Nothing. The NSA exists because nations like Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union existed, China, Russia, and North Korea still publicly threaten the US and other nations with nuclear weapons (and Iran hoping to join the club), and terrorist groups exist. If you think NSA exists because of "dishonest" politicains in the US you competely misunderstand the issues.
Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
Although you are quit bright, at times you express some really bad ideas. This is one of them. Politicians are accountable to their constituents, and ordinary law enforcement will do fine, thank you. Keeping the military and intelligence agencies apolitical in a democracy is a good thing unless you have a taste for coups.
But let's be very clear that much of what the NSA is illegal, unconstitutional, and against various international treaties.
Let's be very clear that the real situation is that you wish that much of what NSA does is illegal and unconstituional. Unfortunately the law, courts, and Congress are against you. Your wish is just that, a wish, and it isn't coming true any time soon.
If the NSA wants to really start recruiting talent here is a novel idea. Start providing enough information to the "good" law enforcement (the NSA knows who they are) agencies to prosecute all the crooks holding government offices (appointed or voted in). If they started cleaning house, and given enough time clean.. people would believe they rehabilitated and were once again looking out for the average citizens best interests. The reputation as the Stasi is too well known for them to attract anything but the scum of the US for a very long time.
So you openly advocate having the national intelligence agencies spy on politicians to find incriminating evidence that makes them vulnerable, but you disparage the Stasi? Hmmmmm......
Ah yes, the "NSA" scene from Good Will Hunting. Overall it is a great movie, but that scene in nothing but polemic. The narrative is based on rubbish that most anyone with critical thinking skills should be able to identify.
You find that "persuasive," somehow, do you?
Not surprised I guess, you apparently think the NSA wants to be "popular." Hey guys! Who is the most popular secret agency!! That kind of defeats the purpose of being "secret" doesn't it?
Link to Original Source
I hope you weren't scarred for life by John Kerry's loss.
The donor companies effectively choose who will get elected.
You believe nonsense.
Robert Shrum, a senior fellow at New York University's Robert F. Wagner Graduate School of Public Service, has been a senior adviser on many Democratic campaigns, including Dick Gephardt (1988), Al Gore (2000), and John Kerry (2004).
In politics there is certainly no linear relationship between amount of money and degree of success. Just ask the well-heeled Republican losers of presidential primaries past â" former Texas Governor John Connally, former Texas Senator Phil Gramm, and former Mayor and front-runner Rudolph Giuliani. Or how about Howard Dean, who raised and spent nearly $40 million before crashing and burning in the 2004 Iowa caucuses?
This holds especially true during the primaries when a truly tiny percentage of those eligible vote and basically allow the corporations to stack the elections, so no matter which team wins, they win.
And the evidence for this is ???? Completely lacking? And once again we come back to the point of there something on the order of 30,000,000 businesses in the US. And you think they come to some sort of agreement and collude on picking political leaders? You don't think there might be some evidence of this sort of massive effort, do you? How are the many contradictory goals and philosophies reconciled? You don't suppose that even if this was happening that the many different efforts would tend to cancel each other out?
The only real focus of the US government is to drive out all politicians who will actually represent their electorates and of course reading the speeches provided to them by their controlling corporations and voting as directed on the legislation as provided by lobbyists.
Is there a list somewhere of which corporation "owns" each member of Congress? Who does IBM "own"? Microsoft? AT&T? Hormel? Chipolte? MacDonalds? At most they have influence, but not control. If they really did have control then you wouldn't see burdensome regulation or laws passed, like Sarbanes-Oxley.
I'm not sure where you get your ideas, but you might want to start looking for a better source, and maybe expose yourself to a wider range of views.
Do you have any idea how many businesses and corporations there are in the US? Apparently not. Maybe you should look that up and figure out how that many entities are going to come to a single position. It's nonsense.
... we're tired of all these invasions to our rights to privacy because of an existential threat.
"+5 Insightful"? That's about right for Slashdot on this topic. At present the Darwin Awards are for individual achievement, but I can see the possibility of a day coming when it will become a collective, national, or societal achievement.
...This horrifically extends to the corporations that controls which politicians get elected
Not that I would deny that corporations attempt to influence government policy and the laws that are made, but
Since different corporations have different interests and goals, how is that reconciled if they control everything? How does that work if a very powerful corporation in one state disagrees with a weaker national corporation? What if different industries disagree on things? Is there a "congress of corporations" where this is all hammered out before they command the politicians to do their will? And who is it that gives the commands? What if they can't come to an agreement? Do you have any evidence of this sort of collusion?
How do you think the corporations control government agencies? Is it Sears, Walmart, or IBM that controls the FBI? Does Ford control the Social Security Administration, or is it Du Pont? Who controls the State Department? Ikea? AT&T? Go Daddy? I think there are a few holes in your theory.
So now we're supposed to believe
that it's stopped.
There's no need to "google "disinformation"" since you've just demonstrated it. There is nothing claiming that NSA stopped the program. You just made that up, it's a straw man you use to spread FUD.
Sadly your comment is all too typical of the quality of comments in discussions of this subject matter. But hey! At least your lying FUD is popular, whereas the truth seldom is.
How do you think that will work out in the long run, basing positions and policy stands on lies and misinformation? I'm betting not well if practiced too widely.
Name one unique plane from WW2 that is still flying.
I hope you don't mind that there is more than one.
Make that MOND/TeVeS.
Fitting the data isn't simply a question of the fitness of the theory, but also of the effort involved in applying the theory to the data to see if it explains it. TeVeS predicts gravitational lensing, for example, but someone had to figure that out. How much more could it explain if it was pursued at more than the level of a minor hobby? Hard to say. Theories besides Dark Matter get little in terms of funding, and going against mainstream science is risky for a career even if mainstream science is wrong on the issue.