Did you think they have not been listening to US phone calls for a long time?

Keep current.

US microwaved calls picked up by satillite, up linked to geosynch sat to another geosynchsat, down to european site where the calls become 'property' of the host country, host country's property data ( US phone calls) re-uplinked to geosynchsat over to another geosynchsat, downlinked to guess who.  Why do you think they have been doing that?  Hmmm?  Can you say: 'computer monitoring for key-words or -key-phrases'?  It ain't rocket science.  When a call is microwaved... perhaps, a millionth of the mw energy is picked up by the receiving antenna.  The remainder of the mw energy goes off into space, if a sat is passing it gets hit with the mw energy and signal.  

Remember when the democrats cloned Newt's cell phone?  For 'special people'.....take a guess.  Easy stuff.  

Perspiring minds want to know.

PS, do you think people are not listening to your cell and wireless phone conversations?  That is a whole hobby group.  Here is a free hint, use digital, encrypted, spread spectrum.

personally i am sick of calling this thing a war on terror... terror is a tactic. its a war on taqfirs, islamic miltancy... terrorism is the strategy they use. is silly to fight a strategy. you fight the enemy .  the enemy is islamic miltancy..

bush is a puss for not putting in the correct terms...

even he is a little PC.

andy why wont he address the damn border?

and get used to being monitored. eventually everything will be monitored. is enevitable in a world where one person can manufacture enough antrhrax to kill  a large city. as technology grows, the ability to use it to destroy massive numbers of people will only increase. the only answer is to monitor everyone all the time. and it will happen.. the price of progress as we reach for the stars..

Quoted: personally i am sick of calling this thing a war on terror... terror is a tactic. its a war on taqfirs, islamic miltancy... terrorism is the strategy they use. is silly to fight a strategy. you fight the enemy .  the enemy is islamic miltancy.. bush is a puss for not putting in the correct terms... even he is a little PC. andy why wont he address the damn border? and get used to being monitored. eventually everything will be monitored. is enevitable in a world where one person can manufacture enough antrhrax to kill  a large city. as technology grows, the ability to use it to destroy massive numbers of people will only increase. the only answer is to monitor everyone all the time. and it will happen.. the price of progress as we reach for the stars..

I agree with you about the war on terror. There should of been a declared war by the US congress after 9-11. A declared war on radical muslem jihadist.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I can't believe you guys are still frothing at the mouth over terror.  To still be afraid of terrorists has got to be the most successful manipulation of fear I've ever heard of. Something like twelve times more Americans died of suicide than died in terror attacks in 2001.  And they took out two whole office buildings.   This whole War on Terror thing is stupid.  Bush is obviously not even interested in protecting the people of the US... he's not doing anything about our southern border, can't keep straight where the Middle Easterners are who are here on visas (expired or not) and doesn't seem concerned with protecting the civil liberties of the citizens.  He's a disaster on all counts, and he's bankrupting your children with his ubelievable spending programs. Pfft. Are you really still afraid of terrorists? You are missing a very crucial point.  Every one of the people who cimmit suicide knew they were going to die and wanted it to happen.  Those people who went to work on 9/11 didn't want to die and had no idea that they would Also, suicide was the 10th most common cause of death.  The #1 cause of death was more than 26 times more numerous (ETA: more numerous than suicide).  And we sure as hell haven't spent 500 billion dollars this year trying to fix that one.  Unless you count building schools and roads and utilities and whatnot in BAGHDAD!!! I think Bush's priorities are way out of line.

PERSONAL ATTACK!!!!!!!!!!!!!


SHUT THE FUCK UP DUMBASS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Are you really still afraid of terrorists? That there are actually people that believe the imbecilic crap you just posted scares me more. Problem with your kind of blind stupidity is it gets other people that you killed. You once again show an outstanding ability to post stupidest BS possible on any given day. There must be an award for this kind of blindness other than the Darwin award you are well on your way to earning You can't handle the danger that comes with living in a free society.  There is danger in the world, Mike, and that's how it goes.  You can also surrender your liberty to an oppressive government IN ADDITION to having the danger of terrorism around you. Surrendering your freedom doesn't do anything to alleviate the danger of living in a free world.   I would rather have the danger of terrorism without the oppresive governmental intrusion into my private life, rather than have the danger of terrorism AND the police state breathing down my neck every time I wake up in the morning. It is certain that our liberties are slipping away.  It is extremely unlikely that I, or anyone I know, or anyone that YOU know, will be injured or killed in a terror attack.  Handle the most likely problem first. Try to gain some perspective on this.  Take a step back and think with the human part of the brain, not the monkey part of the brain.

DUDE!YOU LIVE IN FUCKING CALIFORNIA! YOU LIVE IN AMERICA'S NUMERO UNO POLICE STATE! ONLY MYASSCHEWSHIT IS 2ND AND THATS ONLY DUE TO LACK OF POPULATION. YOUR STATE IS FULL OF NAZIS AND ITS RUN BY THEM! YOU KNOW NOTHING NOT A FUCKING THING ABOUT LIVING IN A FREE STATE!

Quoted: <snip> I disagree.  The runup started in 1980, and you can't smooth out spikes.  That's the data, you have to take it as it is.  Why would you smooth out the spike?  You don't like it?  I don't think that's sufficient.   You don't get to assume away data that you don't like. <snip>

Actually, depending on the type of analysis you're doing*, you're SUPPOSED TO smooth out the spikes.  It's called a "best-fit" line graph.

It let's you deal with (more or less) "averages" which remove a lot of the "erratic-ness" from analyses (esp problematic in visual analyses).

I still remember the first college-level finance class I took.  I took it as an elective, for personal enrichment.  I never thought I would like it so much, but it's actually the class that convinced me to switch colleges [within the university] and become a business major.

My prof was old school, no PhD (he was teaching as a non-TT lecturer), but he had BTDT (gross understatement; he actually knew Buffett).  He didn't need to work, but he did need the time away from his trophy wife (big, lovely tits, but high maintenance).  

Anyway, he told us a story one day, about when he was a young man [essentially] apprenticing to some big-shot, old-school finance guru (I always imagine the guy looking like Scrooge or Marley; his description evoked that era).  Being fresh out of school, he wanted to impress the guy, so he was keeping track of the first investments he'd made under that guy's roof/umbrella.  One day the market jumped and closed [still] high.

The next morning (bright and early), my prof was ecstatic; when his mentor strolled in around 11am (his usual time), my prof mentioned to the guy about what the market had done over the last few days and how it affected his first moves.

The guy said "Hmmn, I'd been wondering where the market was at for the last week or so.  Good to know, good to know."  My prof asked him something along the lines of when the last time he had actually looked at the market numbers, and the guy replied that he hadn't looked in months.  It was a jarring lesson for a new adherent.

After finishing the story, my prof added, remembering his mentor fondly: "The man definitely lived life in Berkshire-Hathaway time."  

Jake.


* BTW, in the type(s) of analysis you've been proffering, you're SUPPOSSED TO use best-fit lines (as a rule, this is the case with MOST financial analysis).  The major exception is when you're studying the actual spikes/tanks/etc, and/or the reasons for/behind them, and/or eco/fin indicators of aforementioned spikes/tanks/etc (this is done in an attempt to find commonalities which can be used as indicators to warn of future analogous situations).

Quoted: I disagree.  The runup started in 1980, and you can't smooth out spikes.  That's the data, you have to take it as it is.  Why would you smooth out the spike?  You don't like it?  I don't think that's sufficient.

You smooth out the spikes to look at the average trend instead of the peaks and valleys.  Of course that really makes it harder to select a date range with a down-turn and wave it around.

Quoted: I can't believe you guys are still frothing at the mouth over terror.  To still be afraid of terrorists has got to be the most successful manipulation of fear I've ever heard of.  Something like twelve times more Americans died of suicide than died in terror attacks in 2001.  And they took out two whole office buildings.   This whole War on Terror thing is stupid.  Bush is obviously not even interested in protecting the people of the US... he's not doing anything about our southern border, can't keep straight where the Middle Easterners are who are here on visas (expired or not) and doesn't seem concerned with protecting the civil liberties of the citizens.  He's a disaster on all counts, and he's bankrupting your children with his ubelievable spending programs. Pfft. Are you really still afraid of terrorists?

Wary of, yes, not so much afraid.

Do you really want us to stick our heads in the sand? We can just cut off funding for all non-essential services, like welfare and healthcare, and go back to keeping our paychecks.

Quoted: I am so glad people who think like Peak_Oil had absolutely no say in how WWII was run or in how we dealth with the fucking Japanese. The damage dealt to the US in 1941 was far less significant than 9/11.  Would you call our reaction to it an overreaction?  If you think we've overreacted and are making Islamic terrorism out to be a much bigger threat than it really is, I can only asssume you'd think Japan was a much more exaggerated threat.  I mean, they blow up a few battleships, kill a couple hundred sailors and what do we do?  Raze their capital and nuke two minor cities for good measure, then overthrow their government and institute democracy by force.  Oh, and intern pretty much every US citizen who happens to share their race in concentration camps. Overreaction?  Maybe.  But have we ever had to worry about Japan since?  Or ever in the future?  Probably not, precisely because we dealt it back to them far more drastically than they ever gave it to us. Your alternative to Bush's action against terrorism (which in my opinion is far more tepid and timid than what I would like to see) is..........what?  Just taking 9/11 as the inevitible lumps of being a free and open society (that our enemies see as weak and soft that they can strike with impunity, counting exactly on the attitudes of people like you who lack the mettle it took to decisively defeat our enemies in the 1940's in just a few years).  Keep looking over our shoulders?  Just resign ourselves to the fact we'll just have to accept the random slaughter of our citizens and that fighting back would cause more problems than it would solve? WHERE DO THESE ATTITUDES COME FROM?  What's happened to this country?

I will agree with your post, by and large, but how about this:

If the present threat were to be addressed similarly to the Japanese threat, and we "dealt it back to them far more drastically than they ever dealt it back to us," (I like that wording and attitude, BTW), would we even need to go pussy-footing around like this?

Here is my entire problem with this, in a nutshell:

It's not how the .gov is actually using the cartes blanche they issue themselves; it's the ultimate potential of those cartes that is (and should be) worrisome.  Example: Even if you think that Bush is "doing right" with this whole "spying business," what about the next admin?  And the next?  See, I do think the Bush admin is being a fairly responsible steward of the *extraordinary* powers they've assumed and/or been given.  That said, would any of us trust a "Hillary in '08" regime to be either as responsible, or more so?

All this said, I *firmly* believe that "desperate times call for desperate measures".  The burr under my saddle is that we wouldn't *be* in such "desperate times" (thanks, MSM ) if we weren't always negotiatiating and/or operating from a position of weakness.  The real kicker, is that it's not an *actual* position of weakness, but a chosen/assumed one.

Whatever happened to the "Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead" mentality?

Quoted: Quoted: The two previous posts are very good. One thing..... Pearl Harbor did a lot more damage to our military and our ability to strike back than 9/11 did.  It took us years to develop the capability to strike Japan itself, while it only took us 6 weeks to do the planning and strike Afghanistan. But 9/11 was a solar plexus sucker punch to an economy that was already sucking wind. (Can I copyright that?) Do a thorough analysis of the last 5 quarters of the Glory (Clinton) years and you'll see the cycle was trending downwards...but the MSM was able to stall "reporting" (AKA hyperbolizing) the real effects until W took over... then, miracle of miracles, the economy tanks on January 21, 2001.

Good point/post.  It must be noted, however, that this completely ignores the "inertial effects" of positive/negative MSM reporting on the markets.  That's another story, entirely.

Found This Today,

"No President is Above the Law"
Senator Robert C. Byrd
December 19, 2005

Americans have been stunned at the recent news of the abuses of power by an overzealous President.  It has become apparent that this Administration has engaged in a consistent and unrelenting pattern of abuse against our Country's law-abiding citizens, and against our Constitution.

We have been stunned to hear reports about the Pentagon gathering information and creating databases to spy on ordinary Americans whose only sin is choose to exercise their First Amendment right to peaceably assemble.  Those Americans who choose to question the Administration's flawed policy in Iraq are labeled by this Administration as domestic terrorists.

We now know that the F.B.I.'s use of National Security Letters on American citizens has increased one hundred fold, requiring tens of thousands of individuals to turn over personal information and records.  These letters are issued without prior judicial review, and provide no real means for an individual to challenge a permanent gag order.

Through news reports, we have been shocked to learn of the CIA's practice of rendition, and the so-called "black sites," secret locations in foreign countries, where abuse and interrogation have been exported, to escape the reach of U.S. laws protecting against human rights abuses.

We know that Vice President Dick Cheney has asked for exemptions for the CIA from the language contained in the McCain torture amendment banning cruel, inhumane, and degrading treatment.  Thank God his pleas have been rejected by this Congress.

Now comes the stomach-churning revelation through an executive order, that President Bush has circumvented both the Congress and the courts.  He has usurped the Third Branch of government - the branch charged with protecting the civil liberties of our people - by directing the National Security Agency to intercept and eavesdrop on the phone conversations and e-mails of American citizens without a warrant, which is a clear violation of the Fourth Amendment.  He has stiff-armed the People's Branch of government.  He has rationalized the use of domestic, civilian surveillance with a flimsy claim that he has such authority because we are at war.  The executive order, which has been acknowledged by the President, is an end-run around the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which makes it unlawful for any official to monitor the communications of an individual on American soil without the approval of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.

What is the President thinking?  Congress has provided for the very situations which the President is blatantly exploiting.  The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, housed in the Department of Justice, reviews requests for warrants for domestic surveillance.  The Court can review these requests expeditiously and in times of great emergency.  In extreme cases, where time is of the essence and national security is at stake, surveillance can be conducted before the warrant is even applied for.

This secret court was established so that sensitive surveillance could be conducted, and information could be gathered without compromising the security of the investigation. The purpose of the FISA Court is to balance the government's role in fighting the war on terror with the Fourth Amendment rights afforded to each and every American.

The American public is given vague and empty assurances by the President that amount to little more than "trust me."  But, we are a nation of laws and not of men.  Where is the source of that authority he claims?  I defy the Administration to show me where in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or the U.S. Constitution,  they are allowed to steal into the lives of innocent America citizens and spy.

When asked yesterday what the source of this authority was, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice had no answer.  Secretary Rice seemed to insinuate that eavesdropping on Americans was acceptable because FISA was an outdated law, and could not address the needs of the government in combating the new war on terror.  This is a patent falsehood.  The USA Patriot Act expanded FISA significantly, equipping the government with the tools it needed to fight terrorism.  Further amendments to FISA were granted under the Intelligence Authorization Act of 2002 and the Homeland Security Act of 2002.  In fact, in its final report, the 9/11 Commission noted that the removal of the pre-9/11 "wall" between intelligence officials and law enforcement was significant in that it "opened up new opportunities for cooperative action."

The President claims that these powers are within his role as Commander in Chief.  Make no mistake, the powers granted to the Commander in Chief are specifically those as head of the Armed Forces.  These warrantless searches are conducted not against a foreign power, but against unsuspecting and unknowing American citizens.  They are conducted against individuals living on American soil, not in Iraq or Afghanistan.  There is nothing within the powers granted in the Commander in Chief clause that grants the President the ability to conduct clandestine surveillance of American civilians.  We must not allow such groundless, foolish claims to stand.

The President claims a boundless authority through the resolution that authorized the war on those who perpetrated the September 11th attacks.  But that resolution does not give the President unchecked power to spy on our own people.  That resolution does not give the Administration the power to create covert prisons for secret prisoners.  That resolution does not authorize the torture of prisoners to extract information from them.  That resolution does not authorize running black-hole secret prisons in foreign countries to get around U.S. law.  That resolution does not give the President the powers reserved only for kings and potentates.

I continue to be shocked and astounded by the breadth with which the Administration undermines the constitutional protections afforded to the people, and the arrogance with which it rebukes the powers held by the Legislative and Judicial Branches.  The President has cast off federal law, enacted by Congress, often bearing his own signature, as mere formality.  He has rebuffed the rule of law, and he has trivialized and trampled upon the prohibitions against unreasonable search and seizures guaranteed to Americans by the United States Constitution.

We are supposed to accept these dirty little secrets.  We are told that it is irresponsible to draw attention to President Bush's gross abuse of power and Constitutional violations.  But what is truly irresponsible is to neglect to uphold the rule of law.  We listened to the President speak last night on the potential for democracy in Iraq.  He claims to want to instill in the Iraqi people a tangible freedom and a working democracy, at the same time he violates our own U.S. laws and checks and balances?  President Bush, I dare say in this country we may have reached our own sort of landmark.  Never have the promises and protections of Liberty seemed so illusory.  Never have the freedoms we cherish seemed so imperiled.

These renegade assaults on the Constitution and our system of laws strike at the very core of our values, and foster a sense of mistrust and apprehension about the reach of government.

I am reminded of Thomas Payne's famous words, "These are the times that try men's souls."

These astounding revelations about the bending and contorting of the Constitution to justify a grasping, irresponsible Administration under the banner of "national security" are an outrage.  Congress can no longer sit on the sidelines.  It is time to ask hard questions of the Attorney General, the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, and the Director of the CIA.  The White House should not be allowed to exempt itself from answering the same questions simply because it might assert some kind of "executive privilege' in order to avoid further embarrassment.

The practice of domestic spying on citizens should halt immediately.  Oversight hearings need to be conducted.  Judicial action may be in order. We need to finally be given answers to our questions:  where is the constitutional and statutory authority for spying on American citizens, what is the content of these classified legal opinions asserting there is a legality in this criminal usurpation of rights, who is responsible for this dangerous and unconstitutional policy, and how many American citizens lives' have been unknowingly affected?

Quoted: Found This Today,

Just proving old KKK Bob is a fool and a hypocrite... as always

www.drudgereport.com/flash8.htm

CLINTON ADMINISTRATION SECRET SEARCH ON AMERICANS -- WITHOUT COURT ORDER CARTER EXECUTIVE ORDER: 'ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE' WITHOUT COURT ORDER Bill Clinton Signed Executive Order that allowed Attorney General to do searches without court approval Clinton, February 9, 1995: "The Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a court order" Jimmy Carter Signed Executive Order on May 23, 1979: "Attorney General is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information without a court order." WASH POST, July 15, 1994: Extend not only to searches of the homes of U.S. citizens but also -- in the delicate words of a Justice Department official -- to "places where you wouldn't find or would be unlikely to find information involving a U.S. citizen... would allow the government to use classified electronic surveillance techniques, such as infrared sensors to observe people inside their homes, without a court order." Deputy Attorney General Jamie S. Gorelick, the Clinton administration believes the president "has inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches for foreign intelligence purposes." Secret searches and wiretaps of Aldrich Ames's office and home in June and October 1993, both without a federal warrant. END

Quoted: This thread is WORTHLESS without: www.powerlineblog.com/archives/mm7.jpg sigh......

Haven't read it yet (and not going to tonight; it's too damned late/early), but here it is, for posterity and our gentle readers:

Newsmax: FISA Court Approved Bush Spy Program.

Discuss amongst yourselves..........