> What about people in Gitmo, people without security clearances, people not in the NSA? Do I understand then that the US government is, in this definition, t

> What about people in Gitmo, people without security clearances, people not in the NSA? Do I understand then that the US government is, in this definition, treats everyone like second-class citizens? I'm not quite sure what the punishment has been. > it would hundreds of people, A few people are people, a million people are a statistic. Quite true. > And to me a deep, continuous concern is not "outrage", either. Declaring something "too much outrage" is not a valid argument for something, and a useless argument against something. It's really kind of a red herring. The hazard/outrage measurement is not a red herring, it's an established risk communication methodology, developed academically in the late 70s (published in the early 90s) to aid environmental activist groups, corporations and governments alike in eliciting effective, responsible actions from corporations or the public, respectively. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outrage_factor http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outrage_factor > Please, take me to that planet, I just don't see it sorry :/ The internet tells me more and more about how much oversight is lacking, am I holding it the wrong way or something? Not knowing the scope of our ignorance is a reflection of less oversight, not more. If you know more and more the breadth of what we don't know, oversight is increasing. > Are you serious? I think so, yes. I see regularly reports far and wide of misconduct by politicians. I feel like they're regularly being taken to task in their communities. How TMZ would you like it to be for them before you feel they're watched sufficiently? On the whistleblowers, I really know so little about the topic it'd be dishonest for me to try and add anything on the subject.