bad cops. If anything it's going to push good-intentioned cops into situations that they will feel threatened. If you have a weapon and you feel threatened, guess what goes through your mind. The best medicine at the end of the day for both sides here is to walk a mile in the others' shoes. We can't have a society with **no** police, we have to figure out a way to get good ones and weed out the bad ones. Scorning them all in public isn't the way.
"He claimed to have worked for the CIA as a "senior advisor," which was a gross exaggeration of his entry-level duties as a computer technician. He also doctored his performance evaluations and obtained new positions at NSA by exaggerating his resume and stealing the answers to an employment test."
Stating that he was able to get jobs/promotions at an 'intelligence' agency by exaggerating his qualifications or lying only shows that he has the biggest stones ever, and that they suck at intelligence-ing. How difficult is an employment verification, especially one from the same, or related department?
Is it daft to think this could be another self-inflicted wound to try to paint ES in a bad light? He is gaining more and more support. As the author points out, the overdone accent-in-text seems very contrived indeed, and the intersection of ES/Russia in context of the US Gov secrets being exposed will certainly have the toothless inbreeds reaching for their pitchforks and shouting for Ed's head again, won't it?
Is anyone else a bit worried that this logic could be used to justify a police officer punching/tasering a confession out of a suspect? Isn't that basically the same?
Cop pulls you over. Cop accuses you of driving like a cop(speeding and tailgating, with a phone to your ear). Cop nightsticks your face until you agree. Judge applauds cop for unconventional methods in extracting useful information of dangerous activity.
Dial it down a notch...
I appreciate this site, as it's so much less polluted with biases that come from large corporate agendas. I have to say that articles like this seem to run counter to what I had hoped this site stood for.
In my naivety I would like to think that the creators and contributors to this site genuinely want to improve society by highlighting abuses by the wealthy and powerful. Sometime the articles posted here are entirely unhelpful in this vein.
There's something deeply hypocritical about taking a stand against a group that you fault for (at times)rushing to elevate a situation to hostility without cause by encouraging people to act in a hostile manner without cause to demonstrate their frustrations about it. Where does this process end? Do you expect the police to back down from hostile citizens because they understand their sins? Would you? Ratcheting up the hostility is not going to lead to fewer bad cops. If anything it's going to push good-intentioned cops into situations that they will feel threatened. If you have a weapon and you feel threatened, guess what goes through your mind.
The best medicine at the end of the day for both sides here is to walk a mile in the others' shoes. We can't have a society with **no** police, we have to figure out a way to get good ones and weed out the bad ones. Scorning them all in public isn't the way.
Big ones...
"He claimed to have worked for the CIA as a "senior advisor," which was a gross exaggeration of his entry-level duties as a computer technician. He also doctored his performance evaluations and obtained new positions at NSA by exaggerating his resume and stealing the answers to an employment test."
Stating that he was able to get jobs/promotions at an 'intelligence' agency by exaggerating his qualifications or lying only shows that he has the biggest stones ever, and that they suck at intelligence-ing. How difficult is an employment verification, especially one from the same, or related department?
Is it daft to think this could be another self-inflicted wound to try to paint ES in a bad light? He is gaining more and more support. As the author points out, the overdone accent-in-text seems very contrived indeed, and the intersection of ES/Russia in context of the US Gov secrets being exposed will certainly have the toothless inbreeds reaching for their pitchforks and shouting for Ed's head again, won't it?
Trickle-down Torturenomics
Is anyone else a bit worried that this logic could be used to justify a police officer punching/tasering a confession out of a suspect? Isn't that basically the same?
Cop pulls you over. Cop accuses you of driving like a cop(speeding and tailgating, with a phone to your ear). Cop nightsticks your face until you agree. Judge applauds cop for unconventional methods in extracting useful information of dangerous activity.
Uh-oh
Does that mean they also have a trademark on the word "boy"?
"Snowden's biggest single victim"?
...how about only victim.