Aside from Palin's direct association with the radical Alaskan party advocating secession, it appears that McCain may be, at the very least, palling around with those who pall around with 'terrorists'. From the HuffingtonPost:
"William Timmons, the Washington lobbyist who John McCain has named to head his presidential transition team, aided an influence effort on behalf of Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein to ease international sanctions against his regime. The two lobbyists who Timmons worked closely with over a five year period on the lobbying campaign later either pleaded guilty to or were convicted of federal criminal charges that they had acted as unregistered agents of Saddam Hussein's government."
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
Ever Feel like Jane Goodall Amongst the Chimps?
Anybody who knows me knows that I have a fondness for monkeys. I'm not entirely sure of the reason for the fascination, but I light up whenever I see one; last night, seeing 'The Fall', I was more saddened by the death of the monkey than by the human's plight (I similarly found the monkey in Speed Racer to be the most engaging character). So you can imagine my delight in reading this article from Wired.com--Chimps: Not Human, But Are They People? The question posed in the title raises a variety of issues that I won't have time to explore fully, but suffice to say, it is equally fascinating for what it tells us about chimps, about ourselves and about our relationship to the world in which we live.
First of all, this is an entirely semantic question, turning on the definition of person. Naturally, therefore, I turned to dictionary.com and received an entirely inconclusive answer.
1. a human being, whether man, woman, or child: The table seats four persons.
2. a human being as distinguished from an animal or a thing.
3. Sociology. an individual human being, esp. with reference to his or her social relationships and behavioral patterns as conditioned by the culture.
4. Philosophy. a self-conscious or rational being.
With the exception of the 4th (the one I most closely adopt), they are built on the false dichotomy that humans have established between themselves and 'animals.' I hate to break it to some of you, but we are animals...enormously complex animals...yes; more complex than some... yes; we are animals nonetheless.
According to Deborah Fouts, co-director of the Chimpanzee and Human Communication Institute, "They are a people. Non-human, but definitely persons. They haven't built a rocket ship to the moon. But we're not that different." Indeed, the ways in which we delineate between humans and animals increasingly narrow the more understanding we gain of other species.
The ability to communicate used to be considered the sole realm of human beings, but Koko the gorilla belies that assumption. Scientists have known for quite some time that humans and chimps share both the Broca's and the Wernicke's area in the brain, both intimately involved in language. I wouldn't be surprised if the realm of animal language turned out to be considerably more vast than we acknowledge at this point; we have difficulty enough deciphering ancient languages in the absence of Rosetta Stones, let alone a completely foreign language of barks, meows, chirps or grunts. In fact, it says something about the cognitive capacities of apes that they can learn to communicate with us in sign language, but we haven't done likewise in their language; of course, this could potentially say something about our ability to teach relative to theirs...or, in my opinion more likely, our ability to listen and learn (also, who wants to spend time teaching the asshole that locked you in a cage?).
"Researchers have also found that chimps use hand gestures that vary according to context. The same gesture can be used for purposes as diverse as requesting sex or reconciling after a fight, a linguistic subtlety that suggests a capacity for high-level abstraction." Really though...is it that much of an abstraction? Or does it tell us something interesting about social relationships in the natural world that make-up sex seems to be universal?
Then I've heard 'people' make the claim that it is our ability to utilize tools that distinguishes us. However, chimps are known to fashion spears from tree branches, sharpening them with their teeth, and using them to hunt lesser bush babies. Dolphins too are known to use sponges to probe the sea floor for food. What's more, they pass this knowledge on to their offspring in an act of 'cultural transmission'-- the existence of culture being another distinguishing factor often propagated. In the same link as the preceding, "Michael Krützen referred to a 'cultural revolution' in Australian humpback whales, 'where one particularly popular song was replaced by a new one at sweeping speed.'" It is clear in many cases that cultures exist in the animal kingdom, as in the matriarchal, sex-based, bonobo culture.
Perhaps it is our much vaunted capacity for 'rational thought', or the ability to sublimate our baser, 'animalistic' instincts which separates us. Rationality, however, is purely subjective, much like the definition of person-hood, and differs from circumstance to circumstance and culture to culture. In terms of sublimation of our basic instincts, I have yet to see any of it in practice. When it comes down to the decisions that matter most (often those made under duress), more frequently than not we are ruled by fear, lust, and greed; we have simply become adept at justifying these subconscious impulses on a conscious level in a way which appears rational to our minds. Take for example any of the endeavours of the Bush administration which at one point were championed by groups on both sides of the aisle: institutionalized torture, the PATRIOT Act, the Iraq war, etc., etc...all built on fear and rationalized in one way or the other.
Is it our complex economic systems? Aside from the complete and utter failure of it in recent weeks, it appears that other primates too can master the use of money, and their use of it again tells us a significant amount about ourselves. After training capuchin monkeys to use silver tokens as currency, "...Chen saw something out of the corner of his eye that he would later try to play down but in his heart of hearts he knew to be true. What he witnessed was probably the first observed exchange of money for sex in the history of monkey-kind. (Further proof that the monkeys truly understood money: the monkey who was paid for sex immediately traded the token in for a grape.)" It is telling that the researcher appeared more ashamed of the act than the monkeys engaging in it.
Prompted by the decimation of the West African chimpanzee population on the Ivory Coast, the (originally cited) article asks: "But should we feel more concern for the chimpanzees than for another animal — as much concern, perhaps, as we might feel for other people?" Coming from the metaphysical underpinnings that I do, that there is only one thing out there and we are all part of it (more on that in another post I suppose), I say no, but only because I ascribe no greater inherent value to any life relative to another. The inclination to do so, however, comes from the same part of human nature that anthropomorphicizes "God" and demonizes minorities; the idea that things that are like you are good and have more inherent worth than things which are dissimilar, which are to be feared. Back to the previous question, this is actually a long standing criticism I have had of many animal rights or similar organizations; they are too often dedicated to saving only the cute and cuddly. Few dedicate their lives to the preservation of slime molds, although fungi are absolutely vital to ecosystem balance (the Earth would very quickly be overrun by dead matter were it not for them).
In a separate article on Wired, researcher Jared Tagliatela commented, "Human language has a lot of properties that we haven't found in chimpanzee communication, but I'd say the difference is more one of degree and complexity, not necessarily of absolute kind." I argue that this is true of every trait in the whole animal kingdom. The only defining trait of humankind is our ability to completely alter the face of the Earth (which is really only an offshoot of our degree of technology so it could be argued against as well)...and we're all seeing how that's turning out.
This article in the Guardian reports, "Great apes should have the right to life and freedom, according to a resolution passed in the Spanish parliament, in what could become landmark legislation to enshrine human rights for chimpanzees, gorillas, orangutans and bonobos. The environmental committee in the Spanish parliament has approved resolutions urging the country to comply with the Great Apes Project, founded in 1993, which argues that 'non-human hominids' should enjoy the right to life, freedom and not to be tortured." Interestingly, we are still debating the right to not be tortured for humans and, while the resolution rightly prohibits product testing and their use in films and circuses, it curiously allows their imprisonment in zoos. Apparently, the members of the Spanish parliament have never seen the "People Are Alike All Over" episode of the Twilight Zone.
I'm often fond of quipping that I sometimes "feel like Jane Goodall amongst the chimps," and have been accused of elitism as a result. This statement says more, however, about my interest in the array of behavior exhibited by my fellow homo-sapiens (and all other animals for that matter)than it is meant to denigrate them. To assume otherwise amounts to species-ism, a denigration of the cognitive capacities of our closest relatives (we share 98% of our genetic material with chimps).
When you think about it, they really are "so like us."
First of all, this is an entirely semantic question, turning on the definition of person. Naturally, therefore, I turned to dictionary.com and received an entirely inconclusive answer.
1. a human being, whether man, woman, or child: The table seats four persons.
2. a human being as distinguished from an animal or a thing.
3. Sociology. an individual human being, esp. with reference to his or her social relationships and behavioral patterns as conditioned by the culture.
4. Philosophy. a self-conscious or rational being.
With the exception of the 4th (the one I most closely adopt), they are built on the false dichotomy that humans have established between themselves and 'animals.' I hate to break it to some of you, but we are animals...enormously complex animals...yes; more complex than some... yes; we are animals nonetheless.
According to Deborah Fouts, co-director of the Chimpanzee and Human Communication Institute, "They are a people. Non-human, but definitely persons. They haven't built a rocket ship to the moon. But we're not that different." Indeed, the ways in which we delineate between humans and animals increasingly narrow the more understanding we gain of other species.
The ability to communicate used to be considered the sole realm of human beings, but Koko the gorilla belies that assumption. Scientists have known for quite some time that humans and chimps share both the Broca's and the Wernicke's area in the brain, both intimately involved in language. I wouldn't be surprised if the realm of animal language turned out to be considerably more vast than we acknowledge at this point; we have difficulty enough deciphering ancient languages in the absence of Rosetta Stones, let alone a completely foreign language of barks, meows, chirps or grunts. In fact, it says something about the cognitive capacities of apes that they can learn to communicate with us in sign language, but we haven't done likewise in their language; of course, this could potentially say something about our ability to teach relative to theirs...or, in my opinion more likely, our ability to listen and learn (also, who wants to spend time teaching the asshole that locked you in a cage?).
"Researchers have also found that chimps use hand gestures that vary according to context. The same gesture can be used for purposes as diverse as requesting sex or reconciling after a fight, a linguistic subtlety that suggests a capacity for high-level abstraction." Really though...is it that much of an abstraction? Or does it tell us something interesting about social relationships in the natural world that make-up sex seems to be universal?
Then I've heard 'people' make the claim that it is our ability to utilize tools that distinguishes us. However, chimps are known to fashion spears from tree branches, sharpening them with their teeth, and using them to hunt lesser bush babies. Dolphins too are known to use sponges to probe the sea floor for food. What's more, they pass this knowledge on to their offspring in an act of 'cultural transmission'-- the existence of culture being another distinguishing factor often propagated. In the same link as the preceding, "Michael Krützen referred to a 'cultural revolution' in Australian humpback whales, 'where one particularly popular song was replaced by a new one at sweeping speed.'" It is clear in many cases that cultures exist in the animal kingdom, as in the matriarchal, sex-based, bonobo culture.
Perhaps it is our much vaunted capacity for 'rational thought', or the ability to sublimate our baser, 'animalistic' instincts which separates us. Rationality, however, is purely subjective, much like the definition of person-hood, and differs from circumstance to circumstance and culture to culture. In terms of sublimation of our basic instincts, I have yet to see any of it in practice. When it comes down to the decisions that matter most (often those made under duress), more frequently than not we are ruled by fear, lust, and greed; we have simply become adept at justifying these subconscious impulses on a conscious level in a way which appears rational to our minds. Take for example any of the endeavours of the Bush administration which at one point were championed by groups on both sides of the aisle: institutionalized torture, the PATRIOT Act, the Iraq war, etc., etc...all built on fear and rationalized in one way or the other.
Is it our complex economic systems? Aside from the complete and utter failure of it in recent weeks, it appears that other primates too can master the use of money, and their use of it again tells us a significant amount about ourselves. After training capuchin monkeys to use silver tokens as currency, "...Chen saw something out of the corner of his eye that he would later try to play down but in his heart of hearts he knew to be true. What he witnessed was probably the first observed exchange of money for sex in the history of monkey-kind. (Further proof that the monkeys truly understood money: the monkey who was paid for sex immediately traded the token in for a grape.)" It is telling that the researcher appeared more ashamed of the act than the monkeys engaging in it.
Prompted by the decimation of the West African chimpanzee population on the Ivory Coast, the (originally cited) article asks: "But should we feel more concern for the chimpanzees than for another animal — as much concern, perhaps, as we might feel for other people?" Coming from the metaphysical underpinnings that I do, that there is only one thing out there and we are all part of it (more on that in another post I suppose), I say no, but only because I ascribe no greater inherent value to any life relative to another. The inclination to do so, however, comes from the same part of human nature that anthropomorphicizes "God" and demonizes minorities; the idea that things that are like you are good and have more inherent worth than things which are dissimilar, which are to be feared. Back to the previous question, this is actually a long standing criticism I have had of many animal rights or similar organizations; they are too often dedicated to saving only the cute and cuddly. Few dedicate their lives to the preservation of slime molds, although fungi are absolutely vital to ecosystem balance (the Earth would very quickly be overrun by dead matter were it not for them).
In a separate article on Wired, researcher Jared Tagliatela commented, "Human language has a lot of properties that we haven't found in chimpanzee communication, but I'd say the difference is more one of degree and complexity, not necessarily of absolute kind." I argue that this is true of every trait in the whole animal kingdom. The only defining trait of humankind is our ability to completely alter the face of the Earth (which is really only an offshoot of our degree of technology so it could be argued against as well)...and we're all seeing how that's turning out.
This article in the Guardian reports, "Great apes should have the right to life and freedom, according to a resolution passed in the Spanish parliament, in what could become landmark legislation to enshrine human rights for chimpanzees, gorillas, orangutans and bonobos. The environmental committee in the Spanish parliament has approved resolutions urging the country to comply with the Great Apes Project, founded in 1993, which argues that 'non-human hominids' should enjoy the right to life, freedom and not to be tortured." Interestingly, we are still debating the right to not be tortured for humans and, while the resolution rightly prohibits product testing and their use in films and circuses, it curiously allows their imprisonment in zoos. Apparently, the members of the Spanish parliament have never seen the "People Are Alike All Over" episode of the Twilight Zone.
I'm often fond of quipping that I sometimes "feel like Jane Goodall amongst the chimps," and have been accused of elitism as a result. This statement says more, however, about my interest in the array of behavior exhibited by my fellow homo-sapiens (and all other animals for that matter)than it is meant to denigrate them. To assume otherwise amounts to species-ism, a denigration of the cognitive capacities of our closest relatives (we share 98% of our genetic material with chimps).
When you think about it, they really are "so like us."
Saturday, October 11, 2008
An Addendum to my Previous Post
"Parker" replied to my last post (posted on DoseNation) commenting:
"The end of prohibition would make cannabis much much cheaper(as you acknowledge). The energy intensive indoor grows would become a small boutique segment of the market like expensive artisan cheeses. The larger share of the market would move, to one degree or another, towards being a commodity like other agricultural products. So to invest then call for a change in the law is not a good investment decision, however right it is."
His point is, of course, absolutely correct...which is why you should never post hopped up on cold medicine...I phrased that last part completely wrong and it didn't even occur to me. I'd change it completely but I believe that would violate the extemporaneous spirit of this blog. I should have said:
'The irony is that the last time we needed to end a great depression we ended prohibition, but I doubt very much that that will occur this time.' Politicians these days have too much vested in the drug war...it will happen eventually, probably sometime after the vast majority of states have passed decriminalization laws, but not anytime soon.
I did, however, start to think about what a post-legalization scenario might look like.
While I always think that a market will exist for premium herb, much like for expensive cheese or wine, it is true that the price for the majority of stuff may decrease. However, how much it will decrease is debatable. I wonder if anybody has any data on the extent to which alcohol prices dropped after the end of its prohibition, because when I go into a club or restaurant it's still expensive as all hell. Agricultural products aren't that cheap these days either unfortunately. Plus people are already accustomed to paying inflated prices...I'm not sure how much prices would drop initially, but my guess is not by much until competition drives prices down.
I'm also skeptical of the quality of pot that would come out of an industrialized system. Look at the quality of cigarette tobacco.
My bet would also be that if it were legalized it would be taxed so heavily (thus bringing us out of a recession, but also because that would be the only way politicians could discourage its use--as they do with alcohol) that prices could remain similar to that which existed on the black market for store bought stuff, thus giving your existing supply an entry-point into the market. Additionally, there may be various restrictions as with tobacco. For example, while difficult to enforce, I believe it is currently illegal to grow and cure it for personal use; these restrictions could significantly alter the dynamics of the market.
I guess I'd argue that good bud is always a good investment.
Anyway, if a commodity market is ever established for pot I'd be the first one to buy into it.
**I know these last two haven't been my best posts exactly...so feel free to contact me for a refund of your money.
"The end of prohibition would make cannabis much much cheaper(as you acknowledge). The energy intensive indoor grows would become a small boutique segment of the market like expensive artisan cheeses. The larger share of the market would move, to one degree or another, towards being a commodity like other agricultural products. So to invest then call for a change in the law is not a good investment decision, however right it is."
His point is, of course, absolutely correct...which is why you should never post hopped up on cold medicine...I phrased that last part completely wrong and it didn't even occur to me. I'd change it completely but I believe that would violate the extemporaneous spirit of this blog. I should have said:
'The irony is that the last time we needed to end a great depression we ended prohibition, but I doubt very much that that will occur this time.' Politicians these days have too much vested in the drug war...it will happen eventually, probably sometime after the vast majority of states have passed decriminalization laws, but not anytime soon.
I did, however, start to think about what a post-legalization scenario might look like.
While I always think that a market will exist for premium herb, much like for expensive cheese or wine, it is true that the price for the majority of stuff may decrease. However, how much it will decrease is debatable. I wonder if anybody has any data on the extent to which alcohol prices dropped after the end of its prohibition, because when I go into a club or restaurant it's still expensive as all hell. Agricultural products aren't that cheap these days either unfortunately. Plus people are already accustomed to paying inflated prices...I'm not sure how much prices would drop initially, but my guess is not by much until competition drives prices down.
I'm also skeptical of the quality of pot that would come out of an industrialized system. Look at the quality of cigarette tobacco.
My bet would also be that if it were legalized it would be taxed so heavily (thus bringing us out of a recession, but also because that would be the only way politicians could discourage its use--as they do with alcohol) that prices could remain similar to that which existed on the black market for store bought stuff, thus giving your existing supply an entry-point into the market. Additionally, there may be various restrictions as with tobacco. For example, while difficult to enforce, I believe it is currently illegal to grow and cure it for personal use; these restrictions could significantly alter the dynamics of the market.
I guess I'd argue that good bud is always a good investment.
Anyway, if a commodity market is ever established for pot I'd be the first one to buy into it.
**I know these last two haven't been my best posts exactly...so feel free to contact me for a refund of your money.
Thursday, October 9, 2008
Quote of the Day- Or- What is Expertise?- Or- Surviving Financial Crisis
From Eli Lake on blogginheads.tv: "The whole blogosphere is predicated in some ways on, like, a guy in his basement who was reading public source documents and realized that this other guy on CNN was full of shit."
This came out of a discussion on the nature (failure) of expertise, certainly inspired by the continued downward spiral in which our economy finds itself. Apparently, the $700 billion bailout did not work and the Dow Jones Industrial Average slips further daily.
With this in mind, I suppose my advice is as worthy as any. Want my financial advice? Invest in weed (well, that and canned food actually). Unlike stocks, weed is a tangible good, which means that even if the Dow and NASDAQ lose all meaning and paper money becomes worthless, you will still have your herb. Ganja, as noted by the Supreme Court in Gonzalez v. Raich (my paper on the decision here- sorry for the shameless self promotion, even though I suppose this blog is really one big shameless self promotion), is highly fungible, that is, readily exchanged for money, goods and services. Marijuana, especially if grown, but also if purchased in bulk from the right sources, has a high margin of profit (due primarily to its prohibition). Cannabis, if well cared for, will appreciate in value as it cures (much like a bottle of fine wine increases in value as it ages). Mary Jane's worth is not subject to the actions of speculators. Furthermore, so-called 'vice industries' are widely seen as recession proof.
Finally, and the number one reason for investing in pot, (I'm paraphrasing somebody here; if you know, tell me in the comments) the last time our country needed to get out of a great depression, we ended prohibition.
This came out of a discussion on the nature (failure) of expertise, certainly inspired by the continued downward spiral in which our economy finds itself. Apparently, the $700 billion bailout did not work and the Dow Jones Industrial Average slips further daily.
With this in mind, I suppose my advice is as worthy as any. Want my financial advice? Invest in weed (well, that and canned food actually). Unlike stocks, weed is a tangible good, which means that even if the Dow and NASDAQ lose all meaning and paper money becomes worthless, you will still have your herb. Ganja, as noted by the Supreme Court in Gonzalez v. Raich (my paper on the decision here- sorry for the shameless self promotion, even though I suppose this blog is really one big shameless self promotion), is highly fungible, that is, readily exchanged for money, goods and services. Marijuana, especially if grown, but also if purchased in bulk from the right sources, has a high margin of profit (due primarily to its prohibition). Cannabis, if well cared for, will appreciate in value as it cures (much like a bottle of fine wine increases in value as it ages). Mary Jane's worth is not subject to the actions of speculators. Furthermore, so-called 'vice industries' are widely seen as recession proof.
Finally, and the number one reason for investing in pot, (I'm paraphrasing somebody here; if you know, tell me in the comments) the last time our country needed to get out of a great depression, we ended prohibition.
Why?
Why is Beverly Hills Chihuahua the top grossing film at the Box Office? Why was this movie made? Why aren't theaters having promotions where people can bring their Chihuahuas with them for a discount?* Why am I posting about this?
[Insert biting social commentary here]
*Admittedly that would've been better phrased as how long until, but it would've broken the theme
[Insert biting social commentary here]
*Admittedly that would've been better phrased as how long until, but it would've broken the theme
Illegal Wire-Tapping: Protecting Us from the Evils of Phone Sex
Two whistle blowers have come forward to share their experiences working at the NSA, where they listened in on wire-tapped conversations. Despite assurances by both the President and Gen. Michael Hayden, then director of the NSA (now of the CIA) that the privacy of Americans overseas would be rigorously upheld, and that private calls were not being monitored, David Murfee Faulk, recently came forward with this account of a day in the life of an NSA operator:
"'Hey, check this out,' Faulk says he would be told, 'there's good phone sex or there's some pillow talk, pull up this call, it's really funny, go check it out. It would be some colonel making pillow talk and we would say, 'Wow, this was crazy',' Faulk told ABC News."
"'Hey, check this out,' Faulk says he would be told, 'there's good phone sex or there's some pillow talk, pull up this call, it's really funny, go check it out. It would be some colonel making pillow talk and we would say, 'Wow, this was crazy',' Faulk told ABC News."
Wednesday, October 8, 2008
Data-Mining: Because I Love a Bloated Abbreviation
Commissioned by the Department of Homeland Security, the Committee on Technical and Privacy Dimensions of Information for Terrorism Prevention and Other National Goals (CTPDITPONG) recently released their report on the efficacy of data-mining techniques currently being used by the U.S. government. For those unfamiliar with the concept, the ACLU blog that I am referencing pointedly describes the crux of it:
"Let’s focus on the fact that our national security policy is largely based on the same kind of techniques and logic that marketing firms use to figure out what kind of cereal you might buy. Sleep tight tonight, guys."
By gathering every single piece of available data on every single person in the United States, the goal is, by inferring patterns in the dataset, to be able to predict the future actions of individuals...which is only slight less creepy (and a lot more flawed) than the 'technology' in Minority Report, whose premise the NSA probably admires but doesn't quite grasp. I rank these technologies right up there with the brain scan used to convict an Indian woman of murder (excellent article by the way) and these "airport bio scanners"-- that is to say that you would get more accurate data employing John Edward.
The Committee, apparently, felt the same way: "The committee made several recommendations in the report including greater external oversight of information gathering programs, a framework for both classified and unclassified programs and an emphasis on the quality, not quantity, of data. The report also discourages using behavioral patterns as a predictive measure, and considers any program attempting to assess an individual’s state of mind as suspect."
In my opinion, mind reading technologies haven't progressed any in the last 3,000 years and 'drag-net' style programs in general will always result in the needless entanglement of innocents while allowing all but the most inept 'criminal and terrorist masterminds' to evade capture. Still, our government seems determined to utilize them.
The Electronic Frontier Foundation has an excellent write-up on what little we know of the data-mining based, NSA Spying program, AT&T's role, and the resultant scandal. Warning: the deeper you dig, the scarier it gets.
"Let’s focus on the fact that our national security policy is largely based on the same kind of techniques and logic that marketing firms use to figure out what kind of cereal you might buy. Sleep tight tonight, guys."
By gathering every single piece of available data on every single person in the United States, the goal is, by inferring patterns in the dataset, to be able to predict the future actions of individuals...which is only slight less creepy (and a lot more flawed) than the 'technology' in Minority Report, whose premise the NSA probably admires but doesn't quite grasp. I rank these technologies right up there with the brain scan used to convict an Indian woman of murder (excellent article by the way) and these "airport bio scanners"-- that is to say that you would get more accurate data employing John Edward.
The Committee, apparently, felt the same way: "The committee made several recommendations in the report including greater external oversight of information gathering programs, a framework for both classified and unclassified programs and an emphasis on the quality, not quantity, of data. The report also discourages using behavioral patterns as a predictive measure, and considers any program attempting to assess an individual’s state of mind as suspect."
In my opinion, mind reading technologies haven't progressed any in the last 3,000 years and 'drag-net' style programs in general will always result in the needless entanglement of innocents while allowing all but the most inept 'criminal and terrorist masterminds' to evade capture. Still, our government seems determined to utilize them.
The Electronic Frontier Foundation has an excellent write-up on what little we know of the data-mining based, NSA Spying program, AT&T's role, and the resultant scandal. Warning: the deeper you dig, the scarier it gets.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)