stevendepolo (CC)

That is a relatively harsh way of putting another issue on the table – was The Guardian “right” to report on this in the first place? It’s a treacherous situation to report on intelligence procedures in the best of circumstances, and this case is particularly difficult to wade through, if for no other reason, because it appears that Snowden may or may not have been what he claims to have been. If Nagy is right, the big question becomes how did Snowden get the information in the first place? It is bad enough to think that someone that had been employed by the government through a contracted corporation could get this information if that person had access to it daily for years. But, it’s possible that Snowden only had real access to anything for just a few weeks, at most – taking into account training time, where it’s not unreasonable to assume he would have had limited access, regardless of his past history with the CIA. And that’s not even getting into the apparently spotted work and academic history of Snowden, that arguably should have been considered a warning sign that maybe he really wasn’t what he appeared. Given the nature of the information that he was revealing – government secrets that, by definition, can’t be verified by secondary sources – one would think that a great deal of scrutiny should be given to what should be verifiable – the life history of the source. Since it appears that Snowden’s history looks at least a little like a poorly pieced together “cover identity” from a spy novel, there should have been at least a little wariness about what the man had to say. One serious question should have been, has the CIA really taken to hiring people that had to get a GED because they couldn’t complete high school, and apparently couldn’t manage to complete a single degree in one school?

And then there is the PRISM program itself. While Palantir has a program of that name, they’ve categorically denied involvement in the NSA program of that name. Given the documentation of Palantir program, their claims appear to be true. However, that does not mean that Palantir doesn’t have hands in government intelligence gathering at all. The company specializes in data mining, management, and interpretation software, and openly states that it has clientele in government, law enforcement, the healthcare and pharmacy industries. While they tout their work against human trafficking in conjunction with Google, that doesn’t mean that their other endeavors are not worth scrutinizing. Just because they apparently are not involved in the development of NSA’s PRISM program does not mean that they are not involved in governmental data mining at all.

Snowden’s leaks to The Guardian have raised more questions than answers. The information that he has revealed still could eventually be proven to be of little value, but the fact that he had managed to hold any position in the government, or at a company that has been contracted to do security work is disturbing. It has been taken for granted that there has been some level of spying on U.S. citizens by the government since at the very least, 9/11. How far the government has gone, and continues to go, hasn’t been made any more clear by Snowden’s information. He’s merely pointed out that it probably is far more extensive than anyone had suspected previously. As for what citizens and journalists alike should be focusing on at this point is the simple fact that the government is spying on U.S. citizens. With the implementation of the Affordable Care Act, the breadth of information on citizens that will be available to the government will increase radically. We should be more concerned with what the government intends to do with information it gathers, either through its intelligence infrastructure, or through purely domestic agencies like the IRS. The unfortunate fact at this point is that the conspiracy theorists are at least partially right. Government has grown to the point where no citizen should assume any level of privacy in anything that they do. They should assume that the government will not restrict itself to using that information for innocuous reasons – the claims that information could be used to intimidate citizens through threats of prosecution should be considered accurate, because there is nothing in place to prevent the government from acting in that way. Politics aside, this should be a wake-up call to the public. Unfortunately, until there are verified cases of the government using information that it has gathered through the use of PRISM or any other data mining programs to prosecute citizens as a tool of intimidation, it’s more likely that apathy will continue to keep the masses silent.

He said that the show’s will be in a one hour format (44 minutes with commercials) and will be a Survivor meets Big Brother meets Apprentice format.  Occupy and Tea Party contestants will be divided into teams of six with three females and three males on each side.  Each team will endure challenges, like in Survivor, and the winner would pick a debate topic for later in the program.  Gebert said “the meat of the show” is centered on the “Big Great Debate,” where we see our political allegiances duke it out in a battle royale over freedom, liberty, and the American way of life.  Gordon said he wanted to portray a debate that isn’t cut off by commercial breaks or abrupt endings due to time constraints, which I think a lot of us have felt frustrated about watching Hannity, The Five, or (gulp) MSNB—-(I can’t say it!)….the news in general!

At the conclusion of the debate, each side will vote a member off.  As a result, you will experience the typical fight to oust the lazy person, “the village idiot,” the poor debater, or the emotionally fragile. What fun!  The last two contestants will have one final Big Great Debate and the viewers will decide who won the contest.  Gordon feels that in similar programs, where voting off contestants is an integral part of the show, the viewer will find a Tea partier or, do I dare say, an Occupier, to connect with and will share in his or her dissapointment if they are voted off the program.

Gordon hopes that a major network will pick up the show for a weekly broadcast. He is currently raising funds to shoot the pilot episode for his summer preview.  However, if this show is picked up, then production will be given a budget to allow for such amenities and Mr. Gebert hopes that the increase in funds will enhance the quality of the show, provide more eye candy, and conduct more editing to help the narrative.  However, like in politics, it’s all about the money and if he can raise more than his targeted $50,000 budget for the pilot, he can pitch a better product to the network executives in early June or late July.  However, he knows the tough road ahead of him.  He admits that the only way he would be picked up by a major network is if they have a show that fails with audiences in their packed fall schedules.  Although, his optimism couldn’t be higher and there is always a few programs that don’t make the cut.  Case in point, Lone Star, 3 lbs, The Playboy Club, and The Paul Reiser Show were all sentenced to the chopping block.  At the very least, Occupy vs. Tea Party will be posted as a webisode on Youtube. This show has some serious potential and I wish Gordon Gebert the best in bringing this entertainment to a wider audience.