Well, my mother is visiting us, which changes what's on tv, and so I caught some of Washington Week in Review last night, and bascially they were saying nobody cares about this because everbody thinks it's just collecting terrorist's phone numbers, and nobody else has anything to fear.
I know we all think this is another outrage, I certainly do, but I'm seriously starting to wonder if anything will cause an uprising (I'm not talking about violence, a little broad-based protest would be nice). The president is unpopular, yes, but the things that we all think should be causing that unpopularity don't seem to resonate.
So Almeida's apology here may not be joke, but simple realism.
I'm pretty sure the datamining project at this point isn't including actual conversations, just numbers and times of calls. I'm more worried about random wrong numbers connecting up my number with numbers of concern.
I mean, I sure hope that our strategy for preventing the next 9/11 isn't waiting for a terrorist to say 'Osama' in cleartext.
I am really careful about what I say on phone calls these days just because I really feel like "they" are listening. And, it's pretty well-documented that they are. Part of me feels like all this surveilance is a way to keep us all shut up so there's not much protest as things *really* go 1984 on our asses. I'm not one to buy into conspiracy theories but I am moreso these days, and I believe in a shadow government (cue your ominous music for that). A friend of mine did a similar mention of terror activities and included my full name repeatedly because he knew it would get my goat and he doesn't take the erasure of civil liberties as seriously as I do. I didn't speak to him for weeks.
re:1, and the seeming immunity of our governments from popular protest and/or their capacity to ignore it when it happens, I wrote something on my almost-never-updated-and-more-or-less-moribund blog about a year back, on a similar theme. Only with reference to UK politics.
I don't understand all the hate directed towards the New York Times Style section. Without reporting like that, how else could the masses come to know and aspire to the values of their social betters?
Or perhaps the kind of people who read the Style section are precisely those who enjoy gulping Sex-In-The-City type anecdotes by the gallon... and the Times is just giving its readers what they want.
I, like Alameida, openly bait the NSA during phone calls. I'd love for them to show up at my door so I could contact the press about it. OSAMA OSAMA JIHAD OXYCONTIN SARIN SUITCASE NUKE BUTTSEX.
Well, my mother is visiting us, which changes what's on tv, and so I caught some of Washington Week in Review last night, and bascially they were saying nobody cares about this because everbody thinks it's just collecting terrorist's phone numbers, and nobody else has anything to fear.
I know we all think this is another outrage, I certainly do, but I'm seriously starting to wonder if anything will cause an uprising (I'm not talking about violence, a little broad-based protest would be nice). The president is unpopular, yes, but the things that we all think should be causing that unpopularity don't seem to resonate.
So Almeida's apology here may not be joke, but simple realism.
Posted by i don't pay | Link to this comment | 05-13-06 7:37 AM
I wish I had the guts you do, A. I'm a fucking chickenshit about what I say on int'l phone calls these days....
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 05-13-06 10:18 AM
Slightly better news on the "nobody cares" front.
And Alameida, I'm totally stealing that joke to use on my Fox-watchin' parents tomorrow. Happy Mother's Day... from your omnipresent police state
Posted by strasmangelo jones | Link to this comment | 05-13-06 11:04 AM
I'm pretty sure the datamining project at this point isn't including actual conversations, just numbers and times of calls. I'm more worried about random wrong numbers connecting up my number with numbers of concern.
I mean, I sure hope that our strategy for preventing the next 9/11 isn't waiting for a terrorist to say 'Osama' in cleartext.
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 05-13-06 11:18 AM
I've always used "Waco Waco Waco McVeigh Echelon Ruby Ridge," et cetera. Never had a problem.
Posted by Halfway Done | Link to this comment | 05-13-06 12:22 PM
Cala, the domestic datamining is traffic analysis; international calls have been keyword searched for years.
Posted by Jackmormon | Link to this comment | 05-13-06 12:35 PM
Hey, it's Halfway Done in another thread! Fruit basket!
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 05-13-06 12:42 PM
Soon, Weiner will try to fix you up with a female commenter, Halfway. If you have any preferences in the matter, send him an e-mail.
Posted by Chopper | Link to this comment | 05-13-06 12:49 PM
Not that he'll listen to you.
Posted by teofilo | Link to this comment | 05-13-06 12:50 PM
Soon, Weiner will try to fix you up with a female commenter, Halfway.
Unfair assumption! I've branched out.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 05-13-06 1:02 PM
I am really careful about what I say on phone calls these days just because I really feel like "they" are listening. And, it's pretty well-documented that they are. Part of me feels like all this surveilance is a way to keep us all shut up so there's not much protest as things *really* go 1984 on our asses. I'm not one to buy into conspiracy theories but I am moreso these days, and I believe in a shadow government (cue your ominous music for that). A friend of mine did a similar mention of terror activities and included my full name repeatedly because he knew it would get my goat and he doesn't take the erasure of civil liberties as seriously as I do. I didn't speak to him for weeks.
Posted by stroll | Link to this comment | 05-13-06 2:55 PM
re:1, and the seeming immunity of our governments from popular protest and/or their capacity to ignore it when it happens, I wrote something on my almost-never-updated-and-more-or-less-moribund blog about a year back, on a similar theme. Only with reference to UK politics.
http://www.mcgrattan.f2s.com/blog/archives_new/00000032.htm
Posted by Matt McGrattan | Link to this comment | 05-13-06 4:56 PM
Never mind why I'm looking at this page, but:
Neutral Point of View, my ass.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 05-14-06 2:08 PM
Oh... wow. Check the testimonial in the right sidebar.
(OK, I was trying to figure out what this "It's a trap!" stuff is about, and that guy came up in the searches. That's the connection.)
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 05-14-06 2:15 PM
Sorry about that, every single person I have ever talked to in America
You sure they can read this in Gitmo?
Posted by trialsanderrors | Link to this comment | 05-14-06 3:42 PM
Sadly, Nw!ned on 14.
You guys are not helping a body procrastinate today, you know. Are you out being nice to your mothers or something?
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 05-14-06 4:36 PM
Hey, I tried to start a fight over private schooling in the other thread but no one took the bait.
Posted by teofilo | Link to this comment | 05-14-06 4:52 PM
I don't understand all the hate directed towards the New York Times Style section. Without reporting like that, how else could the masses come to know and aspire to the values of their social betters?
Posted by eb | Link to this comment | 05-14-06 5:13 PM
Or perhaps the kind of people who read the Style section are precisely those who enjoy gulping Sex-In-The-City type anecdotes by the gallon... and the Times is just giving its readers what they want.
Present company excluded of course...
Posted by The Nose-Bleed Section | Link to this comment | 05-14-06 5:19 PM
pinch it with a hankie and hold your head back, my advice.
Posted by text | Link to this comment | 05-14-06 5:54 PM
I, like Alameida, openly bait the NSA during phone calls. I'd love for them to show up at my door so I could contact the press about it. OSAMA OSAMA JIHAD OXYCONTIN SARIN SUITCASE NUKE BUTTSEX.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 05-14-06 6:07 PM
how else could the masses come to know and aspire to the values of their social betters?
Why the qualifier "social"?
Posted by trialsanderrors | Link to this comment | 05-14-06 8:11 PM
Sorry. Cultural too.
Posted by eb | Link to this comment | 05-14-06 9:15 PM