I can't believe it's not a democracy!

This is going to leave a mark:

Stunt double for Oscar-winning actress Angelina Jolie accuses Rupert Murdoch's media company of hacking into her phone...in the U.S. This is the first U.S. lawsuit. Why is that significant? Because U.S. claims tend to pay out higher damage amounts than similar claims tried in the UK. I believe the fees are greater in the U.S. as well. Ca-ching.

I'm sure the government will be right on this:

Jail reckless bankers, standards commission urges. Eric Holder has this under control, so no worries. Hahahahahahaha. The article is about a British commission. And may I add, nice timing. I mean, what is the statute of limitations on the actions leading up to and causing the man-made fiscal crisis? That is, are these ongoing crimes? Because there are fairly tight statutes of limitations period in this country. Just saying.

This gives me great hope:

More Americans see man who leaked NSA secrets as 'patriot' than traitor. Obama has a problem. Good, he earned it. I bet I'm not the only person on the left who wouldn't care if the republicans wanted to impeach him over this. Hell, I'd support it. But they won't, because they want that power when the next republican is in the White House, which, after all of the damage Obama has done to the democratic brand, will be in 2016. Unless...?

Patriot hero:

Edward Snowden: the whistleblower behind the NSA surveillance revelations. This is how a hero thinks: In a note accompanying the first set of documents he provided, he wrote: "I understand that I will be made to suffer for my actions," but "I will be satisfied if the federation of secret law, unequal pardon and irresistible executive powers that rule the world that I love are revealed even for an instant."

The Guardian adds: But he believed that the value of the internet, along with basic privacy, is being rapidly destroyed by ubiquitous surveillance. "I don't see myself as a hero," he said, "because what I'm doing is self-interested: I don't want to live in a world where there's no privacy and therefore no room for intellectual exploration and creativity."

I understand that democratic senators Wyden and Udall have attempted to get the word out about this filthy overreaching by NSA and the Obama administration despite being subject limitations due to material being classified as top secret. This happened under W with Sen. Rockefeller. Long and short, when your government is engaging in criminal acts that undermine the Constitution, any attempt to punish the whistleblower for reporting what is happening is itself criminal. Senators Wyden and Udall, step forward and help this brave man. The people, they are watching.

A must read from Ian Welsh:

The Logic of the Surveillance State. You start noticing that certain western states suddenly agree that putting up cameras all around various cities are a good way to, allegedly, fight crime. Yeah, after the fact. It doesn't stop crime, but it is an excellent way to monitor everyone. And, as Welsh points out, as pattern recognition becomes better, the elites can have their datamining fine tuned to watch those who may cause them discomfort. In the end, this will fail, but as much as I know it is going on, and given that I've never bought the American exceptionalism argument, I am still shocked that people aren't absolutely outraged by this unprecedented instrusion by the government. Notice that I said "the" government and not "our" government, because it's not our government any more.

Monsters to go after American hero:

US spy agency seeks criminal probe into leaks - Director of National Intelligence James Clapper accuses media of being "reckless" in revealing monitoring of internet.. The story isn't that the spy agency "monitors" the fucking internet, it's that it is violating the fourth amendment rights of every goddamn American by datamining all phone and internet activity. And yes, it's fucking criminal. Whoever has leaked this story deserves a medal (although as others have noted, this is whistleblowing, which should be protected). That said, of course the criminals would try to criminalize the hero. Old playbook. See Manning, Bradley. I hope that whoever did this is already in Ecuador.

A must read by Norman Solomon:

The Bill of Rights Exists: An Open Letter to Dianne Feinstein. The special people aren't worried because they think they get a pass because they are elite. But none of them know how to code or hack to do any of the things the NSA is doing every fucking minute. Maybe when one of them gets their tit in a ringer things will change.

The entire letter is worth a read, but these two sentences are particularly powerful: Whoever leaked the four-page Surveillance Court document to Glenn Greenwald at The Guardian deserves a medal and an honorary parade down Pennsylvania Avenue in the Nation’s Capital. The only “threats” assisted by disclosure of that document are the possibilities of meaningful public discourse and informed consent of the governed.

By the way, if the NSA collected every communication since 9/11, more or less, then it should have access to all trades and communications by Goldman Sachs, right? Oh wait, they gave early money to Obama. Lloyd Blankfein sleeps securely at night.

Not surprised that this is being done--I assumed so--but I am surprised by people who claim to be surprised:

NSA taps in to internet giants' systems to mine user data, secret files reveal. The subheads read: • Top secret PRISM program claims direct access to servers of firms including Google, Facebook and Apple • Companies deny any knowledge of program in operation since 2007

I read somewhere that two of the companies assisting the NSA in violating our constitutional rights were Israeli corporations. So the NSA is using foreign nationals to violate the rights of citizens? Outrageous. And dangerous. If this doesn't offend you, replace "Israel" with "Germany" or "Saudi Arabia" or whatever country you don't trust and think about it.

Hey, isn't the government official(s) who orders this wholescale violation of every American's constitutional rights--or allows it to continue on his watch--committing an impeachable offense? Because harvesting everyone fucking citizen's e-mail (and everyone else too, no doubt) without so much as a warrant must be an unlawful search and seizure under the fourth amendment, right?

Where are the tea baggers on this one? Because if they start screaming bloody murder about the violation of their constitutional rights, I've got their back on this one issue.

Finally, how do we punish the companies that went along? Boycott, yes, but it's not that easy when every other person has an iPhone or Android based phone. I wonder if there is something in the user agreement that opens all of these companies to law suits by customers who are outraged that their private communications were harvested without a warrant. I bet there are more than a few law firms smacking their lips over this one. Until, of course, congress passes FISA II, giving all the bad actors a pass. And that's when I note that the reason I did not vote for Obama the first time was because of his vote in favor of FISA. I didn't the second time because I don't vote for monsters.

Socialist liberal, my ass:

NSA collecting phone records of millions of Americans daily -- Top secret court order requiring Verizon to hand over all call data shows scale of domestic surveillance under Obama. I didn't vote for Obama for president in either election year, and yeah, I'm damn proud of it. His administration is worse than W's in going after whistle blowers and in its persistent violation of our constitutional rights. Obama, the constituional scholar, and his adminsitration are monsters. The only hope for 2016 is that enough people, disgusted with this pretend two-party system (Gore Vidal was right, we have one party, the Property Party, with two wings) demand real candidates who actually will serve the mass of men and not a handful with fat wallets. Naive? Depends on the circumstances. I'm sure the thought that the king and queen would meet a brutish end seemed naive in France around, say, 1788.

If being a scheming, Murdoch-enabling bitch is a crime, then she's going in the big house for good:

Rebekah Brooks to appear in court -- Former News International chief will be asked to plead guilty or not guilty to three sets of charges. You think Rupert will visit her in prison?