Month: February 2012

Drones

by digby

Matt Stoller Lee Fang at Republic Report has uncovered a very intriguing document showing that the drone plane manufacturing industry is writing the legislation that governs their use in the United States. They openly brag about it:

Drones are mainly associated with the Predator airships that patrol the Afghanistan sky. But thanks to a bipartisan vote last week, the public can expect 30,000 domestic drones flying over the United States in the next eight years…

Yesterday, we reported how the Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International (AUVS), a drone trade group, actually doubled its recent lobbying expenses. Today, we report on a PowerPoint presentation put together by top AUVS lobbyists Michael Toscano, Mario Mairena, and Ben Gielow. The lobby group — which maintains an official partnership in Congress with Reps. Buck McKeon (R-CA), Henry Cuellar (D-TX), and dozens of other lawmakers — was the driving force behind the domestic drone decision passed last week. In the presentation obtained by Republic Report, there are several fascinating concerns raised by the lobbyists.

The report lists a few items, but this one has to be the most chilling:

Pages 10-12: The drone industry eagerly anticipates that civil drone use, including use of drones for “suspect tracking” by law enforcement, will soon eclipse military use of drones. Under a section called “Challenges facing UAS,” the lobbyists listed “Civil Liberties.”

If we are expecting the press to care about this, I think that’s probably a pipe dream. In this NPR report (not the infamous piece Greenwald cited in his blistering critique)here’s how it was dealt with when a caller asked about it:

FLATOW: Peter Singer, I mentioned that real estate agents were using them to take pictures of property. I would imagine that privacy issues are a big issue here with drones.

SINGER: Definitely going to be a big issue. I actually was talking a little while back with a federal district court judge who said very soon we’re going to have a Supreme Court case around all this. And it cuts to that, not just, you know, private actors like a real estate agent using these or a couple of the border militias down in Arizona have used them, but also law enforcement agencies.

Already, a couple of them have gotten special licenses to operate them, Miami-Dade, Mesa County in Colorado. When the airspace is opened up, which is scheduled to happen in 2015, that means pretty much every local, state, federal law agency will have this kind of system.

The problem is our Constitution, you know, has the concepts of privacy and probable cause. The police aren’t supposed to be able to look over your fence to see what you’re doing in your backyard unless they have a search warrant, unless they have probable cause.

Well, now you have a technology that allows you to always peek over the fence. And so, you know, it really opens up some interesting, interesting questions we’re going to have to figure out very soon.

FLATOW: Yeah, let’s go to our next call from Isaac(ph) in Truckee, California. Hi, Isaac.

ISAAC: Hey, how’s it going?

FLATOW: Hey there.

ISAAC: Well, I’ve been dreaming for like 15 years of doing aerial photography with remote-controlled helicopters, and I’ve gotten to the point now where I can. And I heard the point about the invasion-of-privacy thing, and as far as I know, there’s laws against invasion of privacy anyhow. I mean, if I was to put a camera on a long pole, stick it up in somebody’s window, wouldn’t that be the same thing as putting it on a helicopter? I mean, the laws are already there, right?

FLATOW: Good question. Anybody answer that?

CUMMINGS: Well, I can…

FLATOW: Go ahead, Missy, (unintelligible).

CUMMINGS: Well, you know, because I’m challenged almost every day. I know my students are trying to fly around my window and spy on me. So it’s something I actually have to lower my blinds for. And, you know, the question is – and this is why we need to raise it to this level of debate – I can put – my students could put a vehicle outside my window and have a zoom lens, and they could have it maybe 20 feet or 40 feet or 100 feet away.

And so what point then do – are you intruding on someone’s privacy? Do you have to be right up next to window, or can you have a really long zoom lens?

ISAAC: You could have a zoom lens on a stick as well, you know, with some wires coming down to a pair of video goggles. I mean, it’s all pretty much relative. If somebody wants to invade your privacy, they’re going to do it one way or another, right?

CUMMINGS: That’s a great insight.

FLATOW: So you’re saying the law’s there already, and it’s just up to someone to test it out and see.

ANDERSON: My sense is that the interpretation of the law has been around the notion of reasonable expectation of privacy, which is that, you know, can you expect to have privacy behind a fence? And, you know, if the case is yes, then, you know, the law tends to protect that.

Presumably, as more and more things are flying overhead, that expectation will decline.

Great. Lower your expectations. It’s always the easiest way to get through life.

The Republic Report find is important because it shows that the MIC group that represents the drone industry (a wonderful phrase, by the way) has simply bought off the congress and wrote the recent legislation that legalized it. However you feel about drones and civil liberties or the implications for warfare, that at least, ought to deeply offend you.

Update: This Stanford Law Review article discusses the privacy implications and posits that domestic drone use will actually revitalize the concept of privacy. I’m not convinced that in the age of Facebook that anyone will care much, but the article contains a lot of useful information about this topic if you’re interested.

.

Calling up the Christian Soldiers

by digby

From Think Progress:

Appearing on a webcast hosted by the conservative Family Research Council, Walker Nickless, the Bishop of Diocese of Sioux City, Iowa, warned the Obama administration’s new contraception policy is the work of “the devil,” who “wants to silence the [Catholic] Church’s voice.” During the interview, first flagged by Right Wing Watch, Nickless said, “The power of evil, the devil, is certainly looking everywhere where the power of evil can make a difference.” “And that’s why we’ve got to stand up and violently oppose this,” he added, “we cannot let darkness overshadow us.”

Ok, maybe he was just being rhetorical when he says “violently oppose”. But let’s just say it’s a very bad idea for religious leaders to be imprecise in this way. After all, if there’s one group in America who’s been willing to put their muscle, as it were, behind such threats it’s the anti-abortion movement. Considering the amount if disinformation out there about contraception being an “abortifascient”, it doesn’t seem unlikely that one of their more energetic true believers might take this as a call to arms.

Recall:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

.

Wingnut welfare climate con

A sweet Valentine’s Day

by David Atkins

Progress:

The Empire State Building and its sweeping New York City views offered enviable backdrops to two couples who made history this Valentine’s Day — becoming the first same-sex couples to marry atop the landmark.

All weddings are special, of course, and a wedding on Valentine’s Day is especially sweet. But only Stephanie Figarelle, 29, and Lela McArthur, 24, two personal trainers from Anchorage, Alaska, can say that they were the first-ever same-sex couple married at the Empire State Building.

They were followed by three other couples, including another same-sex couple, all of whom were winners of an online contest that played out on Facebook, with fans voting on planning details. Winners had their dream events designed by celebrity event planner Colin Cowie, who makes regular appearances on “The Today Show” and “The Ellen Degeneres Show.”

The four couples received wedding rings from DeBeers, gowns from Kleinfeld, hair and makeup by Estee Lauder, a two-night stay at a posh Manhattan hotel, the services of a celebrity photographer and, as the commercials say, that’s not all! Each couple has the chance to win $100,000 if they get the most Facebook votes following the nuptials, according to Huffington Post Weddings.

The ceremonies took place in an events area on the 61st floor, and were followed by a photo shoot on the observation deck that looks out on Manhattan’s famed skyline from the 86th floor.

“I cannot wait to spend the rest of my life with you,” Figarelle said to her partner as they exchanged rings, reported the Associated Press. “I will always love you forever, with every beat of my heart,” McArthur, who is taking her partner’s name, was quoted as saying.

I can feel my marriage coming apart at the seams as I type this. How could it possibly survive? Somebody get me a Constitutional Amendment to stop this horror of horrors, STAT!

.

State Rape in Virginia

by digby

No Virginia, it’s not really about the fetus. It’s all about the probe. Democrats had sought to allow doctors to use other imaging methods but Republicans insisted that doctors put an instrument inside the woman’s vagina. Why? Well, since there’s no medical reason for it, the only possible explanation is that they want to “send a message.” You know. About who’s boss:

The bill, which passed the House of Delegates yesterday and the state Senate two weeks ago, would require an ultrasound to determine a fetus’ gestation age. It would then give the woman the option to view the ultrasound before her abortion.

[Democratic Del. David] Englin said the bill represents a level of government intrusion that “shocks the conscience.”

This bill will require many women in Virginia to undergo vaginal penetration with an ultrasound probe against their consent in order to exercise their constitutional right to an abortion, even for nonsurgical, noninvasive, pharmaceutical abortions. This kind of government intrusion shocks the conscience and demonstrates the disturbing lengths Republican legislators will go to prevent women from controlling their own reproductive destiny.

I offered an amendment that would have protected women from the unwanted vaginal penetration required by this bill. House Republicans rejected that amendment. The next time Virginia Republicans speak the words ‘government intrusion’ I hope voters will remember this vote and hold them accountable for their hypocrisy.

Republicans, however, countered that the abortion itself is an invasive procedure.
“If we want to talk about invasiveness, there’s nothing more invasive than the procedure that she is about to have,” said bill sponsor Del. Kathy Byron (R), according to the Richmond Times-Dispatch.

The fact that one is coerced by the state against the individual and the doctor’s wishes in order to punish a woman for exercising her rights isn’t relevant, of course. The little sluts need to learn their lesson:

“We hear the same song over there. The very tragic human notes that are often touched upon involve extreme examples,” said Gilbert, R-Shenandoah. “But in the vast majority of these cases, these are matters of lifestyle convenience.”

.

Wearing them down

by digby

Politico reports that the GOP is ready to keep going on this “conscience” exception fight:

Congressional Republicans on Monday vowed to keep fighting President Barack Obama’s contraceptive coverage policy, hoping to win the argument that the rule tramples on religious freedom and that their opposition has nothing to do with contraceptives. “Nobody is taking away women’s health care benefits,” Sen. Ron Johnson said. “Any woman in America can get free contraceptives if they can’t afford to pay for them through county health services, through a variety of places. This is about an assault on freedom.” Sen. Roy Blunt said he’s trying to figure out his next move, hoping to find a vehicle for his bill allowing any employer to opt out of the requirement on religious grounds…

There is at least one Democratic opponent that hasn’t been swayed by the new “accommodation” for religious employers. Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska is the lone Democrat co-sponsoring Blunt’s bill. “It doesn’t take care of an individual business owner,” Nelson said of the administration’s policy. “And I think they are entitled to the protection of the conscience clause as well.”

Well, that cancels out Snowe. At least we still have Collins.

3rd World Registration Nation

by David Atkins

The Pew Center on the Sates has a report that conservatives will be jumping all over to promote their vote suppression efforts:

The nation’s voter registration rolls are in disarray, according to a report released Tuesday by the Pew Center on the States. The problems have the potential to affect the outcomes of local, state and federal elections.

One in eight active registrations is invalid or inaccurate. At the same time, one in four people who are eligible to vote — at least 51 million potential voters — are not registered.

The report found that there are about 1.8 million dead people listed as active voters. Some 2.8 million people have active registrations in more than one state. And 12 million registrations have errors serious enough to make it unlikely that mailings based on them will reach voters.

So there’s a lot of fraud, right? Well, no. Actually, it’s just sloppiness that leads to vote suppression.

Mr. Becker warned that poor record keeping at the registration stage is not evidence of fraud at polling places. “These bad records are not leading to fraud but could lead to the perception of fraud,” he said.

What seems clear is that many people who are eligible to vote and want to do so fail because of flaws in the registration rolls. In 2008, roughly “2.2 million votes were lost because of registration problems,” according to a report from the Voting Technology Project of the California Institute of Technology and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

So what’s the problem here? Well, it seems to be a uniquely American phenomenon among the major social democracies:

The United States differs from most other modern democracies in relying on a decentralized election administration system that places the burden of registration on voters rather than treating registration as a government responsibility.

“Part of the problem is that it is difficult for us to be proactive,” said Linda H. Lamone, Maryland’s administrator of elections. “We have to rely on the voters.”

In Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Germany, Peru and Sweden, by contrast, the national government maintains its own registries of citizens eligible to vote, according to a 2009 report from the Brennan Center for Justice.

Professor Gerken said difference between American and international practice helps explain many of Pew’s findings. “Everyone else in a modern democracy does it better,” she said, adding that the American system “is a silly way to run a railroad.”

It is also expensive. In 2008, for instance, Oregon spent $4.11 per active voter to process registrations. A 2001 study from the voting project found that local election offices spent a third of their budgets on registering voters.

Canada, by contrast, spent less than 35 cents per voter to process registrations — and 93 percent of eligible voters there are registered.

The registration process in the United States often involves handwritten forms, some collected by third parties. Those forms are then manually entered into an electronic system, a process bound to introduce flaws.

People who move, moreover, often take no steps to inform administrators at their old addresses, and a new registration does not typically result in a notification to cancel the previous one. Yet a quarter of all voters assume that their registrations automatically move with them, the report found.

As a consequence, active registrations in two states are common. Some 70,000 people are registered to vote in three or more states.

This is also a consequence of a distinctively American approach. “The United States is unique both in its requirement that voters re-register each time they move and in the high mobility of the population,” Professor Persily and Stephen Ansolabehere, a professor of government at Harvard, wrote in a 2010 article, “Measuring Election System Performance,” in The New York University Journal of Legislation and Public Policy.

It’s a pathetic system. The issue is a major headache for party officials, too. There are a large number of rules that govern candidate endorsement processes at the state and local levels. Many of these processes rely on proportional representation from Democratic clubs and central committees, which in turn require accurate lists of members cross-checked against the voter file. The number of errors is ridiculously high–usually due to voters who have moved to a new address but forgot to re-register to vote there, but often due to typographical errors or changes in status.

Voter registration should be an automatic function of other government-involved processes. It should be automatic and painless upon the signing of a new lease or mortgage, or any similar event.

Instead, the American system cherishes the “freedom” to have pathetic voter turnout, expensive and highly inefficient systems, mass confusion about registration status, inadequate record-keeping, and the easy ability of racist douchebags to blame the failures of the libertarian American system on nonexistent “fraud” in the inner cities of which they are terror-stricken. In fact, it sounds like the healthcare debate, doesn’t it?

But I’m proud to be an American, where at least I know I’m free to be disenfranchised.

.

Animals on the loose

by digby

I guess I shouldn’t bother with this, but it’s so disturbing that it’s sort of like documenting war atrocities. It’s horrifying, but you feel you have to do it.

Charles Johnson:

In the Fox News article about Whitney Houston’s daughter, we see the Fox News audience spewing the same kind of nauseating racial hatred they directed at Whitney: Concerns for Whitney Houston’s Daughter Mount After Mom’s Death | Fox News.

Some of these comments were posted by the same people whose comments were deleted in the previous thread. Fox News moderators deleted the blatantly racist comments, but didn’t block the accounts.

I went over to the thread and really, the racism is just one aspect of the horror. The people who post comments there are just animals in every way. Johnson has cataloged some of the worst examples.

I’ll be back later, after I’ve bleached my brain.

Update: I do have to laugh at this one:

I really don’t understand the hatred brought in by you libs, i mean Fox News does have some big name democrats on its payroll unlike CNN and MSNBC that have some J.V contributors on the Republican side.

Bob Beckel, Democratic supahstah!

.

Il Douche in Washington State

By digby

“Democracy is beautiful in theory; in practice it is a fallacy“

Ok, this may be the creepiest Youtube of the campaign:

The former Pennsylvania senator was cheered by the largest public outdoor rally in Western Washington that a Republican White House hopeful has seen in years. But Santorum fought to make himself heard over chants from protesters.

The candidate tried to link together President Obama and the demonstrators, declaring: “They’re fundamentally trying to remake our country into a country that our Founders wouldn’t recognize.”

The Santorum rally, at the Washington State History Museum, was the state’s the most raucous political event since conservative talk radio activists provided a loud bump in the 1994 Hillary Clinton health care caravan.

But the Clinton visit came in an era before glitter bombing, which Santorum experienced for the second time in a week, and chants of “We are the 99 percent.” The remnant Occupy Tacoma movement have their headquarters less than a block from the museum.

Not the most humorous of candidates, Santorum went straight at the hecklers rather than humoring and poking them. “What we see is an intolerance for different points of view,” he said. “They use bullying tactics, they shout down, they disrupt.”

The GOP hopeful also drew a bead on other targets ranging from the Obama administration’s effort to include contraception in health care coverage to the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

A 9th Circuit panel recently overturned California’s Prop. 8, which halted same-sex marriage in America’s largest state.

“The 9th Circuit decided anyone who disagrees with these folk,” said Santorum, apparently referring to marriage equality supporters among the hecklers, “is irrational and bigoted . . . What they represent is true intolerance, (that) the only possible reason to disagree is that they are a hater or bigoted.”

To paraphrase Molly Ivins, I enjoyed it more in the original Italian.

BTW: I’d remind Il Douche that some of his best friends are bullies:

This morning, Politico reported that Democratic members of Congress are increasingly being harassed by “angry, sign-carrying mobs and disruptive behavior” at local town halls. For example, in one incident, right-wing protesters surrounded Rep. Tim Bishop (D-NY) and forced police officers to have to escort him to his car for safety.

This growing phenomenon is often marked by violence and absurdity. Recently, right-wing demonstrators hung Rep. Frank Kratovil (D-MD) in effigy outside of his office. Missing from the reporting of these stories is the fact that much of these protests are coordinated by public relations firms and lobbyists who have a stake in opposing President Obama’s reforms.

The lobbyist-run groups Americans for Prosperity and FreedomWorks, which orchestrated the anti-Obama tea parties earlier this year, are now pursuing an aggressive strategy to create an image of mass public opposition to health care and clean energy reform. A leaked memo from Bob MacGuffie, a volunteer with the FreedomWorks website Tea Party Patriots, details how members should be infiltrating town halls and harassing Democratic members of Congress:

– Artificially Inflate Your Numbers: “Spread out in the hall and try to be in the front half. The objective is to put the Rep on the defensive with your questions and follow-up. The Rep should be made to feel that a majority, and if not, a significant portion of at least the audience, opposes the socialist agenda of Washington.”
– Be Disruptive Early And Often: “You need to rock-the-boat early in the Rep’s presentation, Watch for an opportunity to yell out and challenge the Rep’s statements early.”
– Try To “Rattle Him,” Not Have An Intelligent Debate: “The goal is to rattle him, get him off his prepared script and agenda. If he says something outrageous, stand up and shout out and sit right back down. Look for these opportunities before he even takes questions.”

I don’t recall the Tea Party Townhall protesters being tasered for that bully behavior. In fact, what I recall is disgusting behavior like this. And these hideous sadists were feted by the entire political and media establishment as salt of the earth Real Americans using their first amendment rights to fight for their values.

Procreation for old men

by digby

I’ve wondered why insurance coverage for Viagra isn’t as controversial as contraception and now I have my answer:

If health insurance plans offered by Catholic-sponsored entities refuse to cover contraceptives for women because of the religion’s moral teachings banning artificial birth control, do they cover Viagra for men?

The answer on Viagra coverage is usually yes, Catholic leaders say. And they argue that’s neither hypocritical nor sexist.

Procreation is something the Catholic church encourages. And Viagra and other erectile dysfunction drugs can be of help.

Hmmm. Most of the men who get prescriptions for erectile dysfunction are middle aged and older. And since it’s considered “procreative” for these same middle aged and older men to be enabled to have sex one can’t help but wonder who it is they are having sex with because it can’t possibly be with their middle aged and older wives who are past their childbearing years. These men should only be sleeping with much younger women. Assuming the church still believes in the sanctity of marriage this is quite odd, don’t you think?

Why is it that I find it so unlikely that the Church will ever come out against Viagra for older married men? I’ll have to think about that.

.