Slashdot Mirror

because the jokes they tell just don't have a funny punchline anymore. Take this quite from the FA:

ThinThread was designed to address two key challenges: The NSA had more information than it could digest, and, increasingly, its targets were in contact with people in the United States whose calls the agency was prohibited from monitoring.

a) they are spying on so many people that they can't even process the data. I've been under that assumption for quite some time, and now its clear. Hey, its a win for us.

b) they are spying on people they can, but the important stuff is "off limits"

Huh?

I'm beginning to think that these people are just like peeping toms or people rubernecking at an accident on the side of the road. They clearly don't even seem to know what the fuck they are doing, it just looks cool, they know they shouldn't do it, but they simply can't help themselves. What a bunch of children.

Now, although the article has not much more info, the article seems to imply that the NSA is going about their surveillance of innocent people, but to get around that pesky 4th amendment*, they are anomalizing (correct word?) the data via some encryption thingy, and if the random stuff looks interesting enough, I guess they have to get a warrant (or not??) to decrypt the data into something real.

Now, at first that sounded OK, but then I thought about it. Isn't the data already anonymous and anomalized (??) by default? I mean, even if they have my name, say George Bush, and phone number, and the name and phone number of the guy I called, say Aleister Crowley. Unless the NSA already knows both of these people, that data is still anonymous. It would take a little more investigation to determine if it was George W. Bush, George H. W. Bush, or just a namesake or the real deal themselves.

So, in other words, get a fucking warrant, and stop wasting my tax money randomly looking at "chatter" of innocent people. The process goes like this. 1) Find out something is wrong 2) Get an idea of who is doing the wrong and develop "probable cause" 3) Get a warrant, and go after the bad guys.

Otherwise, sit on your asses and drink coffee or eat a donut. Don't waste my tax money and be a peeping tom.

Back to that pesky 4th amendment. If you haven't seen it yet, check out the new dipshit that is the new head of the NSA:

http://movies.crooksandliars.com/Countdown-nsa-Ha. mov (about 2.5 megs)

And here's a link to the video:

http://movies.crooksandliars.com/Countdown-nsa-Ha. mov

He Decided that gas saving hybrids were a threat to oil industry profits and so he eliminated the Clinton era hybrid project.

and

He Decided to keep Microsoft intact and eliminate any efforts to bring operating system competition back to the market.

He is "The Decider". He says so himself( http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/04/18.html#a795 8
  and a more comical/musical link http://decider.cf.huffingtonpost.com/ )

Brilliant or Idiot? History will play this one out while the Republican party tries to rewrite this history for decades to come.

LoB

The sad fact is that since 1988, the contrarian position on global warming has been nothing more than a snow job by Republican politicians and Republican interests, especially right-wing "think tanks" paid to churn out talking points that benefit industry and politicians.

The depth of right-wing hackery is demonstrated not just by George W. Bush, but by George Will, who to this day denies that anthropogenic global warming is real. His denials read like creationists flailing their tiny fists against 150 years of consensus on evolution. "One degree might be the margin of error" -- that is quite simply false.

To see George Will, the face of modern conservatism, in full petulant splendor, you have to watch the video. All he brings to the table -- all any global-warming denier can bring to the table -- is a snow job of out-of-context quotes from the 1970s about how some scientists thought the globe was cooling, not warming. Pretty sad. But that's one of the many differences between scientists and pundits. When new facts come to light, scientists change their minds.

But there has been a Republican pattern, from 1988, when James Hansen went before the U.S. Senate to explain that he was "99 percent" certain that global warming was real and that it was to some extent caused by humans, to earlier this year when the Bush administration's appointee tried to muzzle the very same James Hansen on the very same issue. Over and over we see partisan politics as the opposition to actual science. By arguing that any action on global warming would destroy our economy (not true -- carbon emission per GDP dollar has gone down dramatically since 1970 while productivity has boomed), Republicans play the issue as a political weapon, forcing Democrats to adopt moderate positions. Remember Bush's campaign ad making fun of Kerry for even considering a gasoline tax?

And who suffers? We are already in the midst of the Sixth Extinction, and though the first effects of global warming are just beginning to be felt, it's about to slam the ecosystem like a freight train. The only hope we have is that technology will take a quantum leap soon enough to allow us to effectively change planetary climate, on a scale we can't today engineer. But that's a crap shoot, a total unknown (much like global dimming, by the way, which we also know next to nothing about, and which if part of a natural cycle may mean global warming is going to get much, much worse over the next century). We need to do something besides hope.

It seems that it's too late to halt global warming's effects, thanks largely to fifteen years of Republican dissembling, but maybe if we start now we can mitigate to some extent the horrific human death, disease and displacement that will be everyday news on our grandchildren's planet. All we can do is start now. Maybe if these poll numbers are accurate, finally, finally we may be able to help.

They work if you set your referer to http://www.crooksandliars.com/ i.e. with wget --referer

The links above don't work. Go here instead and click on the links.

Quicktime

Quicktime

Funny how history repeats itself, though that should mean that we can lear from it. A good place to start would be Frank Zappa's testimony to congress about the music censoring episode in the 80's that you mentioned. He questions if the comitee that appointed itself to do that moral work could really be fair and unbiased, he states that it was all cooked up as a smokescreen for passing an anti-piracy tax (is there a similar initiative brewing right now?), and he offers an alternative: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/10/06/tech/gam ecore/main924513.shtml
It's also worth checking out his appearance on Crossfire over 20 years ago: http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/01/10.html (about 3/4 of the way towards the bottom of the page). The details are slightly different, but the core issue is basically the same: the freedom of speech and expression vs. helping parents raise their children.

> While I'd consider a subscription for something like the Daily Show

Agreed. I'd be willing to pay a reasonable subscription for the Daily Show and the Colbert Réport. Unlike regular TV shows, they don't have as much replay value (A year from now, how many people will say, "Ooh! Let me re-watch that send up he did of Cheney shooting a 78 year old man in the face!"), but it would be nice to be able to catch episodes instead of staying up late. I can see paying $7/mo for a monthly subscription (20 episodes) for that.

Or they can do on-demand episodes, but I think it may be harder to get enough purchasers of each show to make it worth doing more than a "greatest hits" thing (like what SNL does). But the market is there. Consider how many Daily Show sequences end up on Crooks and Liars or Video Dog each week.

• US Funds the Taliban
• US Uses white phosphorous and napalm on civilians (WMV 40MB NSFW VERY GRAPHIC)
• US Proposes law legally to *allow* cruel and unusual torture for detainees in Guantanamo bay

Gregory: ...Why isn't this eavesdropping program consistent with that resolution?

Russ: "This is just an outrageous power grab.Nobody, nobody, thought when we passed a resolution to invade Afghanistan and to fight the war on terror, including myself who voted for it, thought that this was an authorization to allow a wiretapping against the law of the United States.

There's two ways you can do this kind of wiretapping under our law. One is through the criminal code, Title III; the other is through the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. That's it. That's the only way you can do it. You can't make up a law and deriving it from the Afghanistan resolution. The president has, I think, made up a law that we never passed."

Of course the recent NYTimes bombshell story about Bush authorizing survellience of US Citizens, contrary to law, is making big-time news this weekend.

But did anyone see this report on MS-NBC only a few days earlier?

This has to reach a breaking point right? Or do the American people just continue to bend over and take it?

He got shot at so you can sit on your ass?

Are you buying into the whole "Protecting your Freedom TM" thing?

If "Freedom" means "Cheap Oil", and you voluntarily buy into that arguement, you should enlist. See how hollow your praise is.

Or maybe you'd actually *enjoy* driving around a foreign country killing its citizens? (not *insurgents*, citizens. You know, people? humans?)

view and enjoy:
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2005/11/27.html#a607 6

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2005/11/07.html#a575 0

That's it for the panel! Shut up!

(reference: http://www.crooksandliars.com/2005/10/24.html#a553 8)

You stupid fuck, that's a load of bullshit. There's no $60B:month spent on New Orleans anything, except maybe Halliburton. The luxury liners were floating empty for over a month, though Bush spent triple their capacity price without using them. Now they're carrying New Orleans Police, who are among New Orleans' lowest life forms. So fuck you and your hatred of Americans. I hope a nice hurricane destroys your life - preferably before you post your vile filth again.

Check out this interview that occured on CBC's The Fifth Estate. In an example of how Ann Coulter plays fast and loose with 'facts' she knows nothing about, in order to make her point, we see how she behaves when caught in her mistake:

Coulter: "Canada used to be one of our most loyal friends and vice-versa. I mean Canada sent troops to Vietnam - was Vietnam less containable and more of a threat than Saddam Hussein?"
        McKeown interrupts: "Canada didn't send troops to Vietnam."
        Coulter: "I don't think that's right."
        McKeown: "Canada did not send troops to Vietnam."
        Coulter (looking desperate): "Indochina?"
        McKeown: "Uh no. Canada ...second World War of course. Korea. Yes. Vietnam No."
        Coulter: "I think you're wrong."
        McKeown: "No, took a pass on Vietnam."
        Coulter: "I think you're wrong."
        McKeown: "No, Australia was there, not Canada."
        Coulter: "I think Canada sent troops."
        McKeown: "No."
        Coulter: "Well. I'll get back to you on that."

McKeown tags out in script:

        "Coulter never got back to us -- but for the record, like Iraq, Canada sent no troops to Vietnam."

Yep, Coulter's a reporter with integrity, yessir...

I block as many ads on the internet as possible. I find them intrusive and a waste of my time and bandwidth. It's my personal choice though. I *would* advertise using banners, so I don't think that they shouldn't exists, I just want to have a choice.

I avoid commercial television. If I want to watch a TV show I download it from BitTorrent, which cut out the commercials. The commercials are a waste of time and I don't want spend 20% of the time I spend watching television (which I avoid) watching commercials, specially on cable TV which I already paid for. If I want to watch specific news segments I look at crooks and liars. I like PBS, and do not mind the sponsors part in the beginning and ending of shows.

I never listen to commercial radio (does anyone?). I enjoy NPR and do not mind the sponsors being mentioned at the beginning and end of shows.

I never read magazines dense with ads. I enjoy Harpers and Economist. Both have ads but are not dominated by them. Magazine ads I sometimes interesting. They are usually extremely specialized and can sometimes actually be interesting.

I am not apposed to advertising. I think it's useful and important. What I do no like are TV Programs, radio programs, magazines, or websites that are *tools* for creating ad revenue for a company and content is secondary.

Anonymous delusional Coward, the post they called a rant wasn't a rant. Then, after they and I came to some mutual understanding, I did rant. They didn't comment on that, and I didn't deny it - nor would I have.

You are laughing your ass off only at your own retarded reading skills. I guess with your boy Bush revealed as a tiny little man who can't even button his own shirt, his ratings plummeting to hell, and even idiots like you beginning to realize that your life might depend on that moron, for another 3 years, you don't have much else to laugh at. So enjoy laughing at yourself. We're going to have lots more fun like that, because people like me who see the truth aren't going away anytime soon.

One of the rightwing's most pitiful traits is its insistence on cutting quotes and pasting them out of context to prove your points - which exist only at the tops of your heads.

This article is intentionally misleading propaganda.

"New Orleans' local newspaper, the Times-Picayune (search), says every FEMA official should be fired for their, "feeble response to Hurricane Katrina." And the paper's editors say the aftermath is "ultimately the president's failure.""

I don't know if that's true because I can't find any google hits for these quotes. The article where they call for the firing of every FEMA official is here. Maybe they did so also somewhere else, but those quotes are not in the article. The actual article is worth a read, by the way.

"But the paper has had nothing but praise for the performance of New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin, finding no fault with his failure to enforce the mandatory evacuation order he issued last Sunday."

They only mentioned Nagin once, praising one thing he did, assuming it's the same article as above. This is described as "nothing but praise". They didn't mention the evacuation in this particular piece, this is described as "finding no fault" with the evacuation. Nagin put a mandatory evacuation into effect, but some people stayed anyway, this is described as a "failure" to enforce the evacuation.

"And Jefferson Parish President Aaron Broussard (search) says officials at the top of the totem pole, "need to be chain-sawed off," federal officials, he means."

Brit Hume knows what he really meant because Brit Hume has PSYCHIC POWERS. Broussard did not specify federal officals. The full quote was "Whoever is at the top of this totem pole, that totem pole needs to be chainsawed off and we've got to start with some new leadership. It's not just Katrina that caused all these deaths in New Orleans here. Bureaucracy has committed murder here in the greater New Orleans area and bureaucracy has to stand trial before Congress now." see the video. Look at how Brit Hume chose to quote that.

"Senator Mary Landrieu says, if the president criticizes her state's handling of the disaster, she, "might likely have to punch him.""

She was talking about criticizing the sheriff for evacuating the New Orleans prison. This is described as critizing "her state's handling of the disaster". Here's the video

Is there anything more serious you could lie about than this? No really, is there anything more serious you could lie about than this?

This article is intentionally misleading propaganda.

"New Orleans' local newspaper, the Times-Picayune (search), says every FEMA official should be fired for their, "feeble response to Hurricane Katrina." And the paper's editors say the aftermath is "ultimately the president's failure.""

I don't know if that's true because I can't find any google hits for these quotes. The article where they call for the firing of every FEMA official is here. Maybe they did so also somewhere else, but those quotes are not in the article. The actual article is worth a read, by the way.

"But the paper has had nothing but praise for the performance of New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin, finding no fault with his failure to enforce the mandatory evacuation order he issued last Sunday."

They only mentioned Nagin once, praising one thing he did, assuming it's the same article as above. This is described as "nothing but praise". They didn't mention the evacuation in this particular piece, this is described as "finding no fault" with the evacuation. Nagin put a mandatory evacuation into effect, but some people stayed anyway, this is described as a "failure" to enforce the evacuation.

"And Jefferson Parish President Aaron Broussard (search) says officials at the top of the totem pole, "need to be chain-sawed off," federal officials, he means."

Brit Hume knows what he really meant because Brit Hume has PSYCHIC POWERS. Broussard did not specify federal officals. The full quote was "Whoever is at the top of this totem pole, that totem pole needs to be chainsawed off and we've got to start with some new leadership. It's not just Katrina that caused all these deaths in New Orleans here. Bureaucracy has committed murder here in the greater New Orleans area and bureaucracy has to stand trial before Congress now." see the video. Look at how Brit Hume chose to quote that.

"Senator Mary Landrieu says, if the president criticizes her state's handling of the disaster, she, "might likely have to punch him.""

She was talking about criticizing the sheriff for evacuating the New Orleans prison. This is described as critizing "her state's handling of the disaster". Here's the video

Is there anything more serious you could lie about than this? No really, is there anything more serious you could lie about than this?

There's plenty of blame to go around. You wanna keep score? That's one against the mayor, 5 against the Federal government. Your turn.

We could do with less terrestrial weapons

Crooks and Liars has 4 songs (Quicktime). Scroll down about half way down the page.

I know, the filibuster is completely wrong, amoral and un-American now that it is being used AGAINST republicans.

You'll love this bit:

Bush admits he reiterates propaganda.
You can't make this stuff up.

Quoting:

Now, a personal savings account would be a part of a Social Security retirement system. It would be a part of what you would have to retire when you reach retirement age. As you -- as I mentioned to you earlier, we're going to redesign the current system. If you've retired, you don't have anything to worry about -- third time I've said that. (Laughter.) I'll probably say it three more times. See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda. (Applause.)

Here's the sound bite.

He actually said it. Ye gods. And you can tell how well they screen that audience - because they applauded him admitting use of reiterated propaganda.

Someone above disputed that Bush is stupid.
Case closed.

Yipe.