Hooo... heeey... it's all about the money... | Can telecom millions buy AT&T and the NSA a "Get Out of Jail Free" card from Congress?

Don't be fooled, boys and girls, by the smoke that's being blown up your ass – the smoke that says that the big “telecoms” need some “special” legal protection for doing what they did (or didn't do) in the name of national security. First of all, the law already gives them this kind of protection – as long as they acted in “good faith” and followed previously established FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) procedures and rules.

Here's the bottom line, as far as AT&T is concerned, it's not a matter of law, but of money. AT&T knows that without this new “above the law” law now being run through Congress, their ass was pretty much cooked.

You see, even though they cannot publicly confirm or deny it, AT&T's own documents, documents already in the hands of the court, supports the charges that they are guilty of granting NSA sweeping and unfettered access to all their customer communications, without first getting the proper FISA warrants.

For AT&T the real question is how much is this faux-pas going to cost? Should they drop millions now, all over Washington DC (keep a sharp eye out for an increase in contributions to key players, like Senate majority leader, Harry Reid) in order to insure that they receive this special “Get Out of Jail Free” card – or should they risk paying billions as a result of potentially massive law suits filed by their customers for deliberately and knowingly violating their privacy under the terms of their service agreements?

It's a whole different story for the NSA and the current administration, however, because they face the very real danger that if AT&T looses the case brought by EFF (Electronic Frontier Foundation) - and it's looks like they will - it will result in incontestable proof that they broke the law.

It's worth remembering that in the interest of improving our ability to fight terrorists, Congress amended FISA four different times after 9/11 - at the behest of both the President and the intelligence gathering community. Contrary to spurious claims of constitutionally granted Executive powers which preclude any culpability, Congress decided to preserve FISA over-sight and retained those particular provisions which require warrants.

Ask yourself this. What do you think the chances are – especially watching this whole weird legal limbo dance going on – that Bush and his intelligence boys are guilty as sin? Whoa... spooky! Isn't this like some weird retro-60's déjà vu trip, with “tricky-Dicky” Nixon and the Watergate thing, not to mention that whole fucked-up Vietnam War mess?! Hey... wasn't it the abuse of power of that flagitious period that led to the creation of this whole FISA thing?

Intelligence? That's a laugh. Can these boys find anything? Isn't the NSA involved in another suit that basically came about because they “accidental” let some of their secret files fall into the wrong hands? Yep. Intelligence... Can we talk about “competence” and whether or not we ought to have some way of measuring this rumor of “intelligence”, huh?

Anyway... before you are tempted to get all “wooey” with big ole fake tears of sympathy for these Dumb-asses... I dunno, because you feel that they were just trying to keep poor America safe. Stop and think for a minute. There is a “right” way of doing what they wanted to do (and always has been), and nobody ever said, “Sorry NSA, but we won't let you spy on the bad guys”. Anybody who tries to tell you otherwise, is a flat-out LIAR.

The quagmire that AT&T finds itself in now, is precisely the one that concerned Qwest. Out of the big “telecoms”, Qwest was the only one who listened to their lawyers and decided to reply to the NSA's request with the stipulation; “... not without the proper warrants and FISA procedures.”

But, wait. Here's the “cherry-on-top” of this gigantic and very sad “banana split” of democracy:

Just days earlier, AT&T decided to re-word some of their “evil empire” language in their original customer's terms of service (TOS) agreement, which essentially stated that AT&T could terminate your account, if they found out that you were expressing opinions, or sharing information that "... tends to damage the name or reputation of AT&T, or its parents, affiliates and subsidiaries."

“How dare you... ! How dare you even shoot an immodest glance in OUR direction!” AT&T issues you a direct reprimand, “Ve vill have yu SHOT ... und yur children vill be sent to zee Russian Front!!!” LOL!! Oh my Gawwwd.... Who are these freaks?

Ahhhhh... yeah... poor Ma-Bell. Hey, didn't AT&T just recently bring a massive suit against Vonage, their big Internet telephone competitor ... and also plop down a serious chuck of change – like $2.8 billion to buy Spectrum, so they would be in a good position to capitalize on the up-and-coming super fast new generation 3G-IPhones? Yessureee Bob...!!

Somehow I don't think that innocent well-meaning "wouldn't hurt a fly"AT&T needs special congressional legal protection. Spare me! On the other hand... I bet you can guess who would really really love them to have it? Gee. Who... who... who could that be?

I know, I know. Why complain? What are the chances that bundles of cash will do you any good in Washington? I don't want to sound like your average stupid asshole, but I have to know. Is it true? Can money buy influence in a little ole town once called Foggy Bottom?

Fuck, dude. It's just like Russia, these days. Cash talks and bullshit walks. Anyway... as they say... if you don't own it, then basically you're somebody's bitch!

Now that's the new American way, okay!

Fear and Loathing | Scare tactics are still a favorite method used in anti-drug campaigns

A current television commercial message produced by abovetheinfluence.com, part of the national youth anti-drug media campaign, a program of the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP), depicts a young woman who is taken by surprise, frozen in a moment of apoplexy, at witnessing her dog speaking to her, saying that he wishes she would stop smoking pot.

It leads me to say this:

I wanna know this chick's dealer! That's gotta be some seriously wicked shit if it can make your dog talk to you. Funny...

But, there's a flaw. You see, the only person who might actually believe that this kind of hallucination could happen from smoking some bad-ass grass, would be someone who has never smoked pot—ever!

The basic message of this media spot is exactly the same one conveyed in the 1930's cult classic, 'Reefer Madness'. Essentially, they are saying the same thing, albeit watered down somewhat and punctuated with a clever ironic twist this time around. At the core, however, the approach is identical; it's prevention through the induction of fear. It says that smoking pot will cause you to loose control over your mind—stealing your ability to control what you might do while under the drug's powerful influence. It starts out with words of concern from your pet but moves quickly into inexplicable urges to kill babies and stab mothers. OMG!!

The problem with messages that are fraught with this kind of hyperbole are that they run the risk of losing their credibility when the gullible viewer discovers the truth. It's the reaction people have to someone who is“crying wolf”. You risk being ignored if someone thinks—or even suspects—that you are trying to pull the wool over their eyes, tricking them into believing that something is true.

To a cynical modern audience—and if you believe kids today are not cynical you need to wake-up and smell the fucking coffee—nullifying the intent of the “talking dog” commercial and convincing you that this magnified warning on the dangers of smoking pot is “totally bogus”, would merely require the credible opinion of someone you know who would know better (i. e., someone who has smoked pot). What's more, the distrust developed as result of being misled, could become counterproductive, and back fire—lead to a willingness to believe that smoking weed may be perfectly harmless.

Think about it for a minute. What's your reaction to someone who has been lying to you, and you found out that they knew that they were lying to you and yet that somehow didn't seem to matter? Are you actually going to trust anything they have to say, after that? If you say “yes” to that question, then you are lying to yourself.

In an attempt to get people's attention in a media-saturated world, advertisers and programming directors routinely resort to theatrical stunts of shock and awe; they play to a person's natural instinct to “rubber-neck”, if you will—to stop and gawk at the accident. The presumption, of course, is that if you get your audience's attention, then at the very least, your message has a “chance” of sinking in.

This is why television news has turned away from doing in-depth journalism, reporting the causal factors leading to the bit of news they happen to be covering, to something radically different, a form of communication that has been aptly described as 'Infotainment'. This is information divorced from context, presented as urgent demanding your attention, becoming even more important if it is deemed to be “breaking”, happening right that moment.

A product of this shift in priority is that it's no longer as important to know “why” something is happening. Instead, it's far more important to know merely that something “is” happening.

It's not important to understand “why” illegal drug use continues to be a growing problem in the US, year after year, when more and more resources are used to battle this ever-expanding crisis, all to little avail. It's not important to look for the reasons that may help to explain “why” our efforts do not seem to be effective in eliminating or even reducing this problem in some notable measure—especially in light of the fact that we spend billions annually on both prevention and incarceration. It's not important to know “why” we seem to be utterly ineffectual in resolving this problem to any significant degree. What does seem to be important, strangely, is that we must be made aware that there still “is” a major problem in this country; that we are still waging a huge and escalating war on illegal drug use, a formidable problem that shows no signs of coming to end, anytime in the near future.

We live in a period of time that seems to accept the notion that being disingenuous is okay as long as we have convinced ourselves that what we are doing is for the best. Those familiar with philosophy will recognize this as a part of the existential argument where the “ends justify the means”. Put in simple terms, it doesn't matter so much what you had to do to get there, as long as you are confident that you are heading in the right direction.

This explains why it no longer matters if we resorted to outright deception, lying to the innocent and ignorant among us, justified by our attempt to “save” humanity from the evils of drug use. And more, it doesn't seem to matter if we actually “do” end up saving humanity, either—if what we are doing actually “can” save humanity from drug use. No, no. The only thing that matters is that we appear to be “doing” something to save humanity—regardless of how stupid or vapid it may be. Isn't that right?

----

Endnote: The Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) is an organization directed by the G. W. Bush White House. As with so many other of this presidency's endeavors, a stolid blind adherence to an idealogical precept is the only requirement to move on it, however illogical or lacking in substantive direction, though it may be. The ONDCP is no different, yet another deluded socio-political agenda floating in a sea of propaganda.

UPDATE NOTE - 14 Oct 2007

Well, well, well. When push comes... well, from reality.

It appears that the ONDCP doesn't care to have it's efforts examined or scrutinized by the public-at-large. Their anti-drug media spots, after they were uploaded to YouTube, weren't as well-received as their producers (aka Ideologue Spin-meisters) would have had us believe.

Unfavorable responses made by viewers has led the ONDCP to remove the "comment" option from their posted videos--deciding in favor of a more silent "one-way" form of discourse. How surprising?

[Here's my comment, since I cannot post one on YouTube, "Yo ONDCP. You clueless Losers. You guys sux!"]

-----

White House National Drug Control involvement

In September 2006, the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) began running anti-drug messages through YouTube.^{^} In response, many YouTube users began uploading rebuttals and low rating the public service announcements. Consequently, since mid-September, the ONDCP has removed the ability to evaluate any of their messages.

Talking to Fish | The fish tank video by the Chemical Brothers is both hilarious and great design.

This morning, as I was feeding my blog addiction, I watched a clever video created for the Chemical Brothers. I wonder if it was inspired by some "reefer" and all those live fish tank cams around the globe?

Reason v. Reaction | A deeper look at the conflict over genetically altered foods

An open letter in response to the broad social issues expressed at the web site:

http://www.myspace.com/stop_monsanto

------------------------------------------------------------

Aloha,

If the world has any hope of a becoming better place, then I'm with you and agree that it's absolutely essential that we do everything we can to make that happen -- to fight the good fight.

I commend you for this kind of initiative and spirit but it is well worth taking heed that in the process of trying to make the world a better place that you (we) don't end up harming the very thing you (we) set out accomplish. It's like the old adage which goes, "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions."

For instance, it is important to prevent scary corporate practices such as rushing the development and distribution of genetically altered animal and agricultural foods before all the potential dangers are well understood.

That is a far different thing, however, than to simply say that all genetically alter plants are bad, and therefore state that any corporation that is attempting to genetically alter plants for our benefit is evil and bad. To say this kind of thing is wrong.

Why? Because it is untrue.

The plant we call "wheat" is a far different plant than it was when we humans first began to cultivate it as a source of food. The wheat plant we have today is a plant that we genetically altered over time. It may not have been done with our current gene splicing techniques, but it was genetically altered, nonetheless. Now, does that mean that the wheat grown all around the world is bad for us? Hardly.

Now. If you really do care, and want to help make this a better world, then it's important to rationalize and fully comprehend what is actually good and what is not -- rather than view things from a broad reactionary point of view.

On the other hand, if what you really want is to make blanketed accusations against all corporations because you feel all corporations are nothing more than capitalistic monsters, then I suspect that you care more about the emotional satisfaction and glamor of being a rebel foot soldier and a social saint, than you do about the truth, and what is actually good for human society and culture. And, if that is the case, then that makes you just as evil and harmful as those whom you accuse.

Aue...!

I hope not. As for me? I really do want the world to be a better, healthier, smarter place for everybody.

In order to do that, however, we need to follow our brains -- not just our hearts.

-- Sterling

Following the script | The fundamental force driving American political policy at the beginning of the 21st Century

Ignorance of our own western history, specifically the understanding of the bourgeoisie's rise to power, is principally the reason why many political pundits and inside-the-beltway gurus fail to fully comprehend the deep-seated motivations of the Bush administration and their general ideological thrust. Without this understanding, much of their seemingly “un-cerebral” goals appear to be queer, puzzling, and oddly elusive, especially when it springs out of a few erudite minds who contribute to prominent conservative think tanks.

One must have an understanding of the bourgeois class, in it's full historical context, beyond the oversimplified and misinterpreted definition of what is meant by the term “bourgeoisie” to cold-war communists. To comprehend the principal factors that have manifested themselves here in today's political arena, particularly in the "neo-con" G. W. Bush camp though it's not exclusive to them by any means, is to comprehend our bourgeoisie inheritance. It is more than one theological story, or a few fashionable political precepts, such as a tacit backlash to feminism, and the unprecedented growth in power by women that occurred only recently – in the latter part of the past hundred years.

You must understand this, in its broad traditional framework and in its entire scope, if you intend to have any hope of making sense of why, say, the average Joe will state that he's against homosexual marriage yet sees no real conflict with the fact that he has a long-time and unflinching friendship with a co-worker he knows to be gay and accepts for being so.

Classic traits of narrow-mindedness, materialism, hypocrisy, opposition to change and lack of cultural savoir-faire, along with limited banal aesthetic sensibilities and mercenary aspirations are all aspects born directly out of our bourgeoisie past. Karl Marx noted that the ideology of the bourgeoisie, as they ascended to become the new ruling class, sought to reshape society after their own image, believing that their concepts and institutions, their view of civil society and culture, to be universally true. Although he commended the industriousness of the bourgeoisie, he criticized them for their moral hypocrisy. Concepts such as personal liberties, religious and civil rights, and free trade all derive directly from bourgeois philosophies.

From his personal travels throughout many parts of America, the French aristocrat Alexis de Tocqueville, having seen for himself the material industriousness that supported our eventual rise to world prominence, had also confirmed the fundamental bourgeois aspects of our national character. He wrote, “America demonstrates invincibly one thing that I had doubted up to now: that the middle classes can govern a State. ... Despite their small passions, their incomplete education, their vulgar habits, they can obviously provide a practical sort of intelligence and that turns out to be enough.”

Americans and American culture is comprised of many things, to be sure, but we are the way we are in a very fundamental way because of the overwhelming success of capital markets, which in turn led to the bourgeoisie becoming the de facto global ruling class; thereby giving us the capacity to exercise our dominance and influence, in way and on a scale we had not had the temerity to do so – until now.

Our leading political minds are not as divinely inspired as you've been lead to believe; they're not billowing out great political epiphanies they've elucidated through great debate. Hardly. They're following an embedded cultural script; reading lines from the middle class handbook that we've inherited.

Ex Post Facto | 3 Indian Men Indicted in Stock Scheme

Now that CNBC's last half-baked marketing ploy, the "Million Dollar Portfolio Challenge", has ended, I believe it prudent to point out that the game's sponsor, OptionsXpress, was, themselves, one of the on-line equity trading brokers who had been hacked, resulting in the unauthorized use a few of their clients' accounts (see link below).

I'm not sure how others may feel about it, but for me, any company that has suffered poor security issues for on-line business doesn't bode well for future on-line endeavors without first offering real detailed reassurances.

Put into perspective, when you compare the real cost of mounting other forms advertising aimed at reviving CNBC's recent soggy viewer ratings, this public invitational game is a bargain; especially if it concomitantly has no significant increase in risk exposure. Put another way, from CNBC's point of view, it may have been a little fucked-up but in the grand scheme of things it was still majorly cheap -- so bombs away, as they say.

This bit of scary news on OptionsXpress' technical competence (or lack thereof) did help to explain the alarmingly awkward first week of CNBC's sweepstakes promotion. It was that little faux-pas that effectively let out the last bit of "fun" in the game's proverbial sails for me; and so I bowed out shortly thereafter.

Link > http://biz.yahoo.com/ap//brokerage_hackers.html?.v=4

Liberals vs. Conservatives | The falacy of modern American political assumptions

It's a topic so common that it has moved beyond the ephemeral atmosphere of metaphor into something that resembles fokelore. You'd have to be dead, literally, not to have heard it, let alone be driping in it. What's strange, though, is that as common as it is, most people dismiss it without giving it any real thought.

Maybe it's because it's so often repeated that nearly everyone hears their own mental response in their own heads the split second the topic leaves someone's lips. Unlike other hackneyed topics, generalizations, issues, or what have you, this one stands alone, in a realm framed in marble pillars. Indeed, why has it become a neurological sedative, especially when you consider that like all the rest it began as repetitious jargon, is a conundrum?

At this point in time, especially now, while we all listen to the final painful murderous dirge of the Last Act, draped in full Machivelean crushed velvet cloaks, I'm at a loss to explain it. Modern politics is the art of endlessly looping rhetoric, if nothing else, so why would this be any different?

What the hell am I going on, and on, about?

It's the whole "liberal vs. conservative" issue -- often translated (erroneously) as Democrat vs. Republican -- of course!

Yes, yes... I'm well aware of it's recent history where arch-conservative pundits managed to assail non-conservatives with the term "liberal"; and, oddly enough, it actually forced a defensive posture in many of you who do think of yourselves as "liberals", and for some, it seems to have resulted in permanent psychological scaring.

I'm sorry for those who have suffered a full-on "liberal" guilt/insecurity meltdown, really, I am.

Once, out of jest, I accused a very dear friend of mine of being a "bleeding-heart liberal", who responded with the best quip I have yet heard. To my pejorative remark, she very calmly replied, "Yes, I am a bleeding-heart liberal; so much so that I'm faint from the loss of blood!"

Nevertheless, if your flimsy liberal ass still needs a little consolation, you may wish to consider that those accusing you of being a "horrid liberal" are, in fact, all impostors -- or haven't you noticed? No? Well, wake up! No true conservative would ever allow a woman to address a man on topics of political discourse in any public forum. That's just one shibboleth, which suggests that we haven't begun to broach the outside boundary to your ignorance.

Were I to be pressed for an appraisal regarding you, as well as your epigonic opposite, I would not hesitate to state that as political extremists both groups comprise an alarming amount of unnecessary social pollution that clearly impedes important political progress.

But, I digress. It's nothing more than name calling (i. e., argumentum ad hominem for those who remember the types of logical fallacies to correct critical thinking). That's all it is. They're calling you names! Okay, people, don't you get it? Hello... sticks and stones... geez?!

But, that's not the point.

The point is: never once has one side ever had all the answers. I repeat. NEVER ONCE HAVE EITHER THE LIBERALS OR THE CONSERVATIVES EVER HAD ALL THE ANSWERS.

Think about it. How utterly retarded does it sound to you that someone would claim that they are completely 100% liberal, or conversely, 100% conservative? Come on! The reasons for this should be so obvious to anybody with half a brain that discussing it actually is retarded.

Commentary by Ann Coulter, the self-affirmed polemist and ultra-facist political pundit , is a perfect example. Who cares what a cum-guzzling crack whore has to say? You're kidding me, right... the boney-ass Nazi hooker is allowed to speak... huh... what? Anyway.

So... why the fuck would anyone listen to anybody who is spewing this kind of vapid rhetoric? If anything, it's a clear indication of who the "bullshittig" freak is, n'est pas? By the way, did you enjoy the irony of that last argumentum ad hominem comment of mine? I did.

But, I digress... again. Sorry.

Here's a shocking fact. I'm both liberal and conservative, and I always have been. Here's another shocking fact. So are pretty much all the rest of the humans on the planet (if you define the issue properly).

Whatever "shit-for-brains" dumb-ass dork wants to label me, or you, and believes that name calling is a reasonable substitute for addressing a political issue on point, can suck it... BFD! And, yet ... [pause for long overly dramatic grasp] ... far too many adults still don't seem to get it.

Stop it already! Ignore that shit. It's irrelevant because what they are saying is irrelevant.

Now.

Please, can we get back to topics worthy of our time and attention? I beg you all out there with brains.

CNBC "Million Dollar Portfolio Chanllenge" in crisis after the 1st Week | The million dollar quesiton is: Who is Nancy Beaumont?

Sponsored by OptionsXpress, financial television heavyweight CNBC concludes it's much publicized 10-week on-line stock trading sweepstakes challenge, with a final $1 Million prize, "Million Dollar Portfolio Challenge, after it's first week seems to be dominated--some say "hi-jacked"-- by one very prominent registrant.

It's a fair assumption that for several thousands of NBC's registered participants, the million dollar question is: "Who is Nancy Beaumont, of California?"


A REPORT & COMMENTARY: [10. Mar. 2007 12:49 PM HST (-10GMT)]

Holy loopholes million-dollar gamesters! It would appear Nancy Beaumont (real name?) has found a very big loophole in the rules set-out in CNBC's current “Million Dollar Portfolio Challenge”—a very big loophole, indeed.

As of 6:12:14 AM (Eastern Standard Time) on Saturday morning, March 10^th. This image clip demonstrates that of the top 25 portfolios, Nancy Beaumont holds the top 3 positions, as well as spots: 6, 7, 11, 12, 15, and 17. In all probability, Ms. Beaumont (or the player registered as) has even more—albeit less successful—portfolios.

Well... it's doesn't take a master strategist to safely predict that this is a situation bound to cause a wee bit of concern, for several hundred thousand registered users—including me, since I took up the challenge as well. I suppose, however, the true number of actual players versus register participants is a much more dubious figure, now that Ms. Beaumont's apparent affinity for multiple registration entries has come to light.

Nevertheless, it's a safe bet a few corporate attorneys (between OptionsXpress and CNBC, to name a few) are not having a quite weekend; but the logic of the discussion, from the OptionsXpress, the official sponsor of the promotion, will likely go as follows:

Question: Was this entry a violation of the “letter of law”, or in this case “rules”?

Answer: No.

Question: Then, said Nancy B cannot be officially disqualified

Answer: Correct.

Question: How big of a situation is this?

Answer: Big, very big!

Question: Does this place our “promotion”--meaning the “Portfolio Challenge” in jeopardy? Jeopardy will probably mean two things.

1^st – Legally. What is the legal exposure from any actions brought against the contest by participants (supportable or otherwise), as well as from terms of the contract with CNBC?

2^nd – Public Relations & Images. What kind of fall-out is there likely to be?

Answer: (Hight Speculative): Your guess is as good as mine...

Of course, the smart solution will be the one that will that can resolve the dilemma to the satisfaction of to everyone involved. Only the parties and personalities involved know the true measure of what can and cannot be done, at this stage.

My suggestion, would be cancel the present game, rewrite the rules, start over, and use the ensuing press coverage over the controversy as a way of attracting an even wider audience.

Oh, and if this is a viable option, it would be prudent if a few process serfs should be pumping out press releases like mad to every news medium, chat forum, and blog across the seven seas, exclaiming the “Million Dollar Do-Over”

Finally. To Nancy Beaumont, I put my right foot forward and extend to you a gentleman's bow, simply to acknowledge a game well-played! In the real non-gaming world, that's the sort of smarts that really does win.

--

WHO ELSE HAS SOMETHING TO SAY? Here's a few links to some of the personal chatter on this topic around the Web:

Tycoons Row

As of today, Nancy Beaumont, although not in the top 10, but she has taken over 11 ... So today is the launch of CNBC’s Million Dollar Portfolio Challenge. ... tycoonsrow.com/

Yahoo! Message Boards

CNBC 1 MILLION MANIPULATED I PERSON WITH 17 ACCOUNTS

Stockpickr! Your Source for Stock Ideas

For all of us here chatting about this million $ challenge, tell CNBC that there ... Also, ask them what they're going to do about one, Ms. Nancy Beaumont. ... http://www.stockpickr.com/allforum/478/2/