Wednesday, July 31, 2013

Australia’s Election Campaign is Driven by a Barbarism that Dares Not Speak its Name

Australia’s Election Campaign is Driven by a Barbarism that Dares Not Speak its Name

 212
 19  6
 
 266


The Invasion of Australia: Official, At Last
The election campaign in Australia is being fought with the lives of men, women and children. Some drown, others are banished without hope to malarial camps. Children are incarcerated behind razor wire in conditions described as “a huge generator of mental illness”. This barbarism is considered a vote-winner by both the Australian government and opposition. Reminiscent of the closing of borders to Jews in the 1930s, it is smashing the façade of a society advertised as benign and lucky.
If a thousand Australians drowned in sinking boats in Sydney Harbour, the prime minister would lead the nation in mourning; the world would offer condolences. By one measure, 1376 refugees have drowned trying to reach Australia since 1998, many within range of rescue.
The policy in Canberra, known as “stop the boats”, evokes the hysteria and cynicism of more than a century ago when the “yellow peril” was said to be falling down on Australia as if by the force of gravity. Last week, Prime Minister Kevin Rudd reached back to this era when he declared that no refugees in boats would be permitted to land in Australia. Instead, they are to be sent to concentration camps in impoverished Papua New Guinea, whose government has been suitably bribed.
Among them are people fleeing wars and their aftermath for which Australia and its US mentor bear responsibility. Those who survive are made prisoners in a harsh gulag on the most isolated islands on earth. Women and children sent to equatorial Manus Island already have had to be evacuated because of mosquito-infested conditions. Now Manus is to receive 3,000 more refugees who, denied legal rights, may spend years there. A former security guard on the island said, “[It’s] worse than a prison actually… Words can’t really describe… I have never seen human beings so destitute, so helpless and so hopeless… In Australia, the facility couldn’t serve as a dog kennel. Its owners would be jailed.”
Australia is a signatory to the 1951 Refugee Convention. Rudd’s actions are not only lawless actions but weaken international refugee law and the human rights movements that buttress it. In 1992, the Labor government of Paul Keating was the first to impose illegal mandatory detention of refugees, including children. Since then, Australian governments have waged a propaganda war on refugees, in alliance with a media dominated by Rupert Murdoch. Vast, sparsely-populated Australia demands “protection” from refugees and asylum seekers of whom fewer than 15,000 were settled last year — 0.99 per cent of the world’s total.
The punitive, racist nature of this policy allows the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (ASIO) to “assess” people in secret and detain them indefinitely – such as Tamils fleeing the civil war in Sri Lanka. Many have no idea why they are imprisoned and have included children.
Clearly, Rudd hopes to be re-elected on this “fear card”. British politicians play a similar game; but in Australia race is all but genetically inscribed, as in apartheid South Africa. The federation of the Australian states in 1901 was founded on racial exclusion and a dread of non-existent “hordes” from as far away as Russia. A 1940s policy of “populate or perish” produced a vibrant multiculturalism — yet a crude, often unconscious racism remains an extraordinary current in Australian society and is exploited by a political elite with an enduring colonial mentality and obsequiousness to western “interests”.
Rudd’s banishment of refugees who come by sea is designed to wrong-foot his opponent, the conservative Coalition leader, Tony Abbott, a Catholic fundamentalist. Labor restored Rudd to the leadership last month because Julia Gillard’s unpopularity threatened to destroy the party at the polls and, with it, Australia’s Westminster-style club of two major parties with mostly indistinguishable policies.
Rudd’s move was nothing new – bashing the vulnerable is said to win votes in Australia, whether they are refugees or Aborigines. His predecessor, John Howard, bashed both. Shortly before the 2001 election, Howard claimed that people on a stricken boat had thrown their children into sea and so could not be “genuine refugees.” Later, it was revealed the “children overboard” story was a fabrication.
Two weeks before the next election, in 2007, Howard declared a state of emergency in the Northern Territory and sent the army into impoverished indigenous communities where, his minister Mal Brough claimed, paedophile gangs were abusing children in “unthinkable numbers”. The Australian Crime Commission, the Northern Territory Police and medical specialists who examined 11,000 children found his allegations to be false.
Although Howard failed to win this election, his vicious campaign of smear and dispossession — he demanded Aboriginal people hand over the leasehold of their land — succeeded in devastating whole communities which have yet to recover. A government review of what became known as the “intervention” found a “collective despair” among black Australians. The Australian Indigenous Doctors Association reported widespread hunger and starvation. Self-harm and attempted suicide quadrupled.
As opposition leader at the time, Rudd gave Howard full support. Later, as prime minister, he made an emotional public apology to the tens of thousands of Aboriginal Australians wrenched from the families during the twentieth century, known as the Stolen Generation. Quietly, Rudd refused the victims compensation of any kind. Had they been white, he would not have dared. When I asked him about this, he replied, “These questions should be dealt with over time”. With Aboriginal life expectancy among the lowest in the world, the victims have no time.
Labor has since allowed the very assimilationist cruelties for which Rudd apologised. In a one-year period to June last year, 13,299 impoverished Aboriginal children were taken from their families, more than during any of the infamous years of the Stolen Generation. They include babies seized from birth tables. “We believe another stolen generation is well and truly under way,” Josey Crawshaw, director of a respected Darwin-based child support organisation, told me. “They are plucked from their communities, often without explanation or any plan to return them, and they are given to whites. This is social engineering in its most radical sense. It’s horrific.” For both Aborigines and refugees, the irony is self evident. Only Aboriginal people are the true Australians. The rest of us – beginning with Captain Cook – are boat people.
John Pilger’s film on Australia, Utopia, will be released in the UK in the autumn. Visit his website at johnpilger.com

Tham Khảo Đọc Thêm: Sự Thật về Thế Chiến 2 và Huyền thoại Nguyên Tử Hiroshima

The Hiroshima Myth. Unaccountable War Crimes and the Lies of US Military History


 52  15

 10.8K
hiroshima
This coming Tuesday, August 6, 2013, is the 68th anniversary of the bombing of Hiroshima, the whole truth of which has been heavily censored and mythologized ever since war-weary Americans celebrated V-J Day 10 days later.
In the pitiful history lessons that were taught by my uninspired/bored history teachers (which seemed to be mostly jocks) came from patriotic and highly censored books where everything the British and US military ever did in war time was honorable and self-sacrificing and everything their opponents did was barbaric. Everybody in my graduating class of 26 swallowed the post-war propaganda in our history books. It was from these books that we learned about the “glorious” end of the war against Japan.
Of course, I now know that I had been given false information, orchestrated by war-justifying militarists (and assorted uber-patiotic historians) starting with General Douglas MacArthur. MacArthur successfully imposed total censorship of what really happened at Ground Zero. One of his first acts after taking over as viceroy of Japan was to confiscate and/or destroy all the photographic evidence documenting the horrors of the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
 Back in 1995, the Smithsonian Institution was preparing to correct some the 50-year-old pseudo-patriotic myths by staging an honest, historically-accurate display dealing with the atomic bombings. Following the vehement, orchestrated, reactionary outrage emanating from right-wing veterans groups and other patriot groups (including Newt Gingrich’s GOP-dominated Congress that threatened to stop federal funding of the Institute), the Smithsonian was forced to censor-out all of the unwelcome but contextually important parts of the story. So again we had another example of politically-motivated groups heavily altering real history because they were afraid of revealing “unpatriotic” historical truths that might shake the confidence of average Americans in our leaders, sort of like the near-total media black-out about the controlled demolitions of the three World Trade Center buildings on 9/11/01 that killed thousands of innocent people and unleashed the dogs of war against innocents in Afghanistan (explore  www.ae911truth.org for the  documentation of that assertion).
Nagasaki on August 9, 1945
The Smithsonian historians did have a gun to their heads, of course, but in the melee, the corporate-controlled mainstream media – and therefore the public – failed to learn an important historical point, and that is this: The war could have ended in the spring of 1945 without the summer atomic bombs, and therefore there might have been no Okinawa bloodbath for thousands of American Marines and soldiers. Also there would have been no need for an American land invasion of Japan – the basis of the subsequent propaganda campaign that justified the use of atomic weapons on defenseless civilian populations and meets the definition of an international war crime and a crime against humanity.
American intelligence, with the full knowledge of President Truman’s administration, was aware of Japan’s desperate search for ways to honorably surrender months before Truman gave the fateful order to incinerate Hiroshima.
 Intelligence data, revealed in the 1980s, showed that the contingency plans for a large-scale US invasion (planned for no sooner than November 1, 1945) would have been unnecessary. Japan was working on peace negotiations through its Moscow ambassador as early as April of 1945. Truman knew of these developments because the US had broken the Japanese code years earlier, and all of Japan’s military and diplomatic messages were being intercepted. On July 13, 1945, Foreign Minister Togo said: “Unconditional surrender (giving up all sovereignty, especially deposing the Emperor) is the only obstacle to peace.”
Truman and his advisors knew about these efforts, and the war could have ended through diplomacy by simply conceding a post-war figurehead position for the emperor Hirohito – who was regarded as a deity in Japan. That reasonable concession was – seemingly illogically – refused by the US in their demands for unconditional surrender, initially demanded at the 1943 Casablanca Conference between Roosevelt and Churchill and reiterated at the Potsdam Conference between Truman, Churchill and Stalin. Still, the Japanese continued searching for an honorable peace through negotiations.
 Even Secretary of War Henry Stimson, said: “the true question was not whether surrender could have been achieved without the use of the bomb but whether a different diplomatic and military course would have led to an earlier surrender. A large segment of the Japanese cabinet was ready in the spring of 1945 to accept substantially the same terms as those finally agreed on.” In other words, Stimson felt that the US had unnecessarily prolonged the war.
After Japan did surrender, MacArthur allowed the emperor to remain in place as spiritual head of Japan, the very condition that coerced the Japanese leadership to refuse to accept the humiliating “unconditional surrender” terms.
So the two essential questions that need answering to comprehend what was going on behind the scenes are these:
1) Why did the US refuse to accept Japan’s only demand concerning their surrender (the retention of the emperor) and
2) why were the atomic bombs used when victory in the Pacific was already a certainty?
 Shortly after WWII, military analyst Hanson Baldwin wrote:
“The Japanese, in a military sense, were in a hopeless strategic situation by the time the Potsdam Declaration (insisting on Japan’s unconditional surrender) was made on July 26, 1945.”
Admiral William Leahy, top military aide to President Truman, said in his war memoirs, I Was There:
“It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons. My own feeling is that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages.”
And General Dwight D. Eisenhower, in a personal visit to President Truman a couple of weeks before the bombings, urged him not to use the atomic bombs. Eisenhower said:
“It wasn’t necessary to hit them with that awful thing . . . to use the atomic bomb, to kill and terrorize civilians, without even attempting [negotiations], was a double crime.”
There are a number of factors that contributed to the Truman administration’s decision to use the bombs.
1) The US had made a huge investment in time, mind and money (a massive 2 billion in 1940 dollars) to produce three bombs, and there was no inclination – and no guts – to stop the momentum.
2) The US military and political leadership – as did many ordinary Americans – had a tremendous appetite for revenge because of Pearl Harbor. Mercy wasn’t in the mindset of the US military or the war-weary populace, and the missions against Hiroshima and Nagasaki were accepted – no questions asked – by most of those folks who only knew the sanitized, national security version of events.
3) The fissionable material in Hiroshima’s bomb was uranium. The Nagasaki bomb was a plutonium bomb. Scientific curiosity was a significant factor that pushed the project to its completion. The Manhattan Project scientists (and the US Army director of the project, General Leslie Groves) were curious about “what would happen if an entire city was leveled by a single uranium bomb?” “What about a plutonium bomb?”
The decision to use both bombs had been made well in advance of August 1945. Accepting the surrender of Japan was not an option if the science experiment was to go ahead. Of course the three-day interval between the two bombs was unconscionably short if the Hiroshima bomb was designed to coerce immediate surrender. Japan’s communications and transportation capabilities were in shambles, and no one, not even the US military, much less the Japanese high command, fully understood what had happened at Hiroshima. (The Manhattan Project was so top secret that even Douglas MacArthur, commanding general of the entire Pacific theatre, had been kept out of the loop until five days before Hiroshima.)
4) The Russians had proclaimed their intent to enter the war with Japan 90 days after V-E Day (Victory in Europe Day, May 8), which would have been Aug. 8, two days after Hiroshima was bombed. Indeed, Russia did declare war on Japan on August 8 and was advancing eastward across Manchuria when Nagasaki was incinerated. The US didn’t want Japan surrendering to Russia or sharing the spoils of war.
Russia was soon to be the only other superpower – and a future enemy – so the first nuclear threat “messages” of the Cold War were sent. Russia indeed received far less of the spoils of war than they had anticipated, and the two superpowers were instantly mired in the Cold War stalemate that led to the unaffordable nuclear arms race and the possibility of total extinction of the human race. What did happen was the mutual moral and financial bankruptcies of both nations that occurred over the next couple of generations of military madness.
An estimated 80,000 innocent civilians, plus 20,000 weaponless young Japanese conscripts died instantly in the Hiroshima bombing. Hundreds of thousands more suffered slow deaths from agonizing burns, radiation sickness, leukemias, anemias and untreatable infections for the rest of their shortened lives. Generations of the survivor’s progeny were also afflicted with horrible radiation-induced illnesses, cancers and premature deaths, still going on to this very hour.
  Another shameful reality that has been covered up is the fact that 12 American Navy pilots, their existence well known to the US command, were instantly incinerated in the Hiroshima jail on the fateful day
So the official War Department-approved version of the end of the war in the Pacific contained a new batch of myths that took their places among the long lists of myths that Americans are continuously fed by our corporate, military, political and media opinion leaders, the gruesomeness of war being changed to glorification in the process. Among the other censored out realities include what really happened in the US military invasions and occupations of the countries of North Korea, Iran, Viet Nam, Laos, Cambodia, Lebanon, Granada, Panama, the Philippines, Chile, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Guatemala, Honduras, Haiti, Colombia, Kuwait, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc, etc. This list doesn’t cover the uncountable secret Pentagon/CIA covert operations and assassination plots in the rest of the world, where as many as150 nations contain American military bases (permission lavishly paid for by bribery or threats of economic sanctions).
But somehow most of us still hang on to our shaky “my country right or wrong” patriotism, desperately wanting to believe the cunningly-orchestrated myths that say that the war-profiteering multibillionaire corporate elite (and their politicians, military leaders and media talking heads who are in their employ) only work for peace, justice, equality, liberty and “making the world safe” for predatory capitalism.
While it is true that the US military has faced down the occasional despot, with necessary sacrifice from dead and mortally-wounded (in body, mind and spirit) American soldiers and veterans, more often than not the rationalization for going to war are the same as those of the “godless communists”, the anti-American “insurgents” and “freedom fighters” who want to convince us Yankees to just go home where we belong.
August 6 and 9, 1945 are just two more examples of the brain-washing that goes on in all “total war” political agendas, which are always accompanied by the inevitable human slaughter that is euphemistically labeled “collateral damage” or “friendly fire”.
It might already be too late to rescue and resuscitate the humanitarian, peacemaking America that we used to know and love. It might be too late to effectively confront the corporate hijacking of liberal democracy in America. It might be too late to successfully bring down the arrogant and greedy ruling elites who are selfishly dragging our world down the road to our destruction. The rolling coup d’etat of what I call Friendly American Fascism may have already accomplished its goals.
  But there may still be some hope. Rather than being silent about the wars that the war-mongers are provoking all over the planet (with the very willing assistance of the Pentagon, the weapons industry and their lapdogs in Congress), people of conscience need to start learning the whole truth of history, despite the discomfort we will feel (cognitive dissonance) when the truth can’t be ignored any more.
We need to start owning up to America’s uncountable war crimes that have been orchestrated in our names. And then we need to go to the streets, publicly protesting and courageously refusing to cooperate with those who are transforming America into a criminal rogue nation that will eventually be targeted for downfall by its billions of suffering victims outside our borders, similar to what happened to Nazi Germany and Fascist Japan.
Doing what is right for the whole of humanity for a change, rather than just doing what is profitable or advantageous for our over-privileged, over-consumptive and unsustainable American way of life, would be real honor, real patriotism and an essential start toward real peace.

Tham Khảo bài Đọc Thêm: Óc Loài Ngưòi Đang Teo Nhỏ lại dần???

Hiện tượng đáng lo ngại, theo nghiên cứu của một số nhân chủng học, óc loài nguời đa số đang nhỏ lại dần, dễ thuần phục hóa hơn xưa.

Nếu lý giải theo hiện tuợng đa số, nhất là ở các xã hội công nghiệp hóa, dường như kết luận này đúng!

Nhưng xét ở mức độ nhóm người và những tư duy ý niệm mới, có lẽ ban nghiên cứu cần đặt lại vấn đề:

Thứ nhất nếu đúng, thì do nguyên nhân nào? Cần lý giải chi tiết hơn là một sơ đồ tổng quát!
Thứ hai, Óc nhỏ hơn, nhưng ở vùng não bộ nào? Ý niệm, sáng tạo, thích ứng nhiên giới? và tại sao nó còn tồn tại, hay độ lớn còn phát triển ở một số người nào và nguyên nhân tại sao?
--------------

Modern Man’s Shrinking Brain

 19

 5  8



 44


age_of_reason
We’ve repeatedly noted that our brains are smaller than our ancestors.
This graphic summarizes some of the most interesting information:


Shrinking Brain
Source: SuperScholar.org
 

7 Skills To Become Super Smart

People aren’t born smart. They become smart. And to become smart you need a well-defined set of skills. Here are some tips and resources for acquiring those skills.

Memory

If you can’t remember what you’re trying to learn, you’re not really learning. The secret to remembering is this: memory comes naturally once you understand what you’re trying to learn and organize it effectively in your mind. A valuable resource for getting the “filing cabinets” of your mind in good working order is Brian Walsh’s Unleashing Your Brilliance: Tools & Techniques to Achieve Personal, Professional & Academic Success .
If you want to amaze your friends with remembering faces, names, and numbers, look to the grand-daddy of memory training, Harry Lorayne. His How to Develop a Super-Power Memory is a classic. The problem with Harry Lorayne type memory courses (popularized more recently by Kevin Trudeau), is that they focus on mental tricks and gimmicks to memorize trivial stuff that really doesn’t make for a deep understanding of important subjects. In ancient times, without the help of teleprompters or PowerPoint presentations, speakers did need to memorize a lot of material verbatim and used various memory tricks to do so. But this has become less important in our day. Still, it’s worth knowing about these tricks to memory. For a thoughtful book on memory and forgetting by an academic psychologist, see Kenneth Higbee’s Your Memory: How It Works and How to Improve It.

Reading


Good scholars need to be good readers. But who is a good reader? Often when we think of “good readers,” we think of speed—good readers, so we’re told, can fly through material. But that’s not necessarily the case. Woodrow Wilson, president of Princeton University and noted historian before becoming U.S. president, was dyslexic, so it took him forever to read through material. There’s an old Saturday Night Live routine (season 3, episode 5, November 12, 1977) that parodies speed reading courses. Back in the 1970s, Evelyn Wood’s speed reading course was all the rage (it’s still being taught; and books on speed reading with “Evelyn Wood” in the title remain widely available). Here’s the SNL parody:
Evelyn Woodski Slow Reading Course
Announcer … Dan Aykroyd
Man … Garrett Morris
Woman … Jane Curtin
Surgeon … Bill Murray
… Ray Charles
Announcer V/O: [The following words rapidly appear on a blue screen as they are read by the fast-talking announcer:] This is the way you were taught to read, averaging hundreds or thousands of words per minute. [The words disappear and the following words gradually appear as they are read by the same announcer, very slowly:] This is … the way … you could … be reading … with the … EVELYN WOODSKI … slow … reading … course.
[Dissolve to a pipe-smoking man at a desk.]
Man: Sure, I was skeptical. I think everybody is. But, believe me, I can now read ten, maybe twelve times slower than before.
[Cut to a woman in an easy chair as she reads a book, running her index finger slowly along the text. Suddenly, she bursts out laughing.]
Woman: [serious, to the camera] I used to be a heavy speed reader and I never laughed when I read Mark Twain. But, now that I take my time, I find him very funny. Did you know that reading all the words in a story can help you understand the humor?
[Cut to a surgeon in full surgical garb, including mask and rubber gloves.]
Surgeon: I’m a brain surgeon and, uh, I used to just fly through these technical medical journals, you know? And I found I was makin’ a lot of mistakes in the operating room. And now, with the Evelyn Woodski slow reading course, I catch more o’ the important procedural stuff, you know? And I find I’m a better surgeon for it.
[Dissolve back to the blue screen.]
Announcer V/O: Yes, Evelyn Woodski can help you enjoy reading again. [suddenly loud, rapid] Whyreadlikethis?! [Text appears quickly on screen: "Why should you have to read like this?" - then disappears; the following words gradually appear as they are read by the same announcer, very slowly:] When … you … can … read … like this?
[Dissolve to Ray Charles, seated in easy chair, reading a book in Braille.]
Ray Charles: And there’s … Evelyn … Woodski’s … slow … reading …. course … for Braille. I used to … get … blisters … on my … fingers. [laughter and applause] Now … I just … sit … back and enjoy.
[Dissolve to graphic of a shelf of books with superimposed text reading: EVELYN WOODSKI SLOW READING COURSE 555-2972]
Announcer V/O: Evelyn Woodski slow reading course! Call 555-2972! Call now on this toll free number for your first … free … lesson.
SOURCE: SNL Transcripts
Psychologists have found that many people who take speed reading courses increase their reading speed for a short time but then fall right back to the plodding pace where they started. Part of increasing reading speed is simply breaking through one’s comfort zone and forcing yourself to move through material at a more rapid pace. Perhaps the biggest part of speed reading is knowing what NOT to read. Passing over material that is repetitious or that’s not central to your purpose in reading will help you to get through material quickly (many books could be condensed to a single chapter). Lots of speed reading is, as Stanford statistician Persi Diaconis says, “browsing.” Browsing can be an incredibly useful tool, in which you scan material that you don’t have time to read in depth but get the gist.
Some people just seem to have a gift for reading quickly, being able to grasp entire sentences or even paragraphs at one time, instantly extracting their meaning. Howard Berg falls in this category. He is regarded as the world’s fastest reader. He claims to be able to read tens of thousands of words per minute and offers a widely advertised reading course. Another popular course in this vein is the SpeedLearning program. It’s certainly worth trying them and seeing if they help you. True speed readers, who are approaching a thousand words a minute read without subvocalizing (i.e., without sounding out the words in one’s mind). If you can read without subvocalizing, you are on your way to greater reading speed.
But the bottom line in reading is always comprehension. If you’re flying past thousands of words a minute and don’t understand those words, you’re getting nowhere. For this reason, our favorite work here at Super Scholar on the subject of reading is not one that stresses speed but rather one that stresses comprehension: How to Read a Book by Mortimer Adler and Charles Van Doren. With patience and effort, carefully studying and applying the advice in this classic reference work will turn you into a great reader, regardless of your reading speed in wpm (= words per minute).
By the way, if you read just 30 pages a day, you’ll get through the entire 54 volumes of the Great Books of the Western World, edited by Mortimer Adler and John Maynard Hutchins, in under three years. Slow and steady will allow you to read an enormous amount of material. Just cutting out an hour of television a day and devoting it instead to sustained reading can turn you into a scholar.

Writing

Writing is an essential part of scholarship. Some great scholars have been terrible writers—the strength of their ideas carried them to the top even though their writing style was abysmal. But these are the exceptions. Clarity and precision of expression can only help you as a scholar. Every writer needs to have read Strunk and White’s The Elements of Style. To this Super Scholar would add two very practical books on writing: William Zinsser’s On Writing Well and William Stott’s Write to the Point. Finally, every writer, professional or not, would profit enormously from having a copy of The Chicago Manual of Style. The latter is an incomparable reference work on all aspects of going from thought to word to printed page.
Writing isn’t just about filling up a pages with text. It’s also about persuasion. Scholars are not just in the business of thinking up great ideas. They also have to sell them. Indeed, you are selling yourself and your ideas when you apply to college, graduate school, your first teaching position, and especially when you’re trying to get tenure. For this reason critical thinking and rhetorical skills are indispensable to the scholar’s craft. A great book on rhetoric is Edward Corbett’s Classical Rhetoric for the Modern Student. Besides dealing with the basics of rhetoric, it is filled with very helpful advice for the budding writer. Especially useful is Corbett’s suggestion that if you really want to improve your writing, take some great writer and copy a one or several paragraphs by him/her that particularly strike you and do it over and over again BY HAND. Don’t just type them out but write them out in cursive. That way the writer’s style seeps into your very being.
Another useful book on formulating persuasive arguments in your writing is Nancey Murphy’s Reasoning and Rhetoric in Religion. Don’t let the title fool you. Although the book draws many of its examples from philosophy and religion, the lessons on argumentation that it lays out are universal in scope. Also useful here would be a good book on critical thinking of the sort taught in a first or second year college philosophy course. Gary Jason’s Critical Thinking: Developing an Effective Worldview is quite good but overpriced.

Speaking

Among the worst fears that people have is public speaking. Yet as a scholar, you will be called on to discuss your ideas. Public speaking is therefore part of the scholarly life. Here are some books we at Super Scholar have found valuable in this regard. Dale Carnegie’s How to Develop Self-Confidence And Influence People By Public Speaking is a classic. If you want actual practice in public speaking, Toastmasters International operates thousands of clubs to give members experience in the art of listening and speaking.
Plenty of books and courses exist on speaking and on organizing presentations. A useful general purpose book is Richard Zeoli’s The 7 Principles of Public Speaking: Proven Methods of PR Professional. Though aimed more at a business setting, it is still useful in general. Get to the Point: How to Say What You Mean and Get What You Want by Andrew D. Gilman and Karen E. Berg contains useful advice about the relative merits of going with and without PowerPoint (projected images can distract the audience from the speaker).
Many scholars end up becoming full-time teachers. For the art of teaching we recommend Ken Bain’s What the Best College Teachers Do and Howard Hendricks’ Teaching to Change Lives: Seven Proven Ways to Make Your Teaching Come Alive. The most effective means we know of dealing with speaking phobia is Emotional Freedom Technique (abbreviated EFT). For EFT as it applies to phobias and blockages, see the relevant chapters in Ron Ball’s Freedom at Your Fingertips: Get Rapid Physical and Emotional Relief with the Breakthrough System of Tapping.

Numeracy

Scholars need facility with numbers. Some scholars such as mathematicians, physicists, and engineers tend to score high on the math portions of standardized tests and have fewer problems dealing with numbers. Other scholars, often on the humanities side, prefer to have as little to do with numbers as possible. But numbers are a part of life, so we better learn to live with them. Numbers are often abused. Joseph Stalin once remarked that paper doesn’t care what’s written on it. Likewise, numbers don’t care what you do with them. Consequently, they are easily abused. John Paulos’ Innumeracy: Mathematical Illiteracy and Its Consequences, Darrell Huff’s How to Lie with Statistics, and Peter Olofsson’s Probabilities: The Numbers That Rule our Lives are very useful in keeping numbers from being used to deceive us [links].
It’s also useful to hone your arithmetic skills. Often when confronted with the supposed outcome of a calculation, it’s good to do what engineers call a “sanity check”—are the numbers even in the right ball park? If, for instance, you compute a probability of 5.7, you know you went radically wrong somewhere because probabilities are always numbers between zero and one. There are lots of useful resources for developing your basic arithmetic skills. One of our favorites is The Trachtenberg Speed System of Basic Mathematics by Jakow Trachtenberg. Trachtenberg, a Ukrainian engineer, developed methods for high-speed arithmetical calculations while in a Nazi concentration camp (he did this as a way of keeping his sanity). Numerous spin-offs have been published since. One that’s useful for younger students is the Brainetics.

Empathy

Empathy is about connecting with people. It is about understanding and tracking other people’s emotions. Aristotle stressed the desire of people to know. But people are not just about knowing. They are also about feeling. We are not just cognitive animals but also social animals, and feelings drive most of our social interactions. That’s why many scholars are regarded as nerds or geeks—they are seen as reducing everything to knowledge, to pure intellectualism, forgetting about the feeling element in people. The classic study on empathy was by the towering British economist Adam Smith. Before his great work on economics, The Wealth of Nations, he wrote The Theory of Moral Sentiments. Both books bear careful study to this day.
Smith’s ideas about empathy and moral sentiments have been updated. Today these tend to be identified with “people skills” or “emotional intelligence.” Daniel Goleman’s Emotional Intelligence: Why It Can Matter More than IQ has become a modern classic in this regard. Some scholars think they can bank entirely on mental horsepower, running circles intellectually around their peers. But scholarship is itself a social enterprise. Princeton University mathematicians, for instance, hold an afternoon tea where faculty and graduate students meet informally. Some of the best work in mathematics at Princeton (and Princeton has for decades now had the strongest mathematics faculty in the world) gets done at these social gatherings.
People’s emotional lives tend not to follow strict logical principles. People are not just rational utility optimizers. Instead, they are full of twists and quirks. Two good books for understanding these quirks come from the behavioral economics literature: Dan Ariely’s Predictably Irrational: The Hidden Forces That Shape Our Decisions and Richard Thaler and Cass Sunstein’s Nudge: Improving Decisions about Health, Wealth, and Happiness. Human interactions also have a dark side, as when the culture of rational discourse breaks down, so that instead of resolving our differences with civility and reason, we engage in power plays. Michel Foucault wrote much on this. Perhaps the best popular book on the power plays that infect human relations is Robert Greene’s The 48 Laws of Power. Useful here also is Robert Ringer’s classic Winning through Intimidation, subsequently retitled To Be or Not to Be Intimidated? That Is the Question. This book, despite appearances to the contrary, is not about how to intimidate others but rather about how to prevent others from intimidating you, thereby keeping people from illegitimately exerting power against you. Ringer’s “leap frog principle” epitomizes his approach.
Scholars who pride themselves on being geeks or nerds are not doing themselves any favors. To be the best scholar you can be means being able to work with others. It means putting less of a premium on being a freak and more of a premium on getting along. Empathy is the key.

Time Management

The word “scholar” comes from the Greek word for leisure. Being a scholar means having the leisure time to engage in intellectual pursuits rather than in other forms of labor. It follows that, as a scholar, time is your most valuable asset. How you make use of your time is therefore critical to your productivity as a scholar. In America we tend to waste an inordinate amount of time. The television is on in most homes 6 hours a day. We look for unproductive ways to fill the day.
The best book for remorselessly cutting out the time-wasters from your life is the out-of-print How to Use Your Time to Get Things Done by Edwin Feldman, first published in 1968. Many books have followed in its train, many going under the heading of “time-management.” A popular more recent book here is Time Management from the Inside Out: The Foolproof System for Taking Control of Your Schedule—and Your Life by Julie Morgenstern. Time-management is about productivity. The most popular book on productivity in the last two decades is Steven Covey’s The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People. Though addressed to businessmen and women, it offers much sound advice on how scholars need to use their time.
At Super Scholar, we boil time management down to two principles: (1) Do the hard thing first. (2) Make it a habit to fill up the small empty moments with something productive. The hard things tend to be the most important things, so doing them first gets our priorities straight. Slothful as humans tend to be, we prefer to do the easy thing first. Let the easy thing be the reward for first doing the hard thing. As for filling empty moments, have a book to read or a note pad to scribble on when you’re waiting at a bus stop or in an office. Turn off the television and radio. If driving, listen to an audio book relevant to your work. Amazon Kindle’s text-to-speech feature is quite good, even capturing certain cadences in reading [link].
Time-management is ultimately about avoiding distractions.
 

Nhà Nước Mỹ Đang Chuyển Hướng Dưới Áp Lực Ảnh Hưởng của Snowden


Sự kiên trì dũng cảm của Snowden ngang nhiên dõng dạc giữa khối áp lực đe dọa khổng lồ và bạo ngược của khối nhà nuớc Âu Mỹ đã lôi cuốn được nhiều ủng hộ khắp nơi trên thế giới và trải khắp các giai tầng xã hội cho đến nay. Chính sự ủng hộ và ngưỡng mộ việc làm của Snowden càng ngày càng tăng không chỉ ở các xã hội đối kháng Mỹ như Nga, Hoa, Ả Rập mà ngay ở Âu Mỹ bất chấp làn sóng mỉa mai hạ nhục cá nhân Snowden và các cộng sự của anh từ khối báo chí chính qui Âu Mỹ, Úc v.v  đã khiến bọn nhà nuớc đặc biệt Mỹ đã phải khởi đầu thay đổi "chiến thuật".

Bên ngoài mặt, trong nỗ lực lôi kéo và đánh lạc hướng quần chúng, nhà nuớc Mỹ và đám quốc hội trình diển màn kịch "vận- động- đạo -luật- giảm -quyền- NSA- nhưng-đành- thất- bại- vì- thiếu- số- phiếu khít khao", ra vẻ rằng "đại biểu dân đã quan tâm và rất dân chủ". Đồng thời "giải mật" một số thông tin tài liệu à Snowden đã tung ra truớc đó !!! Với lời thú nhận chính thức "lỗi nói dối" của giám đốc cơ quan NSA- nhưng không bị phạt hay cách chức.

Mặt khác lặng lẽ thay đổi phương pháp và kỹ thuật theo dõi nghe lén trộm cắp một cách chặt chẽ kín đáo hơn với dáng vẻ và ngôn ngữ "phù thủy" hơn, tạo ấn tượng rằng Nhà Nuớc đang lặng lẽ "thu hồi hành động tội phạm"... Nhưng chúng ta có ngây ngô cả tin đến vậy chăng?

Govt Quietly Prepares for NSA Power to Be Curbed

US Senators Rail Against NSA Practices
Feds Declassify Court Order on NSA Surveillance as Pressure Builds
For Congress, 'It's Classified' Means 'None of Your Business'


Dù như thế nào, cho đến nay chúng ta cũng thấy rõ CHÍNH SỰ THỨC TỈNH và ĐỒNG THUẬN ỦNG HỘ CÔNG KHAI của QUẦN CHÚNG ĐẾN VỚI VIỆC LÀM CỦA SNOWDEN, đã buộc bọn nhà nước phải TẠM DẤU LẠI NANH VUỐT CHÓ SÓI...

Nhìn lại tiến trình từ Hong Kong, chúng ta thấy:

Thứ nhất Trung Quốc lặng lẽ giãn nở gọng kềm thông tin với quần chúng sau khi mặc nhiên để báo chí chính qui lên án Mỹ và ca ngợi hành động của Snowden, đồng thời vội vã tiễn chân Snowden để tránh "hậu họa" dấy lên từ bên trong xã hội Trung Quốc!

Thứ hai, Nga khác Trung Quốc, đang trên đà dân sự hóa xã hội và chính trị duới áp lực của quần chúng nhận thức sau sự sụp đổ của Soviet và sự sai lầm của chế độ Boris Yeltsin, buộc Putin và Nga vào thế phải dùng "đòn ông đập lưng ông" (nhân quyền pháp trị) để ứng xử với Mỹ thay vì dùng Snowden để "trao đổi quyền lợi" với Mỹ, một điều quá hấp dẫn với Putin và giới chính trị Nga, nhưng đành cắn răng không thể thực hiện, và phải đóng vai trò trả lời lấp lung vừa "tôn trọng nhân quyền pháp trị -công pháp vừa bảo vệ vị thế quyền lực nhà nuớc Nga Mỹ".

Vấn đề then chốt còn lại, là liệu áp lực quần chúng có gia tăng cường độ đủ mạnh để buộc nhà nuớc phải mặc nhiên để Snowden tự do như Daniel Ellsberg hay không? Vì thế lực nhà nuớc, Mỹ nói riêng và tất cả nói chung, không thể buông tha Snowden như một chiến thắng trong hành động thách thức quyền lực quốc gia nhà nuớc.Chúng phải có phương pháp và mức độ trừng trị để làm điển hình; và đây là "trọng tâm thuơng luợng phía bên trong giữa Mỹ và Nga hay giữa Obama và Putin" trong những ngày sắp đến

Đối với cao trào tự do công lý dân quyền, chỉ có sự tự do của Snowden mới xác định đúng mức một chiến thắng. Bất cứ hệ quả nào xấu hơn sự tự do bình thuờng của Snowden đều là mầm của thất bại, vì đó chính là buớc củng cố vị trí nhà nuớc của bọn cầm quyền.

Chiến thắng này chỉ có đuợc khi quần chúng cương quyết bảo vệ Snowden với một cao trào rộng lớn và mạnh mẽ hơn, một điều khó có thể xảy ra trong tương lai gần dựa theo phản ứng của quần chúng hiện  nay đối với sự kiện Manning cũng như nỗ lực đánh lạc thông tin của guồng máy báo chí chính qui khổng lồ Âu Mỹ đang thực hiện.

Nhưng ai biết đuợc sức mạnh quần chúng khi họ thức tỉnh thì chỉ cần qua một đêm, và rạng sáng là một trang sử mới. Gia đình Shuharto, gia đình Mubarak, Morsi của Ai Cập đã chứng kiến sức mạnh này. Và Mỹ đang chứng kiến truớc sức mạnh của con nguời mảnh mai Edward Snowden!

Và mỗi cá nhân chúng ta có thể kiểm nghiện sức mạnh của sự tỉnh thức này: Động lực nào khiến chúng ta dám đang làm một cách thản nhiên những gì ngày truớc chúng ta phải lo sợ, do dự, cân nhắc, và chùn chân không thể thực hiện?

nkptc

------------------------

US government declassifies court order on NSA surveillance as pressure builds

Document suggests bulk collection of Americans' phone records is 'relevant' for terrorism investigations – but critics disagree

Patrick Leahy, Dianne Feinstein NSA hearing
With a chart listing thwarted acts of terrorism, Patrick Leahy and Dianne Feinstein question top Obama administration officials on Capitol Hill. Photograph: J. Scott Applewhite/AP
A surveillance document declassified on Wednesday details the ability of National Security Agency algorithms and "technical personnel" to search through the NSA's vast databases of phone records from hundreds of millions of Americans.
Disclosed before the contentious Senate judiciary committee hearing on Wednesday, the April 25 document from the secret surveillance court known as the Fisa court bolstered assertions made by top intelligence officials about the restrictions on their ability to sift through the so-called "metadata" they collect in bulk.
But civil libertarians criticized the court's finding that mass collection of Americans' phone records is "relevant" to a terrorism investigation – the central contention for the legality of the bulk collection under Section 215 of the Patriot Act.
The heavily redacted document, from April, sets out the rules that govern a related order covering the Verizon telephone provider, published by the Guardian in June and provided by whistleblower Edward Snowden.
"NSA shall ensure, through adequate and appropriate technical and management controls, that queries of the BR [business records] metadata for intelligence analysis purposes will be initiated only using a selection term that has been RAS-approved," former Fisa court judge Roger Vinson wrote on April 25, using an acronym for "reasonable articulable suspicion", the legal standard NSA must meet to search the database – a standard judges do not certify the NSA has met before each search.
Senior US intelligence officials have repeatedly cited that standard of evidence as proof that they do not actually spy on Americans, claiming that the actual spying occurs when NSA searches through its database, rather than the basic fact of the bulk records collection.
But Vinson also wrote that the NSA's "technical personnel may query the BR metadata using selection terms that have not been RAS-approved … and may share the results of those queries with other authorized personnel responsible for these purposes, but the results of any such queries will not be used for intelligence analysis purposes".
A footnote in the document specifies that "technical personnel responsible for NSA's corporate infrastructure and the transmission of BR metadata" may handle the phone records data without the "special training" in court-ordered restrictions undergone by NSA intelligence analysts. They do not require "reasonable articulable suspicion" to do so.
NSA algorithms, and not just human analysts, search through the databases. Vinson specified that searches through NSA's phone records database can occur "either by manual analyst query or through the automated query process described below."
"This automated query process queries the collected BR metadata (in a 'collection store') with RAS-approved selection terms and returns the hop-limited results from those queries to a 'corporate store,'" Vinson wrote.
"Hops" is a technical term to describe degrees of connectedness between people or their data. The specifics of the automated process were not disclosed in the public document.
Among the oversight mechanisms spelled out in the Fisa court's order is a requirement that during the 90-day lifespan of each such order, the NSA provide the court with a "statement of the number of instances … in which NSA has shared, in any form, results from the queries of the BR metadata that contain US person information, in any form, with anyone outside NSA."
Successive Fisa court judges have permitted the program's renewal for seven years. NSA statements on disseminating US person information remain secret.
Vinson's order also accepted a key legal claim of the government: that the bulk, ongoing collection of millions of Americans' phone data was relevant to ongoing terrorism and espionage cases, the standard spelled out under Section 215 of the Patriot Act.
"It can be things that will lead you to things you need," Cole said, arguing that the actual surveillance occurs not when NSA collects the phone records but when NSA analysts sift through it.
Senators of both parties on the Judiciary Committee criticized that logic.
"I assure you as a recovering lawyer myself there is no context in civil discovery or otherwise to take in information from each and every American who owns a telephone," senator Mike Lee (Republican, Utah) said. Leahy questioned the "limits under this theory" and wondered why they permit NSA to also collect firearms records, bookmarked Internet searches, medical records or credit card information.
"I may not need to collect all the credit card numbers" to know if a terrorist suspect is purchasing something potentially dangerous, Cole answered.
In addition to calling the bulk surveillance "relevant" to an investigation, Vinson also accepted the government's claim that the bulk, ongoing phone records collection amounted to "tangible things [that] could be obtained with a subpoena duces tecum issued by a court of the United States in aid of a grand jury investigation.
Jameel Jaffer, the deputy legal director of the ACLU, criticized Vinson's reasoning. "Saying that the metadata of all Americans' phone calls, including ones that haven't happened yet, are 'relevant' to an investigation stretches that word beyond any meaning," Jaffer told the Guardian.
"Clearly Congress intended for Section 215 of the Patriot Act to be a tool for investigating terrorists and spies, not for tracking the communications of all Americans. No prosecutor would seek a grand jury subpoena of this scope and no judge in a criminal or civil procedure would enforce one."
--

US senators rail against intelligence disclosures over NSA practices

Officials say bulk phone records collection was not 'the most important tool' – contradicting previous statements to Congress

NSA deputy director Inglis testifies
NSA deputy director John C Inglis testifies during a hearing before the Senate judiciary committee. Photograph: Alex Wong/Getty Images
The bipartisan leaders of a powerful Senate committee questioned the truthfulness of the US intelligence community in a heated Wednesday morning hearing as officials conceded that their controversial bulk phone records collection of millions of Americans was not "the most important tool" – contradicting statements they previously gave to Congress.
Two senators said they now planned to introduce new legislation before the August recess that would significantly transform the transparency and oversight of the bulk surveillance program. The chairman of the committee has already advocated for ending the bulk phone records collection and plans his own legislative push to shut it down.
Just before the hearing began, the US director of national intelligence declassified and released documents shedding more light on how the bulk surveillance occurs. Senator Al Franken, a Minnesota Democrat, denounced the move as "ad hoc transparency."
Patrick Leahy, a Vermont Democrat and chairman of the Senate judiciary committee, said: "We need straightforward answers, and I'm concerned we're not getting them."
Leahy, joined by ranking Republican Chuck Grassley of Iowa, criticised director of national intelligence James Clapper for making untruthful statements to Congress in March about the bulk phone records collection on Americans, and NSA director Keith Alexander for overstating the usefulness of that collection for stopping terrorist attacks.
Grassley called Clapper's recent apology to senator Ron Wyden and the intelligence community "especially disturbing".
"Nothing can excuse this kind of behavior from a senior administration official," Grassley said. "Especially on a matter of such importance."
Clapper was not at the hearing. Instead, NSA deputy director John Inglis, deputy attorney general James Cole and FBI deputy director Sean Joyce strongly defended the bulk phone records collection. "We must have the dots to connect the dots," Joyce said.
Dianne Feinstein, a judiciary committee member who also chairs the Senate intelligence committee, defended the officials. "We would place the nation in jeopardy if we were to end these two programs," she said.
But Leahy pressed the intelligence and law enforcement officials to detail how many terrorist plots the bulk phone records collection on millions of Americans, first disclosed by the Guardian thanks to whistleblower Edward Snowden, had disrupted. "That's a very difficult question to answer," Inglis testified. "That's not how these programs work."
Yet two of the three documents declassified by Clapper on Wednesday claim the phone records database was critical to stopping terrorist attacks. The documents, four-page summaries of the bulk collection programmes provided to Congress in 2009 and 2011 before key votes on surveillance laws, state that the bulk phone records collection and a separate internet communications collection effort "significantly strengthen the intelligence community's early warning system for the detection of terrorists and discovery of plots against the homeland."
The NSA has previously claimed that 54 terrorist plots had been disrupted "over the lifetime" of the bulk phone records collection and the separate program collecting the internet habits and communications of people believed to be non-Americans. On Wednesday, Inglis said that at most one plot might have been disrupted by the bulk phone records collection alone. "There is an example that comes close to a 'but for' example," Inglis said.
"Each tool plays a different role," Joyce said. Discussing the phone records bulk collection, he said: "I'm not saying it's the most important tool."
Senators Wyden and Mark Udall, members of the intelligence committee, have repeatedly said that there is no evidence that the controversial bulk phone records collection has disrupted any terrorist plots. They criticized intelligence officials for conflating to Congress the value of the phone records database and the internet communications surveillance. Last week, the House of Representatives came within seven votes of defunding the program.
"We are open to re-evaluating this program in ways that creates greater public confidence and trust," testified Robert Litt, the top lawyer for the US intelligence community.
After the hearing, Wyden said he remained deeply concerned. "On issue after issue, too many of the leaders in the intelligence community have not just kept the Congress in the dark," he said in a CNN interview. "Congress have been given inaccurate statements and in effect been actively misled."
Wyden and Udall argued Tuesday night on the Senate floor for ending the bulk phone records collection. They accused intelligence officials, including Clapper, of deceiving Congress about the extent of abuses of NSA's databases, which Clapper described as accidental.
The White House, which condemned disclosures in the Guardian on Wednesday about another NSA program, said Barack Obama would meet personally with a group of Democratic and Republican members of Congress on Thursday to discuss "key programs under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act".
Before the Wednesday hearing, the first in the Senate on the bulk NSA surveillance, Clapper declassified new documents about the programs. One of them was a heavily redacted April order from the Fisa court on the rules for NSA to handle the bulk phone records it collects, complementing the one published by the Guardian in June.
The order obliges the NSA to ensure that it has a "reasonable articulable suspicion" before making any query of the phone records database. Judges are not required to certify that the NSA has met that standard before each search.
The order also authorizes the NSA's "technical personnel" to query the database using terms that fall outside the definition of reasonable articulable suspicion, "but the results of any such queries will not be used for intelligence analysis purposes".
A footnote in the document specifies that "technical personnel responsible for NSA's corporate infrastructure and the transmission of BR metadata" may handle the phone records data without the "special training" in court-ordered restrictions undergone by NSA intelligence analysts. They do not require "reasonable articulable suspicion" to do so.
The order also authorises searches by automated means.
Two senators said they would introduce legislation as early as Thursday that would change the transparency rules and the structure of Court oversight around the bulk surveillance.
Franken said he would introduce a bill forcing the NSA to disclose how many Americans have had their data collected, and how many Americans' data the NSA has analysed once placed in its databases. Last year, the NSA denied it had any way of estimating that number, and told Wyden that providing it would violate Americans' privacy.
Documents published by the Guardian that Snowden provided, however, revealed an NSA analytic tool called Boundless Informant that displays the country of origin of collected communications.
Senator Richard Blumenthal, a Connecticut Democrat, said he would also submit a second bill on Thursday to significantly reform the Fisa court process, including the introduction of security-cleared special advocates, to challenge the position of the administration.
He said the Fisa court needed to become more adversarial. "I think the current design of the Fisa courts is stacked against the protection of our civil liberties and can be improved and enhanced, without sacrificing either speed or security."

Govt Quietly Preparing for NSA Powers to Be Curbed

Posted By Jason Ditz On July 31, 2013 @ 7:06 pm In News | No Comments

Publicly the Obama Administration continues to insist that there is nothing untoward about the massive NSA surveillance schemes, and that every bit of it is absolutely vital to national security.
Privately, however, the administration sees the writing on the wall. Public outrage at the surveillance is already trickling into Congressional votes, with Justin Amash (R – MI) nearly getting an amendment to defund NSA surveillance put into the military spending bill. Sooner or later, the NSA’s wings will be clipped.
Officials are gearing up for the day when the NSA schemes, uncovered by whistleblower Edward Snowden, will have some actual limitations associated with them, and are cozying up to some in Congress trying to keep the juiciest of the powers intact.
And even before that day of reckoning comes in Congress, some of the most obscene excesses are already being trimmed back a bit, with the Justice Department finally admitting in a filing this week that if they intend to use NSA surveillance against someone in court they would have to tell the defendants about it.
That should be obvious, as that’s how pre-trial disclosure has always worked. The Justice Department had previously argued that disclosing information about the evidence to be used against detainees would threaten the secret surveillance schemes.
Analysts familiar with the situation say that the courts probably would’ve eventually shot down the Justice Department’s old position, which it now claims was “never the government’s position” to begin with, though they say without the Snowden leaks it could’ve been quite some time before the government stepped back from that stance. Either way, the government is trying to get out of doing so in the current case by promising not to use that evidence