SPLASH MOTHERFUCKERS! SPLASSSSSSSH!
From the nypost.com
National Security Agency whistleblower Edward Snowden invoked George Orwell and warned of the dangers of unchecked government surveillance Wednesday in a televised Christmas message to the British people that reflected his growing willingness to take a public role in the debate he ignited.
Speaking directly into the camera from Moscow, where he took refuge after leaking vast troves of information on NSA spying, Snowden said government surveillance methods far surpass those described in Orwell’s dystopic novel “1984.”
“The types of collection in the book — microphones and video cameras, TVs that watch us — are nothing compared to what we have available today. We have sensors in our pockets that track us everywhere we go,” he said. “Think about what this means for the privacy of the average person.”
The brief video marked Snowden’s first television appearance since he fled possible prosecution in the United States and arrived in Moscow in June. It came days after The Washington Post published an extensive account of Snowden’s comments during more than 14 hours of interviews.
Revelations from documents leaked by Snowden first appeared in June in The Post and in Britain’s Guardian newspaper, and have continued to emerge in the months since.
In The Post interview, Snowden said he had succeeded in spawning the debate he sought by bringing the extent of surveillance by the US and British governments to light.
“The mission’s already accomplished,” he said. “I already won. As soon as the journalists were able to work, everything that I had been trying to do was validated. Because, remember, I didn’t want to change society. I wanted to give society a chance to determine if it should change itself.”
Read full article at nypost.com
SAFETY SUE POINTS OUT THE DANGERS OF SWIMMING IN COLD WATER. SUDDEN IMMERSION CAN SHOCK THE BODY AND CAUSE QUICK DROWNING.
“Come on boys, let’s go have some fun!”
Hold tight the SS bikini top.
From The Guardian:
On my wall is the Daily Express front page of September 5 1945 and the words: “I write this as a warning to the world.” So began Wilfred Burchett’s report from Hiroshima. It was the scoop of the century. For his lone, perilous journey that defied the US occupation authorities, Burchett was pilloried, not least by his embedded colleagues. He warned that an act of premeditated mass murder on an epic scale had launched a new era of terror. Almost every day now, he is vindicated. The intrinsic criminality of the atomic bombing is borne out in the US National Archives and by the subsequent decades of militarism camouflaged as democracy. The Syria psychodrama exemplifies this. Yet again we are held hostage by the prospect of a terrorism whose nature and history even the most liberal critics still deny. The great unmentionable is that humanity’s most dangerous enemy resides across the Atlantic. John Kerry’s farce and Barack Obama’s pirouettes are temporary.Russia’s peace deal over chemical weapons will, in time, be treated with the contempt that all militarists reserve for diplomacy. With al-Qaida now among its allies, and US-armed coupmasters secure in Cairo, the US intends to crush the last independent states in the Middle East: Syria first, then Iran. “This operation [in Syria],” said the former French foreign minister Roland Dumas in June, “goes way back. It was prepared, pre-conceived and planned.” When the public is “psychologically scarred”, as the Channel 4 reporter Jonathan Rugman described the British people’s overwhelming hostility to an attack on Syria, suppressing the truth is made urgent. Whether or not Bashar al-Assad or the “rebels” used gas in the suburbs of Damascus, it is the US, not Syria, that is the world’s most prolific user of these terrible weapons. In 1970 the Senate reported: “The US has dumped on Vietnam a quantity of toxic chemical (dioxin) amounting to six pounds per head of population.” This was Operation Hades, later renamed the friendlier Operation Ranch Hand – the source of what Vietnamese doctors call a “cycle of foetal catastrophe”. I have seen generations of children with their familiar, monstrous deformities. John Kerry, with his own blood-soaked war record, will remember them. I have seen them in Iraq too, where the US used depleted uranium and white phosphorus, as did the Israelis in Gaza. No Obama “red line” for them. No showdown psychodrama for them. The sterile repetitive debate about whether “we” should “take action” against selected dictators (ie cheer on the US and its acolytes in yet another aerial killing spree) is part of our brainwashing. Richard Falk, professor emeritus of international law and UN special rapporteur on Palestine, describes it as “a self-righteous, one-way, legal/moral screen [with] positive images of western values and innocence portrayed as threatened, validating a campaign of unrestricted political violence”. This “is so widely accepted as to be virtually unchallengeable”. It is the biggest lie: the product of “liberal realists” in Anglo-American politics, scholarship and media who ordain themselves as the world’s crisis managers, rather than the cause of a crisis. Stripping humanity from the study of nations and congealing it with jargon that serves western power designs, they mark “failed”, “rogue” or “evil” states for “humanitarian intervention”. An attack on Syria or Iran or any other US “demon” would draw on a fashionable variant, “Responsibility to Protect”, or R2P – whose lectern-trotting zealot is the former Australian foreign minister Gareth Evans, co-chair of a “global centre” based in New York. Evans and his generously funded lobbyists play a vital propaganda role in urging the “international community” to attack countries where “the security council rejects a proposal or fails to deal with it in a reasonable time”. Evans has form. He appeared in my 1994 film Death of a Nation, which revealed the scale of genocide in East Timor. Canberra’s smiling man is raising his champagne glass in a toast to his Indonesian equivalent as they fly over East Timor in an Australian aircraft, having signed a treaty to pirate the oil and gas of the stricken country where the tyrant Suharto killed or starved a third of the population. Under the “weak” Obama, militarism has risen perhaps as never before. With not a single tank on the White House lawn, a military coup has taken place in Washington. In 2008, while his liberal devotees dried their eyes, Obama accepted the entire Pentagon of his predecessor, George Bush: its wars and war crimes. As the constitution is replaced by an emerging police state, those who destroyed Iraq with shock and awe, piled up the rubble in Afghanistan and reduced Libya to a Hobbesian nightmare, are ascendant across the US administration. Behind their beribboned facade, more former US soldiers are killing themselves than are dying on battlefields. Last year 6,500 veterans took their own lives. Put out more flags. The historian Norman Pollack calls this “liberal fascism”: “For goose-steppers substitute the seemingly more innocuous militarisation of the total culture. And for the bombastic leader, we have the reformer manqué, blithely at work, planning and executing assassination, smiling all the while.” Every Tuesday the “humanitarian” Obama personally oversees a worldwide terror network of drones that “bugsplat” people, their rescuers and mourners. In the west’s comfort zones, the first black leader of the land of slavery still feels good, as if his very existence represents a social advance, regardless of his trail of blood. This obeisance to a symbol has all but destroyed the US anti-war movement – Obama’s singular achievement. In Britain, the distractions of the fakery of image and identity politics have not quite succeeded. A stirring has begun, though people of conscience should hurry. The judges at Nuremberg were succinct: “Individual citizens have the duty to violate domestic laws to prevent crimes against peace and humanity.” The ordinary people of Syria, and countless others, and our own self-respect, deserve nothing less now.
Read the original article at The Guardian.
WASHINGTON — Though The Onion is a satirical newspaper, its Syria coverage in the past few months has been anything but: a series of articles have slammed President Barack Obama for his inaction on Syria, making The Onion a remarkably consistent voice for intervention on the left.
The Onion’s content has begun to attract notice for its ideological consistency and frequency, while also puzzling those who view the publication as a lighthearted satire outlet (which it usually is). Most famously, it inspired the Syrian Electronic Army to hack it, putting it in the company of the New York Times and Twitter.
A few examples from recent months include “‘Help Has To Be On The Way Now,’ Thinks Syrian Man Currently Being Gassed”; “Obama Deeply Concerned After Syrians Gassed To Death On White House Lawn”; “‘Syrians’ Lives Are Worthless,’ Obama Tells Daughters Before Kissing Them Goodnight”; “Obama Weighing His Syria Option”; “Nation Currently More Sympathetic To Demise Of Planet Krypton Than Plight Of Syria”; and “Hi, In The Past 2 Years, You Have Allowed Me To Kill 70,000 People,” by “Bashar al-Assad.”
Satire exists in part to lampoon and challenge popular opinion. But the sum total ofThe Onion’s Syria content adds up to something resembling a serious issue campaign, though recent moves toward a bombing campaign in Syria on the part of the U.S. government appear to have shaken the publication’s resolve. The Onionhas published two stories critical of the plans this week. One, “Experts Point To Long, Glorious History Of Successful U.S. Bombing Campaigns,” mocks U.S. officials for suggesting that bombing Syria will produce the desired effect. In the latest Syria piece, “So, What’s It Going To Be?”, “Bashar al-Assad” explains to the U.S. that it has no good options. The piece, as some have pointed out on Twitter, makes little effort to be funny.
“If you don’t do anything about it, thousands of Syrians are going to die,” “Assad” writes. “If you do something about it, thousands of Syrians are going to die. Morally speaking, you’re on the hook for those deaths no matter how you look at it.”
“Any bombing campaign capable of being truly devastating to my regime would also end up killing a ton of innocent civilians, as such things always do, which I imagine is the kind of outcome you people would feel very guilty about,” he continues.
The Onion’s editor-in-chief, Will Tracy, said in an email to BuzzFeed that the paper has not staked out a position on what the U.S. should do in Syria.
“I wouldn’t say we’ve staked out an editorial line so much as we’ve chosen to acknowledge two equally valid points of view at once,” Tracy said. “Specifically, we want to support the rebels because of our own strong financial ties to the jihadist movement, but we also want to support Bashar al-Assad because he’s been a close and dear friend of the paper for nearly two decades.”
“GRASPING FOR THE SHAFT!”
“MY WORK IS DONE HERE!”
Hold tight the Joy Decision rip-off music at the end, I wonder how much someone got paid to do that.