in the wrong era. Soundly refuting
liberals online since 2000. NOTE: That is NOT
me pictured at left. :)
| Fox NY | Oookay: ‘Hologram’ to greet and guide travelers at N.Y. airports |
0 |
| John Nolte | 0 | |
| The Hill | Propaganda: HHS signs $20M PR contract to promote healthcare law |
0 |
| CNN | 0 | |
| ABC News | Pushback: Swinging at Bain, Obama Ignores What Private Equity Is |
0 |
Audacity of Truth
"Diplomacy":
"People are saying what in the world is going on with North Carolina, we look like Mississippi." - NC Gov. Bev Perdue (D) on the passage of Amendment One, 5-11-12
The latest non-scandal scandal news involving the NSA
Yet one more in a long line of hyped stories about the NSA and datamining. The USA Today breathlessly reports, starting off with an eye-catching headline:
NSA has massive database of Americans’ phone calls
The National Security Agency has been secretly collecting the phone call records of tens of millions of Americans, using data provided by AT&T, Verizon and BellSouth, people with direct knowledge of the arrangement told USA TODAY.
The NSA program reaches into homes and businesses across the nation by amassing information about the calls of ordinary Americans — most of whom aren’t suspected of any crime.
Gasp! Shocking, right? Wrong. Read on (emphasis added):
This program does not involve the NSA listening to or recording conversations. But the spy agency is using the data to analyze calling patterns in an effort to detect terrorist activity, sources said in separate interviews.
“It’s the largest database ever assembled in the world,” said one person, who, like the others who agreed to talk about the NSA’s activities, declined to be identified by name or affiliation. The agency’s goal is “to create a database of every call ever made” within the nation’s borders, this person added.
For the customers of these companies, it means that the government has detailed records of calls they made — across town or across the country — to family members, co-workers, business contacts and others.
What’s involved in datamining?:
Paul Butler, a former U.S. prosecutor who specialized in terrorism crimes, said FISA approval generally isn’t necessary for government data-mining operations. “FISA does not prohibit the government from doing data mining,” said Butler, now a partner with the law firm Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld in Washington, D.C.
The caveat, he said, is that “personal identifiers” — such as names, Social Security numbers and street addresses — can’t be included as part of the search. “That requires an additional level of probable cause,” he said.
The telecommunication companies involved:
The three telecommunications companies are working under contract with the NSA, which launched the program in 2001 shortly after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, the sources said. The program is aimed at identifying and tracking suspected terrorists, they said.
Good on them, but bad on Qwest, who pushed back and refused to take part in the program:
According to sources familiar with the events, Qwest’s CEO at the time, Joe Nacchio, was deeply troubled by the NSA’s assertion that Qwest didn’t need a court order — or approval under FISA — to proceed. Adding to the tension, Qwest was unclear about who, exactly, would have access to its customers’ information and how that information might be used.
Financial implications were also a concern, the sources said. Carriers that illegally divulge calling information can be subjected to heavy fines. The NSA was asking Qwest to turn over millions of records. The fines, in the aggregate, could have been substantial.
The NSA told Qwest that other government agencies, including the FBI, CIA and DEA, also might have access to the database, the sources said. As a matter of practice, the NSA regularly shares its information — known as “product” in intelligence circles — with other intelligence groups. Even so, Qwest’s lawyers were troubled by the expansiveness of the NSA request, the sources said.
The NSA, which needed Qwest’s participation to completely cover the country, pushed back hard.
Trying to put pressure on Qwest, NSA representatives pointedly told Qwest that it was the lone holdout among the big telecommunications companies. It also tried appealing to Qwest’s patriotic side: In one meeting, an NSA representative suggested that Qwest’s refusal to contribute to the database could compromise national security, one person recalled.
In addition, the agency suggested that Qwest’s foot-dragging might affect its ability to get future classified work with the government. Like other big telecommunications companies, Qwest already had classified contracts and hoped to get more.
Unable to get comfortable with what NSA was proposing, Qwest’s lawyers asked NSA to take its proposal to the FISA court. According to the sources, the agency refused.
The NSA’s explanation did little to satisfy Qwest’s lawyers. “They told (Qwest) they didn’t want to do that because FISA might not agree with them,” one person recalled. For similar reasons, this person said, NSA rejected Qwest’s suggestion of getting a letter of authorization from the U.S. attorney general’s office. A second person confirmed this version of events.
In June 2002, Nacchio resigned amid allegations that he had misled investors about Qwest’s financial health. But Qwest’s legal questions about the NSA request remained.
Unable to reach agreement, Nacchio’s successor, Richard Notebaert, finally pulled the plug on the NSA talks in late 2004, the sources said.
So let’s see. Thanks to this whistleblown leaked story, if you’re a terrorist and you don’t want to worry about your call being datamined, what telecommunications company are you going to turn to? Hmmmm … I wonder.
Look for Qwest to be given hero status by the hate-Bush wing of the Democratic party (Rick Moran confirms this with a sampling of outraged reactions from the usual suspects), and for Bush’s pick for CIA director Gen. Hayden to take major heat for this because:
Air Force Gen. Michael Hayden, nominated Monday by President Bush to become the director of the CIA, headed the NSA from March 1999 to April 2005. In that post, Hayden would have overseen the agency’s domestic call-tracking program. Hayden declined to comment about the program.
Others blogging about this: Stephen Spruiell at NRO’s Media Blog, Allahpundit, Michelle Malkin, AJ Strata, Stop The ACLU, Confederate Yankee, James Joyner, Joe Gandelman, RightWinged.com, Blog For All, Tom Maguire
PM Update: Yep, they’re coming completely unglued. Examples here (keep some No-Doze handy for that one) and here (I’m a “totalitarian toady” now. Awww!).
PM Update II: The President defends the NSA datamining program.
PM Update III: Very fitting.
Related Toldjah So posts:
- FDR and domestic surveillance
- Sen. Russ Feingold demagogues NSA surveillance ‘scandal’
- It doesn’t get any better than Jeff Goldstein (re: Feingold’s stunt)
- Senator Russ Feingold calls for censure of Bush
- House approves Patriot Act, Senate panel rejects broad NSA inquiry
- NSA Surveillance Program ‘scandal’ – update
- Congressional probe of NSA surveillance may not happen afterall
- Admin briefs Congress on NSA surveillance
- Thomas Sowell on the NSA ‘scandal’ controversy
- NSA ‘scandal’ fallout: convicted terrorist conspirators wanting cases thrown out
- Intelligence officials: NSA leak has undermined ability to fight terrorism
- On politicizing the Patriot Act and the NSA ‘scandal’
- NYT: NSA scandal is worse than WWII Japanese internment camps
- Link between disposable phone sale surge and NSA leak?
- Whistleblower or leaker?
- Joe Klein: How to Stay Out of Power (and undermine the war in the process)
- Why it was important to keep the cat in the bag
- The Rep. Jane Harman flip flop
- NSA initially acted on its own after 9-11
- Investigations begin into the NSA eavesdropping leak
- “… the only thing outrageous about this policy is the outrage itself”
- Michael Barone on the MSM’s ‘eavesdropping’ coverage
- Brief history of warrantless searches
- Past presidents and the NSA
- Bill Clinton and the NSA
- WSJ: “Thank you for wiretapping”
- The Prez fires back
- Prez essentially says ‘let me do my job’
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Another tempest in a teapot, and whining and hand wringing about nothing. The purpose of such data mining exercises is to allow the government, when searching for terrorists and such, to identify them by looking for things that are out of the ordinary. To be able to do that, you need a good baseline of what actually is “ordinary.” You don’t need info on who is actually making the call, their address or info, you just need to know what kinds of calls are typical in this country, so that when someone starts acting atypically, you can notice. Say, the usual thing is for the average city to have so many international calls, so many local, so many interstate, following a pattern (more out of state calls on, say, Mother’s Day). When suddenly you notice a ton of international and out of state calls in a small section of the city that don’t track normal trends, you might want to look closer at it. This, as things like Able Danger have pointed out, is an extremely useful and powerful tool for locating terrorist activity. Businesses do it all the time, there are special forensic accounting tools that look at data for anomalies in patterns, linking such diverse things as people who never take vacation days, accounts that always balance, or numbers that look non-random (all possible indications of fraud).
Leave it to our MSM to go all weak in the knees about something that doesn’t even gather personal data about individuals. Of course, when we get hit again, the witch hunts will be on to blame everyone in government for not collecting this kind of information.
Curious, how is this any different than companies that sell your information to other companies?
Know those telemarketing calls you get?
How do you think they get the information to call you?
They buy it in bulk from other companies.
So if it is legal for telemarketers to be doing it, why is it not for the Government?
At least the Government is not calling you at 7am in the morning to ask if you want to donate to this or be interested in that….
-
Ah, data mining, and oooh, the data that datamining mines. Mounds and mounds of it. It just heaps up, and it hoops up and pretty soon the mounds, and the mounds inside those mounds, become mountains and mountains of data.
Where’s the scandal in this sandy mound of data?
Here’s the scandal: a long line of hyped up stories reaching 40-stories-high lived inside a mountain of data that was already dying to be mined in the halcyonic cyclone days of pre-September 2001. Breathlessly all this data just lay there saying to itself, “So how come nobody comes to mine in me, I got me a lot’a data to be mined, much of it is not only collectible, it’s delectable too. Where are all the miners? There’s only these collectors heaping up more data in me.”
But no real miners came. Only collectors. Bringing more and more data. Somewhere in that data there might have been something said about planes, and wings, and pilot-training, and this and that about flying-lessons; there may even have been a clear little statement that said “the centers of world trade”.
Yet, shish-ka-boom, one plane. Bang, another plane. Boom, another plane. Bing, another plane down to the ground with a loud ringing sound.
The scandalous news that is not being scandalously-reported is that no matter how much datamining you do, all you end up with is a mountain of useless data. So much’a this. So much’a that. Who’s to make sense of it? Certainly not the NSA.
Some people call the NSA the National Security Agency, which is exactly what it is. It assiduously attends to The National Security of Datamines. Never a real miner goes near that stuff. Only those qualified to not know a nitwit thing are allowed to come near. The reason is Security, you know. Nobody allowed to near this supersecret-stuff, except, of course, for those who can add a tad, or a tidbit, or another little list, to the endlessly rising mountain of mad data.
Ah, the data madness, the datamining of that mad mad data. Gasp! Shocking, right?
Wrong.
Read any of that data for days and days and you won’t know a thing about terrorism; you’ll even know less than you knew when you started reading it. You might even become a somnambulist. You know them, the ones who walk around the world obliviously wide-eyed about everything.
Here’s a target sentence for you: the more you know about something, the less capable you are of judging it correctly; only somebody who is a perfect stranger to you will ever be able to define you completely.
Here’s a target question for your back: who do you think wants to feed you more and more and more of that endless mound of data?
Here’s another target sentence: If I was a terrorist, I would want to feed the ones I want to terrorize more and more and more information about me; I’d want them to know so much, that it would render them booming behemoths filled with mounds of worthless trivia.
-
- I see we’re greeted with the usual “leakers parade” yet again this morning, and true to form all the usual Democratic sponge-bobs are screeching their false claims of “spying on Americans” mis-representations, as the drive-by media lap it all up like puppies on a bone.
- The Democrabs are just not going to let go of this, no matter what the political peril should it all backfire on them, and with 89% “serious” support from Americans on the question of al Qaeda intercepts, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see where this will most probably end up.
- But hey, you go Dimbulbs. Even Senator Specter did some of his usual “sinister speak” this morning, but in his case I’m still not sure if he’s not just goading the Liberals to keep it all going.
- Since the entire WOT area is a losing deal for the Dems, they’re obviously worried about it, but even for their limited mental capacities, you’d think they’d realize that opposing the President on this issue could be the torpedo that sinks their swiftboat come election time.
- As Newt said this morning, speaking on FOX:
“If the Democrats can explain why they’re so set against the NSA doing its job, tracking down al Qaeda communications, and stopping them from killing Americans, when theres absolutely zero proof that a single innocent American has been effected in the slightest way, then maybe they’d have some sort of leg to stand on. Lacking that this is mindless partisanship and hoped for red meat for the left base through the Liberal press, and simply dumb. They’re going to lose bigtime with the american people if they keep pursuing this.”.
- For my part, I hope they keep going. They’ve already been hurt by this, but not as much as they should have been, so they’ll get what they really deserve. I’d just like to see the administration make a very very big splash out of this, but maybe they’re keeping their ammunition dry till we get closer to the fall elections. I just know that Eeeeevvvvviiilll Karl Rove is behind this. There’s just no other way to explain the Democrats nuttiness than Rovian waves.
- Bang
- President Bush is momentarily going to hold a press conference on FOX etc, which may be a response to the latest Liberal idiocy on the NSA issue.
- Bang
I know I’ll be severely criticized for this…but what the heck…
“We have the means to change the laws we find unjust or onerous. We cannot, as citizens, pick and choose the laws we will or will not obey.” ~ Abraham Lincoln
“No man is above the law and no man is below it; nor do we ask any man’s permission when we require him to obey it.” “Obedience to the law is demanded as a right; not asked as a favor.” ~Theodore Roosevelt
“Let every American, every lover of liberty, every well wisher to his posterity, swear by the blood of the Revolution, never to violate in the least particular, the laws of the country; and never to tolerate their violation by others.” ~Ronald Reagan
“The President is merely the most important among a large number of public servants. He should be supported or opposed exactly to the degree which is warranted by his good conduct or bad conduct, his efficiency or inefficiency in rendering loyal, able, and disinterested service to the Nation as a whole. Therefore it is absolutely necessary that there should be full liberty to tell the truth about his acts, and this means that it is exactly necessary to blame him when he does wrong as to praise him when he does right. Any other attitude in an American citizen is both base and servile. To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. Nothing but the truth should be spoken about him or any one else. But it is even more important to tell the truth, pleasant or unpleasant, about him than about any one else. ” ~Theodore Roosevelt
Oh … how would it be? To be so trusting, that is. I beat my chest about this months ago and folks said, “If you’re not talking to terrorists, you’ve got nothing to worry about.”
So maybe the program goes a little further than “…limited calls of international origin.” Furthermore, Gen. Hayden, who is the primary architect of the program is potentially the head of the CIA. Twelve months from now after it’s been ‘leaked’ that the CIA is investigating domestically, folks will say, “they’re just doing their job…keeping us safe.” ….How Orwellian….
I know that some in here would love nothing more than to demagog me as a bleeding heart liberal, but the actuality of the matter is there couldn’t be anything further from the truth.
I guess the issue before us now is metamorphosis that seems to be occurring to the definition of Conservative Republican. The troubling thing is that in many ways, the current expectation is loyalty to party above all costs. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I was under the impression that conservatives believed in small federal government, fiscal spending, and above all else….honesty and integrity.
Regardless of past differences, I think that the last two topics on that list are virtues we all share. Furthermore, one would have to be extremely flexible to blanket these terms to current congressional and executive party leaders. Willful noncompliance to the law, at the end of the day, regardless of justification, is still BREAKING THE LAW. Robbing a bank to feed one’s family is still grand larceny. Willfully hiring someone without proper documentation is still a felony.
There is no wonder why we have such a huge illegal immigration problem…we as Americans might be many things…but hypocrites…we most certainly are not. If we aren’t willing to demand that our President and Congressional Leaders obey, unconditionally, the same laws we observe, then we’ll be damned if we are going to demand enforcement of current immigration laws.
We all strive to be charitable in on form or another; help our fellow man. But how many of us would feel good about accepting free groceries for a donation to the Salvation Army or Red Cross? I ask, what’s the difference between this and say, a trip to St. Andrews for legislation that benefits a drug company….but also might benefit thousands suffering from T.B.?
How about a neighborhood watch organization combating identity fraud, establishing a “good baseline” by means of observing your mail….just to make sure that your postal habits are “actually ordinary.” After all, abnormalities in names and credit applications are very good indicators of fraud where else would be better to look than the mail? Would this be ok for current Republicans?
Better yet, relative to the inconsistent descriptions of the various NSA programs, is lying misleading an aging parent as to the impending length of stay in the “recovery facility” (aka: nursing home) justifiable? Such knowledge would only serve to add additional stress to the situation and most certainly compound issues unnecessarily and further, doing so would obviously be in their own best interest. Or…is it…really. I would suggest that such actions are simply a means of avoiding the necessity of doing what is right: making hard decisions and being honest and upfront about intentions.
Either way, the majority of us share a relatively simple set of core values and deep down we are offended by the ways our elected officials are representing those core values. How could any conscientious conservative not? Yet we are expected to bend and modify these core values in the name of national security. I ask if we change who and what we are to fight those that seek to take what we were…well, what’s the use?
To end, my grandfather, a WWI veteran, said something to me at the age of six I’ll never forget,
“Honor can NEVER be achieved through dishonorable means.”
Its not a scandal if the government can keep track of who I call? Of course they’re not listening, but i’d rather they butted out.
- Lets put it this way. If that Democratic Palmagranite, Dianne Feinstein were to ever ask me what I thought about the WOT efforts of the President and administration, if I was worried about “spying on innocent Americans” as opposed to, oh say, Americans being blown up, or attacked in some way, here’s what I’d tell her.
“Senator, I don’t personally give a hoot in hell how badly you Democrats want back in power. I want whoever runs the government to do anything and everything they can to protect America and the public. If an al Qaeda, or any other terrorist, was hiding up your skirt senator, as distasteful as it might be for the agent, I’d still want him or her looking there, or anywhere else possible. Does that answer your question”?
- I’ll never be asked of course; normal Americans are just here to pay taxes and vote, but thats exactly what I’d tell her if the question was ever put to me. Moreover I’m pretty sure, unlike the empty words of that drunk from Boston, Senator Kennedy, that the “vast majority” of Americans feel exactly the same way.
- Bang
Count me as one who is happy/ecstatic that the NSA is doing the due diligence needed to try to track terrorists. Count me as one who is not bothered at all and have nothing to hide and will TRY myself to help the government find the terrorists if I could. If I was served by Qwest I’d change phone service.
CB Howell wrote for some reason, ““We have the means to change the laws we find unjust or onerous. We cannot, as citizens, pick and choose the laws we will or will not obey.” ~ Abraham Lincoln”
I believe CB is an amateur proclaiming that he KNOWS that Bush is picking and choosing laws he will or will not obey. CB doesn’t recognize I believe that there are constitutional experts who disagree with CB’s assessment. So what does this mean? CB turns disagreement into thinking that WE are supporting a law breaker. What CB doesn’t understand is that we don’t think the NSA is breaking the law nor is Bush. That’s fine. I just wish CB would be more honest about the fact that he just disagrees versus acting like an expert convicting people of breaking the law in the court of the press.
CB continues the pattern with quotes from 2 more presidents. The quotes do not show how Bush nor the NSA broke the law. The quotes do not do anything but say something that 100% of us agree with. 100% of us agree that the President isn’t above the law. Yes. Thanks for agreeing with us on that point CB.
I realized CB’s reading comprehension issue when he said, “So maybe the program goes a little further than “…limited calls of international origin.”“. The point that ST and others mentioned is that this is NOT NOT NOT NOT wiretapping. There is NO need for a warrant when not listening to a domestic (not international) call. Because CB is confused he compares as if apples and apples but it isn’t. It is Apples and Steak. Weak arguments show agendas…….
CB wrote, “I know that some in here would love nothing more than to demagog me as a bleeding heart liberal, but the actuality of the matter is there couldn’t be anything further from the truth.” I don’t care if you are liberal , libertarian or conservative… Your arguments are not pursuasive because they aren’t RELEVANT. If they were relevant we could engage on a different level.
CB changed the subject by saying, “but I was under the impression that conservatives believed in small federal government, fiscal spending, and above all else….honesty and integrity.”
Yes. Conservatives are for less government and routinely have criticized Congress (who controls the purse strings ) and Bush (for not vetoing spending). Conservatives also recognize that the #1 job tasked to the federal government spelled out by the constitution is the defense of this nation. So again you changed the topic because what the NSA is doing would not be put on the chopping block for cut in spending unless it was deemed as uneccessary. And as for the honesty and integrity slap. That my friend was uneccessary. You turn disagreement (as an amateur not an expert) into a slap at others honesty and intergity including Bush’s. BDS.
CB wrote his opinion, “Willful noncompliance to the law” False allegation. Pattern of a certain segment of the population.
CB funnily wrote, “Robbing a bank to feed one’s family is still grand larceny.” Yes it is. Coming to this country illegally to work hard and make a better life is still coming to this country illegally. Now we are debating!!!
CB continued on with irrelevance by saying, “How about a neighborhood watch organization combating identity fraud, establishing a “good baseline” by means of observing your mail….just to make sure that your postal habits are “actually ordinary.””
They would have neither the jurisdiction nor the right nor be acting lawfully. Your point is INVALID because it is not analagous.
CB wrote, “Yet we are expected to bend and modify these core values in the name of national security.”
Nope. We don’t expect you to at all. We expect you to stop making false allegations of law breaking (when did you start beating your wife CB?) and then not go on to back up your claim with an experts opinion or evidence as to what law was broken with what action.
CB ended his dishonorable post (falsely alleging law breaking is dishonorable means) by saying, ““Honor can NEVER be achieved through dishonorable means.”
We welcome you to strive for honor CB. Your grandfather had good advice. Everyone should heed it.
- Theres really no point in debating yet another feckless non-issue put forth by the Liberals, just another part of the same old package of “get Bush”.
- Now we get to sit and listen to all the talking heads of the moonbat gaggle claim that something telemarketers do every day of the week, should be denied our protectors among the lawful agencies of government.
- One can only conclude that this sort of partisan “Party first and the hell with America”, provides yet more evidence of political lunacy from a party thats become more of “cult” than a viable political organization.
- I’m sitting here watching another political hack book writer claim that the press has given Bush abd the administration a “pass”. Unvelievable.
- 23 “Anygate” scams on the public later, along with any number of “leaks” by that same legy agenda driven press, and he sits there telling everyone that the drive by legacy media, so obviously rabidly anti-Bush, and pro Liberal, is being to “soft” on the President. How the hell does these party morons expect anyone over the age of six to buy this crap.
- At this point I wouldn’t vote for a Liberal Democrat for dog catcher. I’d be afraid for the safety and sanity of the dogs.
- Bang
“Count me as one who is happy/ecstatic that the NSA is doing the due diligence needed to try to track terrorists. Count me as one who is not bothered at all and have nothing to hide and will TRY myself to help the government find the terrorists if I could. If I was served by Qwest I’d change phone service.”
Just forward your phone bill to the NSA.
- If you’d like andrew, I’ll be happy to forward your number to all the 3000 nationwide telemarketer operations. You’ll get 1000 times the response that way. NSA isn’t interested in what you do with your Barbie dolls at night in your room, unless of course one of them is named Mohammad instead of Ken.
- Bang
I sense that now that the media has finally got some guts and is doing their job, the conservative clones seem to think this is liberal bias. What kind of country do you want to live in, where there are no checks and balances and power corrupts? That’s what happened to the communists.
A media that questions those in power is preferable. If you can’t take the heat, get out of the kitchen.
The information is already there and I’m happy about it.
No point made there.
K – Don’t you think it might be a little more helpful to the Liberal cause if just one of these “fake” stories, ment explicitely to drive down Bush’s popularity by confusing the public, had even the tiniest nubbin of factual content?
- But then I guess when you’re laden down with that Uber heavy weight of carrying all the nations worth of self apponted responsibility for being the one true gang of “patriots” safe-guarding the country, minor things like truth and accuracy just have to take a back seat in the name of the “cause”.
- Uh huh. Got it.
- Bang
“If you’d like andrew, I’ll be happy to forward your number to all the 3000 nationwide telemarketer operations.”
I don’t see what that would do. It might be a crime if you pretend you’re me to give consent to me being called. It might be a crime for them to call my cellphone. It might also be a crime for them to call me on my phones that are on the Do not call list.
Also: do not call list? A massively successful and popular government program.
“NSA isn’t interested in what you do with your Barbie dolls at night in your room, unless of course one of them is named Mohammad instead of Ken.”
All the more reason for them to not have my phone records.
When you say “fake stories”, are you referring those that “justfied” the war in Iraq? Those with the really big nubbins of “factual content”?
We’ve been trying it your way for the last six years, and this country is no better protected than before. If Bush were CEO of any corporation, he’d have been fired five years ago. I say let the free market decide.
- The real problem with the left K, is in the adult world, once you make a decision, make all of the supportive statements, and the process is 80% along the way, you don’t get to go back and say. “oh wait, I didn’t really mean that, lets undo things”. Thats a childs idea of how the world operates. Protesting that you really didn’t do exactly what the public record shows you did do, just makes you look perfidious, indecisive, and foolish.
- LurchKerry tried that BS, and you see what that got him.
- But since you seem to be so adiment about “nubbins” of truth, you being the only true “patriots” and all, maybe you could pursuade Mr. Ketchup to stop kidding all us Eeeeevvvillll Neocons, and look really really hard for that form 180. I just know you can do it Sparky.
- Bang
Using intelligence gathered by intelligence agencies from this country’s intelligence agency as well as other country’s intelligence agencies? Making the same sorts of statements with that intelligence that Kerry, Clinton, Albright, Gore made?
These points are covered ad naseum. Seems you just disagreed with going to war in Iraq but that’s over 3 years ago. Move forward to what we do today buddy.
Yes. The market has decided in Nov 2004. Your tired false allegations failed. Come up with an agenda for moving forward. What is it? Tax increases?
- The Lefts platform for winning back America:
- Abortion on demand.
- Increased taxation at every opportunity. Tax and spend.
- Redistribution of wealth.
- Class warfare. Punishment of Americans for hard work and success.
- Open borders. Anyone who tries to claim American sovereignty is a racist.
- Nanny state expansion in every walk of life.
- Socialized medicine to guarentee no one goes without inferior medical attention.
- Refuse to defend or fight for your country against our enemies, ridicule and demeen our troops, and obstruct every defensive approach by any means, including traitorous leaks of critical National secrets.
- All Socialism all the time. We hate the Republic.
- Regulated “free” speech for me not, but not for thee.
- From each according to his gullibility, too each according to his sloth.
…A Century of Socialism failures proves nothing!
- Yeh….. that will work. .Well maybe if you were trying to win back Fwance.
- Bang
Mr K wrote, “A media that questions those in power is preferable. ”
Questions with truthful premises. Sure. With false allegations? No.
I’m confused – is it a partisian thing to say I don’t want *anyone* tracking my personal information? Government, private industry, who cares? I wasn’t for Carnivore when the FBI implemented it under a Democratic President. Who I call/email/contact/etc is my business, not the business of anybody else. I thought Republicans were the party of privacy?
KSH – I have no idea which party you inhabit, but to respond to that question is to put some sort of viability to the one and only core point of this whole NSA non-story that the left has. And its a lie. Or at least they can’t possibly know what they’re talking about.
- Item – This is not about “domestic” intra-America calls. Never has been and still is not, no matter how mant times the left tries to repeat that screed.
- Item – Its about any form of communication that crosses the American borders. All forms of extra-country communications have been monitored to the level technicall possible for contemporary abilities at the time, since the early 60′s under Kennedy. Is has been found perfectly legal by all tests, even including the SCOTUS.
- Item – This is part of the powers of the Executive, and does not fall within the purview of the Congress or Judicial branches, no matter how much the left squacks, and tries to say otherwise, any more than making law or judging law is the purview of the Executive. The left keeps talking about seperation of powers, even as they are busy trying to take on powers not allocated to them.
- Item. the President not only has the power, but is obligated Constitutionally to do everything in his power to protect the country, whether we’re at war or not, but when in a war the imparitive is even stronger if anything.
- It would be enjoyable to debate these things, but the left knows its partisan driven arguments are transperant and totally without merit if they stuck to the facts, so they continue to obfuscate, and lie, so no real debate is possible.
- Bang
I tend to agree with Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas who said, “One of the reasons the administration doesn’t tell more members of Congress about such programs is because Congress leaks.” Exactly right, and I advocate that the executive cut the Congress out of the loop altogether. Really the Congress is just for show anyway, call it democratic window-dressing on the emperor’s palace.
And to you, the citizen I say, you have nothing to fear from your government unless you are doing something wrong. Have you made phone-calls to terrorists? Have you ordered Zanku Chicken to go? Have you called a pharmacy in Canada? Have you phoned a full-release masseuse? Have you dialed a registered Democrat? Have you called your newspaper? If you’ve answered “no” to all these questions then just relax already.
So why is the government tracking your calls if you’re an honest proletarian? Well it’s a little complicated. It’s all a matter of contrast. See, the terrorists are the subjects, and you are the background. So if we only monitor the terrorists, the picture we paint is like a polar-bear in a snow-storm, you just can’t see him. That’s where you come in. You are the background that must be viewed to bring the terrorist in to sharp relief.
So don’t worry. Qwest communications should worry. Those traitors have refused to comply with the decrees from Washington. Perhaps Osama Bin-Laden will do an ad for them, I’m sure they’ll appreciate the new business.
KSH asked, “is it a partisian thing to say I don’t want *anyone* tracking my personal information?”
No. I don’t generally want anyone tracking my personal info either. Utopia can’t exist. I don’t want to be taxed more than 10% either. I don’t think able-bodied people should be given my tax dollars for being slothful.
The question is is what the NSA and/or Bush doing lawful and/or necessary to try to find the terrorists?. I believe so. It usually is partisans who are making the false allegations that it isn’t necessary or lawful. They disagree. And get on their high horse. And cast aspersions on our motives and or integrity.
KSH. If Democrats want to continue with BDS and make false allegations it’ll again be an election where the majority of voters do not turn out for Democrats in November. I actually wish Democrats would engage on other topics like spending or immigration to force the Republicans hand and make that the topic that voters turn out for. What will it be? More taxation putting a damper on the economy or the same/less?
Sister Toldjah: “Look for Qwest to be given hero status by the hate-Bush wing of the Democratic party…”
I think you might want to change “the hate-Bush wing of the Democratic party” to:
“the 65% of the American public who disapprove of the job Bush is doing”;
or,
“the 76% of the country who are concerned and creeped out by the program.”
Perhaps it is better to be ‘unglued’ than glued to the policies and authoritarianism of Bush and his administration?
For the life of me, I can’t understand how any true conservative can continue supporting this administration and its domestic intelligence gathering activities, which have clearly crossed the constitutional right we possess to be “secure in our homes” without gov’t interference.
Between one party rule and domestic eavesdropping, Bush has gone the way of the Soviets and totalitarianism.
If that’s what you want to support, go for it.
But please stop disgracing the name of conservatives. Call yourselves Authoritarians, Totalitarians, Fascists, Oligarchians, or Executive Unitarians for all I care.
But there is nothing conservative in this intelligence collecting of the phone records of all Americans, and associating such actions with the support of conservativism is reprehensible, and a slur to all good conservatives.
“I think you might want to change “the hate-Bush wing of the Democratic party” to:”
I’ll do no such thing.
John wrote:
That doesn’t address whether the press is explaining it correctly or whether the NSA program is lawful. It is a red herring. 60% of conservatives dissapprove of Bush because he is too far to the left. Doesn’t mean that Bush should govern MORE to the left or the Congress should legislate MORE to the left does it?
John wrote, “which have clearly crossed the constitutional right ”
What are your constitutional law credentials again John? Amateurs with big accusations are just that. False allegations said 100 times don’t make them accurate.
John wrote about FDR, “Between one party rule and domestic eavesdropping, Bush has gone the way of the Soviets and totalitarianism.”
Oh. That wasn’t about FDR? Do you say that about FDR also John?
John wrote, “But there is nothing conservative in this intelligence collecting of the phone records of all Americans, and associating such actions with the support of conservativism is reprehensible, and a slur to all good conservatives.”
No need to get so worked up. If you disagree on this issue you don’t need to question our conservativism. It’ll only get yours questioned. It isn’t debating. It’s name calling and condescension. Is that what you are about?
“the 76% of the country who are concerned and creeped out by the program.”
- Should read:
“the 95% of the moonbats who are concerned and creeped out by being exposed as soft on the WOT.”
- Bang
- I really really hope the left keeps pushing this idiocy….Please please don’t stop…(Ignore the Rovian waves, your triple layer tinfoil hats will protect you).
- Bang
Fritz without knowledge of the fact that the Bush administration does inform certain members of Congress on both sides said, ““One of the reasons the administration doesn’t tell more members of Congress about such programs is because Congress leaks.”” and then Fritz went on to say, “and I advocate that the executive cut the Congress out of the loop altogether. Really the Congress is just for show anyway, call it democratic window-dressing on the emperor’s palace.”
We are really debating now! Woo Hoo! Nobody is calling for removing Congress except for Fritz in sarcasm. Hyperbole… lying… false allegations… is that really discussing the issue like you want to?
Let me just say this. It is your right to “feel” uncomfortable about the program. And expressing that “feeling” is just fine. Where you guys are going overboard is calling it illegal without knowing for sure. You are no more a constitutional expert than I. Questioning our intergrity or anything else of us is just overboard. Just state your opinion and be done with it. Why the condescension and harsh rhetoric?
Me to Bang.
- The Democratic left hyperbole – Keeping America miserable, and properly uninformed since ’68…..
Over to Bak
Bang-
The USAToday story suggests (to me, at least) that the NSA was tracking intra-USA calls. It did not say that the NSA was listening in on them. So it’s a fine line; they weren’t technically listening to content, they were simply buying in to database information that phone companies have had for some time. So this is an intra-USA issue. Legal? Who knows. I don’t know if it’s legal, but as I said already, I don’t like my calls tracked by anyone.
I agree, international calls have been the purview of the NSA for some time now. I do not think anyone disagrees with that.
Looking over my copy of the US Constitution, I would say:
- Generally, the powers outlined in the Constitution allow for a Congress that defines the laws; an Executive that carries them out; and a Judiciary that interprets them. These rules are open to interpretation, but the current power situation (according to some history experts) is, in the least, not normal.
- The Constitution does not say anything about the President’s need to “defend the United States”; nor does it allocate him/her special powers during wartime. He is obliged constitutionally only to uphold the Constitution itself. It does make him/her commander-in-chief of the military.
Arguments proceed best when one does not insult or use ad-hominem attacks against others, or enforce stereotypes against others. To do so can be taken to suggest your true argument lacks merit.
Baklava-
First, your name is great. I love those cookies.
You’re right. I am asking for utopia, which is unreasonable. I am not in a position to know whether or not the executive branch could defend us without these measures. However, I believe that oversight would help the situation. I don’t like it when anyone says “Trust Me”. Ronald Reagan himself said “Trust, but Verify”.
If the Democrats continue the way they are going they deserve to lose. They are spineless and directionless.
With regard to taxes: I’m in the upper 5% of incomes, so I guess I’m getting a good tax break. I wish somebody would raise my taxes. I see a deficit beyond the imagination – owned mostly by foreign interests (China mostly) – and neither party willing to spend the political capital to bring it down. I see spending out of control as well! Both parties are to blame for this now, but overspending is definitely a Democrat problem. I’m voting for whoever says they’ll raise my taxes and give me less for it. I’m not an economist. I know that some deficits are good. But what, 13-14% of the GDP is too much…
It’s why they created the “Misery Index”
They couldn’t recognize prosperity if it swept their college graduate sons and daughters up into a good job. You should’ve heard the Newscast here in Sacramento yesterday. The story started with how difficult it was for college graduates to find a desired and well paying job. It was 5 minutes into the story before they let out that college graduates are being hired 15% more than last year and the business in the area see that pace staying the same or growing… But before they had those statistics on they had two sob stories talking about how they couldn’t find the job they wanted yet. One was a sportscaster who wanted right out of college to be a sportcaster on TV and he said he’d travel anywhere to get that job and named off Anchorage and Kansas I believe. The other one was someone setting their sights on Goldman Sachs or whatever that place is called. Yeah when you have blinders on you won’t see other opportunities. You’ll be like the folks who only think the NSA stuff is illegal. You don’t see contrary opinion.
KSH – Its nice when an Adult enters the conversation. Point well taken on the adhominems, its just sooooo hard to resist people who are such a parody of themsleves. But I digress.
- My question would be, concerning your reading of the Constitution: What possibly more important function would the CIC/President of the country have than defending against all enemies. That doesn’t seem to require a degree in Constitutional law, rather just a modicum of common sense.
- My real problem with the left is this continuous dis-ingenuous wrapping of their “get Bush” campaign in the clouthe of “patriotism”. If they’d just say up front its all about a desperate thirst for power, I would have a great deal more respect.
- Trying to think of some twisted, tortured, illogical excuse to hobble the Presidents efforts at National defense, is simply not the way to go.
- But as I said before, I hope they keep on truckin’. Like all the skewed polls that the left whorships, its not going to save them at the ballot box. Time structuring with feckless non-starter issues will never be able to cover the total lack of Social plan as now exists in the Democratic party.
- Bang
KSH wrote, “The USAToday story suggests (to me, at least) that the NSA was tracking intra-USA calls.”
That isn’t wiretapping.
KSH wrote, “Legal? Who knows.”
That’s a good start at admitting that the arm-chair experts posting here saying it is illegal might not be correct.
KSH wrote, “I don’t like my calls tracked by anyone.”
And I don’t wnat to be taxed more than 10%….. but alas…
KSH went on to write, “You’re right. I am asking for utopia, which is unreasonable.”
Thank you for seeing that.
KSH went on to imply there isn’t oversight by saying, “However, I believe that oversight would help the situation.”
What is your proof that Bush hasn’t informed key Congress people who have the clearance and need to know? This is why I keep saying the phrase “false allegation”. Things are just said and there is no evidence to back it up.
KSH laughingly said, “I’m in the upper 5% of incomes, so I guess I’m getting a good tax break. I wish somebody would raise my taxes.”
Really. The top 5% of income earners pay 54.36% of the income tax and you think you have a break! Cool! Send in more if you wish! The government could spend it! Or better yet. Get up off your a**, step away from the keyboard and give it to charities who have less administrative costs than the federal government. But to call for others and vote for others in your income range to pay more wouldn’t be right. If you disagree with your tax rate it doesn’t mean you have to raise everyone elses….
KSH wrote, “I see spending out of control as well!”
Do you recognize the demagoging and false allegations with respect to Democrats alleging that Republicans are cutting veterans benefits, social programs, health services, education funding, etc. If not you are doing your part along with the drive by media to cause the problem.
None of you hand wringers and doom sayers have a clue how data mining works do you? And you’ve also completely ignored my first post on this threat that explains some of the facts behind it…
Here’s another fact…there are 300 million people in the US, more or less. There are probably, counting business lines, home phones, cell phones, about a billion phone numbers. Do you honestly think that the NSA is even capable of monitoring your individual phone calls, or that they even want to? Data mining like this looks at large, huge, astronomical amounts of information, and looks for patterns to emerge. In order to data mine effectively, you have to know what “normal” is before you can locate “abnormal.” All the panic and hair pulling over “the NSA is listening to me order pizza and monitoring my phone sex calls! Facists, and Nazi’s, and Conservatives! OH MY!” would be funny if it wasn’t so damaging to the efforts the NSA is undertaking to protect the country, and to the state of political discourse in this country. The possibility of anyone really looking at what numbers you have called is about as high as getting hit by a meteor. However, number crunching can give you all sorts of interesting information, such as how often the average phone calls abroad, out of state, etc., as a function of location, as a function of season, etc. These metrics can then be used to setup a monitoring system that does not listen to individual calls, does not pick individual numbers to monitor, but monitors the statistics for a ton of numbers and compares them to what is expected to be “average.”
Say you know that calls from a certain area code usually, when no holidays are around, have x% of local, y% of interstate, and z% of international calls. Suddenly, you notice that there are a lot more international calls, or calls to an area code out of state where you believe a terrorist cell is operating. It’s a good possibility that a terrorist cell has moved into that area, or has become activated, and it’s also a good possibility that something is up that you should be paying attention to. At that point, you go into the system further, get warrants if needed, and retrieve the specific phone numbers making the calls and where they are being made to, and get further warrants to tap the contents. If you didn’t have the data mining operation, you’d never notice that this was happening.
The purpose of the data mining is to give you a heads up, in a Constitutionally “friendly” way that doesn’t compromise individual privacy, so then you can, when alerted, get the requisite warrants and dig deeper.
Jeez, the leftists out there are some of the most paranoid types I’ve ever seen, and some of the least thoughtful, anyone with half an ounce of sense would realize that the NSA can’t and isn’t interested in individuals with these types of things.
Or they want Utopia Sev… Let’s elect a Democrat because Bush isn’t providing Utopia!!! and I want my taxes raised!!
- Actually Sev, one of the reasons I see so easily through this pile of left-wing attack dog nonsense, is the fact I worked on several NSA Elint programs over the years as part of My career, and spent many har5d workin hours at Ft.Meade.
- To reinforce what you outlined, the very first of the intercept programs under Kennedy, now declassified, was a program called “Tomtom”. a later one I can’t talk about was named “Tennis”.
- Now admitedly as I describe Tomtom it needs to be remembered that the technology at the time was pretty rudimentary as far as computers go by todays standards.
- The system we developed intercepted all transmissions from the bottom of the radio spectrum up to a very high frequency, every 10 Hz of spacing. That teanslates into 100 millin individual frequencies being scanned twice a minute for intercepts. Before everyones eyes glaze over, heres the long and short of it.
- The system would mark each frequency it found and several pieces of data concerning the nature of the signals. This data was captured on punch cards. For those of you no technically inclined think of punch cards as sort of cardboard floppy disks that had very very limited storage.
- The result. A few hours into the first day of operation technicians were rolling boxes of punch cards in and out on dollies, and by the end of the first 12 hour shift they’d filled a medium sized storage area with data filled cards. What is the moral?
- That over the years as the technology got better and better the sheer mass of data went up exponentially. Not onlt was, and is, the mass over-whelming, the idea that anything like that much data can actually be scanned in detail in a timely matter, even by todays standards, is just laughable. Someone once said recently that to properly scan and “eavesdrop” every mode of transmission these days for just one 24 hour period would take an army of 1 million techs working for 25 years. Obviously there are effective reduction techniques that do a vast reduction on the mass problem.
- But with all that in mind now you know why I have little patience with the left talking heads weighing in on something they havn’t an infintisamal clue about. Its just absolutely rediculous to think anyone could or would listen to Joe call his mother.
- Again I listened to a parade of Liberal partisan hacks repeating the lie that the article this morning talked about “eaves-dropping” on unnocent Americans, which is absolutely did not. When you see that sort of intentional mis-speak over and over, you know whats going on, and its not about patriotism.
- Bang
Bang wrote, “- But with all that in mind now you know why I have little patience with the left talking heads weighing in on something they havn’t an infintisamal clue about. ”
Let’s be clear. While Arelen Specter is to the left he is one of them weighing in on something they haven’t an infantisamal clue about.
And no it isn’t about patriotism. It’s also laziness, lack of due diligence, negligence and juvenile senses of utopianism.
BTW, I want my taxes raised!! /end silliness
Bang –
You’re right, it’s important for the president to defend against all enemies. But it’s also important for him to uphold the Constitution. It’s a balancing act. Protect the US from enemies that would take away our freedoms, but don’t take away those freedoms yourself. President Bush, and his administration, are a *LONG WAY* from being a fascist dictatorship. They’re not even close. They seem to be slightly closer than some previous administrations – to me – and I admit it – that makes me nervous.
I don’t disagree that it’s all about power. I think both parties are guilty of clothing themselves in patriotism in order to attack the other, however, and it has been used most effectively (politically) by the Republicans. The Dems just mostly cower and look like pussies. Rationally, neither party wants to see the US destroyed.
Baklava –
The arm chair experts on either side really don’t know.
My statement did imply there was zero oversight, which isn’t correct. I should have said, I believe more oversight is needed. Right now I see an awful lot of stonewalling. I’m hearing a few voices from the Senate Intelligence committee saying all is well. I’m reading other voices that say the situation is in the sh*tter. These discussions mostly break on partisan lines, although some Republicans also seem to think there is not enough oversight – Specter being the most prominent. I recognize that some secrecy is needed in the methods the US uses to pursue its enemies. But some recent events – for example the recent denial of clearance to members of the DOJ seeking to examine the NSA program – don’t sit well with me. Oversight can occur within the limits of secrecy, and my impression is that this is not happening. The Democrats, on the other hand, can be perceived as simply trying to give payback – which is childish and doesn’t help anything. The administration has, on some level, the right to protect itself. But its methods right now… to me, they seem to be obfuscation rather than illumination. I prefer the latter. Prove to me what you’re doing is right – don’t just tell me “we know best, you don’t need to know”. That is what I believe is happening.
Please don’t accuse me of not providing evidence without providing some yourself. Give me some examples of sufficient oversight – something that is comparable to the levels of oversight we’ve seen in almost all previous administrations to this one. Or perhaps you think the current level is sufficient? It’s your right to do so; but I disagree.
Death and taxes are the two unavoidable of our lives. Debt, however, is avoidable. Let me be more specific: I’d like to pay more taxes to clear myself of my part of the national debt. Again, people in hell want ice water. It’s an unrealistic request. I’d like to see the debt paid down. I’d really like to understand what will happen to the US economy once China reevaluates their currency. Anyone?
I don’t disagree with you: the government is a bloated, inefficient POS. I pay taxes but I probably don’t demand the level of accountability that I should.
With regard to the “out of control spending”: the yearly deficit is at an all-time record high. The pork spending is out of control by both parties. This doesn’t suggest fiscal control to me. I don’t think this is a Republican problem – it’s a US problem. We spend too much; services need to decrease. You are right to say I speak from what I have read in the MSM; but if what I say is demagoguery and false, well… back it up.
KSH wrote unfactually, “the yearly deficit is at an all-time record high.”
You missed ST’s post on this topic yesterday apparently (or was it the day before). She referenced Willism’s blog and the Associated Press piece on government revenues having increased by 14.6% the previous year (spending only went up in the 7% range. And this year revenues are up in the 15% range. While I DON’T think speding incrases should be that high the defecits as a percentage of GDP weren’t the highest and aren’t the highest. Thought they were high.
I back up what I say with that post. NOw don’t be lazy!!
Just ribbing ya..
BTW, I’m glad you are here. I used to be a liberal in 1991 due to my brainwashing by the legacy drive by media back then. In the year 1991 I went to the library 3 times a week for afull year and had a big year of conversion from liberalism to libertarianism (they want government cut by 80%. Now I’m a realist centrist/conservative. I’d like to see government stop growing for 10 years (it’s grown every year for over 6 decades) while we reprioritize to what the constitution spells out. A freeze in spending would not cause a large recession as a cut in government to the tune of 80% would. And the US would be healthier for it as revenues would continue to grow and the money could be applied to the debt and social security promises.
” It did not say that the NSA was listening in on them. So it’s a fine line; they weren’t technically listening to content, they were simply buying in to database information that phone companies have had for some time.”
Were they actually paying for it?
Two things:
#1. Sure, there is no proof that there is “willfull noncompliance” on the part of the president…but there is no real proof to the contrary either. That’s the problem. Further, I never specifically said “the president”, I said “congressional and executive party leaders” and there is ample proof of many wrong doings as of late in the congress as well as with those in high level non-elected positions. For heaven’s sake the former majority leader is being tried for money laundering (amoung other things). (I’ll be happy to provide you with some if you live in a hole and havent read a paper or watched the news lately.) At the end of the day, how much does it have to look like @#$% and smell like !@#% before we start wondering if it is in fact !@#%? Where’s the common sense? I suppose that you too refuse to believe that the globe is getting warmer, the %’s of CO2 are getting higher, and humans have contributed nothing to the phenomena?
#2.) (This is more of a question that Bang would be most suited to answer given his experience. No sarcasm intended.) I just finished a degree which is highly math intensive. If the sheer magnitude of data is such that individuals can’t be targeted efficiently, then why do it? And statistically speaking, once again relative to the size of the data set as a whole, there would be no difference between 1 person or say 1000 people…right? So again…why do it?
This is an honest question and I would appreciate sincere responses. Perhaps I might not have such a problem with it if there were a logical explanation constrained by the terms suggested in previous threads.
The “breaking” of this story gets worse and worse looking. Check out:
http://biglizards.net/blog/archives/2006/05/so_whats_wrong.html
Big Lizards points out that this is not a new story, it first appeared in Dec of ’05 when the first NSA “oh my god they’re spying on us!” paranoia wave hit. USA Today did not credit the NYT for it, and even the NYT is acting like it’s a new scandal. Hmmmm…
Wonder why? Could it be that Bush has nominated former NSA head Gen. Hayden as his pick to head the CIA? Does this begin to smell like what it is, a cynical attack on Hayden by the ultra-liberal, anti-Bush press in order to attempt to pump up some manufactured outrage prior to his Senate confirmation hearings, to derail his nomination? Take that you evil ol’Bushhitler!
Once again, we are seeing definitive proof that our wonderful, biased (gag) news media are attempting to not report the news, but to make it, and to cynically and dishonestly manipulate what happens on Capitol Hill to suit their leftist agenda.
This crap has got to stop, our news media is as much or more of a danger to us than the terrorists are.
- Yeh….but then theres this:
- Newt is on FOX H&C right now a little tipsy, slurring his words, and doing a total side shuffle from his morning appearence where he vehemently defended BushCo. WTH is up with that?
- Bang
Good point, Severian! You beat me to the punch. The MSM is recycling another discredited “scandal”, thinking people are dumb enough not to notice.
“Debt, however, is avoidable.”
Yes it is. Don’t spend more money than you have. It sounds like you have a bad case of affluenza. To alleviate the effects of it, I suggest donating to several charities rather than wanting the government to take more of your money and waste it on programs that don’t work.