This is one of the most ridiculous things I’ve ever heard.
This is one of the most ridiculous things I’ve ever heard.
Benjamin Franklin said, “Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” So when do we step back and ask what is working and what is not – and also what freedoms are we giving up to gain this temporary security?
Original article found here.
In his latest bestseller,Data and Goliath, world-renowned security expert and author Bruce Schneier goes deep into the world of surveillance, investigating how governments and corporations alike monitor nearly our every move. In this excerpt, Schneier explains how we are fed a false narrative of how our surveillance state is able to stop terrorist attacks before they happen. In fact, Schneier argues, the idea that our government is able to parse all the invasive and personal data they collect on us is laughable. The data-mining conducted every day only seems to take valuable resources and time away from the tactics that should be used to fight terrorism.
The NSA repeatedly uses a connect-the-dots metaphor to justify its surveillance activities. Again and again — after 9/11, after the Underwear Bomber, after the Boston Marathon bombings — government is criticized for not connecting the dots.
However, this is a terribly misleading metaphor. Connecting the dots in a coloring book is easy, because they’re all numbered and visible. In real life, the dots can only be recognized after the fact.
That doesn’t stop us from demanding to know why the authorities couldn’t connect the dots. The warning signs left by the Fort Hood shooter, the Boston Marathon bombers, and the Isla Vista shooter look obvious in hindsight. Nassim Taleb, an expert on risk engineering, calls this tendency the “narrative fallacy.” Humans are natural storytellers, and the world of stories is much more tidy, predictable, and coherent than reality. Millions of people behave strangely enough to attract the FBI’s notice, and almost all of them are harmless. The TSA’s no-fly list has over 20,000 people on it. The Terrorist Identities Datamart Environment, also known as the watch list, has 680,000, 40% of whom have “no recognized terrorist group affiliation.”
Data mining is offered as the technique that will enable us to connect those dots. But while corporations are successfully mining our personal data in order to target advertising, detect financial fraud, and perform other tasks, three critical issues make data mining an inappropriate tool for finding terrorists.
The first, and most important, issue is error rates. For advertising, data mining can be successful even with a large error rate, but finding terrorists requires a much higher degree of accuracy than data-mining systems can possibly provide.
Data mining works best when you’re searching for a well-defined profile, when there are a reasonable number of events per year, and when the cost of false alarms is low. Detecting credit card fraud is one of data mining’s security success stories: all credit card companies mine their transaction databases for spending patterns that indicate a stolen card. There are over a billion active credit cards in circulation in the United States, and nearly 8% of those are fraudulently used each year. Many credit card thefts share a pattern — purchases in locations not normally frequented by the cardholder, and purchases of travel, luxury goods, and easily fenced items — and in many cases data-mining systems can minimize the losses by preventing fraudulent transactions. The only cost of a false alarm is a phone call to the cardholder asking her to verify a couple of her purchases.
Similarly, the IRS uses data mining to identify tax evaders, the police use it to predict crime hot spots, and banks use it to predict loan defaults. These applications have had mixed success, based on the data and the application, but they’re all within the scope of what data mining can accomplish.
Terrorist plots are different, mostly because whereas fraud is common, terrorist attacks are very rare. This means that even highly accurate terrorism prediction systems will be so flooded with false alarms that they will be useless.
The reason lies in the mathematics of detection. All detection systems have errors, and system designers can tune them to minimize either false positives or false negatives. In a terrorist-detection system, a false positive occurs when the system mistakenly identifies something harmless as a threat. A false negative occurs when the system misses an actual attack. Depending on how you “tune” your detection system, you can increase the number of false positives to assure you are less likely to miss an attack, or you can reduce the number of false positives at the expense of missing attacks.
Because terrorist attacks are so rare, false positives completely overwhelm the system, no matter how well you tune. And I mean completely: millions of people will be falsely accused for every real terrorist plot the system finds, if it ever finds any.
We might be able to deal with all of the innocents being flagged by the system if the cost of false positives were minor. Think about the full-body scanners at airports. Those alert all the time when scanning people. But a TSA officer can easily check for a false alarm with a simple pat-down. This doesn’t work for a more general data-based terrorism-detection system. Each alert requires a lengthy investigation to determine whether it’s real or not. That takes time and money, and prevents intelligence officers from doing other productive work. Or, more pithily, when you’re watching everything, you’re not seeing anything.
The US intelligence community also likens finding a terrorist plot to looking for a needle in a haystack. And, as former NSA director General Keith Alexander said, “you need the haystack to find the needle.” That statement perfectly illustrates the problem with mass surveillance and bulk collection. When you’re looking for the needle, the last thing you want to do is pile lots more hay on it. More specifically, there is no scientific rationale for believing that adding irrelevant data about innocent people makes it easier to find a terrorist attack, and lots of evidence that it does not. You might be adding slightly more signal, but you’re also adding much more noise. And despite the NSA’s “collect it all” mentality, its own documents bear this out. The military intelligence community even talks about the problem of “drinking from a fire hose”: having so much irrelevant data that it’s impossible to find the important bits.
We saw this problem with the NSA’s eavesdropping program: the false positives overwhelmed the system. In the years after 9/11, the NSA passed to the FBI thousands of tips per month; every one of them turned out to be a false alarm. The cost was enormous, and ended up frustrating the FBI agents who were obligated to investigate all the tips. We also saw this with the Suspicious Activity Reports —or SAR — database: tens of thousands of reports, and no actual results. And all the telephone metadata the NSA collected led to just one success: the conviction of a taxi driver who sent $8,500 to a Somali group that posed no direct threat to the US — and that was probably trumped up so the NSA would have better talking points in front of Congress.
The second problem with using data-mining techniques to try to uncover terrorist plots is that each attack is unique. Who would have guessed that two pressure-cooker bombs would be delivered to the Boston Marathon finish line in backpacks by a Boston college kid and his older brother? Each rare individual who carries out a terrorist attack will have a disproportionate impact on the criteria used to decide who’s a likely terrorist, leading to ineffective detection strategies.
The third problem is that the people the NSA is trying to find are wily, and they’re trying to avoid detection. In the world of personalized marketing, the typical surveillance subject isn’t trying to hide his activities. That is not true in a police or national security context. An adversarial relationship makes the problem much harder, and means that most commercial big data analysis tools just don’t work. A commercial tool can simply ignore people trying to hide and assume benign behavior on the part of everyone else. Government data-mining techniques can’t do that, because those are the very people they’re looking for.
Adversaries vary in the sophistication of their ability to avoid surveillance. Most criminals and terrorists — and political dissidents, sad to say — are pretty unsavvy and make lots of mistakes. But that’s no justification for data mining; targeted surveillance could potentially identify them just as well. The question is whether mass surveillance performs sufficiently better than targeted surveillance to justify its extremely high costs. Several analyses of all the NSA’s efforts indicate that it does not.
The three problems listed above cannot be fixed. Data mining is simply the wrong tool for this job, which means that all the mass surveillance required to feed it cannot be justified. When he was NSA director, General Keith Alexander argued that ubiquitous surveillance would have enabled the NSA to prevent 9/11. That seems unlikely. He wasn’t able to prevent the Boston Marathon bombings in 2013, even though one of the bombers was on the terrorist watch list and both had sloppy social media trails — and this was after a dozen post-9/11 years of honing techniques. The NSA collected data on the Tsarnaevs before the bombing, but hadn’t realized that it was more important than the data they collected on millions of other people.
This point was made in the 9/11 Commission Report. That report described a failure to “connect the dots,” which proponents of mass surveillance claim requires collection of more data. But what the report actually said was that the intelligence community had all the information about the plot without mass surveillance, and that the failures were the result of inadequate analysis.
Mass surveillance didn’t catch underwear bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab in 2006, even though his father had repeatedly warned the U.S. government that he was dangerous. And the liquid bombers (they’re the reason governments prohibit passengers from bringing large bottles of liquids, creams, and gels on airplanes in their carry-on luggage) were captured in 2006 in their London apartment not due to mass surveillance but through traditional investigative police work. Whenever we learn about an NSA success, it invariably comes from targeted surveillance rather than from mass surveillance. One analysis showed that the FBI identifies potential terrorist plots from reports of suspicious activity, reports of plots, and investigations of other, unrelated, crimes.
This is a critical point. Ubiquitous surveillance and data mining are not suitable tools for finding dedicated criminals or terrorists. We taxpayers are wasting billions on mass-surveillance programs, and not getting the security we’ve been promised. More importantly, the money we’re wasting on these ineffective surveillance programs is not being spent on investigation, intelligence, and emergency response: tactics that have been proven to work. The NSA’s surveillance efforts have actually made us less secure.
I don’t get these people who eagerly try to eliminate everything that might be offensive. Seriously though, if you try hard enough couldn’t you find offense in everything? Original article found here.
A resolution that was narrowly approved by the legislative council of the campus’ Associated Students calls bans all flags from the common lobby area of student government offices, according to the Orange County Register. It prompted removal of the American flag from a lobby wall.
The student council approved the resolution on a 6-4 vote Thursday, with two abstentions. The executive cabinet was expected to consider a veto on Saturday.
The resolution authored by student Matthew Guevara of the university’s social ecology school lists 25 reasons for the ban, saying that the American flag has been flown in times of “colonialism and imperialism” and could symbolize American “exceptionalism and superiority.” The resolution says “freedom of speech, in a space that aims to be as inclusive as possible, can be interpreted as hate speech.”
The American flag had hung on a wall in the student government suite. A few weeks ago, someone removed the flag and put it on the desk of Reza Zomorrodian, the Associated Students’ president, with an anonymous note saying it shouldn’t be in the lobby.
The executive members decided to put up the flag again. Then the resolution was brought to the council.
Zomorrodian, an opponent of the ban, said the American flag was “an iconic and symbolic representation of our values in the U.S.”
On Friday, state Sen. Janet Nguyen, R-Santa Ana, said she and other legislators may introduce a state constitutional amendment to prohibit “state-funded universities and college campuses from banning the United States flag.”
In Communist Russia and Nazi Germany the people raising an eyebrow about what was going on were simply rounded up and killed. Today though those who speak out are simply ostracized by society – even if what they leaked was in the best interest for the society to know.
As Ron Paul said, “Truth is treason in an empire of lies.”
Original article below found at The Guardian.
This week, the Securities and Exchange Commission made history by promising an anonymous overseas whistleblower a reward of $30m.
It doesn’t usually work out that way for whistleblowers. Ringing the bell on abuse in a company or government usually means losing jobs and status. The norm is pariah treatment and low-wage jobs, as well as trips to the welfare office and the lingering threat of prosecution or intimidation.
Consider: it’s not every day that you get to buy an iPhone from an ex-NSA officer. Yet a number of people visiting the Washington metro-area Apple store get to do just that. For over a year now, several days a weekThomas Drake puts on his blue Apple work T-shirt and goes to work.
Drake, former senior executive at National Security Agency, is well known in the national security circles. In 2006, he leaked information about the NSA’s Trailblazer project to Baltimore Sun. Years later, in 2010, he was prosecuted under the Espionage Act, but the government ended up dropping all 10 felony charges against him. He pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge for unauthorized use of a computer.
Drake, unlike other NSA whistleblowers, has the freedom to move freely within any city or state within America. His freedom, however, comes with a very tangible price: his livelihood.
“You have to mortgage your house, you have to empty your bank account. I went from making well over $150,000 a year to a quarter of that,” Drake says in Silenced, a recently released documentary depicting the lives of several national security whistleblowers. Silenced, which made its debut at the Tribeca Film Festival, is to be screened at additional movie festivals this fall. “The cost alone, financially – never mind the personal cost – is approaching million dollars in terms of lost income, expenses and other costs I incurred.”
“Obviously, I am a persona non grata within the government … and so I am unemployed,” Drake says to the cameras in Silenced. “I did look for work. I spent a lot of time looking for work. I applied for a part-time position with Apple, and several month later I actually got a phone call. I ended up working at an Apple store in the metro DC area as an expert.”
This kind of result is what most whistleblowers can expect. The potential threat of prosecution, the mounting legal bills and the lack of future job opportunities all contribute to a hesitation among many to rock the boat.
President Obama has approved legislation to help protect federal whistleblowers against retaliation and economic ruin. In November 2012,Obama signed Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act into law, which was to expand whistleblower protections available to corporate whistleblowers to federal workers.
Yet whistleblowers have been left on their own to struggle with the consequences of going public.
Jesselyn Radack says whistleblowers need better protections. She is a former Justice Department ethics attorney and whistleblower who went on to defend Drake and Kiriakou. She is currently one of Edward Snowden’s lawyers.
“The Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act … has a big loophole that covers national security and intelligence officials, people exactly like Tom Drake at the NSA, Edward Snowden at NSA, and John Kiriakou at CIA, Steven Kim at the State Department, Jeffrey Sterling at the CIA, Peter van Buren, who was at the State Department – the people that I would argue we most need to hear from and want to hear from,” says Radack, noting that Obama’s order applies only to employees – not to contractors such as Edward Snowden.
Finance whistleblowers can, theoretically, collect awards ranging from $300,000 to $104m for disclosing secrets about their employers cheating on taxes and violating securities law. Activist investor Bill Ackman offered a $250,000-per-year-for-10-years deal to an employee of Herbalife for supporting Ackman’s thesis that the company fools its workers and customers. The company and other hedge fund managers, including Carl Icahn, dispute Ackman’s remarks.
The price of leaking national security problems, in particular, is steep. National security whistleblowers have no prospect of financial rewards.
Kiriakou, a former CIA analyst, became the first former government official to confirm the use of waterboarding against al-Qaida suspects in 2009. Three years later, in 2012, he was prosecuted for leaking classified information under the Espionage Act. After he was accused of violating the Espionage Act, Kiriakou had to look for employment outside the field of national security.
“I have applied for every job I can think of – everything from grocery stores to Toys R Us to Starbucks. You name it, I’ve applied there. Haven’t gotten even an email or a call back,” Kiriakou says at some point in the film. “I’ll be honest with you, I really miss working and so regardless of what the job is, I’ll be happy to just pass eight hours a day.”
He was not the only one in his family to lose his job as a result of his disclosures. His wife quit her job because of threats of security investigations, says Kiriakou.
After both of them were unemployed for seven months, she informed him that they couldn’t afford food for the next week. In the days to follow, they found themselves at a welfare office, where they were told they qualified for a variety of assistance including food stamps, medicaid and job training.
The stark reality of their financial situation was enough to get Kiriakou to consider changing his plea. That, and the possibility of not seeing his children grow up.
“She doesn’t make enough money to support our household. We could borrow enough for two years to keep her going,” he says. “But if I am found guilty and get more than two years, I mean – we think we are ruined now? – we’d be ruined permanently after that. I want to fight it but I have kids and I just can’t risk them losing me for six to twelve years.”
Kiriakou is currently serving a 30-month jail sentence. Instead of telling his children that he is going to jail, Kiriakou and his wife have told them that he is going to Pennsylvania to “teach bad guys how to get their diplomas.”
With Kiriakou in jail, his family continues to struggle to make ends meet.
“They are still in dire straits, living from pay check to pay check,” Radack told the audience at the New America after recently held screening of Silenced. A Facebook page, Defend John Kiriakou, lists instructions on how to contribute to Kiriakou’s commissary account. Another post invites supporters to buy him a subscription to The New York Times’ Sunday edition. Radack already purchased him a Monday through Saturday subscription. He receives all papers two days after they are published.
“I am sitting in front of you as a free human being, I can’t tell you what it means to be free,” Drake told the audience after the screening. “I paid an incredibly high price.”
Here is what Al gore, Obama, and Company are saying about anyone that doubts the theory of man-made Global Warming. Below is what Obama’s group Organizing for Action says.
Look, our crazy uncles aren’t the problem. But these members of Congress are using these far-fetched conspiracy theories as an excuse for not taking action on an issue that affects our environment, our economy, and yes, the planet our children and grandchildren inherit.
Climate change is real, and we’re not going to get anywhere on the issue until these guys admit that.
Did you catch that? Anyone who questions Global Warming is crazy. anything you hear to the contrary should be considered a “far-fetched conspiracy theory.” Furthermore, any inaction on your part to demand that lawmakers don’t create and push new legislation to curb global warming is a decision that damages your children’s well being. Yep, you heard it, if you don’t push Carbon Credits and cars that nobody can afford (or wants) then you are dooming your children to a barren wasteland!
For those of us who want more data that global warming is caused soley by humans the science continues to roll in. The DailyMail reports on how a growing body of scientist disagree with human global warming despite not being heard by the United Nations IPCC who is pushing for more laws to be passed.
Not only does it explain the unexpected pause, it suggests that the scientific majority – whose views are represented by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) – have underestimated the role of natural cycles and exaggerated that of greenhouse gases.
In similar fashion, a number of cycles in the temperature of air and oceans, and the level of Arctic ice, take place across the Northern hemisphere over decades. Curry and Wyatt say there is evidence of this going back at least 300 years.
I grew up in a family with three other siblings. To say the least we were competitive – both academically and athletically. I was in the National Honor Society, Math League, and took honors classes. In my senior year of high school I actually took the most difficult load I could take while most took the easiest load they could. In college I made the President’s List almost every semester (which for those of you who don’t know is more prestigious than the Dean’s List at most schools). Athletically I played soccer, baseball, track, wrestling, cross country, and football. My siblings were better athletes than me as they were all on all-star teams but I probably bested them academically.
My point in all this was there was recognition in my family that there were winners and losers. If you slacked off, your sibling would take the spotlight. If you worked hard then you would be recognized. If you failed academically (which at my house was getting a “C” on a report card) then you would get in trouble (grounding, loss of privileges, etc.) or maybe just Mom telling you that your siblings wouldn’t take care of you when you were off failing at life. However, today through our super sensitive, offend-nobody attitudes we are scared to offend anyone.
Specifically speaking, nobody can be a loser in life – academically or athletically. I have heard all sorts of stories about people being moved onto the next grade with sub-par performance. So gone is the threat of you being “left behind” or your siblings being in the same grade as you. At my school we didn’t have summer school to allow you to “make up” your work so you could stay with your graduating class. Todayit sounds like some students rely on summer school – and even with this crazy opportunity they still almost fail. Then there are test scores which routinely get diluted and diminished. We have Common Core on the horizon which touts that it will “help standardize schools across the nation” but “won’t lower standards for anyone.” Which if you have any logic left in you should strike some bells – we can’t standardize the school without bringing the over performing schools down to the underperforming level. It doesn’t stop there though – you also can’t be a loser in sports these days either.
When I played sports, even in T-ball and the first-year soccer, you were most definitely a winner or a loser. We kept score. The winner got to get snacks. The winner for the season got a trophy. After 3 outs, you switched sides. If you threw a tantrum the umpire would remove you from the field. If you sucked then you went home empty handed. I actually remember being an umpire for coach-pitch baseball (6-7yrs) and calling someone out after throwing a bat. While the parents were unhappy that I became forceful, they respected my rules.
Last week my son got signed up for T-ball/coach-pitch baseball. I had heard these above rumors but I honestly couldn’t believe the rules placed in front of me. They don’t keep score. Unlimited outs. Everyone bats. Batters keep running until an infielder has possession and holds it over their head. Everyone gets a snack after each game and everyone gets a trophy at the end of the year. To me, that isn’t baseball… that is batting practice. To be honest, I am actually offended at the rules. I understand that these kids are 4-5yrs old but to me that is old enough to recognize that you can’t just show up and get rewarded for it. If that is the case then let’s just have them play from home on the Wii.
Maybe I am just a hard ass and all this doesn’t matter. Maybe when they get a few years older and the next league actually has outs, innings, and they keep score things like that will make sense. However, I can’t help but think… kids for centuries have been playing sports and keeping scores – there were winners and losers. The world moved on when you lost and you could either chose to go home and practice and get better or go home and decide that you wanted to try your hand at something else that you could excel at so you didn’t have to go back to the field next week and get cremated by your superior opponent. Likewise, even the winners could chose to practice and maintain their greatness or sit around and lose later to the guy who went home and worked out and practiced to get better.
I can’t help but to inject my political beliefs into all this and this is what I think I am most upset about. Today we are taught that it doesn’t matter what you do – all you have to do is exist and you are a winner. If you draw a picture as a kid, you’re Da Vinci. If you get a C in school (when last year you got straight A’s) then bravo, you passed. Show up to a sporting event and presto, you’re a winner. Buy a house and default on it – that’s OK, someone else will bail you out or force your lender to lower your contractual agreements so you can “afford” it. How about your business -want to take exponentially risky and unethical moves? That’s OK, you’re too big to fail and the American public will bail you out. Anyone and everyone should go to school and when you graduate everyone thinks they should be awarded that $80,000 job they were promised. Never mind that half the kids your age also graduated with the same degree and the market is super saturated with your degree, you were at the bottom of your class, you only showed up to a third of your classes, and you have no idea how to even balance a check book – the government is going to help you pay your bills by either completely forgiving your debt or forcing your lender to reduce the amount you owe. No responsibility for your actions these days.
Greatness and success used to be awarded to those who went home and busted their rump to make it to the top. They knew that if they were too risky or didn’t work hard enough that they would be left with nothing except failure. They kept score with their competition – in the classroom or on the field. They wanted to be the best – for the trophy, the resume, the report card, or the fame. Today all that is gone “because we just want kids to have fun” or “we don’t want to hurt their feelings.”
I say that is hogwash and that type of attitude is an underlying reason why society has some of the problems we have today.
The world is truly nutty and one only has to look to the laws on the books to realize how backwards and unfree our laws actually make us. for the most part these laws are so weird, awkward, and backwards that nobody ever enforces them. however, what if they start enforcing them? In Pittsburgh some people are finding out just how wacky laws can be.
Eileen Freedman is finding out one crazy law that says “you have to park at least 30 feet away from the street.” To any sane person living today this seems like nonsense – if you are on your own driveway and not impeding pedestian or vehicle traffic then why should the city, state, or federal government care where you park? To make matters even more batshit crazy the city allows people to park on the road.
Yes, you heard corerctly – the city perfers you to park in the street where you have to walk in the street to get to your car, possibly block fire hydrants, impede traffic, and case blind spots to traffic on that road… instead of you parking in your own driveway where it safe to enter and you do not impede traffic in any way by being there.
My point in bringing this up is that the laws out there are so convoluted that nobody knows what the law says. It is fairly well known that much legislation is passed and The Hill has no idea what nitty-gritty details are in it. Look at Nancy Pelosi’s comments about passing a bill to see what is in it (whether you want to believe she was being condecending or just trying to push the Senate to pass their version of the bill). Look at how Obama signed the bailout bill just to find out that he granted bailout money to be directly allocated to the very CEOs that he despises and then turned around and somehow demanded that they give it all back even though it was law.
One of my favorite TV shows is House of Cards. A show about Washington D.C. and how it is all about politics-as-usual and quid-pro-quo. I’m not sure the slant of the director, but being one who is interested in politics I find the show to be absolutely fascinating – both on an entertainment level but also as an exploration of how I kind of perceive Washington D.C.
We have routinely heard our leaders discuss their signing of controversial legislation to be “OK” because “nobody will ever use it like that.” How about that domestic spying without a warrant? That domestic drone use? Or the assasination of American Citizens without trial “because they were a terrorist.”
Personally, I’d be absolutely embarassed to cite someone for parking in their own driveway – law on the books or not. But why now; why would a city suddenly start issuing fines to people parking in their driveways? The answer? Money. Cities are strapped and instead of curbing their spending and quit giving handouts to people they start looking for who they can milk for more money.
Oh yeah, didn’t Obama campaign on the promise that he wouldn’t raise his taxes on anyone making under $250k? Oh yeah, he just admited that “whoops, yeah we did raise taxes on some things.” Ha, gotcha! I expect all levels of government to start looking for more more money to
steal tax in the near future.
|Kyle Huwer on Social Security Numbers: Manda…|
|Alana Rickard on Social Security Numbers: Manda…|
|Kyle Huwer on Social Security Numbers: Manda…|
|Bobbi on Social Security Numbers: Manda…|
|Kyle Huwer on Why is Chewbacca Mask Lady so…|
|allthoughtswork on Why is Chewbacca Mask Lady so…|
|Kyle Huwer on Why is Chewbacca Mask Lady so…|
"We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth... For my part, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst; and to provide for it." - Patrick Henry
"Politicians and diapers both need to be changed, and for the same reason." - Anonymous
"Right is right, even if everyone is against it, and wrong is wrong, even if everyone is for it." - William Penn
"Naturally the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor in Germany. That is understood. But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country" - Hermann Goering
"I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my sinful nature. For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. For what I do is not the good I want to do; no, the evil I do not want to do this I keep on doing." - Romans 7:18-19
"Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things you didn't do than by the ones you did do. So throw off the bowlines. Sail away from the safe harbor. Catch the trade winds in your sails. Explore. Dream. Discover." - Mark Twain