“

In his maiden voyage as host of “The Daily Show” on Monday, John Oliver skewered the recent series of National Security Agency leaks with the aptly titled segment, “Good News! You’re Not Paranoid.”

Oliver took stock of the revelations leaked by Edward Snowden.

“So, thanks to a bespectacled whistleblower, we now know the government has been actively collecting an unprecedented amount of information on that small, select group of us who either make phone calls or use the Internet,” Oliver said. “I’ve got to say, I bet the Amish are feeling pretty f**king smug right now. Or they would be feeling that way if they had any idea that this story was happening.”

More: John Oliver on NSA: ‘I Bet the Amish Are Feeling Pretty F**King Smug Right Now’ (VIDEO)

So, Glen Greenwald’s continual grasping onto this story in hopes of staying relevant like a drowning man onto a floating object, the MSM initial tendency to stampede in the direction of the original claims and now Snowden’s seemingly overstated accesses and abilities are all obiously news.

But questions remain;

- If the US Fed Govt / NSA isn’t “archiving” everything that they can get their hands for later use after a subpoena (which they haven’t denied) what are they going to store in that facility in Nevada?
NSA Utah Data Center, NPR
NSA Utah Data Center, Wiki

- What can they do with all of the metadata that they are capturing (something that they have finally admitted to)?
Using Metadata to Find Paul Revere - Heywood Jabloeme, LGF

- What protections do we have to prevent those who possess that information from selectively editing it and providing their view of your “history” as is possible as claimed by Snowden and pointed out by Howard Fineman at minute ~ 11:00 into this video?
Hard Ball

From my perspective, it really doesn’t matter the point-of-view or the credibility of someone who tells me that this is for “my safety” etc etc, I still want to openly discuss what they are doing, what they can do with it once they have it and what protections are built in so that it isn’t misused. I do not think that is is worth the marginal increase in my security that they claim it offers not to discuss it. And the arguments that it does so should also be openly discussed.

For example - The claim that discussing this would disclose what we are capable of reduces or eliminates its usefulness. Really? This is only temporary as it doesn’t take much to figure this out without leaks so this advantage is only temporary. So, if it was widely known that if you use any electronic means to communicate about acts of terrorism we will know about it actually deters such plots. See the history in Iraq and Afghanistan. And, many of those involved in terrorism can’t cope with that knowledge anyway. Just look at the history of the use of this kind of intelligence in Iraq and Afghanistan. It was so effective the insurgents called it “American Magic” with rumors that went so far as to claim that we could read minds.

My point is this, if the US Govt has a metaphorical gun pointed at my head, as they did the insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan, I have the right to at least know about it and consent to it as unlike the insurgents there, I don’t have to be content with calling it “American Magic”.

972mag.com

Why I let a Palestinian woman from East Jerusalem decide my vote
I just returned from the voting booth in Tel Aviv. Voting is such a private matter, and at the end of the day, nobody except the person voting knows who he/she voted for.

My voting experience today, however, wasn’t a private matter. And it wasn’t an enjoyable or empowering one either, because I decided to give up my right and privilege to vote in an act of protest, frustration and guilt. I let Riman Barakat, a Palestinian woman from East Jerusalem, decide who I should vote for. And she chose Balad, an Arab nationalist party, a party I would not have voted for and have no specific affinity to (below is a text from Riman on why she chose Balad and what she thinks about me giving up my vote).

I’ve only met Riman once before in Ramallah, because we have a mutual friend. But I do not really know her, or her political views, and cannot say she is my friend. But I turned to her because I preferred not to give my vote to a total stranger on Facebook randomly, but do it personally, talk to her first – and because she is a woman, and from East Jerusalem specifically.

I did it because today, I live in a one-state reality I do not want to live in, and regardless of the term one chooses to use, it is a reality of systematic inequality, discrimination and violent oppression towards the Palestinian minority. When Israel annexed East Jerusalem in 1967 it had to by definition apply (de jure) all the same laws and duties on the Palestinian population – and with them, there are supposed to be rights. However Palestinian residents of East Jerusalem, while able to travel freely in Israel and entitled to public education and national healthcare and pay the same taxes as I do, cannot vote in national elections. They are withheld the most basic and concrete political right any civilian should have to seek out representation and improve their quality of life. This is one of the most blatant forms of disenfranchisement and hypocrisy and it has been the status quo in Israel for 46 years. (West Bank Palestinians of course do not even have those rights, but formally, Israel is not bound to them legally in the same way as East Jerusalem Palestinians, which is why for me it makes it all the worse.)

A country that prides itself so aggressively on its democracy cannot annex an area and leave its population in the dust and think it can get away with it. And I cannot happily go to the polls and vote for a party – even if there is a party I really do believe in – because it feels like a sham. And I am angry that it feels like a sham. I am angry that I couldn’t feel good about voting today and that I was not capable of feeling empowered by my civil rights.

So I did it because I will to live in a place where civilians who are subject to the same government and authorities and whims for all these years can have the same rights before the law. Because I want to actively combat the disenfranchising of Palestinians under Israeli governance and control. Because on election day in the Israel of 2013, the only thing that felt right was to give voice to someone who has systematically been deprived of that privilege for so long. And because I want to make a public and provocative statement that ticks people off or gets them thinking- and honestly, I assume I did it in large part because of I feel guilty; because I’m sick and tired of feeling guilty that I have all these privileges that Palestinians do not.

Despite the fact that Palestinians in East Jerusalem receive a better quality of life then most due to being in Jerusalem, they are still disenfranchised and lack the basic civil rights many around the world have fought for. Something to think about the day after MLK day.

rightwingwatch.org

In Pat Robertson’s bizarre universe backlash against someone denying basic civil rights to gay couples makes the oppressor a victim, and every natural event is a sign of the end of times. (then comes the plea for more money for his McMansion, Jet, and Limos.)

The 700 Club today featured a story on Rose Marie Belforti, the New York town clerk who refuses to sign marriage licenses following the passage of the state law providing marriage rights for gay and lesbian couples. The highly sympathetic story featured interviews with Belforti along with her allies in New Yorkers for Constitutional Freedoms and her legal counsel, the Alliance Defense Fund. People For the American Way Foundation is representing a lesbian couple Beforti turned away, and Belforti is facing a write-in challenger in her re-election race tomorrow.

Following the segment, Robertson called marriage equality an “abomination” and said that Belforti, along with two town clerks who resigned after the Marriage Equality Act passed, are “prisoners of conscience.”