I live in Pennsylvania. Almost all liquor sales, apart from a few places that can sell beer, are through a state monopoly of stores that employ 5000 union employees. The state-owned stores are inefficient, expensive and badly run. The state tried a hilarious experiment in wine kiosks a few years back. Not long after, they had a much-publicized effort to make liquor store employees friendlier.

Governor Corbett, in a rare display of intelligence, is supporting an effort to privatize these stores to one degree or another. And the union responded with … that ad above. It would also appear that they have their facts wrong.

I’ve seen some vile ads before but this one takes the cake. Well done, UFCW.

Students at George Mason University (GMU) signed a petition early this month asking President Obama to listen in on the “private conversations” of all Fox News employees and their families. The petition, which was circulated on GMU’s flagship campus in Fairfax, Va, near Washington D.C., by Media Research Center video reporter Dan Joseph, described the right-leaning news channel as “a threat to media integrity and an informed populace.” “We want the to be able to legally read their private e-mails and listen in on phone conversations between Fox News employees and their associates and their families,” Joseph explained to students, asking for their support. Reactions were mixed. While a handful of students appealed to a “the First Amendment” and the right to privacy, several described their “hate” for the news channel. “Can you give me some time to think about this?,” asked one student before eventually providing his signature.

Yeah, the problem is any media entity that isn’t completely in the bag of the most despicable, corrupt, and tyrannical left leaning government to fuck over the American people, and not the fact said government and its influence, especially in the very types of institutions these moronic kids are paying huge dollars to for the liberal brain washing that passes for education, has eroded our freedoms to the point other authoritarian nations are lecturing us on the issue or pining for the ability to do the same. I am surprised some of these brain dead leftards didn’t come clean that what they really would prefer wasn’t just the monitoring of the evil Fox News employees communications, as if they were serfs of the Soviet state, but that our government should take these traitors to the left’s cause to reeducation camps or outright shoot them dead for not serving the collective’s agenda.

These idiot kids are the products of what the left believes and stands for. No argument about that. They get these notions form reading about how the left has handled any dissent through the sordid history of collectivism. And yet, we are told that the problem isn’t with their embrace of the very terror tactics loved by leftist dictatorial entities, from the good old communists to their fellow traveling fascists the left so likes to pretend are right wing, but with those that see what the left ultimately is about and want nothing to do with them or their evil ways. But it gets better.

Another student expressed frustration that such a surveillance program would likely conflict with constitutional law. “It’s virtually impossible but its a good cause,” she said. “I like your cause.” In all, eleven GMU students signed the petition in about 45 minutes, according to Joseph.

My guess is the constitutional scholar quoted got her knowledge of the constitution the same place our illustrious community organizer in chief got his. “Good causes” should always override stupid old laws created by slave owning honkeys over 200 years ago, anyway. And I have to admit I am surprised that only 11 kids were willing to break with their apathy and actually come clean about how much they admire the brave new world we live in. The lot of them must have been distracted by some other idiotic cause or event, I guess. Bet you if someone asked any of these 11 geniuses polled if it was OK for the other side to do what they encouraged Team Blue to do, that they would then find the whole thing despicable, unconstitutional, and worthy of an international tribunal followed by a summary execution of all the perps involved.

Go ahead and dismiss this as an outlier or inconsequential if you must. Tell me how these kids are just not the final product of what the left really believes in and has labored for over 5 decades to accomplish. Then point out that it was only 11 kids that they got to respond to this insane proposal., so this is much ado about nothing. Heck, accuse me of conspiracy theorizing and being paranoid: kind of like when I was pointing out that this administration had a pattern of systemic and systematic abuses of power and an agenda so despicable it boggles the mind going on, right before we had the deluge of scandals revealed to us all. I am sure our lefty trolls, the ones that admit they are lefties as well as the ones that pretend to be something else, will just pooh-pooh the whole thing as inconsequential, but that’s all they are left with. Point out that you get less hate and evil from a gathering of KKK members these days, and I am sure they will find a way to turn it on you for daring to expose them for what they are. I can already hear the “Booosh!!!1!elevnty!!!” cries to divert attention. Rights for me, but none for thee, indeed.

Moving on…

The Rise and Scale of Surveillance

The AP has a story about how PRISM was developed. The number of requests for information continued to ramp up and PRISM was created to ease the process rather than have agents appear in person. So many requests were put in — more on that in a moment — that it was impossible to confirm the details. More:

But interviews with more than a dozen current and former government and technology officials and outside experts show that, while Prism has attracted the recent attention, the program actually is a relatively small part of a much more expansive and intrusive eavesdropping effort.

Americans who disapprove of the government reading their emails have more to worry about from a different and larger NSA effort that snatches data as it passes through the fiber optic cables that make up the Internet’s backbone. That program, which has been known for years, copies Internet traffic as it enters and leaves the United States, then routes it to the NSA for analysis.

Whether by clever choice or coincidence, Prism appears to do what its name suggests. Like a triangular piece of glass, Prism takes large beams of data and helps the government find discrete, manageable strands of information.

The fact that it is productive is not surprising; documents show it is one of the major sources for what ends up in the president’s daily briefing. Prism makes sense of the cacophony of the Internet’s raw feed. It provides the government with names, addresses, conversation histories and entire archives of email inboxes.

How many requests for specific information does PRISM ask for? In the second half of last year, Facebook got 9-10,000 requests involving 19,000 users. Other companies are reporting similar levels. Defenders of the program are saying, “Well, that’s not a lot considering how many users Facebook, Google, etc., have.” Maybe. But it IS a lot when you consider how many active terrorists there are (probably in hundreds at most) and how few attacks these efforts have supposedly thwarted (a few). And that’s just six months of requests.

The defenders are also making a big deal of the NSA’s claim that they only asked for details on 300 phone numbers in 2012. But keep in mind that they collected metadata on millions and metadata is a big deal, frequently as revealing and invasive as a wiretap.

In fact, the defenders of the President are frankly spouting a lot of nonsense. They keep claiming PRISM wasn’t a big secret and Glenn Greenwald didn’t break anything new; but then they brand Snowden a traitor and claim that he’s compromised the War on Terror. They tell us this isn’t a big deal and we all assumed our electronic communications were monitored; but then they say the program is absolutely vital to success. When you break it down, they are simply scrounging around desperately for a reason to believe that Obama hasn’t betrayed everything he said in Election 2008. I expect them to continue to scramble.

Nothing to Hide

There is, however, one defense with which I have no patience for at all. The Obamaphiles are in the slow stages of realizing who exactly they elected. But the other crowd are simply ignorant subservient cattle. They are the ones running around saying that even the most invasive program should be acceptable for people with “nothing to hide.”

Moxie Marlinspike (is that her real name? Seriously? Awesome!) has a great response. After pointing out, as we have previously discussed, that the federal government has so many laws and so many obscure laws that practically everyone is a felon, she brings up a critical point:

Over the past year, there have been a number of headline-grabbing legal changes in the U.S., such as the legalization of marijuana in Colorado and Washington, as well as the legalization of same-sex marriage in a growing number of U.S. states.

As a majority of people in these states apparently favor these changes, advocates for the U.S. democratic process cite these legal victories as examples of how the system can provide real freedoms to those who engage with it through lawful means. And it’s true, the bills did pass.

What’s often overlooked, however, is that these legal victories would probably not have been possible without the ability to break the law.

The state of Minnesota, for instance, legalized same-sex marriage this year, but sodomy laws had effectively made homosexuality itself completely illegal in that state until 2001. Likewise, before the recent changes making marijuana legal for personal use in Washington and Colorado, it was obviously not legal for personal use.

Imagine if there were an alternate dystopian reality where law enforcement was 100% effective, such that any potential law offenders knew they would be immediately identified, apprehended, and jailed. If perfect law enforcement had been a reality in Minnesota, Colorado, and Washington since their founding in the 1850s, it seems quite unlikely that these recent changes would have ever come to pass. How could people have decided that marijuana should be legal, if nobody had ever used it? How could states decide that same sex marriage should be permitted, if nobody had ever seen or participated in a same sex relationship?

Precisely. This applies to much of the social change that our society has undergone. Interracial marriage would still be illegal if the Lovings hadn’t broken the law and challenged it in the courts. Segregation was broken because MLK was willing to break the law and be punished for it. The progress we have made on property rights and eminent domain have occurred when citizens have been unwilling to meekly acquiesce to the wishes of their government.

No one is saying there is value to be gained in social experimentation in terrorism, obviously. But — as I have said over and over again — the question of PRISM powers being extended to drugs, prostitution, sex, marriage, taxes, etc. is not if, it’s when.

More from Don Boudreax:

1. Is your lack of concern with government snooping a result of your confidence that (a) you, your loved ones, and your friends consistently act in ways that do not violate (what you believe to be) today’s government policy; (b) government will seldom-enough err in interpreting the contents and motives of your, your loved ones’ and your friends’ activities; and (c) that today’s government policy targets and penalizes only those private activities that “ought” to be targeted and penalized by government? If so, are you also confident that government policy will never change to render those same activities of you, your loved ones, and your friends unacceptable to government tomorrow?

2. Or is your lack of concern with government snooping due instead to your confidence that you, your loved ones, and your friends will always not only wish to – but will also always successfully and in time – adjust your activities in ways that render those activities acceptable to government, regardless of the specific contents and motives of whatever government policies reign at the moment?

Exactly. These electronic records go back for many years, through many different legal regimes. A broad reach into your electronic past could uncover things that aren’t illegal now but were illegal then.

There’s another thing. Massive electronic surveillance can uncover things that, while not illegal, are embarrassing. The government and its bootlickers have often taken great delight in revealing embarrassing details about people they don’t like (such as some of the personal smears on Snowden). Anyone who has an affair, anyone who has done something they shouldn’t, anyone with porn on their computer, anyone with humiliating pictures or cringe-inducing e-mails or, um, blog posts they wish they could flush down the memory hole has “something to hide”.

“I have nothing to hide” is the attitude of a slave, not a citizen who is on equal footing with his government. “I have nothing to hide” is an indication that you don’t know what you have to hide. “I have nothing to hide” is an admission that your life is not your own.

The Man of the Hour

As for Edward Snowden, while I still appreciate the reveal of PRISM and still rail against those who call him “traitor” just because he crossed the President, I am growing less sympathetic by the minute. The latest revelation is that he revealed secret snooping on Dmitri Medvedev. While I oppose domestic surveillance, I have absolutely no problem with our government spying on other countries, particularly those as powerful as China and Russia. That is, in fact, the President’s job. Spying on other countries — even our allies — is not shameful, disgraceful, untoward, undiplomatic or wrong. It is how the world works. We should assume these countries are spying on us. Why should we not return the favor?

The attempts by Snowden and some of his allies to cast foreign surveillance as wrong reminds me of a quote from Robert Heinlein. In 1960, one of our U-2 spy planes was downed on a reconnaissance mission inside the Soviet Union. In response to those who said the U-2 flights were “shameful”, Heinlein uncorked this:

Espionage is not illegal under International Law. Neither is it immoral. The penalty for getting caught at is is very high. It usually means the spy’s neck. It is not illegal under US laws for us to attempt to spy on the USSR, nor is it illegal for them to attempt to spy on us. Nor, in either case, is it an act of war. Throughout history every country has striven to learn the military secrets of a potential enemy, and to protect its own. Spying is wise and necessary insurance against utter military disaster.

That we have been conducting photo surveillance over the Soviet Union so successfully and for four vital years is the most encouraging news of the past decade … If Mr. Eisenhower had failed to obtain by any possible means the military intelligence that the USSR gets so easily and cheaply about us, he would have been derelict in his duty.

So if you hear anyone whining about how “shameful” the U-2 flights were, take his lollipop away and spank him with it.

If Edward Snowden is revealing our espionage secrets to Russia and China — and it now appears that he is — he deserves a lot more than a spanking. He deserves to be imprisoned for espionage.

That does not, however, change the nature of PRISM or the rightness or wrongness of domestic surveillance. Just as Eisenhower had a duty to spy on the Soviet Union, Obama has a duty to spy on terrorists. But in both cases, these powers need to be tightly bound, strictly controlled and not used for other purposes. The revelation of PRISM is a big step in establishing those limits, even if the person who revealed them turns out to be a disloyal scumbag.

In a striking repudiation of the ultraconservatives who wield power in Iran, voters here overwhelmingly elected a mild-mannered cleric who advocates greater personal freedoms and a more conciliatory approach to the world.

The cleric, Hassan Rowhani, 64, won a commanding 50.7 percent of the vote in the six-way race, according to final results released Saturday, avoiding a runoff in the race to replace the departing president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, whose tenure was defined largely by confrontation with the West and a seriously hobbled economy at home.

Thousands of jubilant supporters poured into the streets of Tehran, dancing, blowing car horns and waving placards and ribbons of purple, Mr. Rowhani’s campaign color. After the previous election in 2009, widely seen as rigged, many Iranians were shaking their heads that their votes were counted this time.

What happened was quite simple. The reformers rallied behind one candidate while the conservatives split. But even the conservatives combined only grabbed about a third of the vote. The result was so overwhelming that even the Iranian government couldn’t steal this one.

Now we shouldn’t get carried away here. Power in Iran still rests with Ayatollah Khamenei and his mullahs. This may only serve to give a respectable veneer to their regime. They will temper any attempt by Rowhani to reform Iran. The nuclear program will go on. However, if the message of the last election was not heard, this has to be: the Iranian people are growing tired of being cut off from the world and controlled by a bunch of 70-year-old religious fanatics.

At some point, the mullahs are going to have to give in just a little bit. And when that happens, it may be the damn breaking. For the past 12 years, I have been thinking that Iran was about 10 years away from turning into an ally. Now I’ll say it’s about nine years away from being an ally. This is a tiny step. Let’s not confuse it with a revolution. But it’s a step.

Our own real world is no different. Civilization is equally enriched and terrorized by technology. The same YouTube user can inform the world about what’s really going on during a Mideast protest one day, and on a different day, bitch about interracial relationships in a Cheerios commercial. Somewhere, a NSA analyst gathers it all up and ponders what it means. His own intentions are no clearer than anyone else’s.

It seems like every year we are learning more and more about our Earth and the Universe. Contemporary scientists seem to be coming to the conclusion that we’re totally destroying the former and completely insignificant in the latter. Others may disagree. Studies of ancient, ruined civilizations show that it will all go back to the dirt and be forgotten when our time is up and life in the Final Frontier still hasn’t appeared. We could be a big deal in the grand scheme after all.

Maybe we don’t know for sure, but we can make some educated guesses. I’m ready now for some science education.

This week, go for anything that can be connected to any thing scientific. This one’s easy. The bad news is that I’m assigning everyone a major. Choose any sciencey songs you want, but you need to pick something from your major to claim your bonus.

Baccalaureate Bonus: You have to find one musical selection that fits within the assigned discipline. Be prepared because anyone can throw you another track in your field and it must be answered! Can you hold up under peer review?

Just for fun, you could also throw in some good pseudo-science like cryptozoology or astrology. Because I enjoy such topics.

Dedications:

Santino: Psychology! I look forward to you identifying at least two of my personality disorders. Psycho by Puddle of Mudd

Mississippi Yankee: You get Meteorology. Because you’re frequently WRONG. Storms Never Last by Dr Hook

pfluffy: You have Medicine. You could play it safe and play some, uh, songs about “pharmaceuticals”. I’m going a different way with it though. X-Ray Mind by Mad Season

WVR: I’ll give you credit. Politically speaking, you and I are like mixing acids and bases. Musically? It’s pure Chemistry. Gasoline by Airborne Toxic Event

stogy: I don’t know from where you dig up some of the stuff you find, so you’re doing Archaeology. Clay, Wood, Bone, Dirt by Steve Roach

InsipiD: Judging by your avatar, you are a friend of our furry pals so…Zoology. Call Me A Dog by Temple of the Dog

Iconoclast: Ah, your favorite debate subject on RTFLC (at least I hope it is)…Anthropology. Do the Evolution by Pearl Jam

thelastdakrat: I do have a diploma here for you if you would like to show up and claim it. Unfortunately, it is for…English. What the fuuuuck? Okay, show up with any song being…sung in English…and you’re good.

Anyone else who wants to apply can just jump right in. I have a stack of subjects over here.

Last time I even heard about Glenn Beck, he left Foxnews to peddle his own (paid) internet streaming service. Never being a Beck fan, I never missed him. But about 2 months ago I was looking at the Free Preview channel on Dish (my TV provider) and I saw Blaze TV mentioned. Now I guess I can watch Blaze TV for free anytime I want, too bad I don’t want to.

But today (I guess viewership is not stellar and what peeks interest faster than a doomsday scenario?) he gave us this:

Don’t go underground just yet. Well, at least we won’t have long to wait.

Beck mentions a divided nation, hate to break it to him but we have been a divided nation for a very long time, and the divide keeps growing. I can’ think of a time where there was more actual bitter hatred, smash mouthed hatred for the other side. Many times I feel it myself. I don’t need a lecture on stereotyping, I get that people are individuals and just because one scum sucking progressive does something monumentally asinine, that they do not represent all scum sucking progressives. I also get that there are some vile soulless reprobates on my side, and they don’t speak for me. And maybe its just a product of our 24 hour news environment where even the commonest of douchebags has a forum and a method to disseminate his bile to the masses, but too many times of late I have seen examples of people that desperately need some violence heaped upon them, that is difficult for a pacifist like myself.

But back to bringing down the whole power structure, I say lets do it. I can’t think of a better administration to have this fall on. Democrats and Republicans, they can all pack their bags. The existing power structure is not serving us well, a little scandal to do the trick is probably what is necessary since they won’t go willingly.

Granted, all this assumes that Beck is on to something, what are the odds?

I am reminded of that clown, that 90 year old preacher that predicted the end of the world, twice. Beck is all in, all his chips are on the table. He better show us something, that is if anyone is even listening to him.

The Syrian opposition is kind of difficult to define. But we know at least one element includes radical Islamists. We should stay out. It’s a horrible thing — 100,000 dead according to the latest estimate. But I don’t see that our getting involved will solve anything.

And you must think me a real idiot, considering this administration’s track record and large pattern of abuse, when you try to make the case the NSA is only looking at terrorists. Well, let me pour some cold water on you and point out that the snooping, for some time now, specifically avoids the very damned places these fucking terrorists get their marching orders from:

Homeland Insecurity: The White House assures that tracking our every phone call and keystroke is to stop terrorists, and yet it won’t snoop in mosques, where the terrorists are.

That’s right, the government’s sweeping surveillance of our most private communications excludes the jihad factories where homegrown terrorists are radicalized.

Since October 2011, mosques have been off-limits to FBI agents. No more surveillance or undercover string operations without high-level approval from a special oversight body at the Justice Department dubbed the Sensitive Operations Review Committee.

Who makes up this body, and how do they decide requests? Nobody knows; the names of the chairman, members and staff are kept secret.

We do know the panel was set up under pressure from Islamist groups who complained about FBI stings at mosques. Just months before the panel’s formation, the Council on American-Islamic Relations teamed up with the ACLU to sue the FBI for allegedly violating the civil rights of Muslims in Los Angeles by hiring an undercover agent to infiltrate and monitor mosques there.

Before mosques were excluded from the otherwise wide domestic spy net the administration has cast, the FBI launched dozens of successful sting operations against homegrown jihadists — inside mosques — and disrupted dozens of plots against the homeland.

No wonder they missed the bombers in Boston. But the fucking tea Party terrorists and anyone this administration feels is dangerous to the agenda and the narrative? They are firmly in the crosshairs. Let’s face it. If you are not freaking out by what is going on you deserve it when these people come for you next. It is neither an accident nor a coincidence that this government’s agents have repeatedly let it slip that they think the real terrorists are the domestic entities opposed to their rule. Wait until they control and own your healthcare information and access to care too. That’s when it is going to get real fun.

But more high jinks has been uncovered, where do I sign up?

A rudimentary perusal of youtube will provide a plethora of examples of Israeli soldiers cutting up, from Gangham Style to Harlem Shuffle, and who can blame them? They don’t have an all volunteer army, everybody serves in one capacity or another. They all get drafted. Expecting 18 year olds to all behave themselves and act “soldierly” is about as unrealistic as expecting all college students in dorms to act scholarly.

Between dodging exploding rockets and car bombs, the stress and responsibility heaped on these kids takes it’s toll, the specter of war or invasion a constant, cutting them some slack during their off duty times would go a long way to furthering the cause. Anything they can do to make mandatory service more humane, or serviceable, I bet their suicide rates are minuscule compared to ours.

There is a scene in Wanderlust ( a dreadful movie, BTW) where an indie producer gets her nature production on penguins rejected by the HBO execs. They tell her that they are looking for something a bit more cutting edge (code word; salacious) for their viewing audience. The producer facetiously suggests that her penguins can turn into vampires, then between gratuitous sex scenes they can wipe out the rest of the heard, all in an insatiable desire for more blood, the exec says ,”I like it”.

Contrast this with what the BBC puts out across the pond, specifically something like Downton Abbey for example. Downton Abbey is even more popular than GoT, factoring in world wide audiences, yet, no nudity, no profanity, minimal violence. A compelling story and exquisite acting carries this series, they don’t need all of the other stuff to attract a following. And even when nudity or violence is appropriate (how do they manage to find that line between tasteful and gratuitous so easily) they bring it off with the alacrity and ease of a Tony Parker dish off to Tim Duncan under the hoop, it is poetry in motion.

Such great BBC classics as Parades End, Any Human Heart, Island at War, each had sex scenes , but the camera lingers, it does not gawk, a subtlety lost on American film makers.

And why is it that when HBO wants to make a series on a grand scale, they go to England for cast members? GoT, Rome (another great series) , surely America has more Spencer Tracys or Marlon Brandos available for cinematic greatness here at home. Do we really need to go abroad to find acting talent (Daniel Day Lewis, Russel Crow, Sam Worthington, Alex O’Loughlin).

Naturally GoT has more sex scenes then in the books, this is what Hollywood thinks is necessary to get butts in the seats, at least here in America. But all too often the crutch of no censorship and unfettered creativity stifles real creativity, so in place of story or a performance that grabs you, we are given junk food, an exposed breast, a severed head, and a potty mouthed protagonist. But like Chinese food, an hour later we feel unsatisfied and a profound regret at a wasted hour out of your lives.

If life is too short to waste on bad wine, it certainly is too short to waste on bad cinema. Quality over quantity, and don’t think you are too big to fail, our discretionary dollars should demand a better effort then what we are getting.

And it should go this way because the reassurance of “trust us” simply isn’t going to cut it. Let’s assume, for the moment, that the safeguards for our data are in place that information can only be obtained on a court order. Fine. But let’s consider the history of the IRS: political persecutions, “seizure fever”, overzealous prosecutions, agents abusing their privelege to snoop into the financial records of celebrities and neighbors. Let’s consider the history of COINTELPRO. The fact is that the government’s investigatory powers have a history of being abused. This is not a hypothetical. This is not some paranoid Glenn Beck fever dream. Abuses have happened; abuses are happening. You don’t have to be a crazy libertarian to be worried that a secret program with the power to look at our electronic data has a massive potential for abuse.

Given the overwhelming case for great transparency, the defenders of Obama are focusing their attention on the leaker himself. Snowden, of course, is being hailed as a hero in many quarters. Despite my gratitude for the leak, I’m not prepared to proclaim Snowden a hero quite yet. I am reserving judgement until we know what was revealed, to whom and for what reason.

However, the effort to demonize him is also running full force. It can be as mild as David Brooks’ bizarre psychoanalysis to as heavy as Jeffrey Toobin’s accusation of “sabotage” (although Snowden didn’t actually sabotage anything or break anything) all the way to several prominent senators accusing him of treason.

The treason charge is, by far, the most troubling. As Dylan Matthews point out, treason is actually defined in the Constitution:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.

Snowden obviously didn’t levy war on the United States. And “aid and comfort” is awfully difficult to prove. For example, the Rosenbergs were not charged with treason for giving our atomic secrets to the Soviet Union because we technically weren’t at war with them. Neither Hanssen nor Ames were charged with treason. So while it’s likely that Snowden broke the law, calling him a “traitor” is a bit hyperbolic given what we know.

(Of course, one thing to keep in mind every time the Administration or their apologists talk about how crazy Snowden is: this crazy person had access to top secret information. In fact about 500,000 people have top secret clearance right now.)

Why am I splitting this hair? Because I think it’s important to shine a light on what people like Diane Feinstein and John Bolton and and Bill Nelson and others consider treason. They seem to be defining it as crossing the will of the President. This isn’t about leaks. As Alex noted last week, the Administration was more than happy to leak classified information to the makers of Zero Dark Thirty when it suited their purposes. Just this week, they leaked info about disrupting al-Qaeda’s online magazine. And you really absolutely must read this piece by Jack Schaefer:

Yet even as the insults pile up and the amateur psychoanalysis intensifies, keep in mind that Snowden’s leak has more in common with the standard Washington leak than should make the likes of Brooks, Simon and Cohen comfortable. Without defending Snowden for breaking his vow to safeguard secrets, he’s only done in the macro what the national security establishment does in the micro every day of the week to manage, manipulate and influence ongoing policy debates. Keeping the policy leak separate from the heretic leak is crucial to understanding how these stories play out in the press.

Secrets are sacrosanct in Washington until officials find political expediency in either declassifying them or leaking them selectively. It doesn’t really matter which modern presidential administration you decide to scrutinize for this behavior, as all of them are guilty. For instance, President George W. Bush’s administration declassified or leaked whole barrels of intelligence, raw and otherwise, to convince the public and Congress making war on Iraq was a good idea. Bush himself ordered the release of classified prewar intelligence about Iraq through Vice President Dick Cheney and Chief of Staff I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby to New York Times reporter Judith Miller in July 2003.

After recalling a number of incidents where Obama and his minions have leaked classified info for their own purposes, he concludes:

The willingness of the government to punish leakers is inversely proportional to the leakers’ rank and status, which is bad news for someone so lacking in those attributes as Edward Snowden. But as the Snowden prosecution commences, we should question his selective prosecution. Let’s ask, as Isikoff did of the Obama administration officials who leaked to Woodward, why Snowden is singled out for punishment when he’s essential done what the insider dissenters did when they spoke with Risen and Lichtblau in 2005 about an invasive NSA program. He deserves the same justice and the same punishment they received.

We owe Snowden a debt of gratitude for restarting—or should I say starting?—the public debate over the government’s secret but “legal” intrusions into our privacy. His leaks, filtered through the Guardian and the Washington Post, give us a once-in-a-generation opportunity to place limits on our power-mad government.

This isn’t about the leaks. This isn’t about security. If we had really caught a bunch of terrorist with PRISM, you can bet your bottom dollar that Obama would be leaking details about PRISM to the media: probably more details than Snowden has leaked. So spare us the lectures about how leaking secure information is treason.

No, this about loyalty. This is about only leaking information that the Administration thinks should be leaked and nothing else. Controlling the flow of classified information is, of course, part of the President’s job. But when that information is leaked to the American people for their supposed benefit, it may be a crime but it is not treason. Treason is a crime against the nation, not against the President. And the people who are screaming treason and want Snowden tied up and shot are conflating the two, subscribing to the belief that the President is the country.

Even if we posit that Snoweden is cuckoo, his actions are enabling people who aren’t to make some changes that just might protect our privacy. These actions would not be taking place without the leak. Is that so bad? Is that betrayal? Is that treason?

Only if you worship the Cult of the Presidency.

Update: The latest information is that Snowden is talking to the Chinese press and has told them that the US is hacking Chinese sites. If he is revealing secret information to them, then Snowden is committing espionage for a foreign power, similar to the Rosenbergs or Hannsen. That’s why I was reluctant to call him a hero.

That’s still not technically treason. And it’s worth noting that the accusations of treason were leveled at Snowden for revealing this information to the American public long before any meeting with China. So good on him for revealing this information to us; shame on him if he is revealing technical details to China as well.

Nearly all development economists agree that good institutions—legislatures, courts, administrative agencies—are crucial. When poor countries improve their institutions, economic growth soon accelerates. But what about rich countries? If poor countries can get rich by improving their institutions, is it not possible that rich countries can get poor by allowing their institutions to degenerate? I want to suggest that it is.

Consider the evidence from the annual “Doing Business” reports from the World Bank and International Finance Corporation. Since 2006 the report has published data for most of the world’s countries on the total number of days it takes to start a business, get a construction permit, register a property, pay taxes, get an export or import license and enforce a contract. If one simply adds together the total number of days it would take to carry out all seven of these procedures sequentially, it is possible to construct a simple measure of how slowly—or fast—a country’s bureaucracy moves.

Seven years of data suggest that most of the world’s countries are successfully making it easier to do business: The total number of days it takes to carry out the seven procedures has come down, in some cases very substantially. In only around 20 countries has the total duration of dealing with “red tape” gone up. The sixth-worst case is none other than the U.S., where the total number of days has increased by 18% to 433. Other members of the bottom 10, using this metric, are Zimbabwe, Burundi and Yemen (though their absolute numbers are of course much higher).

We have discussed many times, on these pages, the massive regulatory burdens that have descended on American businesses. Sarbanes-Oxley, Dodd-Frank and the pending crush of Obamacare, just to name three, tally over 2000 pages. And the cost of regulation, especially with the new insurance mandates, run into the hundred of billions. Is it any wonder why we’ve had a lost decade? Why unemployment stay high? Why wages are stagnant? Why Apple keeps its earning overseas? The article goes through many different measures and many ways of approaching the question and keeps coming up with the same answer: massive systemic institutional failure creating a hostile business environment for anyone who doesn’t play the Washington game. Overhauling our tax system alone would remove a couple of hundred billion in deadweight loss on our economy. So why isn’t it on the table?

Because the current system empowers the powerful. It brings rent-seeking businesses to Washington to beg and plead for special dispensations and subsidies. It gives those businesses billions in advantages over their competition. It lets politicians control the economy, punish businesses they don’t like and reward ones they do. It creates mass fortunes for the lawyers who interpret regulations, advise on regulations and file lawsuits when some company breaks them.

I get it that idiots like you would like us all to think that since Obama is now in charge – did you know the dude has a peace prize, has stopped the rising of the oceans, and has all but done away with the GWoT too – that systemic and systematic collection of information on all citizens is not a big deal, especially since he isn’t evil BushChimpyMcHitler ™. But who are you fucking assholes trying to kid? All we have to do is ask you to tell us how you would feel if Boosh was doing this exact same thing. Your side, rightly so, almost had a heart attack and demanded all sorts of checks & balances when Boosh’s people were looking just at terrorists, but now you feel collecting information on all citizens is no big deal, and in fact, a great weapon against the very GWoT your side wants to pretend is already done and over? Did your head just exploded there? Logic, facts, and morals are not things that exist or bug the ideological and political left much. And we have yet another example of that here.

You can not make the shit going on up anymore. Oh how far has this once great nation fallen. Nixon got jibbed considering the real abuses that these bastards are getting away with.

Obama Admin Snooping

You should read the NYT’s story about PRISM. It makes everything consistent: Greenwald’s original report, the tech companies denial and the reports we’ve been hearing off and on for the last seven years. Money quote:

Each of the nine companies said it had no knowledge of a government program providing officials with access to its servers, and drew a bright line between giving the government wholesale access to its servers to collect user data and giving them specific data in response to individual court orders. Each said it did not provide the government with full, indiscriminate access to its servers.

The companies said they do, however, comply with individual court orders, including under FISA. The negotiations, and the technical systems for sharing data with the government, fit in that category because they involve access to data under individual FISA requests. And in some cases, the data is transmitted to the government electronically, using a company’s servers.

“The U.S. government does not have direct access or a ‘back door’ to the information stored in our data centers,” Google’s chief executive, Larry Page, and its chief legal officer, David Drummond, said in a statement on Friday. “We provide user data to governments only in accordance with the law.”

Statements from Microsoft, Yahoo, Facebook, Apple, AOL and Paltalk made the same distinction.

But instead of adding a back door to their servers, the companies were essentially asked to erect a locked mailbox and give the government the key, people briefed on the negotiations said. Facebook, for instance, built such a system for requesting and sharing the information, they said.

The data shared in these ways, the people said, is shared after company lawyers have reviewed the FISA request according to company practice. It is not sent automatically or in bulk, and the government does not have full access to company servers. Instead, they said, it is a more secure and efficient way to hand over the data.

Tech companies might have also denied knowledge of the full scope of cooperation with national security officials because employees whose job it is to comply with FISA requests are not allowed to discuss the details even with others at the company, and in some cases have national security clearance, according to both a former senior government official and a lawyer representing a technology company.

This is less alarming than the initial reporting but still very very concerning. Keep in mind that, according to the Verizon story, the FISA court has been granting extremely broad warrants for surveillance. Keep in mind also that, according to the FISA laws, communications involving US citizens can be monitored.. Think about how many people overseas are on Twitter, on Facebook, use Google or read this very blog.

Do we have reason to be worried that these powers — which were a secret until now — will be abused? We already have reports that electronic communications of innocent Americans have been “accidentally” intercepted. The NSA is also trying to prevent the release of a Court opinion finding that they had engaged in unconstitutional spying.

And even if this weren’t the case, we know that these powers, especially when they lurk in secret, only have a tendency to expand. Powers intended for terrorism rapidly extend to drugs (which often involve foreign agents) and are then extended to ordinary crime. Think about the Constitution-shredding tactics used in the War on Drugs — asset forfeiture, for example — and how they been extended beyond the War on Drugs. Once you give our government a hammer, they will get the courts to rule that everything is a nail. I’m not particularly moved by the arguments — put forward by DNI Clapper and his apologists — that national security has been compromised. Not when some of our basic liberties are at stake. I’m pretty sure the terrorists are either completely clueless or avoid electronic communications, having assumed that something like this was going on.

The one thing I keep hearing is that we need to have a public debate about this. But keep in mind that the public debate hasn’t happened yet and is only happening to the extent that it is because of the leak. The Administration’s defenders would rather we not have had the debate at all.

Ah, the Administration’s defenders. Libertarians and some conservatives are responding to this revelation as you might expect. But the response of the Left Wing is disappointing if unsurprising. You know how we’ve used the terms “Bush Derangement Syndrome” and “Obama Derangement Syndrome”? They describe someone who has an irrational hatred of one of the two Presidents to the point where they always assume the worst motivations, the worst intentions and instantly believe any absurd story that emerges about them. Well, in the past few days, we’ve been seeing a lot of “Obama Defense Derangement Syndrome”: people who believe that any criticism of Obama falls into the ODS category (or is a sign of crypto-racism). Their increasingly mindless defense of the President is not based on any facts or any actions of his; they are based on who his critics are. So if Rand Paul disagrees with the President … well, Rand Paul is a nut so the President’s actions must be defensible.

The ODDS starting immediately with people saying the Prism slides didn’t look professional and might be faked. After they were confirmed, they jumped on the tech companies denial of the existence of the system (conveniently ignoring the Greenwald specifically mentioned those denials in his original report). Then they said that Bush started it (true enough; but Obama ran against that and has now brought it to its apotheosis). Now they’re claiming that we had a public debate (the tense is wrong; we’re having one now, thanks to the leak).

They have further parroted the President’s lie that Congress and the Courts signed off on all this without a qualm. But Senators Udall, Wyden and Paul were among many who objected to these powers, who tried to get basic civil liberties protections into the laws and warned us about the surveillance state that was being built. Senator Sensenbrenner, one of the architects of the Patriot Act, blasted the President for going beyond what was intended and not getting Congressional approval. As noted above, the Courts have pushed back on this, to the extent that they’ve been consulted. And, it bears repeating, much of the detail is in secret with many participants forced into silence under penalty of law. Citing the Sunday Morning Talkshow Dipshits as though they were an authority is simply abandoning your duty as a citizen.

The biggest tell for ODDS is ad hominem attacks on his critics. And, in this case, it’s attacks on Glenn Greenwald. I have my issues with Greenwald. I agree with him on civil liberties but the list of things I disagree with him on — Bradley Manning, Israel, the War on Terror, healthcare — is very long. But to suggest, as many are doing, that his revelation is based on some kind of personal animus against the President is ridiculous. Greenwald calls it as he sees it. He was highly critical of Bush, too. He is highly critical of almost everyone. He is always inflammatory on the subject of civil liberties. This sometimes leads him to overstate his case or assume the worst. But that’s his way and it always has been.

In this case, he has a legitimate story: the federal government has now admitted that the infrastructure exists for massive electronic surveillance; that they are already using this with FISA on foreign targets; that they have been able to get broad court orders to get meta-data from cell phone companies (which can be as intrusive as actual wiretapping). Claims that this reporting is “irresponsible” or “hysterical” misses that we should be kind of hysterical about broad surveillance powers. Reporting on this kind of government program is the press’s job. And responding to it by saying that we should just trust our government, that we should let Obama make these decisions, that “no one elected Glenn Greenwald” is subservient hogwash.

There is a need for our government to keep some things secret (and Greenwald specifically refused to publish technical details of PRISM for that reason). All Americans understand that there are things the government has to do on the quiet. But the creation of a massive surveillance state — a state that could be turned on us quite easily — is not something we should just trust our politicians to execute, no matter who they are or how much of a tingle they might give us up our leg.

Postscript: The identity of the leaker is now known. He has fled to Hong Kong, citing their commitment to civli liberties. This frankly strikes me as deranged, given Chinese law. I suspect the real reason for going there is to avoid extradition.

PPS: As for the political impact of all this, I suspect it will be small. Unfortunately, the American people are all too willing to ignore encroachments on their liberty.

I should have guessed after the first season when the only honorable man in the whole show gets himself beheaded in the end, this George Martin guy is one sick f**K. Then last week we had the “red wedding”, gee George, that was lots of fun:

Time to brake out the scales, on one side is the chance that I will see Emilia Clarke naked again, a rather substantial weight is applied. But on the other is the obvious reality that whenever a character becomes the least bit interesting or deserving of support in some way, they will ceremoniously get waxed, all the while, every dastardly villain lacking in all things honorable or praise worthy, these are the guys (and gals) that party like its 1999.

I used to like Ros, an amiable gal who left her humble beginnings and who made good in the big city, up until that little puke of a king put 4 arrows in her chest.

So now I have a conundrum, do I walk away like I did Homeland (sick and tired of them glorifying terrorists) and go back to reruns of SOA, or do I just get perverse, realize that it’s not Jane Austin, and cheer the mounting body count of all the good people on the show? Yea, more Kermit Gosnell type abortions with long knives. I figure in the end, all these weasels are going to get their comeuppance, but with this guy, who knows? Maybe a plague will hit the seven kingdoms and they all get snuffed.

Damn HBO, them and their crappy Real Time show, they are mocking me. Where’s my old DVD’s of Rome?

WASHINGTON—The National Security Agency’s monitoring of Americans includes customer records from the three major phone networks as well as emails and Web searches, and the agency also has cataloged credit-card transactions, said people familiar with the agency’s activities.

The disclosure this week of an order by a secret U.S. court for Verizon Communications Inc.’s VZ +3.34% phone records set off the latest public discussion of the program. But people familiar with the NSA’s operations said the initiative also encompasses phone-call data from AT&T Inc. T +1.54% and Sprint Nextel Corp., S +1.91% records from Internet-service providers and purchase information from credit-card providers.

Credit cards? So they are tracking what people buy with their cards as well, huh? Yeah, I can go into a rant about how fucking insane this abuse of power is, but the first thing that popped into my mind is that if they can track everyone’s credit card transactions, they should put some effort into checking out past Obama campaign crdit card misuses. Of course I am just kidding! Don’t drone strike me, bro. No f-ing way these scumbags would find anything wrong with what they are doing anyway. After all, things are only “really wrong, bordering on evil” when it is the conservatives, religious people, and of course, the Tea Partiers that can be accused – practically always falsely, and without the usual bullshit restraint the left and the LSM pretend they feel obliged to practice until, as they constantly tell is when the perp is a leftard, the real facts are known – of doing it.

I ask again: what do you think the reaction from the left and the LSM would be if the flood of ever more scary and intrusive revelations of governmental abuse of power and shitting all over the constitution and our rights was happening under a republican administration? Do you really think that we would be seeing people in the media or in authority making excuses and trying to minimize the importance of addressing these criminal activities by the monsters that promised us the most transparent and ethical administration ever? Do you think that if things were reversed that republicans would be doing what the left is doing now – circling the wagons – or would they do the same that was done when Nixon was forced to resign for something that clearly seems to be a much smaller and less despicable abuse of power? Do you think a republican administration would be given the same latitude and leniency they are giving the members of the Chicago thug machine running the country into the ground?

The left may want to pretend otherwise, but the Obama presidency has made it abundantly clear to anyone that isn’t a fucking idiot that they, their ideology, and their disregard for the very laws they use to target those they see as political enemies, are despicable. Oh, I am under no illusion that the 47%, to use a classification Romney was pilloried for, will not care a bit as long as these fucks abusing the massive power of the Leviathan state keep the “free shit” coming and do not bother them too much. Shame, decency, and morals are dead on the left, so these crooks will not be bothered. The great American experiment is being murdered, and remember that they promised us they were going to change it up, and the left can’t be bothered by that. The nanny state is evil.

Easy enough. I started off by calling the phone number. Who I got was a bitchy voice recording that told me to visit the website that was on the text message. The fuck? My 20% corporate discount means a lot to me, so I soldiered on. I knew that this would end in even more frustration.

The website naturally asked me for some personal and company info to ensure that everything was current. Nothing too trifling. When I saw that they wanted a pay stub, I wasn’t concerned because my employer lets me readily download them anytime I need them. There was a button on the cell phone provider’s webpage where I could even choose to upload or email my pay stub. And of course, the button was jacked up. It kept taking me back to the “My Information” page.

Keep in mind that this cell phone service provider is also an ISP. They can’t even have a functional webpage?

It was when I realized that I would have to print out the pay stub and mail it with a printed copy of a confirmation email that my frustration crested and broke against the “Customer Feedback” form on the website (which, surprisingly, did work). I detailed my annoyance with decidedly less restraint than I am showing here.

Then I mailed the stupid pay stub with the form. Because if I’m going to continue paying for this shitty, annoying telecom, I am entitled to pay less for the abuse.

And then I found out this week that my cell phone provider has been giving the federal government all of my calling records.

“We appreciate your business, serf. Also, your bill is one day past due. Pay the balance immediately or we will hit you with four robocalls per day. Also, who the hell do you know in Pakistan? We’re asking for, uh, a friend. You call there a lot. Oh, wait, that’s where our customer service department is. Sorry. Asshole.”

In recent years, I have either become more aware of shitty customer service or I’m just more sensitive to it. Certain fast food restaurants seem to screw up my order about one-third of the time. Some grocery stores have ridiculously long lines and untrained cashiers to handle them. I avoid these places. If I lose my temper, you lose my cash.

Everybody has bad days at their jobs from time to time, but there are those businesses that are so relentlessly user-unfriendly that it just can’t be an accident. There’s something wrong with them from top to bottom. I mean, I’m really supposed to believe that a telecom service can build a mobile communications network but somehow cannot receive my confirmation of my corporate discount by email? Is that so?

Anyway, this thread is all about those unforgiveable lapses in failing to put the customer first. I treat you guys as my customers (although you’re frequently WRONG) and I treat my customers as kings. There is no place for sloppy, half-assed work.

So…

1. Celebrate good customer service with those bands that love their fans. They put on the best shows, sign the most autographs, and enjoy the best rapport with people on Twitter. I’d like some anecdotes here, if you have any.

2. Curse performers who are infamous for hideous treatment of fans and critics and/or for executing terrible shows. “Hi, thank you for calling. This is Axl. May I help you, you stupid cunt?” Anecdotes! News stories!

3. Songs or videos about working menial positions. As those of us who ever worked summer jobs as teenagers, the bitterness always comes out publicly eventually and the ensuing rage gets taken out on the nearest innocent patron who just ordered a coke with “just a little bit of ice”, a small sundae but in a large cup to keep it from dripping, and a cheeseburger with sweet and sour sauce on it.

Bonus: Take this job and shove it over to HR so they can post it on Indeed.com after I work my last day in a couple of weeks. Thanks.

First, an appropriate video.

Now for the dedications.

WVR: What could be worse than suing your own fans? Of Wolf and Man by Metallica

Mississippi Yan

The National Security Agency and the FBI are tapping directly into the central servers of nine leading U.S. Internet companies, extracting audio, video, photographs, e-mails, documents and connection logs that enable analysts to track a person’s movements and contacts over time.

The highly classified program, code-named PRISM, has not been disclosed publicly before. Its establishment in 2007 and six years of exponential growth took place beneath the surface of a roiling debate over the boundaries of surveillance and privacy. Even late last year, when critics of the foreign intelligence statute argued for changes, the only members of Congress who know about PRISM were bound by oaths of office to hold their tongues. …

The technology companies, which participate knowingly in PRISM operations, include most of the dominant global players of Silicon Valley. They are listed on a roster that bears their logos in order of entry into the program: “Microsoft, Yahoo, Google, Facebook, PalTalk, AOL, Skype, YouTube, Apple.” PalTalk, although much smaller, has hosted significant traffic during the Arab Spring and in the ongoing Syrian civil war.

I have to put Sal 11000 Beta to bed so I commend you over to Hot Air’s coverage, which is extensive and troubling. This has been building up for over a decade and will culminate, this fall, in the construction of a facility that will basically store all internet communications.

Hope you like Big Brother. ‘Cuz we’re living it now.

Update: A few more thoughts. The story is still in breaking stages. Some government sources are claiming they are not, in fact, data mining. We’ll see what comes out. But let’s proceed with the idea that these reports are accurate — that meta-data on all communications is being stored and that actual data from computer communications is being monitored.

First, I think we need to appreciate just how deep the rabbit hole goes here. Consider that, earlier this week, the Supreme Court gave authorities permission to, upon any arrest, take your DNA and run it against a database of crimes. If the government really is storing all your internet communications (the technical challenges boggle the mind) then, upon arrest, they can search your internet record — which currently has no warrant protection — for anything. Did you send a nudie picture to someone when you were 15? Did you have an IRC where you talking about getting high? Did you get a pop-up window with cartoon porn in it? That’s all in play now.

Second, this thing has been created by both parties. It started in 2007 under George Bush and is reaching its apotheosis under Barack Obama. Neither party has seriously opposed any provision of the Patriot Act or supported any privacy protections. We are being double-teamed here, people.

Third, the usual suspects are emerging to claim that these programs are necessary and have probably already saved us from terrorism. I am highly dubious of this. We have seen this kind of thing before when Osama bin Laden was killed. Everyone who supported a questionable or illegal program claimed it played a key role. But moreover, is this a price we are willing to pay? To have all of our communications monitored? Are we willing to live Big Brother because somehow, somewhere, someone might set off a bomb? If you think it is worth it, please do not ever ever quote Benjamin Franklin on the subject of security and liberty.

Many of those cases being tried this week have the specter of the death penalty hanging over all of them. We can certainly go that route if needed, but in all these cases I expect justice will be served.

First up is the Ft. Hood shooter, Maj. Hasan. At least now we know that this is not a “workplace violence” incident, having used his opening statement to admit the motive, that Islamic leadership was in imminent danger and his attack was to protect the Taliban. I got no problem allowing himself to have a fool for a client, seems natural to me. His Constitutional protections are in place (too bad he isn’t getting the opportunity to say ,”Hell no, I ain’t taking no stinking survey”) so yes, he does get the chance to confront witnesses against him. The judge seems capable enough to figure out at what point he turns the trial into a recruitment circus. KSM, Zacharias Mousaui, this tactic has been tried before, keep him on a short leash, and they will be fine.

Staff Sgt. Robert Bales, entered his guilty plea this week in his murder trial for the killing of 16 Afghan civilians. Given the method at which he carried out the murders, I can’t think of a better example of someone flipping his lid while in a combat theater. In an earlier post concerning Bales, I mentioned that I am against any death penalty sentence for war crimes involving a onetime incident of insanity (yes, the death camp commandants would not qualify) and am glad he worked out a deal for his life. The Afghan people are naturally screaming bloody murder, but that has no probative value for me. And yes, I guess Hasen would meet that criteria, except that he was a terrorist, had pre planned his attack and looked at his actions as a positive in further jihad. But still, I don’t want him put to death either. Hard time for the rest of his breathing days, is his fair punishment.

James Holmes is next. The judge accepted James Holmes’ plea of not guilty by reason of insanity on Tuesday and ordered him to undergo a mental evaluation. I see an instant replay of Jared Loughner, some medical evaluations, a finding that he is sane enough to stand trial for his crimes, then a quick guilty plea deal to spare him the death penalty.

And lastly we have that new media darling, the guy that the Hollywood crowd all want to be like, Bradley Manning. Funny, but I don’t hear these defenders slamming the defense strategy of “stupid while being gay”, he should have taken up gum chewing or smoking instead. First off, the shear size of the intelligence dump is just staggering,leaking of hundreds of thousands of classified digital files to WikiLeaks . This is why I think the whistle blower defense is such horse shit, there is no way the guy read all these documents, then said to himself ,”Gee, this stuff just seems wrong, the American people have a right to know”.

Manning has already plead guilty to several charges, the lesser offences to which Manning has pleaded guilty carry a maximum sentence of 20 years.But this trial involves the most serious of those counts, namely, aiding the enemy, which if convicted carries a life sentence. We will be reading about this trial piecemeal, since due to the classified nature of the evidence against him, it will not be televised, and many witnesses will be allowed to testify privately. With what we know now, what do you think is the appropriate time behind bars for Private Manning?

Comment on any or all. I made a statement in an earlier post that our judicial system, although not perfect, has served us well. I think these trials bare out that fact, a systematic process is played out without influence from the mob or a deference to passion.