The first global civil war
falkvinge.net
falkvinge.net
> 40 years ago, two journalists showed the world that the president of the most powerful nation used the Secret Services to wiretap his political opponents. This investigative work granted them the Pulitzer Prize and led to the resignation of the president.
First of all, winning the Pulitzer Prize doesn't validate journalism. It's a prize given by journalists to journalists, and despite what the OP thinks of today's investigative journalism, journalists are still giving each other Pulitzer Prizes for investigative work, so not sure why he uses it as some kind of metric.
Second, I'm not familiar with all the details of Watergate, but I don't remember it being a scandal involving the Secret Service.
Details, details, I know. But the OP approaches this issue with incredible wide-eyed naivete, with no real knowledge of what's happened in the past. I'd hate to think what kind of jaded essay he'd write if he really studied world history pre-2001.
http://www.pulitzer.org/bycat/Investigative-Reporting
http://www.pulitzer.org/bycat/Public-Service
What I find faulty about the OP's premise is that he bemoans the dying press, which he sees as making a devil's deal with the "ruling class". I wonder if the OP considered the effect of the Internet on news organizations' business model as a possible reason why there seems to be less substantive news, or is that just too prosaic of an explanation?
Yet even accepting strong evidence that his world view is at least flawed, and more likely completely fanciful, this doesn't in any way stop him from persisting in vigorously applying it to everything that's happening around him.
Watergate was a clear case of a president implicated in patently illegal acts. In contrast, the NSA's activities were overseen by a court and a few self-confessed infractions aside were entirely legal. We can argue whether they should be legal, or whether the legal framework is constitutional etc, but everyone involved in the NSA's activities can honestly and truthfully claim they had very good reason to believe what they were doing was legal. I'm not supporting what they were doing in any way, but there's simply co comparison whatever between the Snowden case and Watergate.
Comparisons with Ellsberg and the Pentagon Papers are far more apt, but if it wasn't for the FBI's inept and illegal harassment and wiretapping of Ellsberg fatally tainting the prosecution's case, it's quite likely Ellsberg may have faced a prison sentence just as much as Snowden might. Certainly there's no particular reason to think that prosecution of Snowden is unprecedented. Furthermore the harassment of the press relating to Snowden's revelations has largely taken place outside the US. Within the US the press is publishing away with little to no legal restraint or obstruction and until a journalist in the US actually faces prosecution or restraint over the affair, rumblings about such being in the works are just noise.
Given this very close friendship and their ability to spy on American People since their not US agencies it is not far fetched to think the US is involved.
The only thing preventing the Intelligence Agencies from ruling the world is just a few laws that they are desperately attempting to change by bringing up the terrorist threat every time they get the chance.
I agree, but keep in mind that this is a translation from French, I'd love to hear from someone who can read the original to see if they line up. I don't think it would change my mind, but it would be interesting.
The thing is, I don't see that much real consensus in "digital culture" because all consensus seems to end up being the lowest common denominator, which usually becomes some combination of self righteous indignation, fuzzy logic, "me too" knee jerking and cat pictures.
The Occupy Wall Street Movement was a perfect embodiment of digital culture, a generation who grew up always getting a prize for participating, and believing that everyone's opinion was equally valid. But without making value judgments of any kind, without choosing leaders, without any center except the comfort of the mob, you can never get anything done. There can never be a dialectic emerging from the clash between the old and the new. It's just another empty consumer culture dressed up as a social movement.
I support his impeachment for the very same reason. In a way, I almost hope he intervenes in Syria despite a vote against in Congress (hopefully), if that means his impeachment will be inevitable - even though I care about him getting impeached over the NSA surveillance state a lot more than him getting impeached over Syria, but I know there's a lot smaller chance to impeach him over that, so I'll take whichever reason works best.
I share the sentiment. But we should keep in mind that the next president will be continue the same madness as the people before him/her. It's a systemic problem and can not be corrected by voting one of the "two" "choices" in.
I'm not seeing any possible way this could improve anything. In pretty much any way.
So you go into the restaurant and and she says 'coke or pepsi'. You want lemonade, so you send a message by alternating between coke and pepsi each time you go there. That's not gonna work wonders at getting lemonade on the menu. Doesn't matter which of two "choices" you pick, you're going to be stuck with over sweetened corn syrup cola either way.
This perspective really helps me understand the last, say, 20 years of US history. Your mileage may vary.