Monday, August 04, 2014

Hamas and Gaza

Long time since I have posted which means a tipping point must have been reached for me to spend time writing about a subject that have been following for a long time. I predicted the hamas victory in 2006. But I am writing because of am always interested in hypocricy and media bias and what is occurring in Gaza is a good example of how things have gone bad.

In the scheme of things the number of deaths is comparable to other conflicts and as an example more the 3 million kids die each year because of malnutrition. For me their is a significant difference in not giving kids food and targeting kids because they may be potential terrorist in the future.

The main reason for me why this is so important is that Israel and the people that support Israel have such a big influence in the world. So for them to change their values and morals to justify the killing of innocents in a public way is not right. Especially by lying and so what I was going to do was go through the 613 commandments as show how they have moved significantly from their origins.

As part of the commandments are not to slay an innocent person but then came the shocking commandments which are
  •  601.   Not to keep alive any individual of the seven Canaanite nations (Deut.20:16)
  • 602.   To exterminate the seven Canaanite nations from the land of Israel (Deut. 20:17)
  • 613.  To destroy the seed of Amalek (Deut. 25:19)


So in their minds I can see them justifying their actions. For me as a christian they have gone against the commandments of thou shall not kill, thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor and thou shall not covet thy neighbors property.  So I can't understand why supposedly christian states are supporting Israel in this issue.

Really surprised that genocide is part of the Jewish commandments and that they are actioning it in todays world.

Main reason I posted is that people have crossed the line in supporting the killing of innocent children and this meme should not be accepted by majority of people for a functioning society.




Thursday, February 20, 2014

Facebook's purchase of Whatsapp


In my experience Facebook users are nearly saturated. I have only added one friend in the last few months and joined in 2007. So their market growth is really only new kids accessing computers or 3rd world countries. Well Fiji is a third world country and I am connected to nearly all my Family members in Fiji. Where the Australian Friends and family seem to post a lot less now.


I have a fourteen and sixteen year old son and they don't know what Whatsapp is and they spend a lot time on their Samsung s2. The youngest uses Snapchat as majority of his friends are using it. 


After some reading article from November last year it stated that Whatsapp had around 400 million users and with Snapchat was the biggest competitor to Facebook.  Amazing the speed of change by end of Christmas break new users were going to Snapchat at a rate of 40/1 over Whatsapp.


I understand that Facebook is in trouble getting new users especially the younger ones as my kids are always complaining about Grandma posting comments on their Facebook posts.
The biggest issue that Facebook has now is its branding as its lost it cool and rebellious factor for new kids.  

This is just part of the internet cycle and what must go up will come down as smartphone apps are taking away a lot of what Facebook users would spend their time on Facebook. An example is the  Farmville of today would just be a ITunes or Google Play app.

My main problem with Facebook is that they are picking the wrong company and even if they did pick Snapchat, I am sure that once under Facebook branding it will lose users and as a new app that takes advantage of whatever new technology of the day is will overtake it. 

I see this move as like Newscorp taking over MySpace when all majority of their users have already moved to Facebook. But MySpace touting its number of users.

My opinion is that Facebook should make it easier for kids on Facebook to silo off their older family members like myself and spend the 19 billion on real assets that wont be overtaken in a few years,



Wednesday, February 19, 2014

Response to Martin Armstrong, John Drovak and Rupert Murdoch on Climate Change

“Climate change is a hoax”, in the last month this statement has been promoted by people that I respect.  This was stated by Martin Armstrong, John Dvorak and wife of one of my best friends who is doing her master’s thesis at Cambridge on how climate changing is part of the normal natural cycle.  So I need to clarify my thoughts concerning this issue as there is cognitive dissonance in what I see and feel compared to views of people that I respect. I will try and explore their arguments and expand on what my feelings are, which is that we are affecting the climate and in a negative way.

Growing up in Australia, my connection to the land lied dormant as I believed that earth was nothing but a dead entity. A major factor in being able to change my views was in the process of completing my Computer Science Degree. I created a computerized horse racing handicap system as my final year project. In this process I developed a good understanding of probability and the weighting of factors that are needed to predict future events. 

I awakened to my natural connection to the land after spending 20 years in the management of indigenous land in Fiji. My comprehension changed after seeing so many improbable events occurring regularly. I considered the events nearly impossible to occur when combining all the events in a time frame that it was viewed in. The understanding that the climate is alive and behaves in ways depending on actions that have occurred, is an accepted view in Fijian society. So the improbable events became probable and understandable. After around seven years, I could usually predict a weather based event on actions/affects that have occurred by people.

My argument of a natural connection between people and climate may not work with people like Dvorak, Armstrong and Rupert Murdoch as you need to be open to the idea that there are other forces around us, that are not seen or accepted by Mass Media in the Western World.  Interestingly, If you are Christian and believe that praying for rain can have an affect, then you should believe that climate change can be affected by man.

When I was first going to write this post I was going to argue against that the current change in the climate is not only part of the natural cycle of change but it is also influenced by man.The actions of humans may not be large, but they do have an effect.   Different ingredients/actions would have different effects.  A comparison is if you pour turpentine in a litre of water, we can smell it at range of around 20 micro-grams, which is around 0.000002% of the water. When pouring sugar into a litre of water you would need significantly more sugar than turpentine before you can naturally smell that the water has changed. What I am trying to explain is that different actions will have different effects on different types of the climate and that the action can be very small to have a noticeable effect.


My understanding is that Drovak and Armstrong’s major argument is that the changes we are see is based on natural oscillation of the climate that occurs in cycles. I believe in cycle theory for majority of disciplines, including my knowledge of how climate changes.  Within Cycles there are also cycles at a smaller scale and that is the level I believe that human actions are causing changes. 

The following are the top things that I think are actually having a significant affect in hurting the Earth.
  •   Earthquakes caused by Fracking
  •  Sinkholes caused by mining and water usage
  • Sea is becoming more acidic because of more C02 in atmosphere and less clean water being added to the sea
  • Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD) means threat to pollination and is found to be significantly man made disorder
  • Changes in local temperatures due to clearing of Land

After twenty years I have returned back to live in Australia and the climate has changed compared to what I remember it.  Here there are no talking heads that argue against climate change as they are ridiculed, in the same vein as commentators that say smoking is not bad for you because they have an uncle that smokes and drinks and he still lived to his nineties.

I started writing this post then lost my motivation.  I had to drop a family member at Church and  just as I was getting in the car it started to rain. Within an hour 54mm of rain poured down causing floods and major damage, just in my area of the city. To put things in context, so far this year only 14mm of rain has been recorded and in the whole of 2006 there was only 86mm.  So do I believe that the climate changed to give me motivation to finish this post. I will leave that up to you.


Wednesday, November 13, 2013

Obama the shackles are off

Just read that ties between USA is publicly breaking with Israel concerning Palestine.  These actions plus the fines to J.P Morgan and Johnson & Johnson shows that there is a change at the Whitehouse. Obama's team are not scared as before to do the right thing.  Strength shown during the Government shutdown was also unprecedented in my time of following the democratic party.

I actually have hope again and especially after watching Ray Dalio clip below. The information has motivated me to actually be productive in our society. As I have spent the last three years mainly playing video games and sponged of the people and society around me.




Amazing I am playing nearly playing tennis everyday with my boys, we play cards most nights and I am helping them with their school work in which they have really deteriorated over the last few years. Now I am in the process of writing android apps to help them with their school work and will hopefully help other students.

I still believe that we will need a huge reset to fix the worlds problems but I am happy that the people that I originally supported i.e Obama are now moving in the right direction on issues that is important to the earth





Wednesday, June 19, 2013

What Google needs to do to get goodwill back for NSA


The leaks by Edward Snowden has in my opinion affected Google and Apple the most. Especially Google as there is an assumption of the "do no evil" motto that they carry.

Idea that they are giving our data to Military Contractors whose aim to create more profits by pumping more wars doesn't fit with the meme of "do no evil". I have small issues of Military Industry complex wanting to get into more wars as its a business and I have a lot of family  who are mercenaries or work in the UN. The Syria debacle will bring a significant amount of money back to Fiji.

So how can Google get back goodwill from us punters, I think what they are doing is a good step in challenging the Gag order about the secret FISA rulings. Reality people will think the worse when information is in the dark. Like you get more scared at night when you can't see things around you and paranio starts to affect you.

I was going to right a post on how the most important information gathering tool I have had for last 7 years and not being able to access it next month is giving me more bad will to Google then the NSA leaks. So continuing with Google Reader is the first step in getting back goodwill with internet power users. I know Google want people to migrate to Google plus but there's no comparison compared to Google Reader. So for me will get goodwill back by continuing Google Reader.

I think creating a legal challenge for bringing light to NSA secret court rulings is good. Amazing spent fifteen minutes thinking of other ways and I can't think of any significant moves besides marketing.

Google may be in trouble.  Like getting Google glasses which NSA can have access to or driver less cars in which NSA can control.

Anyway good luck Google but I think what is happening like our relationship we have had with Google Reader is a sign of the times.



Tuesday, June 18, 2013

Why the Gang of Eight is powerless in the new Surveillance State

After reading Edward Snowdens answers about how the Gang of Eight lies was one of the main reasons he became a Whistle blower, I am interested on who are the Gang of Eight and interestingly they are the ones that have been smearing Edward Snowden.

It got me thinking in how did these people get elected into their positions. I remember how J Edgar Hoover key to his power was all the information that he got over people. He used that information to stay in power. I am guessing that Clapper has much more information then Hoover did. So with this power I am sure he is able to help people get into positions of power where the main goal controlling is the Gang of Eight. So am guessing majority of the Gang of Eight either have something to hide or owe NSA information for their power.

But main question is that the NSA is government organisation and why would they do that. But really is it a government organisation when 70% of the workers are contractors and James Clapper was an Executive at Booz Allan Hamilton and 99% of its income (3.8 billion) comes from government contracts.

So the function of NSA would have moved from securing the nation to getting more work for Contractors. This leads to the main function of management in NSA to get information for more contract work. This ends up being a negative for the public in terms of more surveillance work and deterioration of the fourth amendment. It also means contractors will target people to promote the culture of fear. I wonder what they have on media commentators.

So why do I care. The psych profiles of people who succeed at Wall Street means they will do things that they don't want the public to know as it relieves the stress of their work. By private contractors knowing this information and having it over them, they become the choke point in changing the direction towards a sustainable world. Which is something I want for my kids.

Another layer of the onion is peeled.


Edward Snowden Question and Answers at Guardian June 2013


Was Fascinated at Edward Snowden Question and Answers at Guardian which kept me up to 3am this morning. Really interesting experience.

Below are the Questions and Answers and my really take

Question
Edward Snowden
 Really Take
Why did you choose Hong Kong to go to and then tell them about US hacking on their research facilities and universities?
First, the US Government, just as they did with other whistleblowers, immediately and predictably destroyed any possibility of a fair trial at home, openly declaring me guilty of treason and that the disclosure of secret, criminal, and even unconstitutional acts is an unforgivable crime. That's not justice, and it would be foolish to volunteer yourself to it if you can do more good outside of prison than in it. Second, let's be clear: I did not reveal any US operations against legitimate military targets. I pointed out where the NSA has hacked civilian infrastructure such as universities, hospitals, and private businesses because it is dangerous. These nakedly, aggressively criminal acts are wrong no matter the target. Not only that, when NSA makes a technical mistake during an exploitation operation, critical systems crash. Congress hasn't declared war on the countries - the majority of them are our allies - but without asking for public permission, NSA is running network operations against them that affect millions of innocent people. And for what? So we can have secret access to a computer in a country we're not even fighting? So we can potentially reveal a potential terrorist with the potential to kill fewer Americans than our own Police? No, the public needs to know the kinds of things a government does in its name, or the "consent of the governed" is meaningless.


I think he gave information about Chinese breaches as present to them and get them onside in the future extradition case.
How many sets of the documents you disclosed did you make, and how many different people have them? If anything happens to you, do they still exist?
All I can say right now is the US Government is not going to be able to cover this up by jailing or murdering me. Truth is coming, and it cannot be stopped.
 Good answer as uncertainty of information he has gives him more power
Why did you just not fly direct to Iceland if that is your preferred country for asylum?
Leaving the US was an incredible risk, as NSA employees must declare their foreign travel 30 days in advance and are monitored. There was a distinct possibility I would be interdicted en route, so I had to travel with no advance booking to a country with the cultural and legal framework to allow me to work without being immediately detained. Hong Kong provided that. Iceland could be pushed harder, quicker, before the public could have a chance to make their feelings known, and I would not put that past the current US administration.
 As speculated went to Hong Kong as was easiest destination from Hawaii without going through transits were he could be stopped.
You have said that you admire both Ellsberg and Manning, but have argued that there is one important distinction between yourself and the army private... "I carefully evaluated every single document I disclosed to ensure that each was legitimately in the public interest," he said. "There are all sorts of documents that would have made a big impact that I didn't turn over, because harming people isn't my goal. Transparency is." Are you suggesting that Manning indiscriminately dumped secrets into the hands of Wikileaks and that he intended to harm people?
No, I'm not. Wikileaks is a legitimate journalistic outlet and they carefully redacted all of their releases in accordance with a judgment of public interest. The unredacted release of cables was due to the failure of a partner journalist to control a passphrase. However, I understand that many media outlets used the argument that "documents were dumped" to smear Manning, and want to make it clear that it is not a valid assertion here.
Standard comment to keep wikileaks people onside.
Did you lie about your salary? What is the issue there? Why did you tell Glenn Greenwald that your salary was $200,000 a year, when it was only $122,000 (according to the firm that fired you.)
I was debriefed by Glenn and his peers over a number of days, and not all of those conversations were recorded. The statement I made about earnings was that $200,000 was my "career high" salary. I had to take pay cuts in the course of pursuing specific work. Booz was not the most I've been paid.
He mentioned the $200,000 in the interview. But I give him more cred in trying to embellish his salary.

Helps argument in that he targeted Booz for the release of information
Why did you wait to release the documents if you said you wanted to tell the world about the NSA programs since before Obama became president?
Obama's campaign promises and election gave me faith that he would lead us toward fixing the problems he outlined in his quest for votes. Many Americans felt similarly. Unfortunately, shortly after assuming power, he closed the door on investigating systemic violations of law, deepened and expanded several abusive programs, and refused to spend the political capital to end the kind of human rights violations like we see in Guantanamo, where men still sit without charge.
Good Answer
Define in as much detail as you can what "direct access" means.
More detail on how direct NSA's accesses are is coming, but in general, the reality is this: if an NSA, FBI, CIA, DIA, etc analyst has access to query raw SIGINT databases, they can enter and get results for anything they want. Phone number, email, user id, cell phone handset id (IMEI), and so on - it's all the same. The restrictions against this are policy based, not technically based, and can change at any time. Additionally, audits are cursory, incomplete, and easily fooled by fake justifications. For at least GCHQ, the number of audited queries is only 5% of those performed.
Confusing and from me it means direct access means direct access to a database that has retrieved information from different sources.

Unless the SIGINT database has joins from all servers housed in different sources.

In end doesn't matter as power point presentation says direct access not him
Can analysts listen to content of domestic calls without a warrant?
NSA likes to use "domestic" as a weasel word here for a number of reasons. The reality is that due to the FISA Amendments Act and its section 702 authorities, Americans’ communications are collected and viewed on a daily basis on the certification of an analyst rather than a warrant. They excuse this as "incidental" collection, but at the end of the day, someone at NSA still has the content of your communications. Even in the event of "warranted" intercept, it's important to understand the intelligence community doesn't always deal with what you would consider a "real" warrant like a Police department would have to, the "warrant" is more of a templated form they fill out and send to a reliable judge with a rubber stamp.
This answer still needs to be fleshed out and we need to understand what new legal definition of warranted intercept means
When you say "someone at NSA still has the content of your communications" - what do you mean? Do you mean they have a record of it, or the actual content?
Both. If I target for example an email address, for example under FAA 702, and that email address sent something to you, Joe America, the analyst gets it. All of it. IPs, raw data, content, headers, attachments, everything. And it gets saved for a very long time - and can be extended further with waivers rather than warrants.
Sounds like meta data to me. Which is still bad in my books
What are your thoughts on Google's and Facebook's denials? Do you think that they're honestly in the dark about PRISM, or do you think they're compelled to lie? Perhaps this is a better question to a lawyer like Greenwald, but: If you're presented with a secret order that you're forbidding to reveal the existence of, what will they actually do if you simply refuse to comply (without revealing the order)?
Their denials went through several revisions as it become more and more clear they were misleading and included identical, specific language across companies. As a result of these disclosures and the clout of these companies, we're finally beginning to see more transparency and better details about these programs for the first time since their inception. They are legally compelled to comply and maintain their silence in regard to specifics of the program, but that does not comply them from ethical obligation. If for example Facebook, Google, Microsoft, and Apple refused to provide this cooperation with the Intelligence Community, what do you think the government would do? Shut them down?
Agree but there is to much anecdotal information about having separate servers in these large sources.

These companies need to have the legal shackles freed so that they can talk about that.
Ed Snowden, I thank you for your brave service to our country. Some skepticism exists about certain of your claims, including this: I, sitting at my desk, certainly had the authorities to wiretap anyone, from you, or your accountant, to a federal judge, to even the President if I had a personal email. Do you stand by that, and if so, could you elaborate?
Yes, I stand by it. US Persons do enjoy limited policy protections (and again, it's important to understand that policy protection is no protection - policy is a one-way ratchet that only loosens) and one very weak technical protection - a near-the-front-end filter at our ingestion points. The filter is constantly out of date, is set at what is euphemistically referred to as the "widest allowable aperture," and can be stripped out at any time. Even with the filter, US comms get ingested, and even more so as soon as they leave the border. Your protected communications shouldn't stop being protected communications just because of the IP they're tagged with. More fundamentally, the "US Persons" protection in general is a distraction from the power and danger of this system. Suspicionless surveillance does not become okay simply because it's only victimizing 95% of the world instead of 100%. Our founders did not write that "We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all US Persons are created equal."
Thats what a lot of people don't understand is the power of the system admin in that we are able to bypass the security filters setup by the program by accessing the information in different layers.

Not sure if this is possible by normal analysts though and am sure there are heaps of audit trails and flags
Edward, there is rampant speculation, outpacing facts, that you have or will provide classified US information to the Chinese or other governments in exchange for asylum. Have/will you?
This is a predictable smear that I anticipated before going public, as the US media has a knee-jerk "RED CHINA!" reaction to anything involving HK or the PRC, and is intended to distract from the issue of US government misconduct. Ask yourself: if I were a Chinese spy, why wouldn't I have flown directly into Beijing? I could be living in a palace petting a phoenix by now.
Agree but I would rather live in Hong Kong then in Beijing petting a phoenix
US officials say terrorists already altering TTPs because of your leaks, & calling you traitor. Respond?
US officials say this every time there's a public discussion that could limit their authority. US officials also provide misleading or directly false assertions about the value of these programs, as they did just recently with the Zazi case, which court documents clearly show was not unveiled by PRISM. Journalists should ask a specific question: since these programs began operation shortly after September 11th, how many terrorist attacks were prevented SOLELY by information derived from this suspicionless surveillance that could not be gained via any other source? Then ask how many individual communications were ingested to acheive that, and ask yourself if it was worth it. Bathtub falls and police officers kill more Americans than terrorism, yet we've been asked to sacrifice our most sacred rights for fear of falling victim to it. Further, it's important to bear in mind I'm being called a traitor by men like former Vice President Dick Cheney. This is a man who gave us the warrantless wiretapping scheme as a kind of atrocity warm-up on the way to deceitfully engineering a conflict that has killed over 4,400 and maimed nearly 32,000 Americans, as well as leaving over 100,000 Iraqis dead. Being called a traitor by Dick Cheney is the highest honor you can give an American, and the more panicked talk we hear from people like him, Feinstein, and King, the better off we all are. If they had taught a class on how to be the kind of citizen Dick Cheney worries about, I would have finished high school.
 Good Response

Part about not finishing High School was interesting but another embellishment.

Am guessing a significant factor of not finishing high school was his parents divorcing in his final year.
Is encrypting my email any good at defeating the NSA survelielance? [Is] my data protected by standard encryption?
Encryption works. Properly implemented strong crypto systems are one of the few things that you can rely on. Unfortunately, endpoint security is so terrifically weak that NSA can frequently find ways around it.
Need to read up on endpoint security. 
Understanding they have access to backdoors to computers. Always on assumption they can access everything if you are under their radar and have locked in a communication device
Do you believe that the treatment of Binney, Drake and others influenced your path? Do you feel the "system works" so to speak?
Binney, Drake, Kiriakou, and Manning are all examples of how overly-harsh responses to public-interest whistle-blowing only escalate the scale, scope, and skill involved in future disclosures. Citizens with a conscience are not going to ignore wrong-doing simply because they'll be destroyed for it: the conscience forbids it. Instead, these draconian responses simply build better whistleblowers. If the Obama administration responds with an even harsher hand against me, they can be assured that they'll soon find themselves facing an equally harsh public response. This disclosure provides Obama an opportunity to appeal for a return to sanity, constitutional policy, and the rule of law rather than men. He still has plenty of time to go down in history as the President who looked into the abyss and stepped back, rather than leaping forward into it. I would advise he personally call for a special committee to review these interception programs, repudiate the dangerous "State Secrets" privilege, and, upon preparing to leave office, begin a tradition for all Presidents forthwith to demonstrate their respect for the law by appointing a special investigator to review the policies of their years in office for any wrongdoing. There can be no faith in government if our highest offices are excused from scrutiny - they should be setting the example of transparency.
Great response and this response makes me wonder if he is actually answering these questions in real time or if someone is helping him.
What would you say to others who are in a position to leak classified information that could improve public understanding of the intelligence apparatus of the USA and its effect on civil liberties? What evidence do you have that refutes the assertion that the NSA is unable to listen to the content of telephone calls without an explicit and defined court order from FISC?
This country is worth dying for.
Great response and am sure this answer will give more motivation for people that served with patriotic reasons.

Lucky for him he doesn't have any children or any major ties besides relationship he had with partner for more then 7 years. 
My question: given the enormity of what you are facing now in terms of repercussions, can you describe the exact moment when you knew you absolutely were going to do this, no matter the fallout, and what it now feels like to be living in a post-revelation world? Or was it a series of moments that culminated in action? I think it might help other people contemplating becoming whistleblowers if they knew what the ah-ha moment was like. Again, thanks for your courage and heroism.
I imagine everyone's experience is different, but for me, there was no single moment. It was seeing a continuing litany of lies from senior officials to Congress - and therefore the American people - and the realization that that Congress, specifically the Gang of Eight, wholly supported the lies that compelled me to act. Seeing someone in the position of James Clapper - the Director of National Intelligence - baldly lying to the public without repercussion is the evidence of a subverted democracy. The consent of the governed is not consent if it is not informed.
For me personally I really hate people lying especially for important things in my life.

I think it may affect IT people more then others. 

Can understand how this has motivated him.
Regarding whether you have secretly given classified information to the Chinese government, some are saying you didn't answer clearly - can you give a flat no?
No. I have had no contact with the Chinese government. Just like with the Guardian and the Washington Post, I only work with journalists.
Key is who is supporting his safe house that he is staying in.
So far are things going the way you thought they would regarding a public debate?
Initially I was very encouraged. Unfortunately, the mainstream media now seems far more interested in what I said when I was 17 or what my girlfriend looks like rather than, say, the largest program of suspicionless surveillance in human history.
Starting to get tired from answering questions as first spelling mistake.
Final Question: Anything else you’d like to add?
Thanks to everyone for their support, and remember that just because you are not the target of a surveillance program does not make it okay. The US Person / foreigner distinction is not a reasonable substitute for individualized suspicion, and is only applied to improve support for the program. This is the precise reason that NSA provides Congress with a special immunity to its surveillance.










Watching Questions and Answers live was a very good experience and give more evidence to me that he is not an agent of TPTB.














Sunday, June 16, 2013

xbox one vs ps4

As a huge windows based gamer and having an xbox 360 in our living room which my sons play every day. I am really disappointed how Microsoft has screwed up the xbox franchise. I believe that Kinect is some of the the best technology that has been created ever.

So based on media the main arguments for each console

Reasons to buy the PlayStation 4 over Xbox One.

  • It's less restrictive. 
  • Tretton also said PS4 won't require a persistent online connection. 
  • It's cheaper by $100. 
  • A large, diverse games library.



Reasons to buy the Xbox One over PS4

  • Xbox Live. 
  • Powerful first-party options around launch. 
  • The Kinect/SmartGlass combination.


I feel that what has happened is Microsoft execs that have screwed up the licensing for Windows have become decision makers in the Xbox francise. This will cause a lot of bad will within the gaming community and they are different to punter decision makers who don't want to rock the boat and change platforms.


Reality is though that both ps and xbox franchises are in trouble where games from tablets and mobile phones are going to severely eat up into their playing time.

I have been playing video games since late seventies and its amazing to me the games I am playing the most in the last six months has been wow and lol which both don't have very old graphics. The key fun for me is testing my skills against other people






What do they have over Obama


I have been following Obama ever since he came up in my Radar in Daily Kos as a leader for the new century.  The Obama that I supported seems totally different to the one know that has agreed to sending USA into a war with Syria.

I have heard that Obama is worried that he has to follow orders otherwise he will go down the road of MLK.  I don't think its that simple and there has to be other major factors that he feels threatened about and amazingly I don't want to write about which is interesting in itself.

So what are his options. I can't really think of any so I suppose its better to just go with the flow. Must be doing something right though as I though we would have a financial reset by now and that threat in my mind is much less then it was a few years ago.

I think his best option is if possible to put people that are loyal to him in positions of power. Amazing how I can't think of anything good that could work. One of the things I would do is bring Colin Powell into my circle and start from their.

Iran elects Hassan Rouhani


Some positive news in Iran electing Hassan Rouhani. He was considered the most moderate of people standing in elections and one if first tasks is to create a civil rights charter.

For me the best part of this election it will be harder for the people to try and argue that they should go to war with Iran.

Another major positive is that Rouhani has since been a harsh critic of Ahmadinejad’s economic and foreign policy. I think this is a major step forward for the Iranian people.

Saturday, June 15, 2013

What would be reason TPTB used Edward Snowden as False Flag

This morning was wondering what would be reasons TPTB used for Edward Snowden actions being a False Flag. As his story/actions are so perfect (Refer Wolf's post below) the longer I think about the harder it is for me to believe that everything is what it seems. So if it is a False flag how are TPTB going to benefit.

First I think what is happening that "the powers that be" are fighting amongst themselves where one side controls NSA and the other the CIA.  Or its like what I wrote before is that TPTB have lost control of the organisations that they used before for their own means.

We are all human and with nature their are cycles of power and that is probably happening within TPTB. In my thinking the control of the CIA has been key tool for TPTB.

So this is what I think has happened TPTB have lost control of the organisation of the NSA who has acquired the ultimate power of people communication. As in all organisations the key to the power is the people and as majority of the people are contractors and this has also diluted their power. As key is not having people knowing that they are working for you but creating a culture that matches your aims, if the culture is to books as much profits as possible than it is harder to meet objectives that are outside the normal procedures.

David Petraeus losing his job at CIA smells of information retrieved by NSA. So plan was put in motion to discredit the credibility of NSA and main contractors that are not controlled by the CIA wing of TPTB. So three birds in one stone NSA, Contractors and Booze Allen. So far this plan seems to be working.  Like what could be the worse collateral damage from this exercise?


I am happy taking the blue pill so why has the actions of Edward Snowden woke me up, probably because I believe in his message and find its important that there becomes trust in organisations and people again for society to work effectively and the idea of a power made up of people knowing everything you do is not a good recipe for that to happen.

Which brings me to the question of do I care if Edward Snowden is a false flag? So far not really but writing about this is really giving me clarity of the situation. But what for?


Naomi Wolf Reasoning

a) He is super-organized, for a whistleblower,  in terms of what candidates, the White House, the State Dept. et al call ‘message discipline.’ He insisted on publishing  a power point in the newspapers that ran his initial revelations. I gather that he arranged for a talented filmmaker to shoot the Greenwald interview. These two steps — which are evidence of great media training, really ‘PR 101″ — are virtually never done (to my great distress) by other whistleblowers, or by progressive activists involved in breaking news, or by real courageous people who are under stress and getting the word out. They are always done, though, by high-level political surrogates. 

b) In the Greenwald video interview, I was concerned about the way Snowden conveys his message. He is not struggling for words, or thinking hard, as even bright, articulate whistleblowers under stress will do. Rather he appears to be transmitting whole paragraphs smoothly, without stumbling. To me this reads as someone who has learned his talking points — again the way that political campaigns train surrogates to transmit talking points. 

c) He keeps saying things like, “If you are a journalist and they think you are the transmission point of this info, they will certainly kill you.” Or: “I fully expect to be prosecuted under the Espionage Act.” He also keeps stressing what he will lose: his $200,000 salary, his girlfriend, his house in Hawaii. These are the kinds of messages that the police state would LIKE journalists to take away; a real whistleblower also does not put out potential legal penalties as options, and almost always by this point has a lawyer by his/her side who would PROHIBIT him/her from saying, ‘come get me under the Espionage Act.” Finally in my experience, real whistleblowers are completely focused on their act of public service and trying to manage the jeopardy to themselves and their loved ones; they don’t tend ever to call attention to their own self-sacrifice. That is why they are heroes, among other reasons. But a police state would like us all to think about everything we would lose by standing up against it. 

d) It is actually in the Police State’s interest to let everyone know that everything you write or say everywhere is being surveilled, and that awful things happen to people who challenge this. Which is why I am not surprised that now he is on UK no-fly lists – I assume the end of this story is that we will all have a lesson in terrible things that happen to whistleblowers. That could be because he is a real guy who gets in trouble; but it would be as useful to the police state if he is a fake guy who gets in ‘trouble.’ 

e) In stories that intelligence services are advancing (I would call the prostitutes-with-the-secret-service such a story), there are great sexy or sex-related mediagenic visuals that keep being dropped in, to keep media focus on the issue. That very pretty pole-dancing Facebooking girlfriend who appeared for, well, no reason in the media coverage…and who keeps leaking commentary, so her picture can be recycled in the press…really, she happens to pole-dance? Dan Ellsberg’s wife was and is very beautiful and doubtless a good dancer but somehow she took a statelier role as his news story unfolded…

f) Snowden is in Hong Kong, which has close ties to the UK, which has done the US’s bidding with other famous leakers such as Assange. So really there are MANY other countries that he would be less likely to be handed over from…

g) Media reports said he had vanished at one point to ‘an undisclosed location’ or ‘a safe house.’ Come on. There is no such thing. Unless you are with the one organization that can still get off the surveillance grid, because that org created it. 

h) I was at dinner last night to celebrate the brave and heroic Michael Ratner of the Center for Constitutional Rights. Several of Assange’s also brave and talented legal team were there, and I remembered them from when I had met with Assange. These attorneys are present at every moment when Assange meets the press — when I met with him off the record last Fall in the Ecuadoran embassy, his counsel was present the whole time, listening and stepping in when necessary. 

Friday, June 14, 2013

List of people attacking Edward Snowden

Interested in who are under control of TPTB, so thought making a list would be interesting.  A good way is in how they are smearing Edward Snowden.

Below are people that who I think are actively smearing Snowden for ulterior motives. List will be constantly updated until I am bored with it.

Politicians
Speaker - John Boehner
U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein
Congressman - Peter King
U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham
U.S. Senator Al Franken
U.S. Senator Mitch McConnell
U.S. Senator Saxby Chambliss
Minority Leader - Nanci Pelosi
U.S. Senator John Cornyn
Congressman - Mike Rogers
U.S. Senator Susan Collins
US Representative - Debbie Wasserman Schultz
Congressman - Charles Albert "Dutch" Ruppersberger III
U.S Senator - Chuck Schumer
U.S Senator Menendez



Media Commentators
Jeffrey Toobin -  CNN
Chris Mathews - MSNBC
David Gregory -  NBC
Tom Brokaw- NBC
Joe Scarborough  - MSNBC
Lawrence Odonnell  - MSNBC
Diane Sawyer -  ABC
Ralph Peters - Fox
Karen Finney  - MSNBC
Ari Fleischer - CNN
Ralph Peters
Larry King
Dick Cheney
Ed Schultz - MSNBC
Bob Schieffer - CBS
Candy Crowley - CNN
Mika Brzezinski -  MSNBC
Melissa Harris-Perry - MSNBC


Web Commentators
Josh Marshal - TPM
Charles Johnson - LGF
Henry Blodget - Business Insider
Andrew Sullivan - The Dish
Bob Cesca
Roger Simon -  Politico


Reporters
David Brooks - NYT
Roger Simon - Politico
Joe Klein - TIME
Richard Cohen - Washington Post
Thomas Friedman - NYT
Marc Thiessen - Washington Post
Bill Sher
Ed Morrissey
Matt Miller
Rick Perlstein - The Nation
Willard Foxton
Andrew Ross Sorkin - NYT

Celebrity
Donald Trump
Former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton
David Simon

Government Employee
Director of National Intelligence James Clapper
Keith Alexander
Dana Perino
Senior spokesman for the NSA Don Weber



Criteria for getting on the list.
Saying releasing power point slides will affect national security
Calling Edward Snowden a weazal, kid or  some other disparaging remark, mainly attacking the messenger instead of the message.
Gut feeling but problem is I am getting a feeling that some maybe just doing it for hits so will rank them.

Thoughts on list
Not surprised at the number of Senators compared to congressmen as that is the position that needs most money to get elected.
Surprised at the number of MSNBC commentators but the reality is that TPTB need to keep promoting divide an conquer meme so the left side need to keep their side on page. Also right side is losing its influence on their people.
Not surprised at large number of NYT and Washington Post reporters as it follows MSNBC commentators reasoning. Was surprised at Snowden trying to spill leaks to Washington Post
Not happy putting David Simon on the list and may be wrong with that. Guessing he was recruited after the Wire.

I am still not 100% convinced that Snowden is not a pawn of TPTB/NSAvsCIA as his story and the way it has been played out so far is nearly flawless.



The major threat to Freedom of the Press


Amazing haven't played lol in three days as am so interested in Snowden NSA leaks. One of the major aspects of this case, that is not being reported, is how NSA surveliance has destroyed the Freedom of the press.

Wiki definition is
Freedom of the press or freedom of the media is the freedom of communication and expression through mediums including various electronic media and published materials. While such freedom mostly implies the absence of interference from an overreaching state, its preservation may be sought through constitutional or other legal protections.


The key to freedom of the press is to be able to report on major injustices or corruption, otherwise all the press is doing, are media releases or propaganda for whoever owns the press.

The major way journalists are able to break stories is by getting scoops through people that have an understanding of the story. So there has to be communication between Journalist and the whistle blower. If no communication can take place because you are in a surveillance state then how can the story be reported.

The key has always been journalist not giving their sources but under a surveillance state you cant keep you sources secret as they can track you through the meta data. So you have a system where people are not able to showcase their corruption unless it is in the best interest of one of the owners of the media company.

Edward Snowden is different as he knows how to communicate with journalist as he has access to the surveillance methods.  So if the major corruption is coming from government how is the press supposed to report on it in a surveillance state.



Below is Debate by Chrish hodges which man clear of this idea that Press Freedoms have been lost.