..................................................................................................................................
Poll: Congress' new level of awfulness
..................................................................................................................................
Thursday, June 13, 2013
The government is conning us into giving up our privacy and liberties.... I'm troubled by it-- aren't you?
..................................................................................................................................
We're slowly surrendering our civil liberties
By Leonard Pitts, Jr., June 12, 2013
It will not be with guns.
If ever tyranny overtakes this land of the sometimes free and home of the intermittently brave, it probably won’t, contrary to the fever dreams of gun rights extremists, involve jack-booted government thugs rappelling down from black helicopters. Rather, it will involve changes to words on paper many have forgotten or never knew, changes that chip away until they strip away precious American freedoms.
It will involve a trade of sorts, an inducement to give up the reality of freedom for the illusion of security. Indeed, the bargain has already been struck.
That is the takeaway from the latest controversy to embroil the Obama administration. Yes, it is troubling to learn the National Security Agency has been running a secret program that reputedly gives it access to Americans’ web activity — emails, chats, pictures, video uploads — on such Internet behemoths as Google, Facebook and Apple.
Yes, it is troubling to hear that “George W.” Obama has routinely renewed a Bush-era program allowing the feds to more easily graze the “metadata” of phone activity (time and date, numbers dialed, etc.) of millions of Verizon customers.
But what is most troubling is that Americans are not particularly troubled by any of it. According to a new poll by the Pew Research Center and the Washington Post, most of us — 56 percent — are OK with the monitoring of metadata, a process then-Sen. Joe Biden called “very, very intrusive” back in 2006.
According to the same poll, nearly half — 45 percent — also approve allowing the government to track email content and other online activity. And 62 percent feel it is more important to investigate terrorist threats than to safeguard the right to privacy. That approval is consistent across party lines.
We are at war against terror, the thinking goes, so certain liberties must be sacrificed. It’s the same thing people said when similar issues arose under the Bush regime. It doesn’t seem to matter to them that the “war” is open-ended and mostly metaphorical, meaning that we can anticipate no formal surrender point at which our rights will be restored.
For what it’s worth, we’ve seen similar ambivalence toward the excess of another open-ended metaphorical conflict, the War on Drugs. It has also played havoc with basic civil rights, the courts essentially giving police free reign to stop whomever whenever without needing a warrant or a reason.
And never mind that this violates those words on paper many of us have forgotten or never knew — the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution. Never mind that it was designed specifically to bar government from peeking through the blinds or snatching you up on a whim. Never mind that it’s a bulwark against the unfettered power of the state.
People think tyranny will be imposed at the point of a gun. Paranoids look up in search of black helicopters. Meanwhile, the architecture of totalitarianism is put into place all around them, surveillance apparatus so intrusive as to stagger the imagination of Orwell himself.
The point is not that one has nothing to hide. The point is that whatever you have is none of the government’s business absent probable cause and a warrant. The point is that one should never repose unfettered power with the state.
We should know this, yet we fall for the same seductive con every time: We are afraid, but the state says it can make us safe. And all it will take is the surrender of a few small freedoms.
It makes you want to holler in frustration, especially since the promise is so false. Yes, the state can interdict a given terrorist plot, but even if it took every last freedom we have, it could not guarantee complete security. That is a plain truth with which we must make peace.
We will never be “safe.” But we just might, if we have the courage, be free.
..................................................................................................................................
We're slowly surrendering our civil liberties
By Leonard Pitts, Jr., June 12, 2013
It will not be with guns.
If ever tyranny overtakes this land of the sometimes free and home of the intermittently brave, it probably won’t, contrary to the fever dreams of gun rights extremists, involve jack-booted government thugs rappelling down from black helicopters. Rather, it will involve changes to words on paper many have forgotten or never knew, changes that chip away until they strip away precious American freedoms.
It will involve a trade of sorts, an inducement to give up the reality of freedom for the illusion of security. Indeed, the bargain has already been struck.
That is the takeaway from the latest controversy to embroil the Obama administration. Yes, it is troubling to learn the National Security Agency has been running a secret program that reputedly gives it access to Americans’ web activity — emails, chats, pictures, video uploads — on such Internet behemoths as Google, Facebook and Apple.
Yes, it is troubling to hear that “George W.” Obama has routinely renewed a Bush-era program allowing the feds to more easily graze the “metadata” of phone activity (time and date, numbers dialed, etc.) of millions of Verizon customers.
But what is most troubling is that Americans are not particularly troubled by any of it. According to a new poll by the Pew Research Center and the Washington Post, most of us — 56 percent — are OK with the monitoring of metadata, a process then-Sen. Joe Biden called “very, very intrusive” back in 2006.
According to the same poll, nearly half — 45 percent — also approve allowing the government to track email content and other online activity. And 62 percent feel it is more important to investigate terrorist threats than to safeguard the right to privacy. That approval is consistent across party lines.
We are at war against terror, the thinking goes, so certain liberties must be sacrificed. It’s the same thing people said when similar issues arose under the Bush regime. It doesn’t seem to matter to them that the “war” is open-ended and mostly metaphorical, meaning that we can anticipate no formal surrender point at which our rights will be restored.
For what it’s worth, we’ve seen similar ambivalence toward the excess of another open-ended metaphorical conflict, the War on Drugs. It has also played havoc with basic civil rights, the courts essentially giving police free reign to stop whomever whenever without needing a warrant or a reason.
And never mind that this violates those words on paper many of us have forgotten or never knew — the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution. Never mind that it was designed specifically to bar government from peeking through the blinds or snatching you up on a whim. Never mind that it’s a bulwark against the unfettered power of the state.
People think tyranny will be imposed at the point of a gun. Paranoids look up in search of black helicopters. Meanwhile, the architecture of totalitarianism is put into place all around them, surveillance apparatus so intrusive as to stagger the imagination of Orwell himself.
The point is not that one has nothing to hide. The point is that whatever you have is none of the government’s business absent probable cause and a warrant. The point is that one should never repose unfettered power with the state.
We should know this, yet we fall for the same seductive con every time: We are afraid, but the state says it can make us safe. And all it will take is the surrender of a few small freedoms.
It makes you want to holler in frustration, especially since the promise is so false. Yes, the state can interdict a given terrorist plot, but even if it took every last freedom we have, it could not guarantee complete security. That is a plain truth with which we must make peace.
We will never be “safe.” But we just might, if we have the courage, be free.
..................................................................................................................................
Wednesday, June 12, 2013
"Permanent Washington" will close ranks to protect the Surveillance State
..................................................................................................................................
Why I Don't Care About Edward Snowden
By Ron Fournier, June 12, 2013
Is Edward Snowden a hero or a traitor? I don't care. You read right: I don't give a whit about the man who exposed two sweeping U.S. online surveillance programs, nor do I worry much about his verdict in the court of public opinion.
Why? Because it is the wrong question. The Snowden narrative matters mostly to White House officials trying to deflect attention from government overreach and deception, and to media executives in search of an easy storyline to serve a celebrity-obsessed audience.
For the rest of us, the questions seem to be:
* Are the two programs revealed by Snowden legal and constitutional?
* Are the programs effective? The government says yes, but most Americans don't trust government. The Obama administration claims National Security Agency spying helped foil a plot in New York, but that claim has been convincingly disputed.
* What else is the government doing to invade our privacy? Until a few days ago, paranoids were people who claimed Washington had cast a vast electronic net over our communications. Who isn't a bit paranoid now?
* Why did the U.S. government for years debunk what they called a myth about the National Security Agency seizing electronic data from millions of Americans?
* Why did the leader of the U.S. intelligence community mislead Congress in March by answering a question about the program in the "least untruthful manner" -- a phrase that would make George Orwell cringe.
* Why do Democratic lawmakers who criticized President Bush for exploiting the post-9/11 Patriot Act now defend President Obama for curbing civil liberties?
* Why do Republicans who defended Bush now chastise Obama for ruthlessly fighting terrorists?
* Rather than fierce oversight, why did the White House and congressional leaders restrict full knowledge of the programs to a few elites, and stage, for the rest of Congress, Potemkin briefings?
* Why does a secret federal court almost always side with the government's requests to seize information.
* Why didn't the president find a way before the leaks to tell the public in general terms what he was doing and why? Obama ran on a pledge of government transparency, opposed Bush-era surveillance tactics, and denounced the "false choice" between security and liberty.
No sane American would deny the president and the national security community the best tools to fight a fast-evolving and shadowy enemy. It would be foolish to demand full disclosure of programs that require secrecy. And most Americans, according to polls, are open to trading some privacy for security.
But before perpetuating and immortalizing the Surveillance State, we need to remember that the precedents set today apply to the next president -- and the ones that follow, perhaps men and women who aren't as dedicated to democratic institutions as both Bush and Obama are.
It would help if the Obama administration would stop misleading the public, eroding trust in government that is already at record lows. Four stories today suggest how badly the truth has been victimized.
Scott Shane and Jonathan Weisman of the New York Times documented how intelligence officials for years have denied the existence of programs revealed by Snowden: "Disclosures on N.S.A. Surveillance Put Awkward Light on Previous Denials."
"Awkward light" is a polite way of describing a lie.
Glenn Kessler slapped three Pinocchios on James Clapper, the director of National Intelligence who spoke a least-untruthful way: "Debates Over NSA Should be Free of Semantic Muddling."
Semantic muddling is a polite way of describing – well, you get it.
Jack Shafer of Reuters wrote an insightful piece that puts Snowden's actions into context with the government's self-serving leaks. "… He's done in the macro what the national security establishment does in the micro every day of the week to manage, manipulate and influence ongoing policy debates," Shafer wrote.
Finally, syndicated liberal columnist David Sirota challenged the views of "Permanent Washington" in an analysis arguing that NSA's actions are illegal and unconstitutional.
He called the Snowden case "a commentary on how political self-interest and partisanship now trumps everything else – even the law of the land."
Love him or hate him, we all owe Snowden our thanks for forcing upon the nation an important debate. But the debate shouldn't be about him. It should be about the gnawing questions his actions raised from the shadows.
In the end, fear and politics likely will prevail, as it has in America's past. Washington elites will close ranks to protect the Surveillance State, to trample out transparency and to mislead the public. Maybe we can talk first?
..................................................................................................................................
Why I Don't Care About Edward Snowden
By Ron Fournier, June 12, 2013
Is Edward Snowden a hero or a traitor? I don't care. You read right: I don't give a whit about the man who exposed two sweeping U.S. online surveillance programs, nor do I worry much about his verdict in the court of public opinion.
Why? Because it is the wrong question. The Snowden narrative matters mostly to White House officials trying to deflect attention from government overreach and deception, and to media executives in search of an easy storyline to serve a celebrity-obsessed audience.
For the rest of us, the questions seem to be:
* Are the two programs revealed by Snowden legal and constitutional?
* Are the programs effective? The government says yes, but most Americans don't trust government. The Obama administration claims National Security Agency spying helped foil a plot in New York, but that claim has been convincingly disputed.
* What else is the government doing to invade our privacy? Until a few days ago, paranoids were people who claimed Washington had cast a vast electronic net over our communications. Who isn't a bit paranoid now?
* Why did the U.S. government for years debunk what they called a myth about the National Security Agency seizing electronic data from millions of Americans?
* Why did the leader of the U.S. intelligence community mislead Congress in March by answering a question about the program in the "least untruthful manner" -- a phrase that would make George Orwell cringe.
* Why do Democratic lawmakers who criticized President Bush for exploiting the post-9/11 Patriot Act now defend President Obama for curbing civil liberties?
* Why do Republicans who defended Bush now chastise Obama for ruthlessly fighting terrorists?
* Rather than fierce oversight, why did the White House and congressional leaders restrict full knowledge of the programs to a few elites, and stage, for the rest of Congress, Potemkin briefings?
* Why does a secret federal court almost always side with the government's requests to seize information.
* Why didn't the president find a way before the leaks to tell the public in general terms what he was doing and why? Obama ran on a pledge of government transparency, opposed Bush-era surveillance tactics, and denounced the "false choice" between security and liberty.
No sane American would deny the president and the national security community the best tools to fight a fast-evolving and shadowy enemy. It would be foolish to demand full disclosure of programs that require secrecy. And most Americans, according to polls, are open to trading some privacy for security.
But before perpetuating and immortalizing the Surveillance State, we need to remember that the precedents set today apply to the next president -- and the ones that follow, perhaps men and women who aren't as dedicated to democratic institutions as both Bush and Obama are.
It would help if the Obama administration would stop misleading the public, eroding trust in government that is already at record lows. Four stories today suggest how badly the truth has been victimized.
Scott Shane and Jonathan Weisman of the New York Times documented how intelligence officials for years have denied the existence of programs revealed by Snowden: "Disclosures on N.S.A. Surveillance Put Awkward Light on Previous Denials."
"Awkward light" is a polite way of describing a lie.
Glenn Kessler slapped three Pinocchios on James Clapper, the director of National Intelligence who spoke a least-untruthful way: "Debates Over NSA Should be Free of Semantic Muddling."
Semantic muddling is a polite way of describing – well, you get it.
Jack Shafer of Reuters wrote an insightful piece that puts Snowden's actions into context with the government's self-serving leaks. "… He's done in the macro what the national security establishment does in the micro every day of the week to manage, manipulate and influence ongoing policy debates," Shafer wrote.
Finally, syndicated liberal columnist David Sirota challenged the views of "Permanent Washington" in an analysis arguing that NSA's actions are illegal and unconstitutional.
He called the Snowden case "a commentary on how political self-interest and partisanship now trumps everything else – even the law of the land."
Love him or hate him, we all owe Snowden our thanks for forcing upon the nation an important debate. But the debate shouldn't be about him. It should be about the gnawing questions his actions raised from the shadows.
In the end, fear and politics likely will prevail, as it has in America's past. Washington elites will close ranks to protect the Surveillance State, to trample out transparency and to mislead the public. Maybe we can talk first?
..................................................................................................................................
I don't know about you, but I value my privacy
..................................................................................................................................
6 reasons you should, and shouldn't, freak out about the NSA data-mining
By Peter Weber, June 12, 2013
Americans are conflicted about the (sort of) new revelations of NSA surveillance. No wonder.
Amid all the strong, clashing opinions over the leaked National Security Agency surveillance secrets, there's one thing everybody says they agree on: It's great we can finally have a long-overdue conversation about how we should balance national security with civil liberties.
As The Week's Keith Wagstaff and others have noted, though, it's hard to have that conversation. For one thing, many of the most knowledgeable people on the national security end aren't allowed to discuss what they know — and the rest of us, as Wagstaff says, "don't even know what we don't know about the NSA." Also, many of the loudest voices are less interested in conversation than advancing their own beliefs. (Shocking, right?)
But it's also true that we're not even on the same page when it comes to broad themes like privacy. "Privacy is hard to define and even harder to defend," says Rebecca J. Rosen at The Atlantic. Most Americans seem to be on board with the NSA's data-mining operations, but it depends on how you ask the question:
* On Sunday, Rasmussen reported that 59 percent of likely voters oppose the government "secretly collecting the phone records of millions of Americans for national security purposes regardless of whether there is any suspicion of wrongdoing."
* But on Monday, Pew found that 62 percent of Americans say it's more important for the government to "investigate possible terrorist threats, even if that intrudes on personal privacy." More specifically, 56 percent are fine with the NSA tracking the "phone call records of millions of Americans" and 45 percent are okay with monitoring "everyone's emails and online activities" if that might prevent terrorist attacks.
* A new CBS News poll, on the other hand, finds 58 percent of Americans opposed to the government collecting the "phone records of ordinary Americans." At the same time, 62 percent of respondents say they are not concerned that the government might be collecting their own phone records, and a plurality — 46 percent — say the government has the privacy-security balance "about right" (36 percent say Uncle Sam has gone too far, and the other 13 percent, not far enough).
Where does this leave us? Libertarians and civil-liberties advocates are frustrated that not everyone sees the grave danger of giving up freedom for the illusion of security; national security hawks are annoyed that the media and activists are exaggerating (or misunderstanding) the level of NSA snooping; and everybody else is confused, ambivalent, or bored with what seems like yet another shouting match.
So, here are three cogent arguments for why these NSA revelations are a huge deal you should be very worked up about, and three for why we should all take some deep breaths and relax. We condense, you decide:
THIS IS A VERY BIG DEAL
1. Unchecked surveillance threatens our democracy
Perhaps Americans are blasé about the NSA's massive collection of our private data because President Obama, congressional leaders, and intelligence officials "insist that such surveillance is crucial to the nation's antiterrorism efforts," says The New York Times in an editorial. But that's sets up a false choice between liberty and security, and "Americans should not be fooled." The stakes are incredibly high.
The surreptitious collection of "metadata" — every bit of information about every phone call except the word-by-word content of conversations — fundamentally alters the relationship between individuals and their government.... The government's capacity to build extensive, secret digital dossiers on such a mass scale is totally at odds with the vision and intention of the nation's framers who crafted the Fourth Amendment precisely to outlaw indiscriminate searches that cast a wide net to see what can be caught. It also attacks First Amendment values of free speech and association.
In a democracy, people are entitled to know what techniques are being used by the government to spy on them, how the records are being held and for how long, who will have access to them, and the safeguards in place to prevent abuse.... Even if most Americans trust President Obama not to abuse their personal data, no one knows who will occupy the White House or lead intelligence operations in the future. [New York Times]
2. The NSA could come for you
The "unimaginably vast trove of communications data" the NSA is compiling isn't just storing a digital record of each of us, says Eugene Robinson in The Washington Post, but "the bigger it gets, the more useful it is in enabling analysts to make predictions." So you may not be concerned that U.S. spooks can, at least theoretically, read the emails of ordinary Britons and Germans — though our allies certainly are — but digital crystal balls are dangerous.
It's one thing if the NSA looks for patterns in the data that suggest a nascent overseas terrorist group or an imminent attack. It's another thing altogether if the agency observes, say, patterns that suggest the birth of the next Tea Party or Occupy Wall Street movement. [Washington Post]
Even if you've never done anything wrong, this massive collection of your data could come back to haunt you — think IRS audits, but worse, says Danah Boyd at Slate. "A surveillance state will produce more suspect individuals." Why? "Because if someone has a vested interest in you being guilty, it's not impossible to paint that portrait, especially if you have enough data." But even if you aren't worried about being targeted yourself, think about ethnic, religious, and other minorities. "Is your perception of your safety worth the marginalization of other people who don't have your privilege?"
3. The small threat of terrorism isn't worth the cost
The terrorists didn't win entirely after 9/11, says Conor Friedersdorf at The Atlantic. Most of us still go on "enjoying life's opportunities and pleasures." But "as a collective, irrational cowardice is getting the better of our polity." Even the worst terrorist attack in U.S. history killed only about 3,000 people, Friedersdorf adds — the same amount of Americans who die from food poisoning every year, and a tiny fraction of U.S. automobile and gun deaths.
The seeming contradictions in how we treat different threats suggest that we aren't trading civil liberties for security, but a sense of security. We aren't empowering the national-security state so that we're safer, but so we feel safer.... Ceding liberty and privacy to keep myself safe from terrorism doesn't even guarantee that I'll be safer! It's possible that the surveillance state will prove invasive and ineffective....
Civil libertarians are not demanding foolish or unreasonable courage when they suggest that the threat of terrorism isn't so great as to warrant massive spying on innocent Americans and the creation of a permanent database that practically guarantees eventual abuse. Americans would never welcome a secret surveillance state to reduce diabetes deaths, or gun deaths, or drunk-driving deaths by 3,000 per year. [Atlantic]
EVERYBODY CALM DOWN
1. The NSA programs are legal, with checks and balances
Where to set the legal and procedural limits on electronic data collection is "a worthy debate to have," says The Washington Post in an editorial. But as far as we know, there's nothing illegal about the NSA information gathering, the courts and Congress are part of the program, and there's not "any evidence that the authorities were abused or that the privacy of any American was illegally or improperly invaded."
Just as it is important not to exaggerate the national security risks of transparency, it is also important not to give into the anti-government paranoia of grandstanding politicians such as Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), who on Sunday invoked the tyranny of King George III to criticize programs that are the result of a checked, deliberative process across three branches of government. Part of what makes this different is that if enough Americans expect more privacy after the debate... their representatives in Washington can act on their behalf. [Washington Post]
2. Terrorism is the real threat to civil liberties
Listening to this debate over the NSA leaks, "I do wonder if some of those who unequivocally defend this disclosure are behaving as if 9/11 never happened — that the only thing we have to fear is government intrusion in our lives," says Thomas Friedman in The New York Times. "Yes, I worry about potential government abuse of privacy from a program designed to prevent another 9/11 — abuse that, so far, does not appear to have happened," he adds. "But I worry even more about another 9/11." Civil libertarians should, too.
What I cherish most about America is our open society, and I believe that if there is one more 9/11 — or worse, an attack involving nuclear material — it could lead to the end of the open society as we know it. If there were another 9/11, I fear that 99 percent of Americans would tell their members of Congress: "Do whatever you need to do to, privacy be damned, just make sure this does not happen again." That is what I fear most.
That is why I'll reluctantly, very reluctantly, trade off the government using data mining to look for suspicious patterns in phone numbers called and e-mail addresses — and then have to go to a judge to get a warrant to actually look at the content under guidelines set by Congress — to prevent a day where, out of fear, we give government a license to look at anyone, any e-mail, any phone call, anywhere, anytime. [New York Times]
3. Data mining is better than eavesdropping
Civil libertarians are upset about the massive amount and scope of the data being sucked up by the NSA, but it's not as if "NSA goblins have been studying everyone's phone calls," says William Saletan at Slate. The feds may indiscriminately collect all our phone records, but they have to cross a much higher legal barrier to take a peek at it, Saletan says. "In other words, the rules that most of us would apply at the collection stage — reasonable suspicion, specific facts, court approval — are applied instead at the query stage."
"Civil libertarians are right to worry" that the NSA never deletes those records, says Saletan — that's the point of the database, since phone companies do purge their databases — but if the government doesn't convince us that strong enough protections against abuse are in place, "we don't have to reject the NSA's database. We just have to build in sensible, visible restrictions." For all we know, Saletan says, the NSA has sensible, strong oversight systems in place (see Marc Ambinder's primer at The Week), but "what's absurd is that we don't know, because the government won't tell us."
..................................................................................................................................
6 reasons you should, and shouldn't, freak out about the NSA data-mining
By Peter Weber, June 12, 2013
Americans are conflicted about the (sort of) new revelations of NSA surveillance. No wonder.
Amid all the strong, clashing opinions over the leaked National Security Agency surveillance secrets, there's one thing everybody says they agree on: It's great we can finally have a long-overdue conversation about how we should balance national security with civil liberties.
As The Week's Keith Wagstaff and others have noted, though, it's hard to have that conversation. For one thing, many of the most knowledgeable people on the national security end aren't allowed to discuss what they know — and the rest of us, as Wagstaff says, "don't even know what we don't know about the NSA." Also, many of the loudest voices are less interested in conversation than advancing their own beliefs. (Shocking, right?)
But it's also true that we're not even on the same page when it comes to broad themes like privacy. "Privacy is hard to define and even harder to defend," says Rebecca J. Rosen at The Atlantic. Most Americans seem to be on board with the NSA's data-mining operations, but it depends on how you ask the question:
* On Sunday, Rasmussen reported that 59 percent of likely voters oppose the government "secretly collecting the phone records of millions of Americans for national security purposes regardless of whether there is any suspicion of wrongdoing."
* But on Monday, Pew found that 62 percent of Americans say it's more important for the government to "investigate possible terrorist threats, even if that intrudes on personal privacy." More specifically, 56 percent are fine with the NSA tracking the "phone call records of millions of Americans" and 45 percent are okay with monitoring "everyone's emails and online activities" if that might prevent terrorist attacks.
* A new CBS News poll, on the other hand, finds 58 percent of Americans opposed to the government collecting the "phone records of ordinary Americans." At the same time, 62 percent of respondents say they are not concerned that the government might be collecting their own phone records, and a plurality — 46 percent — say the government has the privacy-security balance "about right" (36 percent say Uncle Sam has gone too far, and the other 13 percent, not far enough).
Where does this leave us? Libertarians and civil-liberties advocates are frustrated that not everyone sees the grave danger of giving up freedom for the illusion of security; national security hawks are annoyed that the media and activists are exaggerating (or misunderstanding) the level of NSA snooping; and everybody else is confused, ambivalent, or bored with what seems like yet another shouting match.
So, here are three cogent arguments for why these NSA revelations are a huge deal you should be very worked up about, and three for why we should all take some deep breaths and relax. We condense, you decide:
THIS IS A VERY BIG DEAL
1. Unchecked surveillance threatens our democracy
Perhaps Americans are blasé about the NSA's massive collection of our private data because President Obama, congressional leaders, and intelligence officials "insist that such surveillance is crucial to the nation's antiterrorism efforts," says The New York Times in an editorial. But that's sets up a false choice between liberty and security, and "Americans should not be fooled." The stakes are incredibly high.
The surreptitious collection of "metadata" — every bit of information about every phone call except the word-by-word content of conversations — fundamentally alters the relationship between individuals and their government.... The government's capacity to build extensive, secret digital dossiers on such a mass scale is totally at odds with the vision and intention of the nation's framers who crafted the Fourth Amendment precisely to outlaw indiscriminate searches that cast a wide net to see what can be caught. It also attacks First Amendment values of free speech and association.
In a democracy, people are entitled to know what techniques are being used by the government to spy on them, how the records are being held and for how long, who will have access to them, and the safeguards in place to prevent abuse.... Even if most Americans trust President Obama not to abuse their personal data, no one knows who will occupy the White House or lead intelligence operations in the future. [New York Times]
2. The NSA could come for you
The "unimaginably vast trove of communications data" the NSA is compiling isn't just storing a digital record of each of us, says Eugene Robinson in The Washington Post, but "the bigger it gets, the more useful it is in enabling analysts to make predictions." So you may not be concerned that U.S. spooks can, at least theoretically, read the emails of ordinary Britons and Germans — though our allies certainly are — but digital crystal balls are dangerous.
It's one thing if the NSA looks for patterns in the data that suggest a nascent overseas terrorist group or an imminent attack. It's another thing altogether if the agency observes, say, patterns that suggest the birth of the next Tea Party or Occupy Wall Street movement. [Washington Post]
Even if you've never done anything wrong, this massive collection of your data could come back to haunt you — think IRS audits, but worse, says Danah Boyd at Slate. "A surveillance state will produce more suspect individuals." Why? "Because if someone has a vested interest in you being guilty, it's not impossible to paint that portrait, especially if you have enough data." But even if you aren't worried about being targeted yourself, think about ethnic, religious, and other minorities. "Is your perception of your safety worth the marginalization of other people who don't have your privilege?"
3. The small threat of terrorism isn't worth the cost
The terrorists didn't win entirely after 9/11, says Conor Friedersdorf at The Atlantic. Most of us still go on "enjoying life's opportunities and pleasures." But "as a collective, irrational cowardice is getting the better of our polity." Even the worst terrorist attack in U.S. history killed only about 3,000 people, Friedersdorf adds — the same amount of Americans who die from food poisoning every year, and a tiny fraction of U.S. automobile and gun deaths.
The seeming contradictions in how we treat different threats suggest that we aren't trading civil liberties for security, but a sense of security. We aren't empowering the national-security state so that we're safer, but so we feel safer.... Ceding liberty and privacy to keep myself safe from terrorism doesn't even guarantee that I'll be safer! It's possible that the surveillance state will prove invasive and ineffective....
Civil libertarians are not demanding foolish or unreasonable courage when they suggest that the threat of terrorism isn't so great as to warrant massive spying on innocent Americans and the creation of a permanent database that practically guarantees eventual abuse. Americans would never welcome a secret surveillance state to reduce diabetes deaths, or gun deaths, or drunk-driving deaths by 3,000 per year. [Atlantic]
EVERYBODY CALM DOWN
1. The NSA programs are legal, with checks and balances
Where to set the legal and procedural limits on electronic data collection is "a worthy debate to have," says The Washington Post in an editorial. But as far as we know, there's nothing illegal about the NSA information gathering, the courts and Congress are part of the program, and there's not "any evidence that the authorities were abused or that the privacy of any American was illegally or improperly invaded."
Just as it is important not to exaggerate the national security risks of transparency, it is also important not to give into the anti-government paranoia of grandstanding politicians such as Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), who on Sunday invoked the tyranny of King George III to criticize programs that are the result of a checked, deliberative process across three branches of government. Part of what makes this different is that if enough Americans expect more privacy after the debate... their representatives in Washington can act on their behalf. [Washington Post]
2. Terrorism is the real threat to civil liberties
Listening to this debate over the NSA leaks, "I do wonder if some of those who unequivocally defend this disclosure are behaving as if 9/11 never happened — that the only thing we have to fear is government intrusion in our lives," says Thomas Friedman in The New York Times. "Yes, I worry about potential government abuse of privacy from a program designed to prevent another 9/11 — abuse that, so far, does not appear to have happened," he adds. "But I worry even more about another 9/11." Civil libertarians should, too.
What I cherish most about America is our open society, and I believe that if there is one more 9/11 — or worse, an attack involving nuclear material — it could lead to the end of the open society as we know it. If there were another 9/11, I fear that 99 percent of Americans would tell their members of Congress: "Do whatever you need to do to, privacy be damned, just make sure this does not happen again." That is what I fear most.
That is why I'll reluctantly, very reluctantly, trade off the government using data mining to look for suspicious patterns in phone numbers called and e-mail addresses — and then have to go to a judge to get a warrant to actually look at the content under guidelines set by Congress — to prevent a day where, out of fear, we give government a license to look at anyone, any e-mail, any phone call, anywhere, anytime. [New York Times]
3. Data mining is better than eavesdropping
Civil libertarians are upset about the massive amount and scope of the data being sucked up by the NSA, but it's not as if "NSA goblins have been studying everyone's phone calls," says William Saletan at Slate. The feds may indiscriminately collect all our phone records, but they have to cross a much higher legal barrier to take a peek at it, Saletan says. "In other words, the rules that most of us would apply at the collection stage — reasonable suspicion, specific facts, court approval — are applied instead at the query stage."
"Civil libertarians are right to worry" that the NSA never deletes those records, says Saletan — that's the point of the database, since phone companies do purge their databases — but if the government doesn't convince us that strong enough protections against abuse are in place, "we don't have to reject the NSA's database. We just have to build in sensible, visible restrictions." For all we know, Saletan says, the NSA has sensible, strong oversight systems in place (see Marc Ambinder's primer at The Week), but "what's absurd is that we don't know, because the government won't tell us."
..................................................................................................................................
Tuesday, June 11, 2013
Yes, animals CAN make better politicians than people!
..................................................................................................................................
Think you are a political animal? Think again.
By Hannah Smith, June 11, 2013
Would animals make better politicians that actual people?
Two men have put forward “Morris the Cat” as a candidate for mayor in the state capital Xalapa. Morris is a real cat with a real political platform: he promises to “sleep and do nothing” if elected, which, as he points out, is what all politicians do anyway.
Unlike his human opponents, however, Morris also acknowledges he’ll probably make a mess or two. But he pledges to clean up after himself and not leave them behind for future mayors. Morris the Cat's candidacy arose from a disillusionment with the human field of candidates. Morris the Cat's campaign slogan is fitting: “Xalapa without rats.”
If Morris the Cat wins, he’ll likely forge strong relations with a number of politicians in North America, where inhuman mayors are more common than you might think.
1. Mayor Stubbs, Telkeetna, Alaska
In the small town of Talkeetna, Alaska, they’ve had the same mayor for 15 years — a tail-less cat named Stubbs. In this underdog story, Stubbs was elected in his infancy after being found in a cardboard box. He entered the race as a write-in candidate and won against his more human competition. Every afternoon, Stubbs takes his catnip with a side of water in a wine glass, leaving some residents to wonder if the position — which is largely honorary since the town is a “historical district," meaning it is state- or federally-governed, rather than locally — has gone to his head. Stubbs won after the town’s residents found the human candidates unsatisfactory. Now that they’ve got Stubbs, they’re happy. As Resident Laurie Stec put it, “He’s good. Probably the best we’ve had.”
2. Mayor Clay Henry III, Lajitas, Texas
Clay Henry III, a goat, has two passions: politics and alcohol. He isn’t just your everyday farm animal — he’s the mayor of Lajitas, Texas, and his claim to fame is, of all things, beer guzzling. He actually comes from a line of politically-minded goats. He was the third in his family to become mayor after an election in 2000, where he managed to defeat both a wooden Indian and a dog named Clyde. So don’t underestimate him. In fact, a man who haphazardly castrated Clay Henry back in 2002 as a joke was brought to trial (he was acquitted) after they found Clay Henry bleeding in his pen the next morning (he recovered). Visitors to Lajitas can pay tribute to Clay Henry III by popping the top off a beer and giving him a swig outside of the trading post in town, where he is said to now reside.
3. Mayor Lucy Lou, Rabbit Hash, Kentucky
In 2008, 10 dogs, one cat, an opossum, a jackass and a real life person all vied for power in Rabbit Hash, Kentucky, a small town in the Ohio River Valley. Red-and-white border collie Lucy Lou ultimately emerged as victor, and she still serves in her post today. She ran on the non-partisan canine ticket and supports feline and canine presence in the general store. The townspeople tend to agree with her slogan that she’s “a bitch you can count on.”
4. Former Mayor April the Cow, Eastsound, Washington
A snap election was called in Eastsound after the tragic death of its former mayor, April the Cow, who was first elected in 2011. The new pack of candidates include Fargo, Lucy, Panda, Jinjer, and Winston — all dogs. There are dogs of all colors and sizes, and write-in candidates are still being accepted. You can read her official letter confirming her candidacy here, where she greets her “gentle bipeds” and says, “My pedigree says I am called a Brown Swiss. I say I am 100 percent American.” April passed away last September. The current election is set to close July 6, 2013.
Candidates who didn't quite cut it:
Animal leaders aren’t only American. In France, a daschund by the name Saucisse, French for sausage, ran for mayor of Marseille. Although he only received 4 percent of the vote, Saucisse went on to star in France’s big-brother style reality show, Secret Story 3.
In 1959, a rhinocerous named Cacareco was nominated in Brazil. Although he won 100,000 votes — more than any other political party — electoral officials refused to allow him to power.
Black-and-white cat Tuxedo Stan campaigned to become mayor in Halifax, Canada in 2012. He ran under the motto “a chicken in every pot and a litter box in every house.” However, officials denied Tuxedo Stan an official place on the ballot.
..................................................................................................................................
Think you are a political animal? Think again.
By Hannah Smith, June 11, 2013
Would animals make better politicians that actual people?
Two men have put forward “Morris the Cat” as a candidate for mayor in the state capital Xalapa. Morris is a real cat with a real political platform: he promises to “sleep and do nothing” if elected, which, as he points out, is what all politicians do anyway.
Unlike his human opponents, however, Morris also acknowledges he’ll probably make a mess or two. But he pledges to clean up after himself and not leave them behind for future mayors. Morris the Cat's candidacy arose from a disillusionment with the human field of candidates. Morris the Cat's campaign slogan is fitting: “Xalapa without rats.”
If Morris the Cat wins, he’ll likely forge strong relations with a number of politicians in North America, where inhuman mayors are more common than you might think.
1. Mayor Stubbs, Telkeetna, Alaska
In the small town of Talkeetna, Alaska, they’ve had the same mayor for 15 years — a tail-less cat named Stubbs. In this underdog story, Stubbs was elected in his infancy after being found in a cardboard box. He entered the race as a write-in candidate and won against his more human competition. Every afternoon, Stubbs takes his catnip with a side of water in a wine glass, leaving some residents to wonder if the position — which is largely honorary since the town is a “historical district," meaning it is state- or federally-governed, rather than locally — has gone to his head. Stubbs won after the town’s residents found the human candidates unsatisfactory. Now that they’ve got Stubbs, they’re happy. As Resident Laurie Stec put it, “He’s good. Probably the best we’ve had.”
2. Mayor Clay Henry III, Lajitas, Texas
Clay Henry III, a goat, has two passions: politics and alcohol. He isn’t just your everyday farm animal — he’s the mayor of Lajitas, Texas, and his claim to fame is, of all things, beer guzzling. He actually comes from a line of politically-minded goats. He was the third in his family to become mayor after an election in 2000, where he managed to defeat both a wooden Indian and a dog named Clyde. So don’t underestimate him. In fact, a man who haphazardly castrated Clay Henry back in 2002 as a joke was brought to trial (he was acquitted) after they found Clay Henry bleeding in his pen the next morning (he recovered). Visitors to Lajitas can pay tribute to Clay Henry III by popping the top off a beer and giving him a swig outside of the trading post in town, where he is said to now reside.
3. Mayor Lucy Lou, Rabbit Hash, Kentucky
In 2008, 10 dogs, one cat, an opossum, a jackass and a real life person all vied for power in Rabbit Hash, Kentucky, a small town in the Ohio River Valley. Red-and-white border collie Lucy Lou ultimately emerged as victor, and she still serves in her post today. She ran on the non-partisan canine ticket and supports feline and canine presence in the general store. The townspeople tend to agree with her slogan that she’s “a bitch you can count on.”
4. Former Mayor April the Cow, Eastsound, Washington
A snap election was called in Eastsound after the tragic death of its former mayor, April the Cow, who was first elected in 2011. The new pack of candidates include Fargo, Lucy, Panda, Jinjer, and Winston — all dogs. There are dogs of all colors and sizes, and write-in candidates are still being accepted. You can read her official letter confirming her candidacy here, where she greets her “gentle bipeds” and says, “My pedigree says I am called a Brown Swiss. I say I am 100 percent American.” April passed away last September. The current election is set to close July 6, 2013.
Candidates who didn't quite cut it:
Animal leaders aren’t only American. In France, a daschund by the name Saucisse, French for sausage, ran for mayor of Marseille. Although he only received 4 percent of the vote, Saucisse went on to star in France’s big-brother style reality show, Secret Story 3.
In 1959, a rhinocerous named Cacareco was nominated in Brazil. Although he won 100,000 votes — more than any other political party — electoral officials refused to allow him to power.
Black-and-white cat Tuxedo Stan campaigned to become mayor in Halifax, Canada in 2012. He ran under the motto “a chicken in every pot and a litter box in every house.” However, officials denied Tuxedo Stan an official place on the ballot.
..................................................................................................................................
Is your kid's name Republican or Democratic, conservative or liberal?
..................................................................................................................................
Parents’ baby name choices linked to political leanings
By Amy Graff, June 10, 2013
Have you ever found yourself trying to figure out whether the parents of your child’s friend are Republicans or Democrats? A new study reveals that you might be able to make an educated guess based on the child’s name.
If the kid is called Lucas, the parents are more likely to be Obama supporters. If his name is David, then his parents were more likely to vote for Romney.
What’s the reasoning here?
Researchers at the University of Chicago found that liberal parents like names with softer, more feminine “L” and “A” sounds, especially with the “A” falling at the end of the name (Ella, Sophia, Liam, Lena). Conservatives go for names with harder, stronger, more masculine “D,” “K,” “T” and ”B” sounds (Kurt, Kim, Donald, Bryce).
Another significant trend the study revealed is well-educated conservatives prefer traditional and common monikers while educated liberals are more likely to try something unusual. The parents of a Mary or Elizabeth are more likely to vote red while the parents of an Apple or London are most likely voting blue.
University of Chicago political scientist Eric Oliver, the study’s lead researcher, analyzed California birth records from the 545,018 babies born in California in 2004, representing 52,589 different names, according to Live Science. Oliver and his team counted unique spellings so Sophia and Sofia were considered two separate names. They then matched the names with California neighborhoods, and, using voting records, each neighborhood was identified as being red or blue.
Oliver found that education plays a key role in baby names. Less-educated parents were more likely to pick unusual names. But while educated liberals opted for more obscure yet pre-existing names, like Atticus and Finnegan, those parents without a college education were more likely to opt for unusual spellings (e.g., Andruw instead of Andrew) or pick entirely new names.
How do the names of famous politicians stack up against these findings?
The Obama girls, Sasha and Malia, are definitely the names of liberals–both end in the feminine “a” sound and Malia has the “l” sound. The Bush girls are Barbara and Jenna. Barbara is traditional and has a hard “B” sound—definitely the name of a republican. Jenna could go either way. It has the “a” sound at the end but it’s a rather common name. Also, consider the kids of the conservative Palin family. Track, Trig, Bristol and Piper all have hard sounds. Willow, on the other hand, with its soft “L” sounds is definitely the name of a liberal.
..................................................................................................................................
Parents’ baby name choices linked to political leanings
By Amy Graff, June 10, 2013
Have you ever found yourself trying to figure out whether the parents of your child’s friend are Republicans or Democrats? A new study reveals that you might be able to make an educated guess based on the child’s name.
If the kid is called Lucas, the parents are more likely to be Obama supporters. If his name is David, then his parents were more likely to vote for Romney.
What’s the reasoning here?
Researchers at the University of Chicago found that liberal parents like names with softer, more feminine “L” and “A” sounds, especially with the “A” falling at the end of the name (Ella, Sophia, Liam, Lena). Conservatives go for names with harder, stronger, more masculine “D,” “K,” “T” and ”B” sounds (Kurt, Kim, Donald, Bryce).
Another significant trend the study revealed is well-educated conservatives prefer traditional and common monikers while educated liberals are more likely to try something unusual. The parents of a Mary or Elizabeth are more likely to vote red while the parents of an Apple or London are most likely voting blue.
University of Chicago political scientist Eric Oliver, the study’s lead researcher, analyzed California birth records from the 545,018 babies born in California in 2004, representing 52,589 different names, according to Live Science. Oliver and his team counted unique spellings so Sophia and Sofia were considered two separate names. They then matched the names with California neighborhoods, and, using voting records, each neighborhood was identified as being red or blue.
Oliver found that education plays a key role in baby names. Less-educated parents were more likely to pick unusual names. But while educated liberals opted for more obscure yet pre-existing names, like Atticus and Finnegan, those parents without a college education were more likely to opt for unusual spellings (e.g., Andruw instead of Andrew) or pick entirely new names.
How do the names of famous politicians stack up against these findings?
The Obama girls, Sasha and Malia, are definitely the names of liberals–both end in the feminine “a” sound and Malia has the “l” sound. The Bush girls are Barbara and Jenna. Barbara is traditional and has a hard “B” sound—definitely the name of a republican. Jenna could go either way. It has the “a” sound at the end but it’s a rather common name. Also, consider the kids of the conservative Palin family. Track, Trig, Bristol and Piper all have hard sounds. Willow, on the other hand, with its soft “L” sounds is definitely the name of a liberal.
..................................................................................................................................
Good grief... Is Rush suffering from early-onset Alzheimer's?
..................................................................................................................................
Sorry Rush, Nixon Spied On Enemies; Viewed The IRS As A Political Weapon
By Eric Boehlert
During Richard Nixon's 1972 re-election campaign, the president's White House counsel, John Dean, met with the head of the Internal Revenue Service, Johnnie Mac Walters, and presented him with an envelope. Inside was a list of approximately 200 names -- the names of Nixon's political enemies and with it came the understanding that the IRS begin investigating the "enemies list" and perhaps start sending some people to jail.
Stunned, Walters sealed the White House list, locked it in a safe and later fended off complaints from Nixon aide John Ehrlichman about the IRS's "foot-dragging tactics."
Two years later, on December 22, 1974, with Nixon having resigned from the Watergate scandal, the New York Times' Seymour Hersh published a front-page blockbuster, headlined: "HUGE C.I.A. OPERATIONS REPORTED IN U.S. AGAINST ANTIWAR FORCES."
Hersh detailed how the CIA under Nixon hatched "an elaborate and secret domestic" spying operation built around illegal wiretapping and the reading of mail. Additionally, the Times confirmed "that intelligence files on at least 10,000 American citizens were maintained by a special unit of the CIA. "
The report sparked the creation of the Church Committee in Congress, which soon uncovered years worth of intelligence abuse inside the CIA, FBI and IRS, among others. Many of the abuses came at the request of the Nixon White House.
Keep those two historical points in mind and consider that Rush Limbaugh in recent days has been insisting Nixon "never even dreamed" of using the IRS has a political weapon, or of breaking the law by spying on Americans.
The backdrop of Limbaugh's clumsy rewriting of history, of course, is the current Obama administration controversies surrounding the IRS and its inappropriate targeting of conservative groups applying for tax-exempt status, as well as the revelations of widespread domestic surveillance by the National Security Agency, which continues to collect metadata, such as phone numbers and the duration of phone calls, from telephone providers. (Keep in mind, nowhere in the NSA or the IRS stories has evidence emerged that Obama or the White House ordered any individual be targeted for surveillance or IRS scrutiny.)
The controversies swirling around the IRS and the NSA are significant ones that raise legitimate questions about the scope and power of the federal government. But full-time Obama critics like Limbaugh can't stop inventing facts. They also can't stop trying to bolster "scandal" claims by making absurd comparisons to Nixon's previous criminal behavior; a hollow pattern that's been persistent throughout Obama's time in office.
Locked in his partisan perspective, Limbaugh now says both the IRS and NSA stories are far worse than the crimes of the Nixon administration. "Most people think Nixon did something ten times as bad as what's happening now," said Limbaugh on June 10. "But the truth is Nixon never even dreamed of this."
Added the host [emphasis added]:
Nixon's White House ordered the use of government resources to harm his political enemies. In addition to his top legal aide giving the IRS a list of Democratic enemies to be investigated, there's the time Nixon personally picked up the phone and called his attorney general -- the nation's top cop -- and told him to break the law by prosecuting Nixon's enemies via their "income taxes."
The chapter was recently recalled in the documentary Inventing LA: The Chandler Family and Their Times. The film detailed the newspaper's often contentious relationship with California native Richard Nixon and featured a tape recording of a telephone call between Attorney General George Mitchell and Nixon, with the president giving orders to target members of the left-leaning Chandler family, led by patriarch Otis Chandler, whom Nixon despised:
As for spying on Americans illegally (which is not what the NSA story appears to be about, by the way), that also became a hallmark of the Nixon administration.
From the same Church Committee:
Fact: Nixon didn't just dream it. He tried to do it.
..................................................................................................................................
Sorry Rush, Nixon Spied On Enemies; Viewed The IRS As A Political Weapon
By Eric Boehlert
During Richard Nixon's 1972 re-election campaign, the president's White House counsel, John Dean, met with the head of the Internal Revenue Service, Johnnie Mac Walters, and presented him with an envelope. Inside was a list of approximately 200 names -- the names of Nixon's political enemies and with it came the understanding that the IRS begin investigating the "enemies list" and perhaps start sending some people to jail.
Stunned, Walters sealed the White House list, locked it in a safe and later fended off complaints from Nixon aide John Ehrlichman about the IRS's "foot-dragging tactics."
Two years later, on December 22, 1974, with Nixon having resigned from the Watergate scandal, the New York Times' Seymour Hersh published a front-page blockbuster, headlined: "HUGE C.I.A. OPERATIONS REPORTED IN U.S. AGAINST ANTIWAR FORCES."
Hersh detailed how the CIA under Nixon hatched "an elaborate and secret domestic" spying operation built around illegal wiretapping and the reading of mail. Additionally, the Times confirmed "that intelligence files on at least 10,000 American citizens were maintained by a special unit of the CIA. "
The report sparked the creation of the Church Committee in Congress, which soon uncovered years worth of intelligence abuse inside the CIA, FBI and IRS, among others. Many of the abuses came at the request of the Nixon White House.
Keep those two historical points in mind and consider that Rush Limbaugh in recent days has been insisting Nixon "never even dreamed" of using the IRS has a political weapon, or of breaking the law by spying on Americans.
The backdrop of Limbaugh's clumsy rewriting of history, of course, is the current Obama administration controversies surrounding the IRS and its inappropriate targeting of conservative groups applying for tax-exempt status, as well as the revelations of widespread domestic surveillance by the National Security Agency, which continues to collect metadata, such as phone numbers and the duration of phone calls, from telephone providers. (Keep in mind, nowhere in the NSA or the IRS stories has evidence emerged that Obama or the White House ordered any individual be targeted for surveillance or IRS scrutiny.)
The controversies swirling around the IRS and the NSA are significant ones that raise legitimate questions about the scope and power of the federal government. But full-time Obama critics like Limbaugh can't stop inventing facts. They also can't stop trying to bolster "scandal" claims by making absurd comparisons to Nixon's previous criminal behavior; a hollow pattern that's been persistent throughout Obama's time in office.
Locked in his partisan perspective, Limbaugh now says both the IRS and NSA stories are far worse than the crimes of the Nixon administration. "Most people think Nixon did something ten times as bad as what's happening now," said Limbaugh on June 10. "But the truth is Nixon never even dreamed of this."
Added the host [emphasis added]:
You think about Nixon and Watergate, Nixon is a piker compared to what's happening here with Obama. Literally. I'm not even speaking to you politically. Nixon didn't even dream of the stuff that's happening. Nixon did not use the IRS against people.Limbaugh though, manages to get the history comically wrong.
Nixon's White House ordered the use of government resources to harm his political enemies. In addition to his top legal aide giving the IRS a list of Democratic enemies to be investigated, there's the time Nixon personally picked up the phone and called his attorney general -- the nation's top cop -- and told him to break the law by prosecuting Nixon's enemies via their "income taxes."
The chapter was recently recalled in the documentary Inventing LA: The Chandler Family and Their Times. The film detailed the newspaper's often contentious relationship with California native Richard Nixon and featured a tape recording of a telephone call between Attorney General George Mitchell and Nixon, with the president giving orders to target members of the left-leaning Chandler family, led by patriarch Otis Chandler, whom Nixon despised:
NIXON: Otis Chandler, I want him checked with regard to his gardener. I understand he's a wetback. We are going to go after the Chandlers. Every one. Individually, collectively. Their income taxes. They're starting this week. Every one of those sons of bitches, is that clear?
Mitchell: Yes, sir.
Nixon: You Understand? Do it. Give me a report.
Mitchell. Very well, sir.Additionally, the Church Committee determined that between 1968 and 1974, "the FBI requested at least 130 tax returns for domestic intelligence purposes." The list included 46 "New Left activists" and 74 "black extremists."
As for spying on Americans illegally (which is not what the NSA story appears to be about, by the way), that also became a hallmark of the Nixon administration.
From the same Church Committee:
Between 1969 and 1972, the Nixon administration used these criteria to justify a number of questionable wiretaps. One New Left organization was tapped because, among other factors, its members desired to "take the radical politics they learned on campus and spread them among factory workers."
Four newsmen were wiretapped or bugged during this period, as were sixteen executive branch officials, one former executive official, and a relative of an executive official.'
There were numerous wiretaps and some microphones used against the Black Panther Party and similar domestic groups.
Attorney General John Mitchell approved FBI requests for wiretaps on organizations involved in planning the November 1969 antiwar "March on Washington," including the moderate Vietnam Moratorium Committee.Spinning a feel-good GOP fairytale, Limbaugh claims Nixon "never even dreamed" of abusing governmental powers the way the talker claims Obama is today.
Fact: Nixon didn't just dream it. He tried to do it.
..................................................................................................................................
Monday, June 10, 2013
Legislators, instead of doctors, are setting medical protocol! Government should stop imposing its political agenda on medical practice
..................................................................................................................................
Doctors’ Group Slams Anti-Abortion Laws For ‘Imposing A Political Agenda On Medical Practice’
By Tara Culp-Ressler, Jun 10, 2013
The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, a national organization representing thousands of women’s health experts, has publicly come out against the state-level abortion restrictions that impact the way doctors are allowed to treat their patients. The group’s Executive Board has issued an official statement opposing all laws that “unduly interfere with patient-physician relationships” and compromise patients’ health care for political gain.
“Given the relentless legislative assault on the patient-physician relationship that we’ve seen in the past few years — and unfortunately continue to see — we were compelled to issue a formal Statement of Policy,” the group’s president, Dr. Jeanne A. Conry, explained in a press release. “A disproportionate number of these types of laws are aimed at women’s reproductive rights and the physicians that provide women’s health care services.”
In its formal statement, the doctors’ group criticized specific pieces of anti-abortion legislation that comes between women and their doctors — including forced ultrasound laws that require women seeking abortions to look at an image of their fetus before continuing with the medical procedure, “disclosure” laws that require doctors to tell women about the scientifically disputed link between abortion and breast cancer, and laws that require doctors to use an outdated procedure for administering the abortion pill.
The OB-GYNs point out that these type of laws allow legislators, instead of doctors, to set medical protocol. When doctors aren’t allowed to follow the current accepted medical practice because of a politically-motivated law, they aren’t able to provide their patients with the best quality of care. That dynamic has contributed to a serious shortage of women’s health doctors in states with harsh abortion restrictions, since medical professionals would rather avoid situations in which they may have to choose between providing their patients with the best health care and following a complicated state law.
“We are speaking out not just on behalf of OB-GYNs, but for all physicians and patients,” Dr. Conry noted. “Many of these laws are dangerous to patients’ health and safety. As physicians, we are obligated to offer the best evidence-based care to our patients. Government should stay out of imposing its political agenda on medical practice.”
This isn’t the first time that the College has weighed in on an area of women’s health that has become overly politicized by elected officials. Last fall, the group came out in support of improving women’s access to birth control by allowing them to buy it over the counter. It has repeatedly encouraged doctors to help reduce unintended pregnancies by providing teens with long-lasting contraception like IUDs. And, as the Obama Administration has continued to advocate imposing age restrictions on over-the-counter emergency contraception, OB-GYNs have reiterated that they don’t support preventing young teens from buying Plan B without a prescription.
..................................................................................................................................
Doctors’ Group Slams Anti-Abortion Laws For ‘Imposing A Political Agenda On Medical Practice’
By Tara Culp-Ressler, Jun 10, 2013
The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, a national organization representing thousands of women’s health experts, has publicly come out against the state-level abortion restrictions that impact the way doctors are allowed to treat their patients. The group’s Executive Board has issued an official statement opposing all laws that “unduly interfere with patient-physician relationships” and compromise patients’ health care for political gain.
“Given the relentless legislative assault on the patient-physician relationship that we’ve seen in the past few years — and unfortunately continue to see — we were compelled to issue a formal Statement of Policy,” the group’s president, Dr. Jeanne A. Conry, explained in a press release. “A disproportionate number of these types of laws are aimed at women’s reproductive rights and the physicians that provide women’s health care services.”
In its formal statement, the doctors’ group criticized specific pieces of anti-abortion legislation that comes between women and their doctors — including forced ultrasound laws that require women seeking abortions to look at an image of their fetus before continuing with the medical procedure, “disclosure” laws that require doctors to tell women about the scientifically disputed link between abortion and breast cancer, and laws that require doctors to use an outdated procedure for administering the abortion pill.
The OB-GYNs point out that these type of laws allow legislators, instead of doctors, to set medical protocol. When doctors aren’t allowed to follow the current accepted medical practice because of a politically-motivated law, they aren’t able to provide their patients with the best quality of care. That dynamic has contributed to a serious shortage of women’s health doctors in states with harsh abortion restrictions, since medical professionals would rather avoid situations in which they may have to choose between providing their patients with the best health care and following a complicated state law.
“We are speaking out not just on behalf of OB-GYNs, but for all physicians and patients,” Dr. Conry noted. “Many of these laws are dangerous to patients’ health and safety. As physicians, we are obligated to offer the best evidence-based care to our patients. Government should stay out of imposing its political agenda on medical practice.”
This isn’t the first time that the College has weighed in on an area of women’s health that has become overly politicized by elected officials. Last fall, the group came out in support of improving women’s access to birth control by allowing them to buy it over the counter. It has repeatedly encouraged doctors to help reduce unintended pregnancies by providing teens with long-lasting contraception like IUDs. And, as the Obama Administration has continued to advocate imposing age restrictions on over-the-counter emergency contraception, OB-GYNs have reiterated that they don’t support preventing young teens from buying Plan B without a prescription.
..................................................................................................................................
Snowden: hero or goat?
..................................................................................................................................
Edward Snowden is a hero
By Douglas Rushkoff, June 10, 2013
When I was a kid, I remember a guy named Daniel Ellsberg leaking some classified documents to the New York Times about the Vietnam War called "the Pentagon Papers."
When the whistle-blower finally stood trial for espionage, my parents weren't quite sure how to feel. But when Richard Nixon's crew was revealed to have been conducting illegal wiretaps in an effort to discredit the former intelligence contractor, well, they were outraged and decided Ellsberg was a hero. So did the judge and most of America.
I wonder whether Ed Snowden, the 29-year-old Booz Allen Hamilton employee behind last week's series of leaks about National Security Agency surveillance on the American public, will be rewarded with the same admiration. You'd think we would be even more outraged by what he uncovered than we were by the surveillance of Ellsberg. After all, it's not just one lone loose cannon being wiretapped here, it's all of us being monitored.
Snowden has not uncovered a human conspiracy here but the workings of the machine itself. And it's a machine that really does require some human intervention.
In the coming months, I expect a campaign to be waged against this young man that will make the one against Ellsberg look like child's play. His enemies have the full force of the machine -- every e-mail he's written and every phone call he's made -- to use against him. This won't be pretty. But before we decide that Snowden was smiling too much in his videotaped interview with The Guardian, earned too much money or somehow betrayed his lovely girlfriend in Hawaii in a personal vendetta against his former bosses at the intelligence agencies, let's take just a moment to consider his particularly human act of heroism.
There are dozens, if not hundreds, of government employees and contractors who have long been aware of the NSA's total surveillance effort.
What next for Snowden?
As a digital technology writer, I have had more than one former student and colleague tell me about digital switchers they have serviced through which calls and data are diverted to government servers or the big data algorithms they've written to be used on our e-mails by intelligence agencies. I always begged them to write about it or to let me do so while protecting their identities. They refused to come forward and believed my efforts to shield them would be futile. "I don't want to lose my security clearance. Or my freedom," one told me.
Snowden was willing to take those risks and, I daresay, more.
Yet it wasn't just fear keeping people from talking about the growing cybersurveillance state but a sense of inevitability. This is just how technology evolves, at least when it's uncontested. Everyone knows, or should know, that everything we type on our computers or say into our cell phones is being disseminated throughout the datasphere. And most of it is recorded and parsed by big data servers. Why do you think Gmail and Facebook are free? You think they're corporate gifts? We pay with our data.
In such an environment, it's hard to come down too hard on government intelligence officers who want to get in on this action.
Our leaders are suffering from what I call "present shock": the overwhelming assault of multiple threats from everywhere at the same time, amplified by technology of all sorts. Terrorists have unprecedented access to weapons of mass destruction and work through decentralized networks around the clock. As data-gathering tools emerge with ever-increasing ability to keep tabs on the world's communications, how can an overburdened intelligence agency choose otherwise than to exploit their potential?
The rush to employ technology has become automatic.
We all know the feeling of surrendering to the embedded biases of our devices. We let our cell phones ping us every time there's an incoming message and check our e-mail even when we'd best pay attention to what's going on around us in the real world. We text while driving. Likewise, without conscious restraint, government agencies can't help but let the growing power of big data draw them into ever more invasive forms of surveillance on a population whose members simply must include those who intend harm on the rest. This is just how everything runs when it's left on "default" settings.
Yet if we let the evolution of our machines dictate the evolution of our policy, the only possible result is what Snowden calls "turnkey tyranny."
As I have argued in other contexts, the best weapon against the paralysis of technologically induced present shock is human intervention. Just as we the people stood against the structural tyranny of an overreaching monarchy, it is we the people who must stand against the structural tyranny of runaway technology.
Snowden is a hero because he realized that our very humanity was being compromised by the blind implementation of machines in the name of making us safe. Unlike those around him, who were too absorbed in their task to reflect on their actions and pause in their pursuit of digital omniscience, Snowden allowed himself to be "disturbed" by what he was doing.
More in the midst of technology than most of us will ever be, Snowden disengaged for long enough to be human and to consider the impact of what he was helping build. He pressed pause.
Thank heavens our intelligence agencies are staffed by people like Snowden, not robots. People can still think.
That's why they call it intelligence.
..................................................................................................................................
Edward Snowden is a hero
By Douglas Rushkoff, June 10, 2013
When I was a kid, I remember a guy named Daniel Ellsberg leaking some classified documents to the New York Times about the Vietnam War called "the Pentagon Papers."
When the whistle-blower finally stood trial for espionage, my parents weren't quite sure how to feel. But when Richard Nixon's crew was revealed to have been conducting illegal wiretaps in an effort to discredit the former intelligence contractor, well, they were outraged and decided Ellsberg was a hero. So did the judge and most of America.
I wonder whether Ed Snowden, the 29-year-old Booz Allen Hamilton employee behind last week's series of leaks about National Security Agency surveillance on the American public, will be rewarded with the same admiration. You'd think we would be even more outraged by what he uncovered than we were by the surveillance of Ellsberg. After all, it's not just one lone loose cannon being wiretapped here, it's all of us being monitored.
Snowden has not uncovered a human conspiracy here but the workings of the machine itself. And it's a machine that really does require some human intervention.
In the coming months, I expect a campaign to be waged against this young man that will make the one against Ellsberg look like child's play. His enemies have the full force of the machine -- every e-mail he's written and every phone call he's made -- to use against him. This won't be pretty. But before we decide that Snowden was smiling too much in his videotaped interview with The Guardian, earned too much money or somehow betrayed his lovely girlfriend in Hawaii in a personal vendetta against his former bosses at the intelligence agencies, let's take just a moment to consider his particularly human act of heroism.
There are dozens, if not hundreds, of government employees and contractors who have long been aware of the NSA's total surveillance effort.
What next for Snowden?
As a digital technology writer, I have had more than one former student and colleague tell me about digital switchers they have serviced through which calls and data are diverted to government servers or the big data algorithms they've written to be used on our e-mails by intelligence agencies. I always begged them to write about it or to let me do so while protecting their identities. They refused to come forward and believed my efforts to shield them would be futile. "I don't want to lose my security clearance. Or my freedom," one told me.
Snowden was willing to take those risks and, I daresay, more.
Yet it wasn't just fear keeping people from talking about the growing cybersurveillance state but a sense of inevitability. This is just how technology evolves, at least when it's uncontested. Everyone knows, or should know, that everything we type on our computers or say into our cell phones is being disseminated throughout the datasphere. And most of it is recorded and parsed by big data servers. Why do you think Gmail and Facebook are free? You think they're corporate gifts? We pay with our data.
In such an environment, it's hard to come down too hard on government intelligence officers who want to get in on this action.
Our leaders are suffering from what I call "present shock": the overwhelming assault of multiple threats from everywhere at the same time, amplified by technology of all sorts. Terrorists have unprecedented access to weapons of mass destruction and work through decentralized networks around the clock. As data-gathering tools emerge with ever-increasing ability to keep tabs on the world's communications, how can an overburdened intelligence agency choose otherwise than to exploit their potential?
The rush to employ technology has become automatic.
We all know the feeling of surrendering to the embedded biases of our devices. We let our cell phones ping us every time there's an incoming message and check our e-mail even when we'd best pay attention to what's going on around us in the real world. We text while driving. Likewise, without conscious restraint, government agencies can't help but let the growing power of big data draw them into ever more invasive forms of surveillance on a population whose members simply must include those who intend harm on the rest. This is just how everything runs when it's left on "default" settings.
Yet if we let the evolution of our machines dictate the evolution of our policy, the only possible result is what Snowden calls "turnkey tyranny."
As I have argued in other contexts, the best weapon against the paralysis of technologically induced present shock is human intervention. Just as we the people stood against the structural tyranny of an overreaching monarchy, it is we the people who must stand against the structural tyranny of runaway technology.
Snowden is a hero because he realized that our very humanity was being compromised by the blind implementation of machines in the name of making us safe. Unlike those around him, who were too absorbed in their task to reflect on their actions and pause in their pursuit of digital omniscience, Snowden allowed himself to be "disturbed" by what he was doing.
More in the midst of technology than most of us will ever be, Snowden disengaged for long enough to be human and to consider the impact of what he was helping build. He pressed pause.
Thank heavens our intelligence agencies are staffed by people like Snowden, not robots. People can still think.
That's why they call it intelligence.
..................................................................................................................................
This is called "dark money".... how do we know, however, that it isn't DIRTY money?
..................................................................................................................................
'Dark money' of non-profit political groups targeted
Advocacy groups have the ability to move millions in political money across the country with little transparency about their donors.
By Fredreka Schouten, June 11, 2013
Just weeks before last November's election, a little-known Arizona non-profit made a big splash in California politics – donating $11 million to a political group that opposed a tax-hike initiative from Democratic Gov. Jerry Brown and backed another measure to make it harder for labor unions to collect dues for political activity.
State regulators, however, did not know where the group, Americans for Responsible Leadership, got its money.
California's campaign-finance agency went to court, forcing the out-of-state organization to reveal that the money came from another Arizona non-profit, the Center to Protect Patient Rights, which in turn said its money came from a third non-profit, Americans for Job Security, a "pro-business" issue advocacy group in Alexandria, Va. Since its inception in the late 1990s, Americans for Job Security has spent tens of millions of dollars targeting Democratic politicians.
More than seven months after Election Day, however, the individual donors to Americans for Job Security are still unknown to the public.
Long before the Internal Revenue Service scandal erupted over the agency's extra scrutiny of tax-exempt Tea Party groups, campaign-finance watchdog groups had implored the agency to rein in non-profit advocacy groups like these who have the ability to move millions in political money across country with little transparency about their donors.
A month after the IRS controversy broke, some watchdog groups and Democrats in Congress are trying to shift the focus to the deep-pocketed groups that pumped increasing amounts of what they call "dark money" into politics.
In a recent letter to the House Ways and Means Committee, one of the panels investigating the IRS, two watchdog groups asked lawmakers to "pay equal heed to the other IRS scandal," which they described as the agency's failure to regulate non-profit groups they charge have improperly concealed the identities of moneyed interests trying to shape federal elections.
"We've seen no indication from the IRS that it is doing anything about these big players," said Paul Ryan, senior counsel at the Campaign Legal Center, one of the groups that wrote to the Ways and Means Committee. "Instead, we hear about Mom-and-Pop Tea Party groups being scrutinized."
However, some leading Republicans, including Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, say the IRS scandal makes the strongest case yet that political speech should be anonymous.
Efforts to revive bills in Congress to require further disclosure of non-profits' political activity are "a backdoor effort to discourage those who disagree with the Obama administration from participating in the political process," McConnell said in a recent Washington Post op-ed.
"If this scandal has taught us anything," McConnell added, "it is that Washington's ability to target individuals and groups is already too expansive."
At a recent hearing on the IRS scandal, Sen. Patrick Toomey, R-Pa., defended anonymous political speech.
"I would remind us all that perhaps one of the most important and influential works of political advocacy ever done in the history of the republic were The Federalist Papers, which were written anonymously, under pseudonyms," he said during a Senate Finance Committee hearing.
Political spending by groups that don't disclose their donors has exploded after a recent series of court rulings relaxing longstanding spending and advertising restrictions.
In federal races alone, "last-minute" political spending by labor unions, trade associations and other non-profit advocacy groups topped $335 million last year, up from $37.9 million in 2004, according to Center for Responsive Politics, which has tracked the reports non-profits have filed with the Federal Election Commission. More than 80% of the money reported in 2012 came from conservative groups.
Many groups only have to report expenditures occurring within 30 days of a primary election or 60 days of a general election.
Amid a tangled a web of federal tax and campaign-finance laws and rules, none of the non-profits was required to disclose donors.
In California, regulators invoked a state disclosure law to seek the source of the $11 million donation by Americans for Responsible Leadership, which says on its website that it operates under the section of the U.S. tax code that governs so-called 501(c)(4) social-welfare organizations.
"We had interests from outside California who were willing to spend a huge sum of money, but who were not willing to be identified," said Ann Ravel, chairwoman of the California Fair Political Practices Commission. "I think voters were offended by that."
The state's campaign regulators and Attorney General Kamala Harris, a Democrat, are continuing to investigate the sources of Americans for Job Security's money. The group operates as a non-profit trade association with the goal of permitting "businesses to work together to promote a strong job-creating economy," according to its IRS filings.
Stephen DeMaura, president of Americans for Job Security, did not return telephone calls. .
Barrett Marson, a spokesman for Americans for Responsible Leadership, declined to comment Friday, citing the ongoing investigation in California.
Several other states are moving forward with their own disclosure efforts.
On Wednesday, New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, a Democrat, formally adopted rules that require non-profits that spend at least $10,000 to influence state and local elections to publicly disclose their contributions and expenses.
In Montana, meanwhile, a Republican-led group of lawmakers last week launched a campaign to put an initiative on the 2014 ballot that would require any group that targets candidates by name within 90 days of an election to detail their spending and identify their financial backers.
As a candidate, "I have to report every contribution I get over $35 and I have to report every cent I spend," said state Sen. Jim Peterson, a Republican pushing the initiative. "But these 501(c)(4)s are getting very involved in electioneering and doing it behind this curtain of secrecy. People are sick of it."
..................................................................................................................................
'Dark money' of non-profit political groups targeted
Advocacy groups have the ability to move millions in political money across the country with little transparency about their donors.
By Fredreka Schouten, June 11, 2013
Just weeks before last November's election, a little-known Arizona non-profit made a big splash in California politics – donating $11 million to a political group that opposed a tax-hike initiative from Democratic Gov. Jerry Brown and backed another measure to make it harder for labor unions to collect dues for political activity.
State regulators, however, did not know where the group, Americans for Responsible Leadership, got its money.
California's campaign-finance agency went to court, forcing the out-of-state organization to reveal that the money came from another Arizona non-profit, the Center to Protect Patient Rights, which in turn said its money came from a third non-profit, Americans for Job Security, a "pro-business" issue advocacy group in Alexandria, Va. Since its inception in the late 1990s, Americans for Job Security has spent tens of millions of dollars targeting Democratic politicians.
More than seven months after Election Day, however, the individual donors to Americans for Job Security are still unknown to the public.
Long before the Internal Revenue Service scandal erupted over the agency's extra scrutiny of tax-exempt Tea Party groups, campaign-finance watchdog groups had implored the agency to rein in non-profit advocacy groups like these who have the ability to move millions in political money across country with little transparency about their donors.
A month after the IRS controversy broke, some watchdog groups and Democrats in Congress are trying to shift the focus to the deep-pocketed groups that pumped increasing amounts of what they call "dark money" into politics.
In a recent letter to the House Ways and Means Committee, one of the panels investigating the IRS, two watchdog groups asked lawmakers to "pay equal heed to the other IRS scandal," which they described as the agency's failure to regulate non-profit groups they charge have improperly concealed the identities of moneyed interests trying to shape federal elections.
"We've seen no indication from the IRS that it is doing anything about these big players," said Paul Ryan, senior counsel at the Campaign Legal Center, one of the groups that wrote to the Ways and Means Committee. "Instead, we hear about Mom-and-Pop Tea Party groups being scrutinized."
However, some leading Republicans, including Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, say the IRS scandal makes the strongest case yet that political speech should be anonymous.
Efforts to revive bills in Congress to require further disclosure of non-profits' political activity are "a backdoor effort to discourage those who disagree with the Obama administration from participating in the political process," McConnell said in a recent Washington Post op-ed.
"If this scandal has taught us anything," McConnell added, "it is that Washington's ability to target individuals and groups is already too expansive."
At a recent hearing on the IRS scandal, Sen. Patrick Toomey, R-Pa., defended anonymous political speech.
"I would remind us all that perhaps one of the most important and influential works of political advocacy ever done in the history of the republic were The Federalist Papers, which were written anonymously, under pseudonyms," he said during a Senate Finance Committee hearing.
Political spending by groups that don't disclose their donors has exploded after a recent series of court rulings relaxing longstanding spending and advertising restrictions.
In federal races alone, "last-minute" political spending by labor unions, trade associations and other non-profit advocacy groups topped $335 million last year, up from $37.9 million in 2004, according to Center for Responsive Politics, which has tracked the reports non-profits have filed with the Federal Election Commission. More than 80% of the money reported in 2012 came from conservative groups.
Many groups only have to report expenditures occurring within 30 days of a primary election or 60 days of a general election.
Amid a tangled a web of federal tax and campaign-finance laws and rules, none of the non-profits was required to disclose donors.
In California, regulators invoked a state disclosure law to seek the source of the $11 million donation by Americans for Responsible Leadership, which says on its website that it operates under the section of the U.S. tax code that governs so-called 501(c)(4) social-welfare organizations.
"We had interests from outside California who were willing to spend a huge sum of money, but who were not willing to be identified," said Ann Ravel, chairwoman of the California Fair Political Practices Commission. "I think voters were offended by that."
The state's campaign regulators and Attorney General Kamala Harris, a Democrat, are continuing to investigate the sources of Americans for Job Security's money. The group operates as a non-profit trade association with the goal of permitting "businesses to work together to promote a strong job-creating economy," according to its IRS filings.
Stephen DeMaura, president of Americans for Job Security, did not return telephone calls. .
Barrett Marson, a spokesman for Americans for Responsible Leadership, declined to comment Friday, citing the ongoing investigation in California.
Several other states are moving forward with their own disclosure efforts.
On Wednesday, New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, a Democrat, formally adopted rules that require non-profits that spend at least $10,000 to influence state and local elections to publicly disclose their contributions and expenses.
In Montana, meanwhile, a Republican-led group of lawmakers last week launched a campaign to put an initiative on the 2014 ballot that would require any group that targets candidates by name within 90 days of an election to detail their spending and identify their financial backers.
As a candidate, "I have to report every contribution I get over $35 and I have to report every cent I spend," said state Sen. Jim Peterson, a Republican pushing the initiative. "But these 501(c)(4)s are getting very involved in electioneering and doing it behind this curtain of secrecy. People are sick of it."
..................................................................................................................................
Sunday, June 9, 2013
You go, Mrs. Obama!
..................................................................................................................................
Michelle Obama puts the spotlight on rude political discourse
By David Horsey, June 6, 2013
First Lady Michelle Obama has shown us all how to deal with the nastiness that has infected American politics: do not indulge it.
At a fund-raiser in a private Washington residence on Tuesday night, a gay rights activist standing only a few steps away interrupted the first lady as she spoke. Michelle’s reaction was immediate. She did not try to talk over the heckler or engage the person in a debate or pass it off as a joke or wait until the rant subsided. Instead, she stepped away from the microphone, walked over to the shouting woman and said, “Listen to me or you can take the mike, but I’m leaving.” And then, to the rest of the crowd, “You all decide. You have one choice.”
The audience, of course, cheered and called for her to stay. Meanwhile, the heckler -- a self-described lesbian pushing for broadened federal protections for homosexuals in the workplace -- was escorted out of the building.
“One of the things I don’t do well is this,” Mrs. Obama had said when the heckling began, but the opposite is true; she handled it very well. Perhaps of necessity, her husband gives protesters more time to carry on; a president faces harsher judgment if he handles such a situation poorly. But Michelle’s way seems worth emulating. She put the heckler on the spot, confronted the woman’s rudeness and made obvious the counterproductive stupidity of her tactics.
One of the most demoralizing aspects of American civil society in our times is the way political discourse has sunk into a sewer of epithets and shouting. Hecklers at political events are the lesser offenders in this regard. Worse are the professional ranters on talk radio and cable TV who peddle anger, fear and mendacity. Worst of all are the growing number of congressmen who think lies and vilification in the defense of their version of liberty is no vice.
It is easy to sample the bullying rhetoric; simply peruse the reader comments at the end of this, or any other, political column. Respectful disagreement is a casualty of the information age. The true hallmark of our times is juvenile name-calling unworthy of the dimmest schoolyard brat.
..................................................................................................................................
Michelle Obama puts the spotlight on rude political discourse
By David Horsey, June 6, 2013
First Lady Michelle Obama has shown us all how to deal with the nastiness that has infected American politics: do not indulge it.
At a fund-raiser in a private Washington residence on Tuesday night, a gay rights activist standing only a few steps away interrupted the first lady as she spoke. Michelle’s reaction was immediate. She did not try to talk over the heckler or engage the person in a debate or pass it off as a joke or wait until the rant subsided. Instead, she stepped away from the microphone, walked over to the shouting woman and said, “Listen to me or you can take the mike, but I’m leaving.” And then, to the rest of the crowd, “You all decide. You have one choice.”
The audience, of course, cheered and called for her to stay. Meanwhile, the heckler -- a self-described lesbian pushing for broadened federal protections for homosexuals in the workplace -- was escorted out of the building.
“One of the things I don’t do well is this,” Mrs. Obama had said when the heckling began, but the opposite is true; she handled it very well. Perhaps of necessity, her husband gives protesters more time to carry on; a president faces harsher judgment if he handles such a situation poorly. But Michelle’s way seems worth emulating. She put the heckler on the spot, confronted the woman’s rudeness and made obvious the counterproductive stupidity of her tactics.
One of the most demoralizing aspects of American civil society in our times is the way political discourse has sunk into a sewer of epithets and shouting. Hecklers at political events are the lesser offenders in this regard. Worse are the professional ranters on talk radio and cable TV who peddle anger, fear and mendacity. Worst of all are the growing number of congressmen who think lies and vilification in the defense of their version of liberty is no vice.
It is easy to sample the bullying rhetoric; simply peruse the reader comments at the end of this, or any other, political column. Respectful disagreement is a casualty of the information age. The true hallmark of our times is juvenile name-calling unworthy of the dimmest schoolyard brat.
..................................................................................................................................
GOP will have trouble balancing moral and political calculations of gay marriage
..................................................................................................................................
The political fight over gay marriage is over. But the cultural fight isn’t.
By Chris Cillizza and Sean Sullivan, June 7, 2013
Two things are clear in a new Pew Research Center poll on gay marriage:
1. The political fight over gay marriage is over. (This fact has been apparent for quite some time.)
2. Cultural acceptance of homosexuality broadly, and gay marriage in particular, remains far less advanced in society.
Let’s unpack each point.
The poll makes clear that no matter what the Supreme Court decides in early July regarding gay marriage and the Defense of Marriage Act, gay marriage is well on its way to legalization nationally.
Almost three in four respondents said that legal recognition of same-sex marriage is “inevitable” — that’s up from 59 percent who said the same thing in 2004. While 85 percent of those who support gay marriage say legality is inevitable, it’s even more eye-opening that 59 percent of those who oppose same sex marriage also believe its legal recognition is inevitable.
The gap between those who favor gay marriage (51 percent) in the Pew poll and those who think it is inevitable (72 percent) is absolutely remarkable. And it’s why so many GOP strategists have publicly urged their party to stop fighting on an issue where the politics are headed so clearly in the other direction.
The second point — how gay marriage and homosexuality fit into the broader cultural fabric — is a fascinating window into how the debate over legal/illegal differs from the conversation about right/wrong.
Forty-five percent of those tested said it was a “sin” to engage in homosexual behavior, the same numbers that said it was not a sin. A majority (56 percent) said that same-sex marriage would “go against my religious beliefs” while 41 percent said it would not.
In both cases, the number of people calling homosexuality a sin or saying that it would go against their religious beliefs has dropped since the same question was asked in 2003. But it has dropped less quickly than some other measures of opposition to homosexuality and gay marriage.
And, there is still a broad cultural divide regarding the nature vs. nurture question on homosexuality, according to the new Pew poll. Forty two percent of respondents said that homosexuality is “just the way some choose to live” while 41 percent said people are born gay or a lesbian.
Opposition to the “rightness” of homosexuality run strongest among the most religious elements of society. Nearly eight in 10 (78 percent of white evangelical Protestants) call homosexual behavior a sin as do 67 percent of those who attend church services weekly or more.
Social conservatives, of course, make up a considerable percentage of the Republican base — particularly in early-voting presidential primary swing states like Iowa and South Carolina. That reality makes it more difficult for the party to walk away from the issue politically speaking since such a large chunk of their most reliable voters view it in moral rather than political terms.
As the race for the Republican presidential nomination begins in earnest after the 2014 midterms, it will be interesting to watch how the top tier contenders balance that political vs. moral calculation — and how the path they choose affects their ability to appeal to the ideological middle for whom the debate on gay marriage is already over.
[snipped]
..................................................................................................................................
The political fight over gay marriage is over. But the cultural fight isn’t.
By Chris Cillizza and Sean Sullivan, June 7, 2013
Two things are clear in a new Pew Research Center poll on gay marriage:
1. The political fight over gay marriage is over. (This fact has been apparent for quite some time.)
2. Cultural acceptance of homosexuality broadly, and gay marriage in particular, remains far less advanced in society.
Let’s unpack each point.
The poll makes clear that no matter what the Supreme Court decides in early July regarding gay marriage and the Defense of Marriage Act, gay marriage is well on its way to legalization nationally.
Almost three in four respondents said that legal recognition of same-sex marriage is “inevitable” — that’s up from 59 percent who said the same thing in 2004. While 85 percent of those who support gay marriage say legality is inevitable, it’s even more eye-opening that 59 percent of those who oppose same sex marriage also believe its legal recognition is inevitable.
The gap between those who favor gay marriage (51 percent) in the Pew poll and those who think it is inevitable (72 percent) is absolutely remarkable. And it’s why so many GOP strategists have publicly urged their party to stop fighting on an issue where the politics are headed so clearly in the other direction.
The second point — how gay marriage and homosexuality fit into the broader cultural fabric — is a fascinating window into how the debate over legal/illegal differs from the conversation about right/wrong.
Forty-five percent of those tested said it was a “sin” to engage in homosexual behavior, the same numbers that said it was not a sin. A majority (56 percent) said that same-sex marriage would “go against my religious beliefs” while 41 percent said it would not.
In both cases, the number of people calling homosexuality a sin or saying that it would go against their religious beliefs has dropped since the same question was asked in 2003. But it has dropped less quickly than some other measures of opposition to homosexuality and gay marriage.
And, there is still a broad cultural divide regarding the nature vs. nurture question on homosexuality, according to the new Pew poll. Forty two percent of respondents said that homosexuality is “just the way some choose to live” while 41 percent said people are born gay or a lesbian.
Opposition to the “rightness” of homosexuality run strongest among the most religious elements of society. Nearly eight in 10 (78 percent of white evangelical Protestants) call homosexual behavior a sin as do 67 percent of those who attend church services weekly or more.
Social conservatives, of course, make up a considerable percentage of the Republican base — particularly in early-voting presidential primary swing states like Iowa and South Carolina. That reality makes it more difficult for the party to walk away from the issue politically speaking since such a large chunk of their most reliable voters view it in moral rather than political terms.
As the race for the Republican presidential nomination begins in earnest after the 2014 midterms, it will be interesting to watch how the top tier contenders balance that political vs. moral calculation — and how the path they choose affects their ability to appeal to the ideological middle for whom the debate on gay marriage is already over.
[snipped]
..................................................................................................................................
Has the collection of metadata, i.e. phone records, etc., really disrupted terrorist plots?
..................................................................................................................................
Udall calls for 'reopening' of Patriot Act
By Kevin Liptak, June 9, 2013
Sen. Mark Udall, who's long called for greater transparency in how the government collects data on Americans, said Sunday the law allowing that monitoring should be reopened for debate after new disclosures about the scope of the intelligence community's snooping.
"It concerns me particularly because Americans didn't know this. That's why I'm calling for a reopening of the Patriot Act, I'm calling for a wholesome debate across the country," Udall, a Colorado Democrat, said on CNN's "State of the Union."
"Maybe Americans think this is OK, but I think the line has been drawn too far towards 'We're going to invade your privacy,' versus 'We're going to respect your privacy,' " he told chief political correspondent Candy Crowley.
Udall, along with fellow Democrat Sen. Ron Wyden, has been an outspoken critic of classified programs that allow the collection of Americans' phone records, but previously been limited in his warnings to the public since much of the information about the surveillance was considered top secret.
In the last several years, as certain provisions of the Patriot Act have come up for renewal, Udall and Wyden have addressed letters to colleagues and top government officials calling for greater transparency in how the government interprets portions of the law, which was initially passed in the aftermath of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.
They've claimed citizens would be shocked at how broadly the law is being interpreted, and have questioned whether the extent of the monitoring is necessary to prevent terrorist attacks.
"I expect the government to protect my privacy. And it feels like that isn't what's been happening. Again, there's a line, but to me the scale of it, and the fact the law was being secretly interpreted, has long concerned me. I'm glad we're having this debate," Udall said Sunday.
Claims that the monitoring has thwarted terrorist attacks are overblown, Udall said.
"It's unclear to me we've developed any intelligence through the metadata program that's led to the disruption of plots that could have been attained through other means," Udall said, pushing back on assertions by both administration officials and Republican Intelligence Chairman Mike Rogers that a specific plot was stopped using the massive collection of phone records.
..................................................................................................................................
Udall calls for 'reopening' of Patriot Act
By Kevin Liptak, June 9, 2013
Sen. Mark Udall, who's long called for greater transparency in how the government collects data on Americans, said Sunday the law allowing that monitoring should be reopened for debate after new disclosures about the scope of the intelligence community's snooping.
"It concerns me particularly because Americans didn't know this. That's why I'm calling for a reopening of the Patriot Act, I'm calling for a wholesome debate across the country," Udall, a Colorado Democrat, said on CNN's "State of the Union."
"Maybe Americans think this is OK, but I think the line has been drawn too far towards 'We're going to invade your privacy,' versus 'We're going to respect your privacy,' " he told chief political correspondent Candy Crowley.
Udall, along with fellow Democrat Sen. Ron Wyden, has been an outspoken critic of classified programs that allow the collection of Americans' phone records, but previously been limited in his warnings to the public since much of the information about the surveillance was considered top secret.
In the last several years, as certain provisions of the Patriot Act have come up for renewal, Udall and Wyden have addressed letters to colleagues and top government officials calling for greater transparency in how the government interprets portions of the law, which was initially passed in the aftermath of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.
They've claimed citizens would be shocked at how broadly the law is being interpreted, and have questioned whether the extent of the monitoring is necessary to prevent terrorist attacks.
"I expect the government to protect my privacy. And it feels like that isn't what's been happening. Again, there's a line, but to me the scale of it, and the fact the law was being secretly interpreted, has long concerned me. I'm glad we're having this debate," Udall said Sunday.
Claims that the monitoring has thwarted terrorist attacks are overblown, Udall said.
"It's unclear to me we've developed any intelligence through the metadata program that's led to the disruption of plots that could have been attained through other means," Udall said, pushing back on assertions by both administration officials and Republican Intelligence Chairman Mike Rogers that a specific plot was stopped using the massive collection of phone records.
..................................................................................................................................
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)