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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Now that’s the new American way, okay!

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

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

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

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

http://www.myspace.com/stop_monsanto

————————————————————

Aloha,

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

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

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

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

Why? Because it is untrue.

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

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

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

Aue…!

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

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

– Sterling

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ex Post Facto | 3 Indian Men Indicted in Stock Scheme

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

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

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

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

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