US Journalists Targeted By Pentagon Propaganda Contractors

Jeremiah Cornelius writes "While conducting investigative reporting on civilian contractors in the Pentagon's "InfoOps" Internet propaganda operations, two reporters found themselves the subject of a highly targeted, professional media manipulation effort. Reporter Tom Vanden Brook and Editor Ray Locker found that Twitter and Facebook accounts have been created in their names, along with a Wikipedia entry and dozens of message board postings and blog comments. Websites were registered in their names. Some postings merely copied Vanden Brook's and Locker's previous reporting. Others accused them of being sponsored by the Taliban. 'I find it creepy and cowardly that somebody would hide behind my name and presumably make up other names in an attempt to undermine my credibility,' Vanden Brook said. If these websites were created using federal funds, it could violate federal law prohibiting the production of propaganda for domestic consumption."

Comments

How Silly

[negRo_slim]

That's just trolling, I've done the same thing to old high school buddies. If this is "InfoOps" then it is simply laughable.

Re:How Silly

[Anonymous Coward]

Its probably done during office hours and from ips where you can trace the ips back to them. At least make an effort and if found post all over this is just business as usual and people are starting to realize what their taxes really fund.

Re:How Silly

[smittyoneeach]

Not when there is contract money and/or professional reputation at stake.

Re:How Silly

[Anonymous Coward]

yeah right

Re:How Silly

[jhoegl]

That's just trolling, I've done the same thing to old high school buddies. If this is "InfoOps" then it is simply laughable.

Thus showing the maturity level of this type of thing.

Re:How Silly

[rbrander]

Not as laughable as "death panels", the "Lie of the Year". And that had significant effect.

Re:How Silly

[Anonymous Coward]

Not as laughable as attempts to paint "death panels", as the "Lie of the Year" by Dems desperate to distract the public attention away from government having the power to deny you lifesaving treatment based on your calculated "worth".

FTFY

Re:How Silly

[Anonymous Coward]

aaaaaand....you are uninformed or full of shit.

Re:How Silly

[Anonymous Coward]

so an insurance company, whose sole purpose is profit, having the power to deny you lifesaving treatment based on your calculated "worth" is better?

Re:How Silly

[hairyfeet]

The whole thing has gotten batshit thanks to the insane amount of money flowing through the pentagon and military industrial complex. Have you seen the F35 rock video? look it up and LYAO because, yeah, a project that so badly over budget it will be the most expensive weapon system in the history of the planet needs...a rock video.

We need to trash the entire system and start over if bullshit like rock videos and "InfoOps" actually gets paid for with tax dollars. The whole system has gotten so spoiled from drowning in cash that any lame ass idea gets green lighted, what we need is to go back to the way it was pre WWII, where we simply put out a spec and don't buy shit until someone brings a product that meets the spec.

But the reason we see contractors pulling shit like this is the simple fact the only thing our MIC knows how to do anymore is pad expense accounts. if they were coming in on time and on budget frankly they wouldn't have any need to cover up their dirty dealing with horseshit like this.

Re:How Silly

[future assassin]

That's just trolling, I've done the same thing to old high school buddies. If this is "InfoOps" then it is simply laughable.

So do you work or InfoOps?

Re:How Silly

[fortfive]

Yvan Eht Nioj . . .

Re:How Silly

[Anonymous Coward]

Absolutely, because the only PURE motive is the purely selfish profit motive. Any other motive, especially that silly altruism, is simply disguised socialism, designed to bring down our free market capitalism, the BEST system in the world!

Re:How Silly

[Anonymous Coward]

> So do you work or InfoOps?
LOL, no no.
One of us would come with a better way to derail the discussion than GP.
Best regards
  -- InfoOps - Slashdot and Fark division.

Re:How Silly

[cold fjord]

Information Operations is generally a fancy way of saying advertising. Advertising must be thought useful by somebody as it pretty much pays for broadcast television and radio, as well as providing income to many web sites, including this one. I don't think that advertising to try to convince people to not engage in violence is a bad thing. If it is, could you see about getting some of the public service announcements pulled from American and European television?

The overall the US defense budget has been declining as a percentage of GDP for a long time.

The F35 is being marked to many countries, not just the US. How do you market? With advertising. What is a common form of advertising? Videos.

As to the US reverting to pre-WW2 with its military in some fashion, I'm sure that is would be a popular idea in some circles. I doubt most Americans would want to return to a place where the US Army would look at the mighty Romanian Army as the next competitor to catch in terms of power.

Re:How Silly

[Jawnn]

You have gravely underestimated the stakes here. This is not a matter of a practical joke played on a buddy or coworker. Not be a long shot. If true, it is, to say the least, criminal. Then again, the federal government's standard MO these days is to break the law and mutter something about terrorists if they get caught at it. In any case, the Orwellian shadow cast by this is chilling. If it's all true, we are well past the point where those who control the levers of power clearly see the public as "them".

Re:How Silly

[DesScorp]

The whole thing has gotten batshit thanks to the insane amount of money flowing through the pentagon and military industrial complex.

I'm pretty right wing, at least compared to most posters on Slashdot, but there's one thing I'm pretty much in agreement with liberals on: our military industrial complex is out of control. We can't seem to make a weapons system without breaking the bank, and I'm pretty firmly convinced it's because of our MIC tainted procurement process. Unlike the private sector, where I'm a free market guy, I'd like to see the military return to the military owned-system of production we used partially in the 20's and 30's. Many of the Navy's ships were built by the Navy itself in Navy-owned shipyards. Before the naval aviation industry really took off, the Navy made its own airplanes in their own factory. The Army had various plants producing armor and guns. The military began phasing these systems out in the mid-30's (kind of surprising that this would happen under FDR, but it did), and by the early 60's, almost all military production was done by contractors. Some studies showed that the mix of Navy-owned and private shipyards helped keep the contractors honest and prices down.

Basically, I think that since weapons procurement really isn't a "market" in the US, that they military should simply come up with a requirement for what they need, and then build it themselves with a fixed budget from Congress. Get someone like Lockheed involved, and the price always shoots up stratospherically with all of the subcontractors they bring along.

Re:How Silly

[LordLucless]

Straw-man much? From your link:

It numbered 190,000 soldiers. (It would grow to 8.3 million in 1945, a 44-fold increase.)

So changing hardware procurement policies would result in reducing the number of military personal by 99%?

Re:How Silly

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll just add to this a little story I heard. A certain military base did electronics work for a large section of the US. A different branch of the military was paying a private contractor almost 100 grand a pop to repair modules they were sold for a vehicle. Said modules almost never worked. A maintenance tech at the base was asked by this other branch to look into it, since they'd worked on similiar parts in the past. Long story short, he was able to do the same repair for 1/20th the cost, and after being returned to the other branch it managed to work for multiple times as long as the 'manufacturer repaired' modules.

How did this get handled by the military? The base in question was shut down during the cutbacks 10ish years ago, and turned into a bunch of commercial buildings. The equipment in question got stuck being sent back to the manufacturer under their repair prices which cost 100 grand and often didn't return repaired.

While I agree we wouldn't want the military side of things to rest on their laurels, they *USED* to have a *LOT* of brilliant personnel, lifers willing to work day in and day out to make stuff work and make the repair of it an artform. And you know what we've done? 'Retired' them, outsourced the work to the 'lowest common denominator', who due to their quest for maximum profitability are fully inclined to overcharge and underperform, and thanks to the ever dwindling supply of highly technical maintenance engineers and the common knowledgebase among them, the commercial sector has more and more power in contract negotiations because they don't have competition (Honestly given the consolidation in military suppliers, combined with reduction in military maintenance facilities) they can charge what they want and if there's not someone else you can take it to when it breaks, you're pretty much stuck paying what they'll offer.

Re:How Silly

[sjames]

Yes, corporate run death panels are much better. Since they are not part of government they are able to hand out death far more efficiently. If I have to pay for a death panel, it had better produce a massacre damnit! Now, where's my medicare check?

Re:How Silly

[Anonymous Coward]

Not be a long shot. If true, it is, to say the least, criminal. Then again, the federal government's standard MO these days is to break the law and mutter something about terrorists if they get caught at it.

Like the major phone companies cooperating with large-scale spying on the American public. The military is already exempt from prosecution, so they won't have to go back to Congress for retroactive immunity.

Re:How Silly

[__aaltlg1547]

So we used to be overspending on the military worse than we are now Ans that makes our current militaryindustrialextravaganza OK?

We could cut total military spending 50% and it would sill be out of line with what we need

Re:How Silly

[hairyfeet]

Well then this will probably blow your mind, i'm about as leftist as they come and I think that we should use part of the savings from getting rid of our overcharging underperforming MIC and use it to...gasp! give our soldiers a 25% pay increase across the board! its just shameful that we can spend a trillion dollars on a turkey like the F35 (when the Russians can whip off SU27s for 35 million, MiG 29s for 30 mil, and MiG 31s for 60 mil) while many of the men risking their lives have families on food stamps!

But our entire military and MIC budgeting system is horribly broken. My grandfather used to come back from the base with loads of brand new stuff, how? Did he steal it? nope because they had to "blow the budget" to keep from having it cut the next year so they'd throw out brand new tools, radios, hell one year they threw out every chair and sofa on the entire base, even though most were less than a year old! and then of course we have the contractors that can blow billions jerking us along and even if the contract is eventually canceled they have clauses written so they get paid a cancelling fee, even when it is THEIR FAULT because they never did the fucking job!

But that is why i think we need to go back to the way it was pre WWII and for most of WWI itself, where we put out a spec and if and ONLY if they came up to us with a working prototype that fit the spec AND the price listed in the spec would we buy. By doing it this way we had serious competition because the one with the best design and prototype won, no stringing us along with some half baked idea that in practice simply doesn't work. mark my words the F35 will be exactly like the F22, only a handful made at some insane price per bird and it'll be kept away from the front just because of how much one of them costs. hell even the Navy has quietly given up on it and is in talks to buy more F-18s and there is talk of giving the green light to the Stealth Eagle to cover the role the F35 would have fulfilled. in the end it will be a trillion we couldn't afford pissed down a rat hole while the MIC enjoys golden shitters and $1000 hookers.

Re:How Silly

[khallow]

Have you seen the F35 rock video?

So what? It's advertising. Maybe it cost a lot, maybe it didn't. The presence of a rock video neither tells me who paid for it or how much they paid for it.

Re:How Silly

[Falconhell]

Agreed there is probably a bit of room for more shit. Only a nation as incredibly stupid and gullible as the US would believe such a silly lie, death panels indeed, how incredibly docile people who believed such rubbish are!

Re:How Silly

[Wakko Warner]

....I'm guessing your comment was posted from a .mil/.gov IP address.

Re:How Silly

[Wakko Warner]

And this is precisely the reason I'm glad I left the US a few years ago, likely for good. The government there is no longer in the hands of the people, and likely never will be again.

Re:How Silly

[Wakko Warner]

Go fuck yourself, you right-wing imbecile.

Re:How Silly

[Pence128]

Palin specified that she was referring to Section 1233 of bill HR 3200 which would have paid physicians for providing voluntary counseling to Medicare patients about living wills, advance directives, and end-of-life care options.

The "death panel" is a doctor asking you if you really want to spend your last 2 weeks on life support drifting in and out of consciousness in extreme pain and too full of morphine to think, which is the default option if you don't specify otherwise.

Re:How Silly

[cold fjord]

It is almost unbelievable that everyone doesn't realize that government run healthcare is a panacea, isn't it?

State ‘Death Panels’ Attributable to Single-Payer
Carolina Man Battling Breast Cancer May Have to Pay After Denied Treatment
Letter noting assisted suicide raises questions
Oregon Tells Patients State Will Pay for Assisted Suicide, Not Health Care

Does everybody in the UK understand that?

Elderly dying due to 'despicable age discrimination in NHS'

Some people will believe anything despite the evidence, eh?

Re:How Silly

[cold fjord]

State ‘Death Panels’ Attributable to Single-Payer

Re:How Silly

[cold fjord]

Start here: The Reformers

Re:How Silly

[cold fjord]

. . . and understand that the movement they started didn't get everything right. . . but their views should definitely be considered.

The ESSENTIAL BOYD

Re:How Silly

[Pence128]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/31/AR2010123102727.html

Re:How Silly

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd like to see the military return to the military owned-system of production we used partially in the 20's and 30's.

I'd like to see the nation's income tax return to pre-Civil War era. Oh wait...

Re:How Silly

[Johann Lau]

Well, sure, let's just say "granted". Now -- what does this have to do with anything? That them Democrats are just the ones to do such silly things -- while Republicans aren't? Surely no, so what, exactly, is the point of this, other than to wank and gloat?

Re:How Silly

[dargaud]

That, and the fact that _everything_ is secret. Why on Earth do they need 1271 government organizations dealing with spying, terrorism, intelligence and a few other 'secret' things ? Most country have 3 or 4. Why SO MANY except for the pork ?

Re:How Silly

[dontbgay]

Lol, you said death panel... "I don't always watch FoxNews, but when i can't find time for it, I get my dose of talking points from Slashdot"

Re:How Silly

[glorybe]

This is a smoldering bomb much like Watergate or the break ins at Daniel Elsberg's psychiatrist office. If the government really did this I would think it will soon grow into a political nightmare.

Re:How Silly

[cusco]

And who exactly is going to turn this into a 'political nightmare'? The same press outlets that claim Wikileaks is helping the terrorists and who warn that North Korea is training 'super hackers' that will attack the Pentagon? Most people don't realize that Watergate was exposed by a still-active member of Naval Intelligence, a life-long member of one of Yale's secret societies, based at the newspaper that happily hosted Project Mockingbird for years. It's been called 'the first coup by the CIA inside the United States' more than once.

It could violate federal law

[ATMAvatar]

Since when has violating the law deterred the actions of our government? With the wiretapping of people without a warrant, search and seizure of anyone unfortunate enough to require air travel or border crossing, detainment of individuals without due process, to instigating of torture of war prisoners, I'm somewhat surprised we don't hear more stories like this.

Re:It could violate federal law

[Anonymous Coward]

In a case like this though, even if it was government funds used to do the work, it will probably come out that it was done by "overly aggressive independent contractors" who "overstepped their bounds" and not by government mandate. Whether that is true or not is a different story - and I won't presume to guess if it was actually done with government knowledge or not. We'll need a lot more facts before that could be determined. However the odds that anyone directly employed by the government will take a fall for it are pretty low.

Re:It could violate federal law

[pitchpipe]

Since when has violating the law deterred the actions of our government?

The Constitution has become a piece of paper that the government uses to wipe the asses of the corporations. All of our laws supposedly spring from this document, so why would they feel any different about these 'lesser' laws?

Re:It could violate federal law

[ukemike]

Since when has violating the law deterred the actions of our government? With the wiretapping of people without a warrant, search and seizure of anyone unfortunate enough to require air travel or border crossing, detainment of individuals without due process, to instigating of torture of war prisoners, I'm somewhat surprised we don't hear more stories like this.

Hate to say it but all of those things are legal now.

Re:It could violate federal law

[spire3661]

Since when has violating the law stopped ANY government?

Re:It could violate federal law

[Zontar The Mindless]

In a case like this though, even if it was government funds used to do the work, it will probably come out that it was done by "overly aggressive independent contractors" who "overstepped their bounds" and not by government mandate. ...

Methinks this would be what some call plausible deniability.

Re:It could violate federal law

[Alex Belits]

Because Constitution is an old poorly formulated document written in a dialect of English that no one spoken for centuries, and the only people authorized to interpret it with any effect are nine political appointees?

Re:It could violate federal law

[Anonymous Coward]

Yet, when a constitutionalist comes and wants to run for the presidential office, people say: OMG LUNACY!.. you got what you deserve.

Re:It could violate federal law

[mounthood]

Since when has violating the law deterred the actions of our government? With the wiretapping of people without a warrant, search and seizure of anyone unfortunate enough to require air travel or border crossing, detainment of individuals without due process, to instigating of torture of war prisoners, I'm somewhat surprised we don't hear more stories like this.

Don't forget Asset Forfeiture -- you don't even have to be charged with a crime, much less convicted.

Re:It could violate federal law

[Charliemopps]

While the corporations are probobly getting treated better than your average citizen, I doubt they really enjoy the way our political environment exists today any more than we do. The problem isn't the rich, or corporations, that's just a red herring thrown at you by the REAL problem: The Democrat and Republican parties. The left blame the rich, the right blame the media. None of it is true. The laws are passed by 2 political parties that have the same goal: Power

Re:It could violate federal law

[dkleinsc]

Since when has violating the law deterred the actions of our government?

There'd be a good argument that the law made a difference on August 9, 1974. However, on September 8, 1974 the powers-that-be effectively put a stop to that kind of subversive precedent.
(look it up)

Re:It could violate federal law

[Anonymous Coward]

Parties dont lust after wealth and power. People do.
The blame does NOT lie with the two-party system, but with the well-monied special interests who twist that system-- and, of course, the People who fail to hold those those power-hungry interests accountable.

Re:It could violate federal law

[PopeRatzo]

Since when has violating the law deterred the actions of our government?

These were contractors for private companies doing the trolling. They were concerned that too much attention to their fat InfoOps boondoggle might kill their golden goose, so they figured they could hassle the journalists into silence or trash their reputations

Astroturfing and paid shilling is not a government innovation. It's good old Free Market Capitalism at its best: Anything to protect profits.

Re:It could violate federal law

[DNS-and-BIND]

Well, it follows the "living Constitution" philosophy. The Constitution doesn't mean what it means, it means whatever we *want* it to mean. Brought to you by liberals! Doesn't it suck when it comes back to bite you in the ass?

Re:It could violate federal law

[Anonymous Coward]

It could have been much worse. Consider this document, written about 60 years after the US Constitution. It was widely translated and served as the inspiration for founding many governments around the world. Those government then proceeded to kill 100,000,000 people in the last century. Despite its blood drenched record of death and suffering there are still many people who subscribe to the same goal.

Re:It could violate federal law

[Anonymous Coward]

No, liberals believe that the Constitution means what it MEANS, and not simply what the words have changed to mean. As on, the right to be secure in their persons, papers, and effects should extend to computers and the Internet because that's what they meant. Law enforcement, which on its best day is never "liberal" seems to think that ll your electronic bases are belong to us. They also thin that just because they cry "terrorist" that they should be able to do whatever they want.

Liberals tend to believe that copyrights and patents should actually benefit society and be limited in time, which is what the Constitution says.

We reject the (conservative) notion that because an explicit right to privacy isn't in the Constitution that there is no such right. Back in the days when the a constitution was written, if you wanted some "privacy" it meant you needed to go to the bathroom. They kind of didn't think to put that one in there, sorry. The meaning of words changes over time, so you either rewrite the document or you try to keep track of what it meant when it was written.

There were a number of founders who didn't want a Bill of Rights too, because they correctly believed that some idiots (usually conservatives again) were going to interpret that as being an exhaustive list of protected rights instead of being a limitation on government, and especially law enforcement and the military.

Oh, and there is absolutely no mention of corporations in it either. Corporations, being a creation entirely of law, should be governable by law and are most absolutely NOT people with inalienable rights. This, once again, is entirely a liberal point of view.

The founders were liberals. Conservatives and the rich of the day were squarely on the side of the King. After the Revolution a good number of them went back to England, or to Canada, which is why we in the US were blessed to not have to put up with the equivalent of millionaires for several decades after the founding of the country. It gave is country a great start, which we of the present have now totally screwed up. Did you know, for instance, that when George Washington was told he was to be President one of his first acts was to order his inauguration suit from the one company in the States which made fine clothing? He did that because the British had made the manufacture of all kinds of finished goods in the Colonies illegal, and he wanted to make a point: that we needed to protect our economy and grow our manufacturing base, which was one of the hallmarks of his administration. That lasted until Reagan and the modern conservative era, and look how awesome that's turned out for our economy.

So if you want to project onto liberals the flaws of conservatives, go ahead, as courts legitimize TSA searches, notebook seizures at the border, domestic spying, corporate personhood, and all the other unconstitutional conservative ideas that they've been paid to.

Re:It could violate federal law

[Alex Belits]

Congratulation, you are an idiot.

Nice try to defend your sacred cows by trying to start an argument about unrelated things that you ALSO wrong about.

Re:It could violate federal law

[Alex Belits]

Overthrow what? You don't even know what is written it it! WTF is "regulated militia"? "cruel and unusual"? "interstate commerce"? Every politician "interprets" those things whatever way he wants.

Oh, you mean your government that doesn't give a flying fuck about anything written in your Constitution, its responsibilities or plain common sense? It's a time-honored American tradition to proudly proclaim to the world: "Our tapeworms are longer!"

Re:It could violate federal law

[Doctor_Jest]

"Cruel and unusual" is a lack of a sarcasm tag... or in your case, a troll tag...

Re:It could violate federal law

[Doctor_Jest]

"It's good old government-sponsored Market corporatism at its best: Anything to protect profits."

FTFY.

These United States wouldn't know a free market if it sat on our face and started to wiggle.

Re:It could violate federal law

[Intrepid imaginaut]

It doesn't make any sense though, professional media manipulators don't register stuff in their target's name. Media manipulators are public relations people, the nearest thing to what these investigators are talking about are astroturfers like MS used to let loose on slashdot. What possible advantage would there be to set up accounts as trivially easy to prove as fake like this? The whole thing smells a bit off.

Re:It could violate federal law

[PopeRatzo]

These United States wouldn't know a free market if it sat on our face and started to wiggle.

That's because no free market has ever existed, and no free market could ever exist. It's like "free energy". It can't happen.

The "pro-free market" political forces are Utopians of the highest order. And as we've learned reading Leviathan, Utopia, etc, Utopians always bring tyranny.

That's why if you ever hear a politician or a pundit say they are in favor of "free markets" you better run for the hills because they're sizing you up for a box.

Re:It could violate federal law

[lightknight]

It's the big words that are throwing you, isn't it?

Re:It could violate federal law

[TubeSteak]

The problem isn't the rich, or corporations, that's just a red herring thrown at you by the REAL problem: The Democrat and Republican parties. The left blame the rich, the right blame the media. None of it is true. The laws are passed by 2 political parties that have the same goal: Power

Which party is trying to enact consumer protection laws, regulations to protect home buyers, regulations to reign in bank fraud?
Which party passes laws protecting the rights of women and minorities or makes environmental protection a priority?
I could go on and on, listing substantial policy differences between the Democratic and Republican parties.

I accept that both parties want power, but it seems like only one party even pretends to have a token interest in using the least bit of that power to protect my interests in even the most minimal of ways.

Re:It could violate federal law

[DNS-and-BIND]

Uh...the entire idea that The Holy Founders knew what was best is a conservative idea. How would a modern Progressive react to a Founder were he to suddenly materialize on the speaker's podium an OWS rally? They were slaveowners, remember? How can anything a slaveowner says be taken seriously in 2012? The lack of racial diversity among The Holy Founders is a damning accusation, one that pretty much discredits anything they ever said, being white men of privilege and all.

Re:It could violate federal law

[IndustrialComplex]

Those aren't your interests. All you are seeing is the futures of Orwell and Huxley fighting it out in real time.

One comes via fear, force and ignorance, the other comes with a spoonful of sugar and ignorance. The problem is, they are both well on their way to becoming real.

Liberty will be just as dead if killed through violent oppression (Orwell) or diabetic shock (Huxley).

Re:It could violate federal law

[sjames]

A fine example of strike fast while they're distracted.

Re:It could violate federal law

[VortexCortex]

The problem isn't the rich, or corporations, that's just a red herring thrown at you by the REAL problem: The Democrat and Republican parties.

That's only one political party... The Federalists opposed the Democratic-Republican party, remember? After getting trade with England re-established the Federalist party was shut out for their "Spirit of the Law" thinking, leaving only the Democratic-Republican party as the dominant party... Today it's the only party available. The term False Dichotomy applies somewhat here, except the falseness is in thinking that a choice exists between two when there is only one choice.

Furthermore, thanks to the spoiler effect, no independent party can arise. We need a multi-tiered ballot system whereby your vote says: I want X to win, and if X isn't winning, I want Y to win, and if that doesn't work out I want Z to win... etc. A preferred priority list (Alternative Vote) instead of a single vote system. This would enable you to vote independent, but not throw away your vote if they lose; Thus, opening the door for additional parties to slowly gain support over time, and have a real chance.

I believe Australia has such a system in place. However, that's still not good enough. We also need representation that reflects the actual party percentages.

Of course, with only a single established political party there's no way in hell we'll get them to release their reigns of power and implement a fair voting system -- So, looks like it's back to the "reboot the bitch" Anarchists angle for me.

Re:It could violate federal law

[Anonymous Coward]

"Those aren't your interests." Oh, okay, so you don't believe other people can possibly sincerely want environmental regulation and women's rights just because you are too much of a jaded little jackoff to want those things yourself? you are a narcissistic little shit, aren't you?

Re:It could violate federal law

[psiclops]

However, on September 8, 1974 the powers-that-be effectively put a stop to that kind of subversive precedent.
(look it up)

Ah-ha! i had always though it an accident, but now i can see that it was really an assassination attempt on Evel Knievel.
Earlier, Knievel had wanted to jump the Grand Canyon, however apparently the U.S Department of the Interior would not allow it. so what did the subversive Mr. Knievel do? why he purchased land on snake river canyon.

his downfall was hiring an ex-navy engineer to build the Sky-Cycle. Clearly the government was able to get to him so that he could rig the parachute to deploy early.

Had you read more into the story though you would understand that Fortunately, libery won out that day and despite the 600 ft Fall, Knievel walked away with only minor injuries.

Re:It could violate federal law

[Doctor_Jest]

None have tried. Free Energy is a joke, a free market is something that COULD exist. And yes, politicians who say anything about free markets are full of shit. If more people realized that, perhaps things would be better. Of course, a close proximity to a free market (as best as we can see these days) is Hong Kong (both pre and post handover...) It's not surprising that China wouldn't change much of how Hong Kong worked after Britain handed it over.... (We'll see how long that lasts of course...)

But you are incorrect in thinking a free market is a myth. It's more of an ideal, and those who don't believe in it or who cannot operate in it make sure we never reach that ideal... unlike free energy where someone is selling you a line of shit for a price....

Re:It could violate federal law

[khallow]

The two parties mentioned are well monied interests, perhaps the most "well monied" interests on the planet. They handle a $3.6 trillion per year revenue stream from the US federal government plus substantial state and local revenue streams.

Re:It could violate federal law

[tunapez]

However the odds that anyone directly employed by the government will take a fall for it are pretty low.

Oh, you saw the GSA hearing on CSPAN today too? I thought I was the only one. What a farce to see grown adults in positions of power playing 'hot potato' to see which dispensable underling will be burnt.

Re:It could violate federal law

[Anonymous Coward]

Free market means a lot of different things, depending on whether you're talking Adam Smith or Friedrich Hayek, or whoever else had an opinion of the matter. A Free Market which achieves the benefits espoused by its proponents, however, is totally impossible. For a free market to be a method of efficient resource allocation, or a source of information, or a source of choice, certain impossible conditions have to be met. These include Perfect Information, in which everyone knows everything about all products, which is a ridiculous thing to suggest as a possibility; and Perfect Competition, which requires a whole laundry list of preposterous sub-conditions (homogenous goods, zero transaction costs, infinite consumers and producers).

Without these things a "free market" might be possible, but it would not resemble the Free Market we hear about from laissez-faire capitalists with all its attendant benefits.

Free Marketers are exactly as idealistic as those who believe in a Communist Utopia, they just believe in different impossibilities.

Re:It could violate federal law

[Wakko Warner]

What's even funnier is, I bet half the members on the investigating committee have paid for a hooker on the taxpayer's dime before, too.

Re:It could violate federal law

[PopeRatzo]

But you are incorrect in thinking a free market is a myth. It's more of an ideal

That's what I said: it's Utopian.

The problem is as you approach The Free Market without actually getting there, things get worse and worse for more and more people. We don't know what happens if the Ideal is ever achieved because it has never happened. The closer you get to a "free market" the further away you end up. That may be the reason, as you say, that "none have tried". Oh, and Hong Kong only exists because the British government rode it for so long. Now the Chinese government rides it. You'll notice that there was no time when nobody rode it.

Understand, markets of any kind do not appear in nature. They only exist to the extent that a sufficiently stable government exists to regulate it. Without the sufficiently stable (and strong) regulatory system, "free markets" become tyranny of the richest/strongest. That wouldn't be so bad, except for the fact that the properties that allow someone to become richest/strongest are none of the properties that one would want in a dictator. "Dog eat dog" leaves you eventually with just one very big dog.

Further, there are too many serious issues that a "free market" could not address, since a "free market" requires that all participants be perfectly self-serving agents. For example, there is no free market solution to, say, border security. There is no free market solution to space exploration in the absence of a government to take the initial risks/costs. The Internet could never have occurred in a free market, because it would have become cable television. In fact, cable television was supposed to be the Internet at one time, but it ended up as a cool, passive medium instead thanks to the "free market". I don't know if you're old enough to remember how long it took before anyone could make a profit from the Internet. A "free market" could never have waited that long.

Re:It could violate federal law

[Doctor_Jest]

It's indeed funny that we have the exact problem you say a free market would have right now. We are at the mercy of the tyranny of the rich and strongest. They got that way through manipulating the regulatory arm you cling to. A Free Market has nothing to do with anarchy. A free market is only an ideal because we can't wrap our heads around what it means. People always want to qualify a free market with an "if" or a "but"... We have had a sufficiently stable government for centuries that has done nothing but grow larger, more invasive and regulatory and yet we have as corrupt a system as you could possibly dream up for a free market. Government subsidies for farms, kickbacks for "oil exploration", and sweetheart deals for this or that. The internet is a prime example of a free market style idea growing out of a military project. If it weren't for those original people, we'd still have ARPANET and MILNET. Sure some of the biggest seeds came out of academia, but the internet only went so far through those channels. Now the government wants in on the profits, and we see SOPA/PIPA and the corporatist goons trying to legislate their way to the top of the market.

Cable television was a free market idea, and then it got sucked into regulatory contracts, government sponsored monopolies and government copyright/trademark hell... considering the fact that the internet is suffering from the same problem, I can see we share the same fear. :) But my fear is from the over-regulated consequences of the old guard buying their influence so the new guard cannot enter. Like I said earlier, we have a "dog eat dog" system... it just has a smaller cadre of "dogs" eating the rest of us.

As for Hong Kong, the British rode it by not enforcing any of the old world government shackles they were stuck with in their own country... and China hasn't changed that much, in spite of being very capable of turning anything into a government-run institution. It's not perfect, but Hong Kong is the closest to a free market we can get with the current cronyism that plagues western civilization.

With the current system of government and payola, which would try to occur in a free market, the market would be well able to handle it. While company A was greasing a politician, company B would swoop in and take the market away from them. But we can't have that when the government actually prevents company B from offering a product that company A is unwilling to sell or unwilling to move on price... because Company A squelches competition through "regulatory framework" or a completely fucked up copyright and patent system. The government should be the arbiter of disputes between participants in the market, and should enforce liberty and property protections that the Constitution enumerates... it should not control markets and prop up campaign donors with new laws designed to screw the little guy and keep the money flowing back to them. That is why we won't have a free market. That is why we can't have one.

Re:It could violate federal law

[cats-paw]

actually it is true. the rich seek to subvert the political process to continue to enrich themselves at the expense of the rest of us.
and they have the resources to do it.

so, really it is true. the problem is idiots like you who claim the parties are the same.

neither of them is good, but they are most definitely not the same.

Re:It could violate federal law

[phantomfive]

Which party is trying to enact consumer protection laws, regulations to protect home buyers, regulations to reign in bank fraud? Which party passes laws protecting the rights of women and minorities or makes environmental protection a priority?

Eh, it's all how you look at it. One party wants to get rid of medicare benefits (part D), was getting rid of banking regulations earlier (under Clinton), and traps minorities in a cycle of dependency.

Ultimately there is no position held by either party so dearly that they couldn't change it by next election cycle. Politicians are a bunch of liars in both parties, but both parties have a few good people too. Just don't get too caught up in the "us against them" mentality that both parties try to push on you; Americans are a lot more similar than we are different. We all hate the TSA.

Re:It could violate federal law

[Anonymous Coward]

Liberty will be just as dead if killed through violent oppression (Orwell) or diabetic shock (Huxley).

Hey, half a gram and I won't give a damn.

Re:It could violate federal law

[Rich0]

Why is it then that there has been little progress in the last 15 years on any of the issues you raise?

Both parties "make a priority" out of the items that tend to trigger voter loyalty, but neither party actually achieves much. They both profit a great deal from the status quo. To pick just one example of such an issue, the last thing the Republicans want to do is ban abortion completely, and the last thing the Democrats want to do is make it completely ubiquitous - then nobody would have any reason to donate.

To vote for the mainstream candidates either party nominates is to just perpetuate the problem. There are a few rare examples of candidates worth voting for, but you'll never see them nominated by their parties for POTUS/etc.

Re:It could violate federal law

[PopeRatzo]

As for Hong Kong, the British rode it by not enforcing any of the old world government shackles they were stuck with in their own country... and China hasn't changed that much, in spite of being very capable of turning anything into a government-run institution. It's not perfect, but Hong Kong is the closest to a free market we can get with the current cronyism that plagues western civilization.

Hong Kong is less a "free market" than a duty-free zone. It's a reserve, a zoo. It is completely dependent (and at the mercy) of the mainland for it's existence. It doesn't have enough of anything to exist on its own. And a beer costs $50. The "free market" has made it a veritable paradise, keeping near-slave labor nearby and an active sex trade at its center.

And guess what happens if a contract between two companies is not honored in Hong Kong? It's not the "free market" to whom they turns. And in a free market, where you say for some reason there must be a government to be the arbiter of disputes, how does that work when the most powerful company uses his "free market" power to corrupt government? The first thing that will happen in a "free market" (if such thing could exist) would be the most powerful corporation would control the arbiter. A heavily-regulated, as in say, Denmark, Germany, etc, economy is not perfect, but it might be the best we can do, human nature being what it is.

Oh, I forgot:

We are at the mercy of the tyranny of the rich and strongest. They got that way through manipulating the regulatory arm you cling to.

They got that way because of de-regulation and an uneven application of the anti-trust laws. They got that way through a preponderance of Republican governance pissing in the pool. There was a very narrow window, post-war, when the middle class was at its most powerful in history, when the smallest percentage of society was disenfranchised, when growth was great and people could have optimism about each successive generation. Ronald Reagan put a stop to all that and we've been in decline, free market-style ever since. Trickle down misery.

Cable television was a free market idea, and then it got sucked into regulatory contracts, government sponsored monopolies and government copyright/trademark hell

That trademark hell was created at the behest of powerful corporate interests. And at it's best cable television, which was supposed to be a free market utopia of interactivity, turned into home shopping network. No thank you. And now that those same corporate interests are taking over the Internet, the same thing is going to happen here. And you want those corporate interests to be let completely off the leash. No thank you. I have been to Hong Kong. I do not want to live there.

Re:It could violate federal law

[Anonymous Coward]

Which party is trying to enact consumer protection laws, regulations to protect home buyers, regulations to reign in bank fraud?

which president used the "stimulus" to payback his political supporters?
which president used the "stimulus" to bail out the wall street bankers?
which party pushed the banking system to accept mortgage applications from people who obviously couldn't afford them?
which party has promoted the welfare state where ALMOST HALF of the country receives some type of check from the gubmint?
which president runs TRILLION dollar deficits EVERY YEAR HE IS IN OFFICE? (talk about banking fraud!!!)

Which party passes laws protecting the rights of women and minorities or makes environmental protection a priority?

which party promotes the destruction of the most vulnerable humans (the unborn) by ripping them limb from limb out of their mothers womb?
which party promotes the destruction of business and jobs due to ridiculous claims of "enviromental damage" such as minnows in an aqueduct?
which party promotes INEQUALITY through the passage of "hate laws"?
which party promotes truly disgusting behaviour through their support of "gay marriage"?

I could go on and on, listing substantial policy differences between the Democratic and Republican parties.

the republican party is not a shining star by any means of measure, but they are BY FAR the lesser of two evils.

and one last question, why is our current presidend working so hard to HIDE ALL HIS RECORDS? the dems were so intent on blasting republican candidates for their grades in school, when the current president is TOO AFRAID to even release his school records. what gives? why is he so afraid to be OPEN and HONEST about himself?

Re:It could violate federal law

[CanHasDIY]

Which party is trying to enact consumer protection laws,

Neither of them. At least, not anything with any teeth. Look at the absolute joke Dodd-Frank has turned into, in no small part thanks to members of the Democratic party.

regulations to protect home buyers,

Neither of them. Seriously, what regulations have been passed since the '08 meltdown that does anything to protect home owners and buyers? None I can think of.

regulations to reign in bank fraud?

3 for 3.

Which party passes laws protecting the rights of women and minorities or makes environmental protection a priority?

Again, neither of them. Where's the evidence? Sure, Obama pushed a law forcing insurance companies to cover women's reproductive medications, but as soon as the right balked he withdrew support of his own initiative. What good does it do women and minorities if the leadership reneges every time the opposition harrumphs?

I could go on and on, listing substantial policy differences between the Democratic and Republican parties.

Which wouldn't do a lick of good, considering that their differences pale in comparison to their similarities. It's like you're implying a bulldog and a German shepherd are two completely different species, because they have different color fur. But really, your perception isn't what matters - it's the fact that no matter what you think of them, they're both going to lick their own balls before they put tongue to your face.

I accept that both parties want power, but it seems like only one party even pretends to have a token interest in using the least bit of that power to protect my interests in even the most minimal of ways.

So, in other words you prefer leaders who will lie to your face about how their about to fuck you, rather than ones who will straight up say, "we're going to fuck you"?

That's smart.

Re:It could violate federal law

[Anonymous Coward]

> Which party is trying to enact consumer protection laws, regulations to protect home buyers, regulations to reign in bank fraud?

Neither of them, though the Democrats are trying a lot harder to look like they are. The truth is, neither of the parties are writing legislation that is helping you and Democrats were the ones that undid the last round of regulation that enabled the shit that we need the new round for.

> Which party passes laws protecting the rights of women and minorities or makes environmental protection a priority?

Neither of them. They both are removing our rights at equal rates, and while Democrats might make noise about women's rights, what rights have they created vs the rights they have taken away from all people? Such as the right to trial before the President assassinates you?

> I could go on and on, listing substantial policy differences between the Democratic and Republican parties.

There is a set of things that differentiate Republicans from Democrats. That set is not very large. Now compare the Democrats and Republicans against the legislatures of other countries. The differences become ABUNDANT.

You are trapped in the Democrats vs. Republicans game. That game is Really Democrats and Republicans vs America.

Re:It could violate federal law

[Johann Lau]

While the corporations are probobly getting treated better than your average citizen, I doubt they really enjoy the way our political environment exists today any more than we do. The problem isn't the rich, or corporations, that's just a red herring thrown at you by the REAL problem: The Democrat and Republican parties.

What has been created by this half century of massive corporate propaganda is what's called "anti-politics". So that anything that goes wrong, you blame the government. Well okay, there's plenty to blame the government about, but the government is the one institution that people can change... the one institution that you can affect without institutional change. That's exactly why all the anger and fear has been directed at the government. The government has a defect - it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect - they're pure tyrannies. So therefore you want to keep corporations invisible, and focus all anger on the government. So if you don't like something, you know, your wages are going down, you blame the government. Not blame the guys in the Fortune 500, because you don't read the Fortune 500. You just read what they tell you in the newspapers... so you don't read about the dazzling profits and the stupendous dizz, and the wages going down and so on, all you know is that the bad government is doing something, so let's get mad at the government.

-- Noam Chomsky

Re:It could violate federal law

[cusco]

In spite of its rather glaring problems I much prefer the government running interference for Company A than the alternative, having Blackwater and DynCorp do it. Much as I may loathe and despise lawyers and lobbyists, mercenaries are a far, far worse alternative.

the British rode it

by making it into the most enormous cesspool of bribery and extortion in the entire Empire. An appointment to become governor of Hong Kong meant being catapulted to the top of one of the largest criminal enterprises ever seen, where 'the law' was whatever the governor proclaimed and was enforced by the Royal Navy and its marines. If Company A wanted to wanted to eliminate competition from Company B a sufficient bribe to the governor would see all its workers deported to China and its assets seized in the name of the Crown.

Do they become Libertarians because they don't know anything about history, or do they have to un-learn everything they knew about history to become Libertarians?

Re:It could violate federal law

[cusco]

I think everyone involved knew from the beginning that the cable TV market was never going to approach any sort of 'free market' status because of 1) the enormous cost of the infrastructure build-out meant very, very few competitors could even enter the industry, and 2) the limited number of sources for content. It's still a useful talking point for the Libertardians though.

Re:It could violate federal law

[Doctor_Jest]

I'm not a Libertarian, I'm a libertarian. Yes, Hong Kong isn't perfect... I've said that before. And no, it's not the shining example on the hill. It has the elements of a free market, but it, like everything else, is not a free market in the sense that I think we are capable of. Everyone who says "Free market" isn't a kook. But I can safely say that the cronyism and legislation (and selective application of regulation based on who pays the most) is bad enough that we need something else. We don't need more of the same, and we can't very well eliminate everything that decades of this system has wrought. We can come close, and we can enforce equality through the adherence to the Constitution.. Something the British Empire never had...

And I think you forgot about the entire British Empire as a cesspool of extortion, bribery, and violence (India... just to name one). Just because Hong Kong was a "wild west" market with British help (like I said before, not a true free market.. but closer than we've ever been in the US or Europe), doesn't make everyone who is for a free market somehow ignorant of history and somehow a kook. History has taught you enough to realize the current system is what you explain in your first sentence... the only difference is that lawyers and lobbyists are the mercenaries. And FAR worse, because they legislate and make legal all the things that will bring down our personal liberty. At least you can shoot mercenaries.

I think we can agree that nothing we have has worked. We haven't "de-regulated" squat in the US... we've created artificial oligarchies for those companies who paid for the "De-regulation". (Texas power, California power, banks... etc.) All "De-regulation" has done is eliminate some of the paperwork necessary to get what the cronies already were promised. It's not about freeing markets... it's about unleashing the titans against those who oppose them in the market. Something an adherence to the Constitution would fix if only we hadn't thought "there oughta be a law" every time something fucked up. AT&T, Cable, Big Content... consolidation of banks... all "de-regulated" to the point of serving those in power with piles of money. Nothing free about that, unless you're the one getting the cash.

We've seen what a subservient role to a government unshackled by constraints can do. We see many places trying to move away from it (even the vaunted nanny states of Europe) and yet we have the same voices claiming the same nonsense about "Fair" and "regulatory matters" as if they are speaking something new. It's not new... but we keep electing the idiots here in the US as if it were.

Is it real at all?

[russotto]

My suspicious side wonders if these reporters created the fake sites themselves to stir up controversy.

My other suspicious side wonders if it was just spammers copying a bunch of real and popular content to a website in order to do black hat SEO. Even the part about them being "sponsored by the Taliban" could have been stolen from some real comment on their articles.

Re:Is it real at all?

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you real? Or are you also part of the info-conspiracy?

Re:Is it real at all?

[Anonymous Coward]

When would poisoning the well not be used by contracted agencies. If they are the smart ones contracted it to Indians, if they are to arrogant may have done it in house but I suspect china or Indian firms now specializing in poisoning the well.

Re:Is it real at all?

[Anonymous Coward]

My suspicious side wonders if you're an employee of the InfoOps who is trying to get us to doubt this complaint.

You are a tad obvious, but then they did bid it out to the lowest offer.

Re:Is it real at all?

[Alex Belits]

The simpler is the lie, the more people believe it. The net result of faking the libel than debunking it is always negative.

Re:Is it real at all?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hence Indian involvement, follow the money and you know what really is going on.

Re:Is it real at all?

[Anonymous Coward]

My first thought too. Very amateurish attempt at harassment.

Re:Is it real at all?

[daveschroeder]

To call this a Pentagon payback campaign is ridiculous. A "highly targeted, professional media manipulation effort"? What, anonymously registering a web site, social media accounts, and similar in a person's name, and then using them in a way so that even the most casual observer could see they weren't the actual people? Give me a break. Anyone who looks at either of the sites can see they weren't even hiding the fact they were trying to smear the reporters. It wasn't even thinly-veiled: it was as overt as you can get.

At MOST — and I'm not even saying it went this far — this would have been individuals not a part of the Pentagon who were perhaps upset that USA TODAY presented the story in the way it did (some parts of which were pretty poor, considering that IO is one of our primary tools in conflict, and we shouldn't somehow be ashamed of it). That doesn't justify a smear campaign, but it wouldn't have been coming from the "Pentagon", and no, it wouldn't have been done with a "wink, wink, nod" from the Pentagon, either.

I would say that this kind of blatant and pedestrian activity is amateur hour, but it doesn't even rise to that level. Consider, too, that ANYONE could have registered these sites in this fashion — including those who would love to stir up the notion in the US that the "government" is somehow running smear campaigns against journalists. I'm not saying that is what occurred, but the truth is that when IO is done right — other than activities that are intended to destroy a target — an adversary won't even know about it.

Think about it: if you wanted to run a secret smear campaign against someone, would you make it blatantly obvious?

Re:Is it real at all?

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

My suspicious side wonders if these reporters created the fake sites themselves to stir up controversy.

Whereas my cynical side would be puzzled and even shocked to discover that it wasn't done by unregulated and unaccountable private contractors.

Re:Is it real at all?

[Thing 1]

IO is one of our primary tools in conflict, and we shouldn't somehow be ashamed of it

Well, I strongly disagree: it doesn't matter what the new label for "lying" is, "lying" is a behavior that I do not want my tax dollars to support. I am ashamed that my government lies to anybody.

Re:Is it real at all?

[daveschroeder]

Actually, that's not the purpose of IO in US doctrine. Even MISO (formerly PSYOP) is defined as conveying selected TRUTHFUL information to a foreign audience. That's the whole point.

Not only that, but we're often fighting adversaries that propagandize and indoctrinate extensively, and routinely target US audiences via the media to serve their own purposes.

So you can stop being ashamed, now, since "lying" isn't the purpose of IO. If you want to learn about what IO actually is, see: http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/new_pubs/jp3_13.pdf

Re:Is it real at all?

[Anonymous Coward]

I believe these people are working hard to promote a lot of the conspiracy theories and other propaganda online at the moment: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/50_Cent_Party (PRC internet propagandists)

Re:Is it real at all?

[Anonymous Coward]

China's plan to use internet for propaganda

An internal speech by China's top internet official, apparently posted by accident on an official internet site before being promptly removed, outlines a vast array of institutions and methods to control opinion at home and also ''create an international public opinion environment that is objective, beneficial and friendly to us''.

http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/chinas-plan-to-use-internet-for-propaganda-20100713-109hc.html

Re:Is it real at all?

[Anonymous Coward]

China’s web spin doctors spread subversive propaganda

Instead of posting simple slogans such as “Long live our leaders” or “Long live the party”, the web commentators develop detailed, rational arguments which would more likely be trusted as reliable advice or information.

“There is a subliminal effect — the message gets into people’s heads, even the dissidents, especially the arguments that make sense,” De Spens said.

Experts are divided on the overall effectiveness of the massive web operation. “On the main hot topics, three days into the debate, only the propaganda remains online”, creating a “false general opinion” which the great majority of web users will blindly follow, De Spens said.
“That is the major success of Chinese propaganda.”

http://memeburn.com/2011/05/chinas-web-spin-doctors-spread-subversive-propaganda/

Re:Is it real at all?

[Alex Belits]

Instead of posting simple slogans such as “Long live our leaders” or “Long live the party”, the web commentators develop detailed, rational arguments which would more likely be trusted as reliable advice or information.

Is that a new form of a debate -- once you lost an argument, scream "Propaganda!"?

You already lost

[Anonymous Coward]

"If these websites were created using federal funds, it could violate federal law prohibiting the production of propaganda for domestic consumption."

I'm sure merely suggesting the above puts you in the "you must be supporting terrorists" camp.

Re:You already lost

[tqk]

I'm sure merely suggesting the above puts you in the "you must be supporting terrorists" camp.

The USA's "Founding Fathers" were considered terrorists. High praise, methinks.

Re:You already lost

[Wakko Warner]

Hell, these days, Richard Nixon would be considered a Marxist. That's how far to the right the Overton window has shifted in the US. It's truly terrifying.

Re:You already lost

[tqk]

That's how far to the right the Overton window has shifted in the US.

Huh. Useful information.

turnabout is fair play

[Anonymous Coward]

eh, you fifth columnist Leftists!

Identity teft

[Anonymous Coward]

So what are the requirements to have legal imunity to this type of crime, ammong others it would fit into as well. Just curious. Do i have to work for the pentagon? or can any civil servent be under the fascist military umbrella?

Seems every day I'm reading another shocker

[rbrander]

Tim Weiner, who did a great book on the CIA, was on Jon Stewart the other day, touting his new book on the FBI. Seems the beginning of the plumbers was when J. Edgar Hoover refused to start tapping the phones of all the friends and relatives of groups like The Weathermen. And now the FBI is being asked to tap even more widely and without warrants. The new Surveillance State is, get this, worse than J.Edgar Hoover would tolerate, because it was so blatantly unconstitutional.

But the FBI tapping is small potatoes. Hit Glenn Greenwald's column at Salon.com for the other day's article on "surveillance state evils"....the NSA, always forbidden to tap Americans, is now tapping, well, everything. Suspicions no longer seem paranoid that the "Total Information Awareness" is indeed being pursued: a new NSA data centre is just hoovering up (pardon the expression) every byte.

The article goes on to detail a great deal more journalist and activist intimidation than this /. item: people who've spoken out for Wikileaks, done journalism, whatever, getting up against the wall every time they pass through customs, lawyer Jesslyn Radack searched EVERY TIME she goes through TSA even domestically, people threatened with jail and jailhouse-rape.

It's just bewildering. Is this really the USA? And are it's citizens just taking it? Some freedom-loving people.

Re:Seems every day I'm reading another shocker

[Sancho]

It's just bewildering. Is this really the USA? And are it's citizens just taking it? Some freedom-loving people.

I don't have time to get mad. American Idol's on.

Re:Seems every day I'm reading another shocker

[theNAM666]

>It's just bewildering. Is this really the USA? And are it's citizens just taking it? Some freedom-loving people.

Congratulations. You've just discovered the difference between public ideology ("greatest country on earth," "home of freedom and democracy") and actual reality ("bow down to your corporate overlords").

P.S. The journalists' claims are overblown, in the sense that reporting on Apple's manufacturing was overblown. I get interviewed every time I enter the US (because of "leftist affiliations" shall we say). The interrogations are, in the end, professionally and not over the top in a sort of bureaucratically chilling way. If I don't make a fuss or trouble, it's just a series of questions and answers, and they're not going to do an unnecessary invasive search because they're no point / it's inefficient. If you scream and holler and break protocol on your side, I'm sure, you've just set off all the alarm bells and they have to search you, but because you screamed and hollered and they have to search everyone who screams and hollers-- because that's what the bureaucratic playbook says they have to do-- not because you're a journalist who wrote about this or that, but because, in the end, you're making extra trouble.

In short, don't argue with the cop unless you're prepared for the consequences.

Re:Seems every day I'm reading another shocker

[Vitriol Angst]

I wonder if we don't need to offer J Edgar Hoover and apology.

I know we all THOUGHT he was keeping documents on everyone -- but who asked him to do it? Was he really running things, or was he pressured to track people by folks like McCarthy or Nixon?

With the prescience of 20/20 hindsight -- I have to wonder about the whole scandal of him dressing in women's undergarments -- because getting caught with some perverse act seems to be MORE of a threat to our CIA or Secret Service organizations than merely assassination, torture, or selling secrets about masses of US citizens to whomever wants to buy it (per the Wikipedia document dump showing just that).

I really -- really don't know. Just throwing it out there. Since 9/11 I've decided to re-check all the history I thought I knew and found that everything I knew was about 90% wrong. 10% truth these days must just be for the "flavor".

Re:Seems every day I'm reading another shocker

[Vitriol Angst]

Yeah, because ONLY terrorists scream and holler about their rights -- and GOOD CITIZENS capitulate.

What you've just described is a situation where the TSA security theater is merely there to make sure you bend over and say; "thank you sir."

Security doesn't have shit to do with people making jokes, or making a fuss. The guy who want's to mess you up will stay under the radar and be the most polite person up until the moment of truth.

In short, don't argue with the cop unless you're prepared for the consequences. -- Right, because we should all have consequences because we demand a Government and Security system that respects us.

Re:Seems every day I'm reading another shocker

[Anonymous Coward]

So we may as well just climb back up the trees we came down from as a species all that time ago. Since for all our science and technology we're no better than the gazelles that, even though they could work together and take out the lion preying on them, fail to do so and remain prey.

Re:Seems every day I'm reading another shocker

[Tom]

It's just bewildering. Is this really the USA?

Is and always has been. The USA was founded by the upper class for their own benefit and run that way. There's a reason it's a republic and not a democracy.

The new things is that the pendulum has begun to swing back. For a long time, more and more people became a share of the pie, with the blacks and the women allowed to vote, for example.

Re:Seems every day I'm reading another shocker

[tqk]

Seems the beginning of the plumbers was when J. Edgar Hoover refused to start tapping the phones of all the friends and relatives of groups like The Weathermen.

Hoover just resented them encroaching on his turf.

Re:Seems every day I'm reading another shocker

[phantomfive]

Yeah, because ONLY terrorists scream and holler about their rights -- and GOOD CITIZENS capitulate.

No, but only annoying people holler and scream when they are in the middle of the line getting through TSA. Which slows down the entire line and takes even longer to get through. It's good to fight for your rights, but do it in a place that is effective.

Those people annoy me as much as the TSA.

Re:Seems every day I'm reading another shocker

[theNAM666]

Ah. It seems you're the post of the day that lives up to your 'nick.

You miss the point. The point is simply that the journalists in question make overblown claims (and act inappropriately) in order to get attention, when, if they behaved in a courteous manner, they likely wouldn't have the problems when flying.

Otherwise, I said nothing evaluative about the US's Security Theatre.

Re:Seems every day I'm reading another shocker

[Anonymous Coward]

It's just bewildering. Is this really the USA? And are it's citizens just taking it? Some freedom-loving people.

Don't mock us, boy, we have a Second Amendment to carry GUNS!

We just have to drop them (and our pants) to travel within our great Free Nation, that's all.

Re:Seems every day I'm reading another shocker

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't have time to get mad. American IDLE is on.

There corrected that for you.

Re:Seems every day I'm reading another shocker

[Anonymous Coward]

With the prescience of 20/20 hindsight -- I have to wonder about the whole scandal of him dressing in women's undergarments -- because getting caught with some perverse act seems to be MORE of a threat to our CIA or Secret Service organizations than merely assassination, torture, or selling secrets about masses of US citizens to whomever wants to buy it (per the Wikipedia document dump showing just that).

The scandal - if true and provable (or even if well-produced fakes had to be produced) - would have made it possible for the Bad Guys(tm) to compromise him, and in so doing compromise the entire FBI. That's actually pretty damn important, giving the number of moles the Soviets got into high places back in the day.

Oh, and.

However, having had my debates with Global Warming Deniars, Pro Torture Advocates, People for the Protection of the Rich, and of course, the ever-present Citizens for Oil Company Profits who think that gas prices are about the free market -- I'm not so sure that ALL of this is SEO and Sock puppets.

It's not. The right sockpuppet, at the right time, in the right thread, can cause all the damn idiots to spend the rest of the thread barking at each other and chasing each other's tails.

Dr. Bob, /.'s self-appointed chiropractor troll, was a harmless example. No matter the topic, he could turn the entire thread into a discussion on medical quackery.

A more sinister example shows up in Scientology threads. One scilon says "But the Catholic church covered up abuse scandals too...", or "Hey, their space opera is no weirder than any other religion", and a bunch of well-meaning abuse victims and atheists get involved in a flamewar with apologists for legitimate religions. Any discussion of the abuses of the cult towards its victims, (as well as its abuses of intellectual property law and its support of the Mickey Mouse Copyright Term Extension Act) is immediately derailed in irrelevent minutae about *other* organizations' shady pasts, and the Scilon merely chuckles and reports "mission accomplished" to the mothership.

But I digress. (If this were the first post on the thread, and we were to have a discussion on the Scilons, or on Chiropracty, I'd have accomplished precisely the same thing in distracting the issue away from that of InfoOps.)

Over the medium term, say, an election cycle, the practice is also useful for more than just derailing threads into megabytes of political derp. It can cause otherwise-reasonable but somewhat-impressionable not-quite-as-damn idiot lurkers (who lean to either side) to harden their own opinions on the subject.

Eliminate the middle from politics, and you eliminate the reasonable from the voting pool. That's a good thing if you're in the business of managing the message.

A questionable side benefit - and I don't think this is intentionally happening, because it would take a very long term (decades) strategy, which I just don't see any political organization capable of organizaing - it occurs to me that if you manage to keep the political balance at or near 50/50, you also reduce the number of remaining swing voters (complete doofuses with no political opinion one way or another who make up their minds on election day) that need to be convinced. That reduces the amount of message-management required. Someday a tweet from the 2020s equivalent of Kim Kardashian could sway an election.

It also has a happy side effect if you can pull off 50/50 (or 60/40 under current Senate rules) elections in the House and Senate. When one defecting politician can derail or cause passage of a bill, they all need to be bribed to the point of not changing their mind. I doubt there's a single Representative or Senator who has a problem with that.

CAPTCHA: wakeup. Oh, the fucking irony. I'm with the guy who says it sounds like fascinating work for a misanthrope. I'm also for hire, guys. More fun than my current day job, that's for sure. (I'm not the AC who called himself "InfoOps - Slashdot and Fark division", but I admire his work :)

Re:Seems every day I'm reading another shocker

[Anonymous Coward]

I believe their view is that _everyone_ going through the checkpoint should behave as they do. If everyone did, the checkpoints would be gone in a week.

Re:Seems every day I'm reading another shocker

[Corbets]

Yeah, because ONLY terrorists scream and holler about their rights -- and GOOD CITIZENS capitulate.

What you've just described is a situation where the TSA security theater is merely there to make sure you bend over and say; "thank you sir."

Security doesn't have shit to do with people making jokes, or making a fuss. The guy who want's to mess you up will stay under the radar and be the most polite person up until the moment of truth.

In short, don't argue with the cop unless you're prepared for the consequences. -- Right, because we should all have consequences because we demand a Government and Security system that respects us.

You're assuming rationality on the part of the bad guy. The authorities assume irrationality – and high tension from the fear of getting caught is more likely to manifest itself in sputtering rage than quiet acquiescence, I think.

Why is that paper even still in business?

[HBI]

USA Today...the only place I see it is at hotels, free copies at the door of the rooms in the morning. Otherwise, who buys it or reads it?

Re:Why is that paper even still in business?

[theNAM666]

>USA Today...the only place I see it is at hotels, free copies at the door of the rooms in the morning. Otherwise, who buys it or reads it?

"Middle America." You know, the people with the big middles? (The place you left out, was Wal-Mart).

Re:Why is that paper even still in business?

[theNAM666]

P.S. In case you weren't being sarcastic: it's often the #1 selling paper in the US, and (in comparison with the WSJ) clearly the best-selling general news paper: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA_Today

Re:Why is that paper even still in business?

[StormyWeather]

Because all the copies left at every hotel room count as a sub. Readership of that crap rag is very little.

Re:Why is that paper even still in business?

[theNAM666]

Do I have a stalker today? Four comments like the above, modded down? To my stalker: I can report mod abuse, you know ;)

Re:Why is that paper even still in business?

[theNAM666]

I agree that it's a crap rag. I wish I could agree that readership was low. Advertizers are very careful in their analytics, and they pay for placement in USAToday. Because... middle america sops it up with a straw.

Re:Why is that paper even still in business?

[Anonymous Coward]

yea and all Frenchmen smell bad, and all Brittan have bad teeth, and all Germans are shit eating psychopaths, do us all a favor and the next time your on one of your walks, just jump off a bridge

Re:Why is that paper even still in business?

[tomhath]

it's often the #1 selling paper in the US

Not best selling, it's among the top in circulation because they give it away. Almost two-thirds of USAToday circulation is given away to hotels and schools. And even with that their circulation is dropping; free and still not worth the price.

Re:Why is that paper even still in business?

[Pence128]

I'll just leave this here.

Re:Why is that paper even still in business?

[Anonymous Coward]

Somebody desperate to complete one of their softball suduku puzzels perhaps.

Sockpuppets for hire

[EnergyScholar]

I hope all readers of Slashdot are already aware of the many 'boutique' consulting firms exist that provide this kind of service. For a fee, they will sell you anything from a single one-topic sock puppet appearance, to an entire social media campaign. I am personally familiar with organizations that provide this service. They definitely operate on Slashdot, and I have been seeing more and more probable sockpuppet appearances here. I strongly encourage all readers to increase personal awareness of this phenomenon. New media, and the shenanigans it makes possible, now requires a new type of media awareness, if one wishes to not be fooled and manipulated.

Re:Sockpuppets for hire

[MountainLogic]

Anytime energy, climate, guns, oil, taxes, nuclear, smoking, pesticides, pharmaceuticals or evolution gets mentioned you can expect to see the sock puppets come out. I would welcome a corporate flack who shows up and articulately say, "I'm VP at company X and here is what I want to tell you about our product..." Instead all we get is 3rd rate sub-contractor who just copies and paste, perhaps with bad edits, some anti-science drivel. I guess if you have a loosing argument the only choice is to give up on making your case and muddy the waters. Now that I've entered all those keywords, just watch how many sock puppets come out and respond out of context. So welcome shills, but just for kicks please list your employer this time. Any ex-shills out there?

Re:Sockpuppets for hire

[Quiet_Desperation]

Are they hiring? Sounds like fascinating work for a misanthrope like me.

Re:Sockpuppets for hire

[the eric conspiracy]

Anytime energy, climate, guns, oil, taxes, nuclear, smoking, pesticides, pharmaceuticals or evolution gets mentioned you can expect to see the sock puppets come out.

From both sides.

Re:Sockpuppets for hire

[Anonymous Coward]

Humpty Dumpty sat on a wall
Humpty Dumpty had a great fall.
All the king's horses and all the king's men
Had scrambled eggs and bacon again.

-Lamb Chop

Re:Sockpuppets for hire

[daveschroeder]

Even with the kinds of services of which you speak, the idea is for them to NOT be obvious, which was the case with these allegations: the web sites in question, which you can still see cached in various places, didn't even pretend to be official or personal sites of the journalists. They just smeared them, and nothing more.

Of course, anyone who appears to hold a position you disagree with (or runs counter to the predictable Slashdot groupthink) is automatically a sockpuppet, right...?

Re:Sockpuppets for hire

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

They definitely operate on Slashdot

That's strong claim. I assume it's supported by strong evidence? I only ask because I personally haven't found any. Nor have I been able to come up with a plausible reason why anyone would think it a good investment to pay them to operate here since the negative opinions of MS. At least then, hitting the opinions of the IT crowd could potentially be effective, since they're pretty much exactly the biggest source of MS's reputation, and definitely some of their biggest customers.

What topics are you certain that they're manipulating, how are they doing it, and why?

Re:Sockpuppets for hire

[IonOtter]

Don't trust anyone with a UID over six digits!

Re:Sockpuppets for hire

[Anonymous Coward]

My guess is your slashdot ID is not low enough for them to consider you to have a credible appearance.

Re:Sockpuppets for hire

[ColdWetDog]

Do they change the little reflector signs on the back of traffic markers?

I've always wanted to talk to those folks.

Re:Sockpuppets for hire

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean the Packt shills?

Re:Sockpuppets for hire

[Vitriol Angst]

This is not really that surprising.

However, having had my debates with Global Warming Deniars, Pro Torture Advocates, People for the Protection of the Rich, and of course, the ever-present Citizens for Oil Company Profits who think that gas prices are about the free market -- I'm not so sure that ALL of this is SEO and Sock puppets.

Some people are just damn idiots putting sock puppets out of a job. There is something wrong with people who are morons for free.

Re:Sockpuppets for hire

[tqk]

Are they hiring? Sounds like fascinating work for a misanthrope like me.

I was musing along the same lines, but even more thinking I could do it a hell of a lot better than what I've seen of the current misanthropes' efforts. TFA sounds pretty scattershot and juvenile, IMO. Sort of like contractors doing it from the bar, once they got drunk enough to build up enough false courage.

Re:Sockpuppets for hire

[Anonymous Coward]

Quite true. Bonch comes to mind, and also the other sock puppets.

Re:Sockpuppets for hire

[Anonymous Coward]

Just look at all the posts by bonch. You'll quickly notice a pattern.

Re:Sockpuppets for hire

[Anonymous Coward]

Why don't you provide a list of these corporations?

Re:Sockpuppets for hire

[TheRaven64]

Does this mean I can sell my Slashdot account to shill companies for a lot of money?

Re:Sockpuppets for hire

[Anonymous Coward]

From both sides.

Proportionally to their funding.

Re:Sockpuppets for hire

[Rich0]

Excuse me, could you please more clearly explain which side you favor for each of those issues so that I can mod you up or down as appropriate, and post 3 paragraphs of spam? :)

Re:Sockpuppets for hire

[Anonymous Coward]

Yup the idea that "both sides are just as bad" is one of the greatest victories of the internet propaganda machine.

Re:Sockpuppets for hire

[i]

No.

WARNING:RE::It could violate federal law

[theNAM666]

>Don't forget Asset Forfeiture [justice.gov] -- you don't even have to be charged with a crime, much less convicted.

Warning: clicking on the link in the RP may subject you to seizure of assets by the "Department of Justice."

Does not scan

[thePowerOfGrayskull]

Tfs: US Journalists Targeted By Pentagon Propaganda Contractors

Tfa: says that they appear to have been targeted by a misinformation campaign. TFA makes no mention of a connection between the actions and propaganda contractors.

Might be that they are connected - but nowhere is there proof or even a suggestion of proof for the statement.

WTF slashdot...

Re:Does not scan

[theNAM666]

>WTF slashrot...

FTFY.

Re:Does not scan

[Anonymous Coward]

The misinformation campaign started shortly after they made inquiries with government and contractors about how government propaganda is propagated with no accountability and public (or even electorate) insight.

You may draw any conclusions you wish from that, but given the government (and contractor) track record on such things...

Re:Does not scan

[Anonymous Coward]

Normally you can follow the "who benefits" path...

Re:Does not scan

[Anonymous Coward]

Quote: Tfs: US Journalists Targeted By Pentagon Propaganda Contractors

Tfa: says that they appear to have been targeted by a misinformation campaign. TFA makes no mention of a connection between the actions and propaganda contractors.

Might be that they are connected - but nowhere is there proof or even a suggestion of proof for the statement. //

The article also said some of the offending stuff was taken down coincidentally when it was made public. Some other stuff was taken down by TOS violations, but those don't count. But the fact the stuff was taken down by THEM shows causation.

JJ

Re:Does not scan

[TubeSteak]

but nowhere is there proof or even a suggestion of proof for the statement.

Did you get to the 4th sentence in TFA?

For example, Internet domain registries show the website TomVandenBrook.com was created Jan. 7 -- just days after Pentagon reporter Tom Vanden Brook first contacted Pentagon contractors involved in the program. Two weeks after his editor Ray Locker's byline appeared on a story, someone created a similar site, RayLocker.com, through the same company.

Or how about the 7th and 8th sentences where it is explained that the military talked to the contractors and some of the websites were taken offline "following those inquiries."

"Correlation doesn't imply causation, but it does waggle its eyebrows suggestively and gesture furtively while mouthing 'look over there'"
-xkcd

More liberal lies here

[Anonymous Coward]

You are just another whiny liberal falling for the LIE that the HONEST GRASSROOTS comments you see supporting the true righteous conservative principles are somehow "planted." Congrats for serving your socialist masters trying to subvert freedom by providing sinister health care and forcing false science of global warming on us so we will give up our cars and be peasants for your feudal lord Obama.

Now, they REAALLY paid me alot to hit ALL those dogwhistles. Oh, I misspelled 'a lot'--well, I'm a real person, not some elitist who believes in spelling! Booyah, elitism dogwhistle! That's 50 more dollars!

Re:More liberal lies here

[kermidge]

"true righteous conservative principles"
"socialist masters"

Beauty. Thanks for the laugh. Shades of the John Birch Society. Now all we need are some revanchist running dogs of imperialist lackeys.

Re:More liberal lies here

[Johann Lau]

Oh, I don't doubt that comes from the heart. But where's the brains? Some people shill for their delusions, that's their paycheck.. thanks for the demonstration I guess ^^

Re:More liberal lies here

[Anonymous Coward]

You can't tell I was joking? Man.

Re:More liberal lies here

[Johann Lau]

I always, always fall for that kind of thing, sorry ^^

Who paid for the websites?

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps you can tell the Internet and let them check these sites out. (Cue Monty Burns: Unleash the hounds!)

Identity theft

[roman_mir]

Reporter Tom Vanden Brook and Editor Ray Locker found that Twitter and Facebook accounts have been created in their names, along with a Wikipedia entry and dozens of message board postings and blog comments.

- I suppose there are criminal laws concerning identity theft and they should be applicable not only when money is stolen from a bank account, but also in these cases, where somebody pretends they are someone else to push agenda.

I can easily see how in the age of the Internet various agencies, government contractors try to disseminate fake and false information in order to confuse the issue. Who can tell on the Internet what is real and what is not? What opinion does anybody actually hold?

After all, quite a number of people believe for example that Albert Einstein was a religious person in terms of following some religion, yet there is plenty of his writing where he specifically states that he does not believe in a god.

Of-course it's easier to steal identity of people who are long gone, so they can't protect themselves and set the record straight, but even with the living it's a huge challenge.

The Internet can be attacked in many ways, and it is.

Re:Identity theft

[Anonymous Coward]

If these websites were created using federal funds, it could violate federal law prohibiting the production of propaganda for domestic consumption

I think it's much more serious than an identity theft or the propaganda laws. Can one accuse somebody of a serious crime - that is supporting terrorism - completely without proof in the US? Can US government funds be used for such purposes? And since these are supposedly contractors, are they using their own target lists or is the government providing the targets for them? That would make the government directly responsible for accusing people for serious crimes without any proof.

Re:Identity theft

[tqk]

After all, quite a number of people believe for example that Albert Einstein was a religious person in terms of following some religion, yet there is plenty of his writing where he specifically states that he does not believe in a god.

I would say Albert was "spiritual", not religious, as many physicists are, though along the same lines as Ayn Rand's "God damn." It's just a figure of speech.

He didn't help dissuade anyone with his "God doesn't play dice" crap. God (or nature) certainly does play dice. Darwin proved that conclusively.

Re:Identity theft

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, it may be actionable as slander or libel. Posing as someone, and saying things to damage their career, in a way that is obviously not parody.

Re:Identity theft

[Johann Lau]

After all, quite a number of people believe for example that Albert Einstein was a religious person in terms of following some religion, yet there is plenty of his writing where he specifically states that he does not believe in a god.

Not a personal God.

Meine Religiosität besteht in einer demütigen Bewunderung des unendlich überlegenen Geistes, der sich in dem wenigen offenbart, was wir mit unserer schwachen und hinfälligen Vernunft von der Wirklichkeit zu erkennen vermögen. Moral ist eine höchst wichtige Sache, aber für uns, nicht für Gott.

Which roughly translates to: "My religion (religiosity?) consists in a humble admiration of the infiinitely superior mind (spirit?), which reveals itself in the little which we can recognize of reality with our weak and feeble rationality. Morality is very important, but for us, not for God."

and

I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings.

Of course he wasn't "a believer" in fairytale A or fairytale B... and I never ran into someone who believed he was, actually, so I have no idea where you got that from. You kinda just painted him as someone he wasn't, namely as someone who doesn't believe in a[ny kind of] god. Well nuh-uh, try again :P

Re:Identity theft

[Johann Lau]

God (or nature) certainly does play dice. Darwin proved that conclusively.

That's an entirely different ballpark. Einstein was on about determinism, not randomness on that level. WTF. Why diss the man with stuff you read on breakfast cereal?

Re:Identity theft

[roman_mir]

I have seen a number of debates where somebody would insist on Einstein believing in whatever, including Jesus. It's easy, a cursory search of the web shows enough of that, here is an example

Quote:

Albert Einstein was not a Christian, but he believed in Jesus. The Albert Einstein theory of relativity, both general relativity and special relativity, gravity, constancy of the speed of light, gravitational bending of light and E=mc2 are all based on Intelligent Design Theory and according the Supreme Court Ruling, should be forbidden teaching in public schools.

There are more of various thought contortions around the web.

And this is somebody talking about a person who is long gone and can't be asked directly once again.

Re:Identity theft

[Johann Lau]

I guess that cup had passeth me by so far o_O I had no idea haha. As an avid reader of timecube.com, I thank you.

Re:Identity theft

[Johann Lau]

Actually, you're right.

Einstein didn't believe in a god; he admired the sublime beauty and order he saw and experienced. He may have agreed with Jesus or whatever ("Without deep reflection one knows from daily life that one exists for other people.", plus he praised Moses, Buddha and Jesus as teachers (of morals), too, and very highly), but belief doesn't really enter into any of that, does it :)

Re:Identity theft

[tqk]

God (or nature) certainly does play dice. Darwin proved that conclusively.

That's an entirely different ballpark.

Scientists. How can you say that?!? It is the same ballpark, the natural Universe. It's just a pretty big ballpark and lots of wildly different games can be played in it simultaneously, from tiddlywinks through to quantum mechanics, and more yet to be discovered. Stop being so literal.

WTF. Why diss the man with stuff you read on breakfast cereal?

I wasn't dissing him. He's one of my heroes, but nobody's perfect. "Don't tell god what to do" was the perfect reply to him. He was an arrogant stick in the mud at times and (horrors!) did make some pretty big mistakes. I don't begrudge him that. He earned that right, but ignoring his faults doesn't make them go away.

I don't often bother with breakfast, and cereal wouldn't be my first choice, so bite my shiney metal ...

Re:Identity theft

[Anonymous Coward]

Einstein said: "I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings." That's religious only in an extended sense, as with this idea of "god" it doesn't matter except in a aesthetic sense whether you call it "god" or something else, and whether you "religate" yourself to it = worship it or not.

As for the dice crap, he did believe the findings of quantum theory are basically correct, he just hoped (as many still do) that one day we would find a better formula than a merely stochastic one. A kind of order behind all the randomness. And this is very much a current problem: most of the progress in AI is done with huge probabilistic models where we can only see that they seem to work (at predicting/recognizing stuff), but cannot always explain why or gain an intuition of how they work. That's a very unsatisfactory situation. I haven't given up the hope that we will be able to come up with a better math to understand what our machines do, and maybe even a better math to understand what the quantum world does.

Whether this better math then says something "essential" or reflects the "idea" of reality is moot. We're humans, we can invent models, and if they work that's nice. Who cares if our inventions reflect Being itself? I don't.

Start PGP signing those posts!

[Anonymous Coward]

This looks like a perfect opportunity for them to start digitally signing their public posts.

Re:Start PGP signing those posts!

[Anonymous Coward]

This looks like a perfect opportunity for them to start digitally signing their public posts.

Hmmm... yeah... a signed twit makes sense... (should we try signing a twat as well?)

The shame of it!

[some old guy]

Clearly this is is an Israeli attempt to keep the media from uncovering the North Korean's plot to supply Columbian rebels with Czech-brewed Canadian beer as a cover for Indian nuclear intervention in Antarctica!

Re:The shame of it!

[Anonymous Coward]

That's trolling and disinformation! Syria would allow chilled Canadian sake brewed in Morocco as the only fermented drink to reach Colombia; anything else and they'll veto it in the UN council and impose sanction on US.

That is not what they do

[SuperKendall]

an insurance company, whose sole purpose is profit, having the power to deny you lifesaving treatment based on your calculated "worth" is better?

Insurance companies do not care how much you are worth. All they care about is pre-existing conditions.

And if you think about it anything else is insane. Insurance is for spreading around costs between a large number of people for events that happen to a few. But if you are already a person with an expensive illness to treat you are 100% sure to be only a drain on the system instead of having a probability of helping to support others.

Just like forcing banks to take on loans from people who cannot pay them back, forcing insurance companies to take people who only take from the system and cannot give will lead to collapse as well.

The insurance system is still superior though because you are allowed to choose your level of risk, and there will always be a public system to fall back on for last resort for those that did not chose insurance. At worst you end up in the same situation you would have been in with a public health plan, government panels deciding who gets treatment.

Re:That is not what they do

[hoggoth]

1) So once someone contracts an expensive illness they are "a drain on the system" and they should die. I'll tell my grandfather that; No, better I'll put him on an iceberg and push him off into the sea. That's how the Inuit used to handle 'a drain on the system'.

2) What is this public system to fall back on for a last resort? I guess you are not in The USA because we have no system of last resort here. You get sick, you go bankrupt, then you die. That's how our politicians want it, that's how we want it, and that's how God wants it.

Re:That is not what they do

[kqs]

Just like forcing banks to take on loans from people who cannot pay them back,

Which would be a major problem if it had ever happened outside of Wall Street propaganda. Do you really think that the government has the power to do that to banks? Or that banks (who have almost limitless lobbying pockets) would allow it? If only.

Insurance companies only care about your revenue/cost ratio. They only care about pre-existing conditions because they are a good predictor of a poor ratio. Anything else which indicates a poor ratio is just as bad. If they were allowed, insurance companies would drop everyone the second they got a serious illness.

Given a choice between an insurance company (where the cost of my illness subtracts from their profit and their officers' yearly bonuses) and a government (which I can occasionally influence by voting), there ain't no comparison.

Re:That is not what they do

[Jawnn]

The insurance system is still superior though because you are allowed to choose your level of risk, and there will always be a public system to fall back on for last resort for those that did not chose insurance.

Bzzzzzzt! Wrong. There is no "public system to fall back on for last resort for those that did not chose insurance". Read that again. There is no such thing. There is only a subset of medical services that are required, by law, to treat certain conditions regardless of the patient's ability to pay. In other words, emergency rooms, ths single most expensive place to deliver health care. Dude, your understanding of the health care system, and the insurance industry that leaches huge profit from it is badly flawed.

Re:That is not what they do

[Anonymous Coward]

The insurance system is still superior though because you are allowed to choose your level of risk, and there will always be a public system to fall back on for last resort for those that did not chose insurance.

Bzzzzzzt! Wrong. There is no "public system to fall back on for last resort for those that did not chose insurance". Read that again. There is no such thing. There is only a subset of medical services that are required, by law, to treat certain conditions regardless of the patient's ability to pay. In other words, emergency rooms, ths single most expensive place to deliver health care. Dude, your understanding of the health care system, and the insurance industry that leaches huge profit from it is badly flawed.

That's a problem with the "public system" (which in the USA is fucked), rather than the idea of medical insurance. Lots of countries have good public health systems, and more comfortable (but often technically inferior) private health systems.

Re:That is not what they do

[Fallingcow]

Besides, what the "any of the universal coverage systems used in all the other OECD nations would reduce our freedom!" arguments all seem to ignore is that most people aren't especially free to pick their health insurance or much of anything else about their health care experience. Most get nothing, awful catastrophic-only insurance (and you better believe they'll fight tooth and nail not to pay for anything at all if something bad does happen, leaving you to duke it out with both them and the hospitals, who don't give a shit and will gladly go after you if the insurance companies drag their feet, all while you're sick), or, in the best case, whatever insurance that their job supplies.

There really aren't enough people getting meaningful choices out of our system for it to be a sensible argument against single-payer or, say, a Swiss-style system, especially considering that most who do have choices under the US system would still have choices under most others--even in the UK with its more-nationalized-than-most health care system you can pay for private care and insurance, on top of the basic care that everyone gets.

A slim minority of edge cases might get left out, but almost everyone would see no effective decrease in "freedom" under most UHC systems. It's a 100% bullshit argument but, in my experience, is the one that's gotten the most traction, alongside general (and also bullshit) fear mongering about waiting lists and such. I really don't understand what's going on in people's heads when they throw this out, and they're on their employer's insurance--in those cases they don't seem to me to have a dog in the "freedom" fight, except in some hypothetical abstract way that will never have any practical meaning to them.

Most people don't have any more say in their health care now than they would under a universal system, and we pay more, and we leave lots of people without coverage, and our system is a huge burden on small businesses, entrepreneurs, and independent contractors. What the goddamn hell is worth defending about it?

Re:That is not what they do

[Anonymous Coward]

It's well documented that in order to get Fannie Mae and/or Freddie Mac backed mortgages banks had to offer a certain number of lower income mortgages a year per congress

Re:That is not what they do

[lexsird]

Hospitals, health insurance is big business and big money. We have preached capitalism is our new God, and that America is founded on it and you will die in a fire if you say otherwise. It doesn't matter how you make it, as long as you are rich, you are deemed a success and to be hailed as a hero and role model.

There is a sickness in this country that the health care industry can't cure, and that is greed. We've seen the extremes of communism fail, now we get to see the extreme of capitalism fail.

The irony of it all is how the wage slaves of America some how feel their "freedom" is threatened by nationalized health care. That is some elegant brainwashing via some of the finest propaganda the world has ever seen. Whenever someone mentions freedom in this country, I get an eye tick. You should too.

Re:That is not what they do

[Johann Lau]

That gave me an idea, but: if we put put bankers on icebergs, we would have no incentive to fight global warming. What a dilemma :/

Wait, I know! Put them on a very flat island, and put a huge ship in the middle of that island. If the water level rises by too much, they can get off the island. Our job is to keep them there. That plan is truly too sick to fail ^^

Re:That is not what they do

[Anonymous Coward]

"Just like forcing banks to take on loans from people who cannot pay them back"

If banks were forced, then why did the banks not complain about it during the decade when it was extremely profitable to them, and why did they ignore the few economists (most of whom outside the financial sector) who warned that the profits are a bubble and that it was unsustainable?

And why did banks spend billions on lobbying for the regulations that caused them to be "forced" to take on loans from people who cannot pay them back?

$5 Billion in Lobbying for 12 Corrupt Deals Caused the Multi-Trillion Dollar Financial Meltdown
By Robert Weissman, Multinational Monitor. Posted March 9, 2009.
http://www.alternet.org/workplace/130683/%245_billion_in_lobbying_for_12_corrupt_deals_caused_the_multi-trillion_dollar_financial_meltdown/

Re:That is not what they do

[dpilot]

I can't mod this up, but I can at least reply to it.

The other thing that really strikes me about the failing mortgages is that they seemed almost designed to fail, from what I heard about them on the news.

IMHO the real problem is that the people writing mortgages were given strong incentives to write mortgages, but it doesn't appear that they were given strong disincentives in the event that those mortgages failed.

Or as R.A.H once said, any system where responsibility and authority go hand in hand will work. It may not work well, be most democratic, or anything else, but it will work. When authority and responsibility are decoupled, in the long run it just won't work.

Re:That is not what they do

[CanHasDIY]

It's well documented...

Yet you couldn't be bothered to provide a single piece of the documentation you say exists.

Funny, that.

Re:That is not what they do

[hengist]

The insurance system is still superior though because you are allowed to choose your level of risk, and there will always be a public system to fall back on for last resort for those that did not chose insurance. At worst you end up in the same situation you would have been in with a public health plan, government panels deciding who gets treatment.

And that post so beautifully embodies everything that is wrong with the USA that the author should receive an award for demonstrating just how inhumane a first-world country can become.

Re:That is not what they do

[cusco]

I think you misunderstood the poster's intent. The insurance company only care how much you are worth to them and to their bottom line. Insurance companies are money-making propositions, and any indicator that you are less than prime Grade-A material, such as a bad credit rating, bad driving record, history of divorce, etc. all indicate how much money they'll be able to make off you so how much they can get away with charging you. I suppose those could be considered 'pre-existing conditions'', but that's not how the term is normally used.

Re:That is not what they do

[Anonymous Coward]

I totally agree....I'm Australian and have free top-quality healthcare (the only difference...the ONLY difference between Private and Public in Australia is how many people you have to share a room with). Everyone pays a small medicare levy that covers pretty much everything and Ambulances are now free and have been for 15 years or so. Though there are waiting lists for Elective Surgery, if its life threatening or necessary for Quality of Life, you will get it ASAP. Our Public System is always under strain, but still works brilliantly. Its nice knowing that its something that I never have to worry about.....our society simply couldn't conceive of kicking a sick person out onto the street.......America does NOT sound like a nice place to be if you are ill or in need of any kind of help (I always wondered if it was misinformation, stupidity or whether americans really DID actually believe that they and their society ARE actually better than everyone else...I still wonder...America can have its crappy system)......though..... honestly.....Cuba's Medical System put everyone else's to shame.

See it all the time on Wikipedia

[br00tus]

I did some work on the No Gun Ri article on Wikipedia, which is an incident of Americans massacring Korean civilians during the US war in Korea. It was whitewashed by someone, whose DNS PTR records at the time were 214.13.196.180 host196-180.iraq.centcom.mil . CENTCOM by the way is the organization highlighted in the documentary "Control Room".

Or we have Fort Benning whitewashing all the Latin American death squads that were trained there, that IP's DNS PTR back then was doim1-358.benning.army.mil - it whitewashed the WHISC article as well. Of course, with September 11th, we now have death squads and terrorists trained by the US government now not just killing indigenous farmers in El Salvador, but killing Americans in the US as well. Good going, guys!

It's basically like Orwell's Ministry of Truth in 1984. Well not like it, it is exactly that. My tax dollars go to pay the commissars of the US empire to erase the evidence of their massacres from history. Of course, the purpose of making this stuff disappear from history, like the US soldier who went into a village in Afghanistan recently and murdered many civilians, is so that they can portray the US and its military and its multinational corporations as shining white knights out saving the world, not raping and pillaging for plunder, empire and profit.

Re:See it all the time on Wikipedia

[GameboyRMH]

Wow they don't even use a proxy? It's like they *know* nobody will care.

Re:See it all the time on Wikipedia

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow they don't even use a proxy? It's like they *know* nobody will care.

Or it's just some GI on base trolling during his lunchtime...

Re:See it all the time on Wikipedia

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow they don't even use a proxy? It's like they *know* nobody will care.

Or maybe they need to leave some tracks, to justify their effots to the people who are paying for the whitewashing..

Re:See it all the time on Wikipedia

[cffrost]

Wow they don't even use a proxy? It's like they *know* nobody will care.

I care.

I think a more accurate characterization would be that it's like they know they won't be held accountable. I believe the lack of accountability and legal repercussions for illegal/improper government/contractor actions emboldens these bad actors to commit even more egregious offenses against both US citizens and foreign nations. Oftentimes we (the public) are at a loss even to definitively determine what agenda(s) motivated the things we've learned about.

Why sneak around when it's cheaper, easier and faster to operate in "broad daylight," (so to speak)? br00tus's comment suggests to me that the sheer volume of impropriety may be a defensive strategy in its own right; that is to say, (in the words of bad actors,) "what are they going to do, put us all in jail? LOL," What are we going to do? Nothing; crime is legal for those who are "more equal" than the rest of us.

Typically my stance on "see something, say something" is "mind your own fucking business." However, I think an exception is appropriate (in that it isn't harmful to our liberty) when the seen "something" involves a government or corporate entity. Although I've suggested that there's little we can do to protect ourselves, or effectively respond to these things, I still think it's important to stay informed. My thanks go to br00tus and others who report their experiences.

Re:See it all the time on Wikipedia

[cusco]

These are people who take trophies and display them to the world. They KNOW that certain people will notice, and are daring you to do something about it. Texas had a perfectly good airplane for the governor's use, but when Shrubbie was in office they sold it and bought a used King Air. Barry Seal's plane. Bush the Elected's cigarette boat was formerly the personal property of Pablo Escobar. It's just another form of dick-waving, except one that most people will miss.

Re:See it all the time on Wikipedia

[evilviper]

My tax dollars go to pay the commissars of the US empire to erase the evidence of their massacres from history.

Give me a break. You're basically talking about one soldier, going around with a magic marker in a library... and calling it prrof we live in a police state. If you actually believe that BS, your tin-foil hat may be on too tight.

Your entire complaint is with Wikipedia being wide open and trivially easy for any 2 year-old to corrupt, NOT with the fact that there's a handful of guys in the military not editing wikipedia in good faith. The military hasn't stormed Britannica's office and ordered embarassing incidents redacted... if they did, THAT would be an indication of a huge problem. Wikipedia being unreliable, untenable, unsustainable, and untrustworthy is entirely Wikipedia's problem.

Re:See it all the time on Wikipedia

[Anonymous Coward]

wow....I see what you mean. They really tried to whitewash that page. I love this in the Revision History :- (cur | prev) 22:22, 15 July 2005 Ruy Lopez (talk | contribs) . . (3,351 bytes) (-3,440) . . (rv, sorry Centcom - why not go and bomb Al-Jazeera again?) (undo)

Your Tax Dollars At Work

[Anonymous Coward]

Do we really want to be paying for this?

Gawker.com says its Leonie Industries

[Anonymous Coward]

USAToday didn't name the people they believe are responsible because they don't have any hard proof linking the smear campaign to them.

Gawker.com, though, is seemingly not burdened by any such journalistic standards :)

Meet the Pentagon Contractor That Ran a Disinformation Campaign Against Two USA Today Reporters

Last night USA Today reported that two of its staffers, Tom Vanden Brook and Ray Locker, were the targets of a smear campaign, including fake Twitter accounts and web sites established in their names, launched by a Pentagon contractor specializing in "information operations." For some reason, the paper declined to name the perpetrator: Leonie Industries

...

Oddly, the USA Today story on the mischief names only "Pentagon contractors" as likely culprits.
But a source familiar with the story confirms that the contractor responsible is Leonie Industries, an information operations company with more than $90 million in Army contracts in Afghanistan. It's doubly odd that USA Today didn't at least seek comment from Leonie on the disinformation, since Leonie was the primary target of the investigation that apparently sparked the sculduggery, and would be the inescapable suspect to anyone who put two and two together.

This is why....

[Anonymous Coward]

Many of my hacker associations members aren't hackers but people that dont want to be messed with and trust me you don't wanna try.
No script kiddy types here....

Gawker.com says its Leonie Industries

[Anonymous Coward]

USAToday didn't name the people they believe are responsible because they don't have any hard proof linking the smear campaign to them.

Gawker.com, though, is seemingly not burdened by any such journalistic standards :)

Meet the Pentagon Contractor That Ran a Disinformation Campaign Against Two USA Today Reporters

Last night USA Today reported that two of its staffers, Tom Vanden Brook and Ray Locker, were the targets of a smear campaign, including fake Twitter accounts and web sites established in their names, launched by a Pentagon contractor specializing in "information operations." For some reason, the paper declined to name the perpetrator:Leonie Industries

...

Oddly, the USA Today story on the mischief names only "Pentagon contractors" as likely culprits.
But a source familiar with the story confirms that the contractor responsible is Leonie Industries, an information operations company with more than $90 million in Army contracts in Afghanistan. It's doubly odd that USA Today didn't at least seek comment from Leonie on the disinformation, since Leonie was the primary target of the investigation that apparently sparked the sculduggery, and would be the inescapable suspect to anyone who put two and two together.

More on Leonie Industries here:

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Leonie_Industries

Lies, damn lies, and statistics

[microbox]

The overall the US defense budget has been declining

You can pick and choose statistics to show whatever you want. That's why there's the expression "Lies, damn lies, and statistics".

It is hard to imagine a scenario where the USA needs to spend as much on the military as the rest of the world combined.

Re:Lies, damn lies, and statistics

[__aaltlg1547]

Well if our spending is only 10% as efficient...

Mod parent up

[microbox]

Thank-you for saying something interesting about the political process. We could actually solve our problems if we could dialogue with each other. Instead, we get truly childish and hate-filled "discourse", and an inability to self-reflect or escape from this destructive process.

anyway, it's libel

[__aaltlg1547]

Some posts only need the subject line.

unpossible

[Anonymous Coward]

Except remember the leftist media unanimously backs our Kenyan, Muslim President for life Barry Obama. And not just the media including Hollywood, he rules the Pentagon, Judges, and Law Enforcement with an iron fist. So much so that he could win more than 200 lawsuits where they had absolute proof the birth certificate provided by the State of Hawaii, which he also ruled as a senator of IL.even before becoming president, are in fact forgeries.

If you don't believe me, just check wnd.com, they only conservative news outlet left. Even Fox news has gone over to the left and let the forged Birth Certificate stand.

See you guys at the next tea party, maybe we can kick some more communists out of the park!

No just Republicans

[Anonymous Coward]

Follow the money, big oil funds only PRO big oil lobby, pharm funds only PRO pharma etc.

It's the usual claim that "well the the side does it too" but it's not true.

Take the "war on women", the deflection for that was to claim a democrat comedian makes jokes about women ergo they're as bad. Then it was the "Democrats hate stay at home moms" and so on. Pretend the other guy is as bad and continue doing your bad stuff.

But the corporate money flows one way and that's to the Republicans.

Re:No just Republicans

[khallow]

Follow the money, big oil funds only PRO big oil lobby, pharm funds only PRO pharma etc.

It's the usual claim that "well the the side does it too" but it's not true.

The usual claim is correct. People forget that considerable public funds and litigation payouts goes into the other side. Follow the money remains a good rule, you just have to know of these additional sources of money.

Re:No just Republicans

[the eric conspiracy]

Also, sock puppets are cheap. It doesn't take much money to flood a forum.

It's going to be a record year for sock puppets and robocalls - lots of money is being collected.

Re:No just Republicans

[khallow]

I bet you're right. The sock puppet problem seems worse to me since I'll probably waste some time debating sock puppets. At least with robocalls, you can hang up.

bonch

[Anonymous Coward]

bonch, is that you?

Anonymous Source

[sycodon]

They should have opened the accounts under the name of "Anonymous Source".

Since that's how the news media goes after people, they couldn't really complain eh?

You just can't make this stuff up :)

[Anonymous Coward]

> If you don't believe me, just check wnd.com, they only conservative news outlet left ..

Yea, them and Alex Jones ...

Bogus 2 party political system

[Anonymous Coward]

Your two party system is entirely bogus, as the media blackout of Ron Paul from the caucuses has so clearly demonstrated. The RICH own the MEDIA for crissake ...

http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/

Defence contractors nobbling elections

[Anonymous Coward]

No it's a Republican problem.

The 'usual' claim is just sock-puppetry, the money comes from big hitting single issue companies. e.g. Big Oil wants us consuming oil till the last drop runs out at maximum cost.
Claiming 'litigation payouts' represents a comparable industry is a bogus claim because they are millions of small guys fighting millions of *different* small battles so there isn't a single big money hitter in that field paying out for a single issue to be changed their way.

These Defense Contractors do their sock puppertry, to get Republicans elected who spend more the military industrial complex which enriches their wallets. It's why this is such a bad thing. Once you turn a blind eye to the criminal acts they do, it lets them attack the electoral process, which is very dangerous.

Re:Defence contractors nobbling elections

[khallow]

The 'usual' claim is just sock-puppetry, the money comes from big hitting single issue companies. e.g. Big Oil wants us consuming oil till the last drop runs out at maximum cost.

An AC accusing me of sock-puppetry? At least I have a trail of posts with which one can read.

And me remind you again that there's a lot of money in public funding and litigation.

It happens on /. so, I agree w/ proofs... apk

[Anonymous Coward]

HBGary who got caught in the act doing it:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/02/16/945768/-UPDATED:-The-HB-Gary-Email-That-Should-Concern-Us-All

PERTINENT QUOTES/EXCERPTS:

"According to an embedded MS Word document found in one of the HBGary emails, it involves creating an army of sockpuppets, with sophisticated "persona management" software that allows a small team of only a few people to appear to be many, while keeping the personas from accidentally cross-contaminating each other. Then, to top it off, the team can actually automate some functions so one persona can appear to be an entire Brooks Brothers riot online... And all of this is for the purposes of infiltration, data mining, and (here's the one that really worries me) ganging up on bloggers, commenters and otherwise "real" people to smear enemies and distort the truth... "

&

"The Chinese Water Army"

http://news.softpedia.com/news/Chinese-Water-Army-Posts-Comments-For-Anyone-Who-Pays-236294.shtml

* Each doing the same bogus sockpuppet crap, & they're ALL/EACH scum too - just like trolls like you that do the same here...

However - the BEST source of evidence of that going on, especially on /., is probably the words of Mr. Bruce Perens on it:

"It just takes one Ubuntu sympathizer or PR flack to minus-moderate any comment. Unfortunately, once PR agencies and so on started paying people to moderate online communities, and to have hundreds of accounts each, things changed." - by Bruce Perens (3872) on Friday July 30, @03:55PM (#33089192) Homepage Journal

SOURCE -> http://linux.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1738364&cid=33089192

APK

P.S.=> Then there's "trolltalk.com" & tomhudson = Barbara, not Barbie on /. itself... proof? Ok:

barbara.hudson@unjava.com from http://slashdot.org/~Barbara%2C+not+Barbie = barbara.hudson@barbara-hudson.com from http://slashdot.org/~tomhudson

Why 2 /. registered 'luser' accounts? Easy - to troll/stalk others, and to mod down opponents and to mod herself up with.

Which proves that statement from myself, & he/she stalked, harassed, & libelled myself here repeatedly:

"Wait until he starts on another kick, then reply to him as an AC. It's the new meme". - by tomhudson (43916) on Sunday May 09 2010, @08:29PM (#32150544) Homepage Journal

QUOTED FROM -> http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1646272&cid=32150544

Where tom/barbara told others to troll/harass/stalk ME, for MONTHS via AC posts - which IS A VIOLATION OF SITE POLICY and laws as well... apk

It could have been this woman...

[Anonymous Coward]

http://yro.slashdot.org/story/11/12/08/1558233/bloggers-not-journalists-federal-judge-rules

I do believe ...

[3seas]

the government lying to the public and/or direction others to ... constitutes treason. And for the politicians who lie to get elected... Uh.... "No Taxation without representation" is NOT fulfilled... So we shall follow the recognition and instructions the founders left us in the Declaration of Independence. They even gave us real life examples that we would understand and be harder to interpret wrongly. For they were very experienced and actually knew. More so then what we have today in artificiality of so called intelligence today, which is more of a lying addiction than anything else. But fear not, there is an Anonymous help group for them too.

Usenet

[Anonymous Coward]

You can always spot the reporters who have never heard of Usenet.

Welcome to the Internet, n00bs. Tissues are to your right.