Head-Spinning Political Shit!

[Kobi]

More than 50 years ago, Ike all but predicted the factors that led to the NSA's massive snooping enterprise

More than 52 years ago, Dwight David Eisenhower gave his final speech as president. Eisenhower had led the American fight in Europe during World War II, and played a major part in America's transformation from a nation of industrial might and relative isolation into the first superpower of the modern age. The U.S. filled the role played by the British Empire for the previous few centuries, especially when the Soviet Union seized eastern Europe and threatened to spread its totalitarian system around the globe. Eisenhower picked up the Cold War reins from Harry Truman, building upon the massive modern military that Eisenhower deployed to defeat the Nazis and safeguard pluralistic democracy in western Europe.

Eisenhower largely presided over a peacetime military, but one that grew large enough at the beginning of the Cold War to worry the war hero about the future of the nation. In his final speech, televised live on January 17, 1961, Eisenhower warned Americans on a broad range of topics. Most do not remember his warning on deficit spending, but Eisenhower implored Americans to "avoid the impulse to live only for today, plundering for our own ease and convenience the precious resources of tomorrow." Eisenhower managed to partner with Congress on three balanced budgets out of eight, but the era after his would start us on massive deficit spending as a habit rather than something to be employed only in an emergency. We have, as Eisenhower predicted, "mortgage[d] the material assets of our grandchildren," and it remains to be seen whether that has risked "the loss of their political and spiritual heritage."

Most famously, Eisenhower warned the country about the rise of what he called the "military-industrial complex," a force that would eventually erode liberty and public policy choices. "In the councils of government," Eisenhower said, "we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist." The wealth that got spent on the defense sector would create enormous influence and power inside and outside of government, which would eventually pervert a free society into perpetual warfare for the sake of maintaining power, unless a free nation exercised exceptional vigilance.

Eisenhower didn't limit this warning to the military-industrial complex, either. He made the same point about the perverting influence of federal money and power on science, warning that scientific discovery could be dominated by Washington, D.C. Conversely, Eisenhower also posited that there existed "the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite."

Fifty years later, Eisenhower's valediction looks less like a political speech and more like prophecy. In the NSA controversies, both with the continuous telecom metadata haul (since at least 2006) and the PRISM/BLARNEY efforts to sniff through massive amounts of content on the internet, we have examples of exactly what Ike foresaw. In fact, this looks much like a marriage between the military-industrial complex and what we could call the intelligence-industrial complex, both based on predicates of never-ending war in the age of terror.

The military-industrial complex is familiar enough, but the two NSA issues show the extent to which scientific-technological industries have insinuated themselves into the same position. Nine of the largest providers of internet services in the U.S. have acted against the interests of their clients' privacy to partner with the NSA — a Defense Department agency — in their search for clues on terrorism. This includes some tech-industry leaders, such as the founders and/or CEOs of Google and Facebook, who publicly supported Obama in 2008 while he campaigned against the very surveillance that appears to be taking place now, and then again in 2012.

The shift predicted by Eisenhower, of course, did not happen in a vacuum. The Cold War held real dangers to America and Americans, and the age of terror does now. The 9/11 attacks shocked the U.S. badly enough to create a huge demand for more security. We passed the PATRIOT Act and amended the FISA law to allow our intelligence and law-enforcement agencies to "connect the dots" before attacks took place, rather than seek evidence while the bodies were stacked afterward.

At the same time, we have culturally devalued privacy, in relationships with commercial as well as governmental entities. The internet companies involved provide the best evidence of this. US News' Robert Schlesinger argued that government surveillance on the internet followed corporate surveillance of Americans and others, a surveillance to which we acquiesced with hardly a murmur of protest. "It's not a given that corporations must collect vast amounts of information from and about us," Schlesinger writes. "But failing to do so wouldn't be good for business."

Take Google — one of the major pillars of PRISM and a giant in internet transactions. Clients use it for email services, maps and GPS navigation, document storage, and even some cell-phone services. But Google makes money by learning every piece of information it finds from clients who use these services and monetizing them, Schlesinger points out. "What Google is, in fact, is a data collection company: It collects data on you 15 ways to Sunday, sorts it, chops it up and sells it." And don't even get Schlesinger started on cell phones in general, devices that literally track your movements as long as the phones are powered up.

This is big business for internet providers. In 2011, the Wall Street Journal reported that both Google and Apple collected location data in order to grab a piece of the location-based services industry, which at the time was a $2.9 billion market. At that time, the Journal projected it to grow to $8.3 billion in 2014. Both of these internet providers participated in PRISM. Telecoms like Verizon sell location data to advertisers to allow them to more effectively position billboards, for instance. "Companies have an incentive to collect and keep user data," Schlesinger concludes, "and that trove proves an irresistible target for the government in its ongoing war on terrorists."

This may be why polls don't exactly show a high level of outrage over the NSA leaks. A Washington Post/Pew Center poll reported that a 56 percent majority of respondents supported the NSA survey of telecom metadata on phone calls, while only 41 percent objected. When it came to surveying internet content, a thin 52 percent majority opposed the NSA PRISM/BLARNEY effort if applied against Americans (a point which has yet to be clarified), but that 45 percent think the government should go further than it claims to do now to watch our online activities. For an electorate that has given up privacy for convenience to the commercial market, surrendering it to the government for security may be a smaller step than Eisenhower might have imagined.

The erosion of that "political and spiritual heritage" of liberty and limited government has other implications, too. Eisenhower presaged that the expansion of the government under pressure of the military-industrial complex would "endanger our liberties or democratic processes." One cannot help but to draw connections to that expanding and intrusive government and its unaccountable bureaucracies and the targeting of political groups opposed to the current administration by the IRS, the disparate treatment by the EPA on FOIA requests depending on the politics of the requesters, and the overall lack of accountability from an administration whose best defense on these and other scandals has been ignorance of the abuses taking place on their watch. Even if these incidents come from nothing more than a government so large as to be unmanageable, Eisenhower's admonitions are still prescient.

At his heart, though, Eisenhower was still an optimist. Despite foreseeing the dangers of a perpetual wartime government in a truly dangerous world, he told Americans that "only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together." We are now alert, and we need to become knowledgeable to ensure that we protect our political and spiritual heritage of liberty — even if that means acknowledging that we ourselves may in large part be the problem.

http://news.yahoo.com/listened-eisen...110600933.html

[LeftWriteFemme]

[DMW]

http://www.thenation.com/blog/176293...#axzz2fkSUBLlc


Republican Lawmakers Are Playing Politics With Human Lives, in Four Pictures
Lee Fang on September 20, 2013 - 5:14 PM ET



Rep. John Boehner. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)
 
Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) has caved to the right flank of his party and decided to tie funding for the entire government to an effort to defund the Affordable Care Act. This latest gambit will have one of two results. Republicans will back down, after the Democrat-held Senate puts forward a budget with full Obamacare funding, and Boehner will be forced to allow a minority of Republican members to join House Democrats in securing a fully funded government with Obamacare included (some conservatives hope that, in this moment of negotiation, a deal could be struck that delays or partially weakens Obamacare). The second scenario is that Republicans refuse to come to the table, the government will lose funding, and with it, Obamacare will be partially defunded for the time being.

The vast majority of healthcare reform is funded through what is known as mandatory spending that is not necessarily affected by the continuing budget resolution now at issue in Congress. If the government shuts down, the only aspect of Obamacare that will be defunded is the portion that is covered through discretionary spending. Affordable Care Act discretionary spending includes funding for community health centers, preventative health programs, school-based health clinics for children, rural and Indian health centers, doctor and nurse training grants, among other programs—spending that overwhelmingly benefit rural Republican districts in many states.

The discretionary healthcare reform programs, like much of Obamacare, help save lives every day by providing care to low-income Americans. How do we know this, beyond the numerous studies and reports that say so? Ask Republicans, who have embraced and deceitfully promoted Obamacare discretionary spending programs—including the Obamacare-funded health centers and clinics that they are now attempting to shut down:

Congressman Bill Cassidy (R-LA) co-sponsored Representative Tom Grave’s (R-GA) defunding bill, the Defund Obamacare Act of 2013. Although Cassidy has joined Boehner and the party’s far right in a push to shut down Affordable Care Act discretionary spending programs, he wrote a letter to the administration asking for more discretionary spending on federal health centers. In addition, he appeared at a ribbon-cutting event—where Cassidy held a ceremonial pair of scissors—for an Obamacare-funded school-based health clinic, where he made an emotional appeal about the importance of helping children stay healthy while earning an education. Despite his plea to help children, Cassidy’s attempt to defund the government over healthcare reform will cut off money to such programs:

(Cassidy cuts the ribbon for a new Obamacare-funded school health clinic. Photo credit: NBC33)

Senator Jerry Moran (R-KS) helped sponsor Senator Ted Cruz’s (R-TX) bill to defund healthcare reform. While Moran has attacked the law and called it a failure, he proudly appeared at a publicity event to promote the groundbreaking of a $4.7 million expansion of the Community Health Center of Southeast Kansas last August. At the event, where Moran held a ceremonial shovel, the senator heaped praise the community center for helping provide comprehensive care, noting “even the most conservative politician …ought to be in favor of community health centers.” Though he did not acknowledge the source of the construction money, the $4.7 million came completely from Affordable Care Act discretionary spending.

(Moran breaking ground at an Obamacare-funded clinic in Kansas. Photo credit: Moran’s Facebook page)

Please support our journalism. Get a digital subscription for just $9.50!

Congressman Michael Grimm (R-NY) is a co-sponsor of the Defund Obamacare Act. Despite his opposition to the law and repeated attempted to repeal it, Grimm posed with jumbo-sized Obamacare checks to recipients in his district. In this photo, Grimm is presenting a check for $487,500 from the Affordable Care Act to the Community Health Center of Richmond, which received a total of over $2.7 million from Obamacare. Even if Republicans fail in repealing the Affordable Care Act, a government shutdown would cut off funding to federal health clinics.
(Grimm posing with an Obamacare check. Photo credit: Flickr user Feanny)

Congressman Mike Pompeo (R-KS) signed onto the Defund Obamacare Act in July, and argued recently in a column that the entire law must be repealed because it “harms Americans.” What would be Pompeo’s alternative? At a town hall meeting, according to the Wichita Eagle, Pompeo said that instead of Obamacare, federally funded health clinics like the Hunter Health Clinic and GraceMed in Wichita provide great examples of how to care for people who can’t afford health insurance. Pompeo failed to note that both clinics are actually heavily funded by Obamacare: Hunter Health Clinic has received over $1.67 million and GraceMed $525,000 from the Affordable Care Act. Nor did he mention that his repeal effort would withdraw funds from health clinics like the ones he praised as examples of the right type of reforms.

(Pompeo speaking before the Hunter Health Clinic. Photo credit: CFAHC)

Read Zoë Carpenter on the movement to defund Obamacare.

Related Topics: US Politics | Health | Politics
Share

[DMW]

[*Anya*]

Tea Party Group Founder Calls For Class Action Suit Against Homosexuality

By David Badash

October 18, 2013

Rick Scarborough, the founder of Tea Party Unity, thinks homosexuality is worse than smoking, and is calling for a class action lawsuit against homosexuality — just like attorneys general of 46 states brought against the top four tobacco manufacturers in the 1990s. No word yet on who the manufacturer of homosexuality is, but given that Scarborough is a self-described “Christocrat,” it’s a pretty good guess that serving papers will be an other-wordly experience.

Scarborough spoke on a nationwide Tea Party conference call yesterday with anti-gay hate group leader Peter LaBarbera, and floated the ridiculous idea.

“Peter,” Scarborough said, “the whole issue of a class action lawsuit, you and I have talked about this a little bit. I just wonder if you’ve explored that, talked to anyone about it. Obviously, statistically now even the Centers for Disease Control verifies that homosexuality much more likely leads to AIDS than smoking leads to cancer. And yet the entire nation has rejected smoking, billions of dollars are put into a trust fund to help cancer victims and the tobacco industry was held accountable for that. Any thoughts on that kind of an approach?”

Of course, LaBarbera liked that idea a lot. “Yeah I think that’s great. I would love to see it.” Because what would be better than declaring homosexuality illegal, and… what, throwing every gay person in jail, perhaps?

How very “Christian.”

But that’s not even the worst part of the conversation, because, face it, Scarborough’s idea is just plain stupid and easily dismissed.

LaBarbera went on to say, “We always wanted to see one of the kids in high school who was counseled by the official school counselor to just be gay, then he comes down with HIV.”

Yes, he said that.

Even if it was a, “Hey, this would be an awesome marketing campaign thing” comment, it’s one hundred percent disgusting. This is a grown man who is a father saying that he “always wanted to see” a high school kid come down with AIDS.

Sick.

But it’s important to remember that Scarborough is a radical right wing religious extremist. He’s surrounded himself with other religious and conservative extremists, like disgraced former House Republican Majority Leader and now acquitted convicted criminal Tom Delay, who is on Scarborough’s Tea Party Unity steering committee.

Delay was charged and convicted of criminal election law conspiracy, and the prosecutor is appealing the acquittal.

Also on Scarborough’s steering committee are Don Feder of the World Congress of Families, and Robert Knight, a draftsman of the federal Defense of Marriage Act. Feder in 2011 likened the Democratic Party, and Obama especially, to Hitler’s Nazi Party, and the Occupy Wall Street Movement to Hitler Youth in an op-ed, ”Top 10 Ways Democrats Are Like Nazis.”

http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/author/davidbadash

[DMW]

http://nation.foxnews.com/2013/10/22...n-barack-obama

Faux news.
Cheney went and wrote a book about the heart. He still doesn't have an honest one after his transplant. Maybe he figured writing a book with " heart" in the title would help him. Anyhow, the spin continues. "Obama is the extremist", Cheney claims in this clip. In addition, Cheney said, Obama " is the guy who has done enormous damage to America's standing in the world".

Wow.
Reminder Fox News is outlawed in Canada because they don't allow broadcasters to lie.

[Sparkle]

The Supreme Court handed down it's decision in McCutcheon vrs. the Federal Election Committee (FEC) today. As expected, aggregate campaign contributions were eliminated, significantly increasing the influence of a tiny fraction of the public on American policy.

AND I AM SO BLOODY ANGRY!

I genuinely believe that the undue influence of a few uber-rich donors corrupts our democratic systems and block progress on almost every issue I care about: healthcare, education, jobs, the environment, immigration reform.

I work for an organization that is trying to do undo the damage rulings like McCutcheon and Citizen's United have done to our democratic systems by curbing the influence of corporations and uber-donors like the Koch Brothers, and closing the loopholes that lobbyists exploit.

I know... zzzzzz.... campaign finance reform isn't a very 'sexy' subject, people's eyes usually glaze over about 20 seconds after I start ranting about this. I think most people just tune out and write it off as another example of our deeply corrupt political system.
'they're ALL corrupt' rolls eyes - throws hands in the air

But that's part of the problem... overcoming the disillusionment and cynicism of the American public as concerns political corruption is an enormous hurdle. People need to get ANGRY about this, and they need to stand up say "FUCK THAT - WE DEMAND A HIGHER STANDARD FROM OUR ELECTED OFFICIALS"

Today we (the team I work with) launched our McCutcheon satire video, you can see it on our microsite: www.unlimitedcorruption.com

Or on our youtube channel


Here's a non-tongue-in-cheek analysis from our Comms Director, featured on HuffPo today
http://huff.to/1ktpU7R

If you're politically inclined and you care about this issue have a look around our campaign site www.represent.us and consider volunteering in your Congressional District, or if you're short on time and energy - just sign on as a Citizen Co-Sponsor to the American Anti-Corruption Act.

[LeftWriteFemme]

Tea Party Candidate Says It's OK To Stone Gays To Death




http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/0...n_5486678.html

[Jess]

an article taken from the Institute for Southern Studies newsletter "Facing South"

NC fracking bill orders prison time for disclosing chemicals, ignores health risks
North Carolina's legislature convened last week, and lawmakers introduced a bill that brings the state one step closer to allowing oil and gas drilling.

One aspect of the Energy Modernization Act (SB 786) that's gotten considerable attention is the provision that would make it a Class I felony for someone to intentionally disclose chemicals in fracking fluids that are classified as trade secrets. A conviction of this lowest-level felony could bring civil fines and several months in prison.

The bill requires the state geologist in the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) to serve as the custodian of trade secrets, including ingredients in fracking fluid. It allows information about such secrets to be disclosed only to emergency responders, health care providers dealing with emergencies, and federal and state agencies that need the information to carry out their functions.

Hannah Wiseman, a Florida State University assistant law professor who studies fracking regulations, told Mother Jones that North Carolina's proposed law "is far stricter than most states' provisions in terms of the penalty for violating trade secrets." She said that the bill was "so poorly worded" that it's unclear whether emergency responders would be charged with a felony for disclosing the information they obtain legally.

But while the bill is careful to protect what corporations claim are trade secrets, it fails to address some of the biggest risks fracking poses for the environment, public health and landowners, according to an analysis by the N.C. Conservation Network.

Among the concerns the legislation does not address are compulsory pooling, whereby drillers can drill on land without the owners' permission; disposal of toxic fracking wastewater; toxic air emissions from fracking operations; long-term contamination that comes to light after a drilling operation is finished; and how to protect landowners and the environment from the lines that move gas from wells to processing facilities. In addition, the bill shrinks the zone of liability for drillers who cause drinking well contamination from 5,000 feet to 2,640 feet, and it prohibits local bans on fracking or the siting of wells.

The bill's primary sponsors are Republican Sens. Robert Rucho of Mecklenburg County, E.S. "Buck" Newton of Wilson, and Andrew Brock of Mocksville. It also has six co-sponsors, all of them Republicans. The GOP holds supermajorities in both the North Carolina House and Senate.

The legislation was introduced as new revelations surfaced about the outsized role industry interests have played in shaping the state's proposed approach to chemical disclosure.

Greenpeace recently obtained a cache of emails and meeting schedules from members of the N.C. Mining and Energy Commission (MEC), a 15-person body in charge of crafting fracking regulations for state lawmakers. The documents show what the environmental advocacy group calls a "cozy relationship" between the industry and the MEC -- including Chairman George Howard drinking beer and spending evenings with D. Bowen "Bo" Heath, a lobbyist with the law firm McGuireWoods who represents fracking giants Halliburton and Koch Industries. Howard is the CEO of Restoration Systems, an environmental remediation company; his former business partner is DENR Secretary John Skvarla.

An earlier version of the chemical disclosure rule crafted by the MEC was pulled from consideration last year after Halliburton complained it went too far. Instead, Greenpeace reports, Heath promoted a weaker chemical disclosure bill from Colorado that was based on model legislation from the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), a group that promotes corporate interests in state legislatures. Heath has ties to ALEC, having attended the group's annual meetings.

The legislation introduced last week in North Carolina would disband the MEC next year and replace it with an Oil and Gas Commission that would administer civil penalties and adopt new rules as needed. The bill also creates a Mining Commission within DENR to issue fracking permits.