More bafflegab from our President...

[truth2power]

Ever since this whole "spying" issue surfaced a few weeks ago, something has been bothering me greatly. So I thought I would post my thoughts here, for whatever it's worth.

NOTE: I would appreciate it if anyone who wants to alert on this post would read it first in order to get the gist of what I'm trying to say. Thanks.

Several weeks ago I heard the President say, in defense of the program to gather information on the telephone calls of the American people, "You can't have 100% security and 100% privacy." At the time I thought, "What a silly thing for the President to say." I have no expectation of, nor do I think it's possible, to achieve 100% security. Every one of us is at risk of life and limb, every single day, as a result of some freak accident or perhaps the actions of another. We simply live with this possibility and go on about our lives. There's nothing we can do about it.

In this regard, a couple of anecdotes will suffice. Some months ago I fell out of bed while trying to climb over my cat in the middle of the night in order to use the bathroom. In the process, I bashed my head on the edge of the bedside table and bled all over everything (scalp wounds bleed A LOT). I remember bleeding into the bathroom sink and thinking I would surely have to to go to the emergency room. Fortunately, I was able to get everything under control and eventually return to bed, my cat having absconded to better sleeping accommodations, elsewhere.

More recently, I was in my car waiting for the light so I could cross a busy 4 lane highway. When the light changed I was a few seconds late starting into the intersection. As I started to proceed, a car came speeding through the red light at about 60 mph. If I had been a little quicker on the uptake I would have been t-boned, on the driver's side, and wouldn't be here to tell the story. Obviously, I am not safe in my own home nor in my car. Nonetheless, I have not begun sleeping on the floor, nor have I given up driving.

As far as real terrorist plots, I think I'm more likely to get caught in the crossfire of one of the CIA or FBI faux-terrorist entrapment schemes. My chances of being harmed by some genuine Muslim extremists seem to be vanishingly small.

So what is this 100% security thing that Pres. Obama is trying to promote? He's manipulating the language, and he knows very well what he's doing. He's not stupid.

I don't know what kind of logical fallacy it is, but he's using a false premise in order to defend the indefensible ( spying on his own citizens). Tell you what....I'll continue to deal with day to day risks to my safety, and he'll respect my privacy. Most of it, anyway; And not keep chipping away at it day after day.

[CJCRANE]

1. I take it mean it's more like 50/50...there's a balance somewhere in the middle. nt

[truth2power]

10. You are, no doubt, correct. Perhaps I should edit that part. I don't really expect 100% privacy...

I don't think it's possible to have that this day and age. Even allowing for the fact that I have a Facebook pagewhich I created for one specific reason and I don't use it. I ignore requests to friend people.

This 'mission creep' is beyond the pale, though.

[graham4anything]

2. It is very straightforward...

he answers those who say, well this event wasn't stopped

but the person that says it, fails in logic

because even if it saves ONE life and stops ONE event
that is one event more

And nobody has 100% privacy now

As always though, President Obama has NEVER failed to impress me with his Lincoln like wisdom.

[msongs]

7. we had to kill the patient to save him (or her) nt

[graham4anything]

12. not at all. far from it.

Consider a cross street with NO signs or lights

10 or 20 accidents with fatalities later, they put in a stop sign

20 more and they put in a traffic light

Maybe in the next 10 years, one or two accidents from careless drivers not stopping

However, 100s of accidents were prevented and people saved.

of course, one can always look at the gas tank and say its 1/2 empty
but in reality, it's 1/2 full
and probably that means one can still go for a few hundred miles or so, before needing a refill.

[JDPriestly]

37. So you are in favor of throwing away the Constitution.

The best way to end the accidents on that street is to shut the street down, close it off to all traffic. That's the only way you can insure that there will be no accidents.

In other words, you cannot keep traffic moving and still prevent all accidents. People make mistakes. They fall asleep at the wheel. They fail to calculate the intentions of another driver correctly. Children scream in the back seat and distract the driver. You cannot totally prevent accidents, not with our current technology.

So you compare the price that will be paid under the various solutions. For example if you have no stop signs, you will have a massacre. But if you place a stop sign say, every 50 feet on every street (which would insure the most safety), traffic won't move quickly enough. That would be inefficient and unjustified by the risk. You balance the risks and the costs with the benefits.

The problem with this broad surveillance program is that it is the internet equivalent of placing stop signs every 10 feet and then not letting drivers know the stop signs are there.

I know, that's not possible but you understand. If you secretly imposed a law that everyone has to stop every 10 feet, come to a complete stop or get a ticket, people would wake up one morning absolutely enraged to discover that the road that they travel every morning has become virtually impassable.

This surveillance program is too all encompassing, too broad. And it is too secretive. They might as well just shut the internet down. Today and tomorrow we are all here, but I expect that when the hullabaloo quiets down, some people will be less likely to say what they think freely to each other.

That is what you call chilling speech -- a law that causes people to think twice before speaking or writing, to self-censor their speech. A law or program, regardless of the legality of the underlying statute, is quite likely to be deemed unconstitutional if it chills speech. And a law that appears to be quite constitutional can be deemed unconstitutional if it is applied so as to, for example, chill speech.

So there is your problem. This program, if it is what has been described, probably violates the Constitution. The current Court may not come to that decision, but eventually a Supreme Court will order this surveillance to stop. Either that or our country will cease to be a place that respects free speech and in which you and I can have discourse like this on the internet.

[awoke_in_2003]

53. He is for anything. nt

[AtheistCrusader]

26. Do me a favor. If a terrorist ever kills me...

Don't change how you live on my account. My death is not worth even 1% of your freedom.

[Ms. Toad]

40. +1000 n/t

[kardonb]

38. straightforward

bravo . Graham ! It get so sick of all this phony outrage . Would all these grousers rather have Robme as pres. ? Obama's motto is :safety first ; THAT is important . Therefore it is of the greatest importance to track and find our enemies , foreign or domestic , by any means at hand.

[BlueCheese]

3. Exactly.

We don't lower our speed limit to 25 mph even though that would save far more lives than have been lost, tragically and horrendously, through terrorism.

I don't understand why so many people are willing to give up something so precious-- their Constitutional liberties-- to protect against something so unlikely.

Also, I'd check out your cat. I'm not sure it was an accident.

[geek tragedy]

6. by the same token, we don't allow people to drive 105 MPH either.

The question is where the appropriate balance is struck.

People like Greenwald and Obama don't disagree that there is a balancing act, they disagree on how to perform that balancing.

[BlueCheese]

19. You make a good point.

The phone records collection strikes me as mounting jet engines on your car and going 300 mph down a residential street. Maybe Obama really thinks it's reasonable, but he needs to justify it beyond vague generalities. The incredible secrecy surrounding the program makes it impossible for us to judge.

[geek tragedy]

20. the whole "first rule of fight club" dynamic makes this very troublesome.

I understand the need to not tell bad guys "here's how you avoid our intelligence efforts" but when the public doesn't even understand what's going on, it's gone too far.

[truth2power]

17. Pfft! there goes my keyboard...

It's a queen size bed. I think he DOES want it all to himself.

Also, I saw some numbers...chance of getting killed by a terrorist is less than being hit by lightning. And other interesting comparisons, too. Don't remember where I saw that. Perspective!

[A Simple Game]

28. The odds of how you will die. How true, if you want to help me live a long and happy life

Mr. President, let's put most of that money being spent saving me from a terrorist and spend it on on a cure for what most likely will kill me, cancer and heart disease.

I was just wondering, why doesn't anybody talk about suitcase nuclear or dirty bombs anymore?

[PADemD]

34. I wonder what the odds are for collapsing bridge vs terrorist.

I live in PA.

http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/local/state/1364-state-bridges-face-weight-limits-unless-fixed-690705/

[JDPriestly]

39. Cats have long been suspected as conspirators with evil spirits.

A conspiracy. Wouldn't you know it. The usual suspects. Cats. (And don't we love them anyway.)

[zeemike]

43. Perhaps they don't believe in constitutional liberties in the first place.

There are people like that everywhere...they only feel comfortable with strict obedience to authority...

And you could be right about that cat thing...they do seem to make things happen.

[Th1onein]

45. "Also, I'd check out your cat. I'm not sure it was an accident."

OMG, that's priceless!

[geek tragedy]

4. There is a mentality that if there's a terrorist attack it means the government has failed. nt

[Fumesucker]

9. There's a mentality for any stupid thing you can think of and a lot that you can't think of too

[BlueCheese]

14. I think politicians are more afraid of that than they should be.

For all the Republicans' stupid attempts to blow it out of proportion, Benghazi remains a faint distraction. Very few people seriously blame the government for not catching the Boston bombers. We all understand that life carries risks. Britain and Israel lived through far more daily terror than we ever do, without apparently creating the same kind of surveillance states.

I wish we were more mature about this as a society.

[Still Sensible]

15. Well actually, I think the mentality that is getting not so subtly

promoted is more along the lines of "if there's a terrorist attack under a democratic administration it means the administration failed." Obviously, if such an attack occurs when a republican sits in the White House, it isn't a failure because they are tougher on terrorists, dontcha know?

[RobertEarl]

5. Aww, c'mon Obama wouldn't do you no harm

If he wants to be able to watch over, under, sideways, from above or from below, in the dark and in the sun, know that his most important concern is your well being.

We all have to wonder: "How did we ever survive without Obama?" Sure, he's not the ONE who does all this looking after you, he has minions to do that. Last I heard he has at least 1,931 companies on duty, on call, always there. And now they know your cat is trouble.

[MotherPetrie]

8. "Bafflegab" -- perfect word

The president excels at bafflegab. And no, that is not a compliment.

[RC]

33. And "Bafflegab" a real word too.

Bafflegabing is far worse than word salad, because there is intelligence behind Bafflegab.

[truth2power]

51. "bafflegab"...I didn't originate that term. Heard it somewhere a long time ago.

[Scuba]

11. But the Prez wasn't speaking to just you....

And he didn't have to get to the "lowest common denominator" to find folks who expect 100% security.

I recall speaking to people after 9/11 who just couldn't believe our government would let that happen. "Isn't that what our defense is for?" they asked.

When I described our then-current military doctrine as being able to sustain two wars on seperate remote fronts simultaneously, they were incredulous. They thought we had a constant watch on any threat entering the country.

Interesting that these same folks had no concerns at all regarding privacy.

[reusrename]

27. lihop?

more like mihop.

[Scuba]

30. No, they weren't alleging any conspiracies. They just thought they were 100% secure.

They were also very certain that government only acted in the best interests of the People.

[Egalitarian Thug]

13. Bafflegab. That is one great word.

Unfortunately, I can hear the alert links being burnt to a crisp as I type.

I'm still waiting for someone to explain how any of these power grabs would have stopped any of the acts that are given as reasons for why they have to have the power...
& R

[BlueStreak]

16. POTUS uses a straw man argument

As you point out, nobody should have an expectation of 100% security.

And in reality, this Big Data still is all about police enforcement, not crime prevention. When a crime has been committed, if they have a suspect, they'd like to click a few buttons and find out everybody the suspect has been in contact with in the past 45 days.

I heard a good metaphor last week. Building a bigger haystack actually makes it HARDER to find the needle. The "haystack" is unlikely to help prevent many crimes or terror attacks. But it can make the police a lot more efficient after the crime.

And that is not necessarily a bad thing. If a bomber is arrested, wouldn't we want to find out if there are other accomplices still on the loose?

So let's at least have the debate on an honest premise, and not more of that Bush bullshit about everything being necessary to "stop the terrorists".

And if we can have that debate, it can certainly be argued that the government does not have to compile a thick dossier on every citizen just in case the citizen might commit a crime. There are other, Constitutional, ways to use technology to help the police do their jobs efficiently and with accountability.

(off your primary topic)

Regarding your comment about DU alerts, I see nothing in your post that comes anywhere near violating TOU. But the reality at DU these days is that a small group of easily offended people are abusing the alert system -- using it as a sword rather than a shield. Any jurors should keep that in mind. I encourage all jurors to use the widest possible latitude here so that debates are conducted in the open, rather than through the alert system, whenever possible. It would also be nice to see the alert system evolve to penalize people who repeatedly make alerts that are not upheld by the juries. For example, if within the past 90 days, a person has raised 5 alerts that are not upheld, then a "thin skin" icon should appear next to their handle anywhere the handle appears on the site, and they would be blocked from making any further alerts for awhile.

[Autumn]

18. rec for an awesome word

bafflegab

[snagglepuss]

21. to read later

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

22. As a CYA comment, it was a flop. He needs a new speechwriter.

[forestpath]

23. Another rec for the word "bafflegab"

[KittyWampus]

24. So our privacy is absolute? The Govt can't get a search warrant if deemed necessary? Cause that's

what is at the base of this non-scandal.

Sorry to break it to you.

[LWolf]

25. "Bafflegab."

[mattclearing]

29. From the President's point-of-view, anything less than 100% safety is politically unacceptable.

Ever since Dubya claimed responsibility by "fighting them over there," etc., the conventional wisdom is that the President can prevent terrorist attacks.

It's utter crap, of course, and further evidence that the President accepts right-wing/corporate media frames, but I can see why 100% safety would be the goal for him.

[Half-Century Man]

31. I think we do need protection...

..but not from foreign bogeymen. We need protection from our fellow citizens and their financial terrorist organizations. We need protection from the slathering fanatics of privatization of governmental services. We need protection from the modern day Simon Legrees of corporate prisons. We need protection from the bastards who think the world is their toilet, and shit everywhere.

[JDPriestly]

42. Yes. The sub-prime mortgage fraud did more harm to

Americans than the terrorists did. What has harmed us is the overwrought fear of terrorism. We are spending too much of our time and money on preventing terrorism. Why don't we just restrict tourism and student visas from any country associated with a terrorist in any part of the world. That would put an end to terrorism where it starts -- in the countries from which the terrorists come.

[Half-Century Man]

44. I say give it the attention the topic deserves...

which in reality is nearly none.
Disband the Department of Homeland Security. Undo the massive Intelligence apparatus and make 2 and only 2 agencies for security. The FBI for In border security, and an international security group (CIA,DSS,and NSA are tainted scandal; Combine, consolidate, and clean up the remnants).

Make corporations follow National foreign policy. Their profits do not trump our combined interests. Jail, for long periods, company executives who break the law.

[JDPriestly]

46. Good ideas. Now if we just had good politicians to put them into

practice.

[Half-Century Man]

48. Band together and tell them.

Tell the democratic party that we will not vote for candidates who fail us. Demand new candidates. Write letters to newspapers, magazines, congresspeople, unions, and each other.
Attend county, state and regional conventions.
Make things change..

[WillyT]

32. K & R !!! - THANK YOU !!!

[GoneFishin]

35. "More people drown in bathtubs"

Terrorism and Bathtubs

"One's chance of being killed in a terrorist attack is many times less than one's chance of drowning in a bathtub or being killed by a fall from scaffolding or a ladder." Cato Institute's Handbook for Congress.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/10/terrorism_and_bathtubs.html

[Swede Atlanta]

36. The implementation of the President's logic is false....

I completely agree you cannot have 100% security and 100% privacy and the question is where is that 'sweet spot' balance? Unfortunately we know that Americans are of a very mixed mind on that question, i.e. how much security (X) are you willing to give up in order to have 100-X privacy or vice versa.

Some say "if you don't have anything to hide" then there are no limits to the level of intrusion those Americans would allow in the name of security. Interesting enough many of those individuals are the ones that embrace the idea of a smaller government, no "gubermint" health care, endless war. They don't seem too concerned about the government intruding into people's bedrooms as long as those bedrooms aren't their own (i.e. me good married/miserable heterosexual but he/she bad unmarried heterosexual or homosexual) and into women's bodies but are aghast at the thought of having to register to buy a deadly weapon.

Then you have those that don't want to give up any measure of privacy in order to achieve security. Their bets are that security can be managed relatively well by non-intrusive means or that the likelihood of another terror attack are small or at least small with respect to an attack in which they would be directly involved.

To both sides I say "bull". The question isn't whether I have something to hide or not. The question is the 4th Amendment protects me from unwanted government surveillance UNLESS they have specific, credible evidence to get a warrant. At the same time we do need enhanced intelligence gathering to thwart the types of schemes that have been prevented over the past several years.

No, for me the point is the President isn't delivering 100% security in exchange for sacrificing essentially all privacy. Since 9-11 there have been four terrorist attacks most of which "fizzled" but which were not detected by the security dragnet. Those include the shoe bomber, the underwear bomber, the Times Square bomber and of course Boston.

But even if he was delivering 100% security I am not willing to give up my 4th Amendment rights any more than the tea baggers are willing to give us what they believe are their 2nd Amendment rights (Sorry Supremes you got this one wrong because you cannot even read the plain English words in the Constitution ). I have nothing to hide but neither is my government allowed under the Constitution to do what it is doing. Congress and the President cannot pass laws or interpret laws in ways that are unconstitutional. Unfortunately for us we have a Supreme Court packed with conservatives that have interpreted the Constitution to give the federal government broad powers to surveil American citizens, hold them without charges, kill them on foreign soil, etc.

[JaneyVee]

41. A few weeks ago? Wasn't this just 2 days ago? Btw, I live in the #1 terrorist target in the world.

[bvar22]

47. You live in Iraq????

WOW.

[font size=3]As a target for terrorists, U.S. ranks No. 41 in world[/font]

The index is based on a two-year analysis of statistics from the University of Maryland’s National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism. The data include detailed information — weapons, casualties, perpetrators — on attacks worldwide from 1970 through 2011. The index helps “demystify this destructive behavior,” said Gary LaFree, director of the consortium. The study itself was published by the Institute for Economics and Peace, a nonprofit research group based in Australia and New York City.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/dec/4/as-a-target-for-terrorists-us-ranks-no-41-in-world/#ixzz2VrDAj7ZS

[truth2power]

50. You're correct. It was Friday, June 7, during remarks about his Affordable Care Act...

I swear, I can't keep up. My brain is like a cluttered attic.

[Aerows]

49. Bullshit is bullshit

Even the President's supporters know it when the step in it, and you aren't going to convince people they don't smell it.

I already said on Friday that those hoping it would go away over the weekend were dreaming. Your talking points have sucked since day one.

[awoke_in_2003]

52. I think your cat may be trying to kill you...

just kidding

[UTUSN]

54. The Cat Chow company's got more data on you than the President ever will (or wants, really). n/t