On-line Opinion Magazine…OK, it's a blog
Random header image... Refresh for more!

May Day

The May Day association with labor is all American, and just as controversial as everything of any consequence in history. The day is tied to a strike for the eight-hour day and the so-called “Haymarket Riot” of 1886. When it comes to “riots” and the Chicago police are involved, you are not going to find a single truth.

The dynamic duo that mucked up the Pledge of Allegiance, Dwight Eisenhower and his Republican Congress, made May 1st both Law Day and Loyalty Day so those Commie working people wouldn’t get any ideas about having rights.


1 Kryten42 { 05.02.14 at 6:30 pm }

When it comes to “riots” and the Chicago police are involved, you are not going to find a single truth.

LOL Yeah… especially during that period! 😉

2 Bryan { 05.02.14 at 9:49 pm }

With the Chicago Police Department it has always been that way, and despite multiple promises by multiple people to ‘clean it up’, nothing changes.

3 Kryten42 { 05.02.14 at 10:38 pm }

I only spent just over a week in Chicago long ago, and I wasn’t that impressed. I’m even less impressed these day! 🙂

You probably haven’t had a chance, but there was a fantastic debate between M. Hayden (with Prof. Dershowitz) and Greenwald (with Alexis Ohanian). Almost 85% of watchers were with Greenwald (including 13.3% who changed their mind about the NSA during the debate!) LOL

Story & Video link:
Find Two Hours To Watch Glenn Greenwald Debate Michael Hayden

Poll Results:
Munk Debate on State Surveillance

If you have (a little less than) 2 hours this weekend, find a way to sit down and watch the mother of all debates about the NSA surveillance program, in which former CIA and NSA boss Michael Hayden and reporter Glenn Greenwald debate each other. Hayden had (in)famous law professor Alan Dershowitz on his side, and Greenwald had Reddit founder Alexis Ohanian on his side, and they both had their interesting moments, but this debate was all about Greenwald v. Hayden and they did not disappoint. Greenwald knocked it out of the park. Hayden came off as condescending and evasive, while Greenwald had facts readily at hand. Hayden said he wanted to debate on the actual facts, and Greenwald brought a bunch, which Hayden didn’t respond to. Dershowitz kept insisting that it was all okay because the people at the NSA had proper motives (I don’t recall where in the 4th Amendment there’s an exception for motives). Meanwhile, Ohanian highlighted how the NSA is actually making us all less secure and massively harming the economy.

No worries if you don’t have time. Just thought you might be interested in a summary. 🙂 Good luck m8.

4 Kryten42 { 05.03.14 at 4:42 am }

Here’s an update for anyone interested. 🙂

The Munk Debate on State Surveillance: Edward Snowden Video

Debate Video (has a long intro before the actual debate. Other links in comments):
Watch Live: Glenn Greenwald Debates Former NSA Director Michael Hayden

The comments are quite good and worth reading (but be warned, there are a lot!) 😀

One thing that was brought up, was how it explains much about Obama, given how his law professors were Dershowitz & Lawrence Tribe.

Another good comment was this:

One thing that didn’t come up was instances of abuse. There have been documented cases of people being targeted basically for their political beliefs and associations.

I concur with Mona that the format may not have been conducive, however, folks might recall that James Bamford mentioned an NSA document during his intro for Snowden and Poitras at the Ridenhour award ceremony. Glenn retweeted this after that ceremony:

Sam Knight ?@samknight1 2h
Bamford: most shocking doc shown to him by Greenwald, “we can start using vulnerabilities against people” – radicals, including US citizens

Not sure how many folks caught it during tonight’s debate, but when Bamford’s name came up, Hayden exclaimed (involuntarily, I believe), “Jesus!” in the background. It was the only time he appeared to lose his cool, and I would have given anything to have seen his face at that moment because I believe it was prompted by a fear that Glenn was about to discuss the document that Bamford referenced at the Ridenhour’s. I hope we all get to see that document soon.

And the quote of the night was possibly from Heyden: “Collect it all doesn’t mean collect it all!” Which got the derisive laughter it deserved! LOL

So… here’s my take. I haven’t said much about the mass data collection, because I’ve been gathering bit’s of info here and there, and waiting until I have enough to put together plausible scenario’s. Many state that collecting so much data is worthless because it makes the haystack so big it is impossible to find the needles. That’s true to a point (sic), if you are looking for a tiny needle. But if you are looking for patterns, the more data the easier patterns are to see. And computer systems are getting better all the time at finding patterns. The question really is… What patterns are they looking for?! It isn’t about terrorism per se, they haven’t prevented any or even been valuable after the fact. I think it’s because that isn’t the goal. I have some theories based on my experience, but I’m not ready to talk about them yet. 😉 🙂 One thing is certain, the priority is collecting *all* data possible on US citizens first, the rest of the World second.

5 Kryten42 { 05.03.14 at 4:53 am }

Oh! If you watch that video above and want to get to the actual debate, move the time slider ahead about 28 minutes. 🙂 😀

6 Bryan { 05.03.14 at 10:09 pm }

This is ‘Poindexter’s wet dream’ – Total Information Awareness which Congress ordered shut down in 2003.

Google has the people to do something with this data, but the government certainly doesn’t, so this sounds like a contractor scam to gain access for commercial clients, not the government.

You can’t find a pattern until you have the facts from the ‘crime’ to test against. Terrorist attacks tend to be random, and most the actions of individuals, like the Tsarnaev brothers, so there was no building pattern to discover. In that case, a more limited approach would have resulted in alarm bells, but local officials were more concerned with the Occupy movement than terrorists.