Actually, the proof that something did not end up in the hands of the Chinese, the Russians, or myself for that matter, is quite difficult, given that evidence of absence is impossible to obtain. However, the absence of evidence to the claim that they have gained access to information through Snowden himself is reason enough for me.

You want proof that nothing was transfered to them? Might as well try to prove the non-existance of the famous tea pot in orbit.

So the basic argument boils down to motivation as well as credibility of claims.

His motivation to keep access to his material restricted to the selected group of journalists is apparent from his own interviews. They are supposed to be the check on the government, they lack the information to fullfil the role, they need access to correct (what he perceived to be) a wrong, namely a grave breach of your consitution on a previously unheard of scale.
Providing access to Russia or China would instantly negate all hope of ever not drawing the short straw in this mess, as the US is the only country on the planet who can provide him with amnesty and therefore safety.

So why would he do it? For a shot at asylum? You know as well as I do that (permanent) asylum in China/Russia is worthless if the US is after you. Europe could guarantee one's safety, but given the lack of sovereignty vis-a-vis the US, it would not be an option.

That leaves credibility of claims. And that's where my first reason comes into play, the one you put down as "naive". His opponents, those in positions of power, be it inside government or the press, have a track record of being... let's not mince words here, lying sacks of shit. James Clapper's act of perjury on front of Congress is just the most prominent manifestation of it. The entire bunch lied their asses off during the preparation of the invasion of Iraq, they lied their asses off during the revelations triggered by Chelsea Manning and they lied their asses off about the total und unrelenting surveillance of American citizens in violation of their constitutional rights.

If you think supervision of the NSA by the Select Committee on Intelligence is actually working, I suggest you take a look at statements by Senator Wyden. The NSA even plays them for fools. Hell, Bruce Schneier was recently approached by members of Congress to explain to them what the NSA was doing, because the NSA refused to. Great oversight, works like a charm. By the way, it's the same fucking deal with GCHQ and the BND.

So yes, the fella who "stole" data is actually a trustworthy figure, because a) his claims were true and b) his actions pulled off the veil that covered the fact that 320 million Americans had their private data stolen and were sold out by agencies of their own government in conjunction with private intelligence contractors.

What else...

Ah, yeah. "Sloppy" and "stupid". Again, if he was sloppy and stupid, what does that say about the internal control structure of the intelligence industry? They didn't notice shit, they still claim to be unaware of what precisely he took with him. Great security, fellas.

"He could have allowed the press to do it's job without disclosing a much of what has been released."

He disclosed nothing. He is not an experienced journalist and therefore, by his own admission, not qualified to make the call what to publish and how. That's why he handed it over to Barton Gellman at the WaPo, Glenn Greenwald at the Guardian and Laura Poitras, who worked closely with Der Spiegel.

If Spiegel, WaPo and Guardian are not reputable institutions of journalism, none are. So he did precisely what you claim he should have done: he allowed the press to do its bloody job and released fuck all himself.

As for the cheap shot at not being an American: seventy years ago, your folks liberated us from the plague of fascism, brought us freedom. Am I supposed to just sit here and watch my brothers and sisters in the US become the subjects of total surveillance, the kind my country suffered from during two dictatorships in the last century?

Ironically, that would be un-American, at least the way I understand it.

And there's nothing gleeful about my concerns. I am deeply furious about this shit and even more so about the apathy of people all around the world. You think I want Americans to suffer from the same shit we went through as a petty form of payback?

Fuck that. It's the intelligence industry that I'm gunning for. Your nationality doesn't mean squat, some intelligence agency has its crosshairs on you wherever you live. It just happens to be an American citizen who had the balls to provide us with the info to finally try and protect citizens in all countries from the overreaching abuse by the intelligence industry.

In fact, I'd rather worry about our own massive problems within Europe (rise of fascism in Greece, 60% youth unemployment, unelected governments, etc). So can we please just dismantle all these spy agencies and get on with our lives?

Sorry if this is incoherent, but it's late and I'm even more pissed off than usual.

According to hermeneuticians, economics is apparently a matter of popular opinion. Ostriches. Like someone shot in the belly but continuing to work, ignoring the fact that he's bleeding out does not obviate the fact.

Collectivist anarchy cannot exist, unless what you mean by "anarchy" is chaos, for reasons already stated. But in the abstract, yes, you can advocate some sort of incoherence like anarcho-syndcalism and still call it anarchy. That's why some like to specify and call the (in my opinion) more coherent and desirable anarchism, libertarian anarchy or anarcho-capitalism, or free market anarchism, or voluntaryism. Any type of communalism or syndicate requires rulers to administer the "communal," which, unless unanimously selected, is in direct contrast with the purpose of anarchism (which means "without rulers"). And then you have the problem of coming up with and enforcing the "communal" rules without engaging in aggression.

Perhaps "we are getting snagged on definitions." I am not clear on your position so it could be the disagreements have to do with definitions. If you redefine socialism in a non-Marxist way, maybe you can make libertarian socialism coherent.

If you can come up with a social organization that involves zero initiation of violence against persons or their property, then whatever you want to call it, it agrees with libertarian anarchy.

Let me define the basic principle of the anarchism that I favor, to avoid semantic problems: non-aggression means never initiating violence against any individual or their property.
Property can only be a scarce resource. Non-scarce resources cannot be property or owned. You acquire property through homesteading, first appropriation, voluntary trade, or inheritance.
Legally, you can enforce contracts/voluntary agreements, and punish any violations of a person's "self" or property, meaning you can enforce non-aggression.
This view I call anarchy-capitalism, libertarian anarchy, or voluntaryism.
Or free market anarchy.

Nah, more likely a personal problem between yourself and the latest cabal of you and your fan boys. My suggestion for the pain you may be experiencing is to follow the lead of newtboy and utilize the 'ignore' feature. You sell the rest of the place short with your assumptions as well, 'to the amusement of no-one but your own ego.'

Was that 'incoherent' or 'nonsensical' enough for the sandy vagina contingent?

I thought it rather lucid and direct myself but hey, I'm a simply a fucking dumbass who is only here for my own amusement, right??

Nah, more likely they believe you posted more incoherent nonsensical crap to the amusement of no-one but you.

i understood him quite well.
what part of @chingalera 's communication do you find incoherent @VoodooV ?
i thought he was being very clear.

Looks like a bunch of sci-fi tropes slammed together incoherently - featuring Magic Mike, Jackie, and Ned Stark.

A mis-informed nutcase giving an angry, incoherent diatribe? Yes, that happened alot 5 years ago. Youtube is full of birther and truther videos. This video saddens me; it's not encouraging at all. Ignorant uninformed meathead spewing illogical anger to no end. Meatheads like this are a statist's wetdream; if this marine is representative, the powers that be have nothing to worry about.

As a comedic piece that was pretty good, some nice turns of phrase and a few genuine laugh out loud absurd moments.

But as a polemic it was just awful. Rambling, disjointed and mostly incoherent. If Brand is the modern day version of a revolutionary speaker, then it's no wonder we are in the situation we find ourselves in.

And to everyone criticising Paxman, clearly you are not used to watching a good political interviewer. He won't stand for nonsense or hand waving, he wants answers.

He is right -- you need innovation to create things and then competition to bring prices down, but then arrives at some strange conclusions and inconsistencies. (All the while sounding like he is on crack.)

He makes a case for government giving money to entrepreneurs. Isn't that the "partnership system" that we have now? The mix of giving "public" money to "private" entrepreneurs?

His "solutions" require omniscient central planning to know who to give money to.

It's kind of sad the level of audience he is addressing his ideas to.
MTV meets pop-econ.

Basically he is advocating, like in the other video, a form of crony capitalism here. And the "problem" is that we don't have enough of it. So we should be giving more money to cronies because it doesn't matter if their "pizzas" get bigger, their "success" will "trickle down" to the rest of us and everyone will have a bigger pizza even if it's nowhere near as big as that of the wealthy entrepreneurs. A dog chasing its tail.

It's a weird sort of crony capitalism, though, because you give money to everyone and then one or two of those will build successful businesses and employ everyone else who didn't do as much with the money that was given to them. That's a kind of circular and it's not realistic to think that a couple of entrepreneurs will make up for all the money "given" to everyone else, and the resulting inflation and the myriad of problems therein.

I think he is trying to appeal to both left and right wingers, but it seems rather incoherent, a fact he may be trying to disguise with the fast pace and choppy editing, i.e., a video version of "fast-tlking" (i.e., swindling) to prevent any real and careful analysis of what he says.

I think there's more useful information in the videos this guy produces, but alas, they're not as "zany" as these...

@carnivorous
not trying to butt in on your penis waving contest (ok.yes i am).
but i think what some here are trying to convey to you are your broad generalizations.

i am sure your points do apply to some of the younger generation but in no way represents ALL of them.

i am getting long in the greys and i know MANY of my generation that expend far too much energy on:social networks,candy crush and full out gossip and complaining (good lord do they complain).

i know this is veering off topic,but its a worthy topic.

my boys are in their twenties.they all are hard workers of the manual persuasion but they are all having a hard go.
this happens and the times are not ripe for an easy run.
do you know what bothers me the most about watching my boys struggle?
the fear.
they are afraid,uncertain and unsure.
when i was their age i was fearless.

when i was their age i was working for my friend who was a lighting director for russell simmons.def jam summer fest world tour baby!
traveled all over the country and the carribean,duffle bag in tow.
learned how to coil cable right proper too.

ok.not at first.
totally screwed that up the first night.
so my buddy made me unravel every inch of cable (even the ones done right by him and others) and learned the hard way how to coil cable proper.
you have any idea how MUCH cable is used for lighting?
well neither do i but im gonna go in measurements of miles (or hours of lost sleep,you decide).

i guess my point is (if i even have one):
manual labor has its advantages but so do intellectual pursuits.
they actually compliment each other.

but dont judge this generation too harshly.
they are afraid,
and uncertain.
something we (or at least I) never really had to deal with on that scale.

and so ends my rambling incoherent rant.
think ill go fix that broken screen door i have been putting off for ages.
yall got me in the mood to fix something.

I see your point, but I disagree. I think maybe this sort of passion (without going too far by being incoherent and violent) is getting more necessary. It gets noticed and can reflect the attitude of a lot of people and hopefully convince them to get involved. Eloquent discourse can be dismissed and swept under the rug too easily

@dystopianfuturetoday

i think i got my argument down to one word.
took some time because you know me..
i comment like i think:rambling and incoherent.

the word is transparency.

if this dragnet is SO needed and SO vital to national security and catching brown people.
then lets allow this giant pig into the courts and lets discuss the value of this particular intelligence gathering.
lets shine a bit of light in those dark corners yea?

a healthy democracy needs sunlight and fresh air the breathe.

so i have been attempting to make my argument concerning the NSA surveillance deal and in my usually stumbling and oftentimes incoherent way my argument has gotten lost in the rambling wall of text.

then blankfist posted this video on facebook which i quickly snatched up:
http://videosift.com/video/glenn-greenwald-takes-morning-joe-to-task

in this video glenn greenwald makes the argument i have been attempting...and failing miserably ...to make.
glenn greenwald=1
enoch=0

Got anything to actually..... contribute? or you just going to rant incoherently again and ad hom in a non-sequitor fashion?

Actually, that's exactly what I say, and average modern human morality is considerably superior to the filth that the biblical God advocates.

The moral standard of western civilization is founded upon judeo-christian beliefs. Read:

http://www.amazon.com/Book-that-Made-Your-World/dp/1595555455/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1366921071&sr=8-1&keywords=book+that+made+your+world

Following the morality the biblical God advocates is the hardest thing you will ever do. The standard of today is a superficial, politically correct morality where you pretend to be nice to people but curse them when they aren't around. God requires a transformation on the inside where you have genuine love for your fellow man.

I am only saying that they are wrong by todays generally agreed upon moral standards. Some of these moral standards are extremely effective and have been around since very early human communities, so they only have the illusion of being absolute due to high adherence rate.

Are you saying nigh universal adherence to certain moral standards isn't evidence for an absolute standard of morality?

Murder, theft, oppression and incest are three fairly obvious examples. The evolutionarily advantageous trait of society building tends to list it's effectiveness when such things are widespread. But we have a very long human tradition of sanctioning and celebrating murder and theft as long as it occurs well outside our cohort. Killing other tribes is celebrated in the bible, as is stealing their possessions. Ethically justified slavery took another 4000 years to mostly get rid of, and hell, it was common practice to fuck your fifteen year old cousin all the way up to about the late 1800s here in the good old US of A as long as it was under the marital auspices of the church, of course.

Yep, but thank God that his just definition of morality - if we didn't have god's guidance through scripture, we'd probably do crazy shit!

You don't understand what God was doing in the Old Testament, or why He did it the way He did. It is morally consistent with His goodness and holiness, and there are logical reasons for why this is so. So far you are not interested in hearing them or discussing them. When you are let me know. In the end you don't have any excuse for suppressing the truth about Jesus, no matter what you think about how God acted in the Old Testament.

Using the word 'absolute' is a concession to brevity, but nice try - seriously dude, this is laughable and it wouldn't even stand up in Jr. High debate - absolutes do exist, they just need to be well justified, and yes if you want to be nitpicky about it there is an ever so remote chance that 1+1 is not equal to two in some distant corner of the universe. But as humans with an admittedly limited scope of understanding, we have to accept that level of certainty. If you want to relegate your theory to claiming its space somewhere in the possibility that we might be wrong about the whole 2+2=4 thing, go right on ahead.

There, that's what I meant by absolute. happy?

Basically, what you're saying is that because 2+2 probably equals four everywhere in the Universe, you are free to make absolute statements about morality? The fact is that your belief system leaves you with no justification for any absolute statement what so ever. Why should 2 + 2 always equal 4 in the first place? Can you tell me why the laws of physics should work in the same way 5 seconds from now without using circular reasoning?

Can you justify any piece of knowledge without God? If you can then tell me one thing you know and how you know it. Could you be wrong about everything you know?

Well then thanks for the offer, but I think I'll pass in the whole god based morality thing. I prefer to have a really good reason to never slaughter innocent kids. But thanks for finally answering my question: there has been a good reason to butcher a toddler after all! Praise The Lord, for he is good!

It comes back to the same question: As the giver of life, and the adjudicator of His Creation, is it wrong for God to take life?

And here's another interesting brain tickler. If everything god commands is right, and god has a track record of testing his faithful with their willingness to commit infanticide, how can you say that this lady isn't moral?

http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/2001-08-17/news/0108170166_1_baby-s-death-baby-s-father-documents

The scripture is finished and anything which contradicts it is not of God.

Wrong, I know that things are wrong because humans and cultures have a long history of interacting with reality, and certain strategies have been more successful than others. You haven't spent one iota of your time discrediting this notion, whereas I have given you plenty of examples crediting mine and discrediting yours.

What I am supposed to be discrediting? You're asking me to nail jello to a wall. You have not even defined what "successful" is supposed to mean beyond pure survival. In that case, every civilization has been successful. Tell me what your definition of success is supposed to be.

For the millionth time, I have no hopes of convincing you of anything - you'll defend your stance against literally any proof. But you seem to come here on the sift with the intent of demonstrating to others that there is some logical basis for your beliefs.

What proof? The foundation of atheism stands upon the shifting sands of relative truth. You, the atheist, ultimately make yourself the measure of all truth. Because of that, you can't tell me a single fact about the world that you can justify.

Well you're failing miserably, mainly because you are only capable of restating the following sentence as if it is an agreed upon truth:

"Not only is the entire concept logically contradictory, but it doesn't match our experience, which is that some things are absolutely wrong. "

I don't expect you to have any good support for that, but the audience out there just waiting to be convinced, they will need at least something.

Torturing babies for fun; not absolutely wrong?

I'm still waiting for you to give Stalin some kind, any kind of argument as to why he should adopt your morality and abandon his own. If you can't tell Stalin why he is wrong, then you have no hope of escaping the charge of incoherency.