Month: May 2012

Saturday Night at the Movies

“Protecting” the national will

by digby

Michael Hastings at Buzzfeed notices something unusual:

An amendment that would legalize the use of propaganda on American audiences is being inserted into the latest defense authorization bill, BuzzFeed has learned.

The amendment would “strike the current ban on domestic dissemination” of propaganda material produced by the State Department and the Pentagon, according to the summary of the law at the House Rules Committee’s official website.

The tweak to the bill would essentially neutralize two previous acts—the Smith-Mundt Act of 1948 and Foreign Relations Authorization Act in 1987—that had been passed to protect U.S. audiences from our own government’s misinformation campaigns.
The bi-partisan amendment is sponsored by Rep. Mac Thornberry from Texas and Rep. Adam Smith from Washington State.

In a little noticed press release earlier in the week — buried beneath the other high-profile issues in the $642 billion defense bill, including indefinite detention and a prohibition on gay marriage at military installations — Thornberry warned that in the Internet age, the current law “ties the hands of America’s diplomatic officials, military, and others by inhibiting our ability to effectively communicate in a credible way.”

The bill’s supporters say the informational material used overseas to influence foreign audiences is too good to not use at home, and that new techniques are needed to help fight Al-Qaeda, a borderless enemy whose own propaganda reaches Americans online.

Critics of the bill say there are ways to keep America safe without turning the massive information operations apparatus within the federal government against American citizens.

What could possibly go wrong?

The new law would give sweeping powers to the State Department and Pentagon to push television, radio, newspaper, and social media onto the U.S. public. “It removes the protection for Americans,” says a Pentagon official who is concerned about the law. “It removes oversight from the people who want to put out this information. There are no checks and balances. No one knows if the information is accurate, partially accurate, or entirely false.”

According to this official, “senior public affairs” officers within the Department of Defense want to “get rid” of Smith-Mundt and other restrictions because it prevents information activities designed to prop up unpopular policies—like the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Ok, but that’s just standard PR, right? Not exactly:

The Pentagon spends some $4 billion a year to sway public opinion already, and it was recently revealed by USA Today the DoD spent $202 million on information operations in Iraq and Afghanistan last year.

In an apparent retaliation to the USA Today investigation, the two reporters working on the story appear to have been targeted by Pentagon contractors, who created fake Facebook pages and Twitter accounts in an attempt to discredit them.

Propaganda, has a whole lot meanings and applications, but with the new social media, it’s likely to go into some very creepy directions:

In December, the Pentagon used software to monitor the Twitter debate over Bradley Manning’s pre-trial hearing; another program being developed by the Pentagon would design software to create “sock puppets” on social media outlets; and, last year, General William Caldwell, deployed an information operations team under his command that had been trained in psychological operations to influence visiting American politicians to Kabul.

The upshot, at times, is the Department of Defense using the same tools on U.S. citizens as on a hostile, foreign, population.

I’m fairly sure that’s the direction they’re most interested in pursuing. After all, they don’t need traditional pro-war propaganda — they have the mainstream news media for that.

A U.S. Army whistleblower, Lieutenant Col. Daniel Davis, noted recently in his scathing 84-page unclassified report on Afghanistan that there remains a strong desire within the defense establishment “to enable Public Affairs officers to influence American public opinion when they deem it necessary to “protect a key friendly center of gravity, to wit US national will,” he wrote, quoting a well-regarded general.

Yeah, we need the Pentagon to decide what the “national will” is and then “protect” it.

Meanwhile, read Perlstein on the terrorist menace from whom they are trying to protect us. You won’t sleep well tonight, and not because of the “terrorists.”

.

All roads lead to Koch

by digby

This blockbuster investigation from Lee Fang at Republic Report should bust the myth once and for all that the right wing billionaire Koch Brothers are only interested in economics. In fact, it’s clear that they are interested in electing Republicans by any means necessary:

Charles and David Koch, the billionaire owners of of Koch Industries, are known as big spenders when it comes to lobbying and influencing public policy. Now, a new document filed with the IRS reveals how the Koch political machine funneled over $54.5 million in previously undisclosed funds to a litany of front groups designed to smear Democrats.

The disclosure suggests that a very wide variety of Republican groups active in the last major election, from pro-life organizations that ran ads on abortion to shadowy fronts that aired partisan commercials with the infamous Ground Zero Mosque conspiracy, have been highly dependent on Koch money. The document also reveals that the Koch’s political network spent much more on electing the current Congress than previously known.

Sean Noble, a Republican consultant, was hired to help administer the Koch war chest. According to Politico, Noble was part of a group of GOP operatives who met regularly with Karl Rove’s Super PAC to target 120 House of Representatives races in 2010. The close coordination was pivotal in helping the Republican Party capture 63 seats in one of the biggest midterm election landslides in modern history.

Yesterday afternoon, OpenSecrets.org bloggers Viveca Novak and Robert Maguire were the first to flag a tax form filed by an obscure Arizona-based foundation called the Center to Protect Patients’ Rights, noting the foundation gave huge amounts almost exclusively to conservative groups that use undisclosed nonprofits to air partisan ads. The Center acted as a pass-through to distribute $44,599,946 in grants in 2010, and $10,783,500 the year before. Novak and Maguire also reported that the Center’s tax forms were prepared by at least one employee of the DCI Group, a lobbying business.

Though the document does not reveal where the Center receives its funds, the tax forms available online from 2009 and 2010 indicate that Sean Noble, Koch’s campaign commercial operative, managed the foundation. Heather Higgins, a presenter at the infamous Koch mega-fundraisers, served on the board for part of 2009. The Center paid Noble’s firm a total of $350,000 a year in lobbying and “management services.” In turn, it appears, Noble played a significant role in fueling the most aggressive advertising campaign in the history of midterm elections.

Noble’s grant list features sponsors of the most hard-hitting partisan ads, including Americans for Job Security and the Club for Growth. Many of the Center’s grants, however, went to social conservative groups that clash with traditional libertarian values, particularly in terms of women’s health and foreign policy. Although the Koch brothers are eager to present themselves as small government libertarians, the grants suggest a different set of priorities.

Interesting how they laundered it, isn’t it? You can see why. It’s obviously better for them that everyone believes that there are numerous groups with varied interests just exercising their rights to free speech as a grassroots uprising took the country by storm rather than a very small group of high level wealthy Republicans buying themselves elections.

Here’s the scam:

In all, Koch operative Sean Noble channeled grants to two dozen 501(c)4 nonprofits. As Stephen Colbert has covered, 501(c)4 nonprofits, which he refers to as “Spooky PACs,” can act like Super PACs — raising and spending unlimited corporate, union and individual contributions — but do not have to disclose a dime in terms of where the money is coming from.

The disclosure of Noble’s outfit is the biggest window we’ve seen recently into who purchased the current composition of Congress two years ago. Before this disclosure, the Koch network could only be tied to a few disclosed donations during the 2010 election: about $30-45 million reportedly raised by Americans for Prosperity, the attack-ad sponsoring Tea Party front founded by David Koch, over $2 million in contributions to political action committees through Koch PAC, and $1,050,450 in donations to the Republican Governors Association. The Center’s $55 million grant budget, raised possibly in connection to the Koch fundraisers — one of which Sean Noble and some of the wealthiest Republican billionaires in the country attended only months before the midterm elections — certainly raises the stakes in terms of calculating how much the current Republican Congress owe their current political fortunes to the Koch machine. From cutting the EPA to passing bills to undermine the Clean Act, Congress has handsomely rewarded the business interests of Koch Industries.

Read the whole piece to see just how wide ranging their patronage was. It makes me queasy to tell you the truth. I haven’t shed any tears for the loss of the Blue Dogs, but it also means that progressives simply won’t be able to compete if these guys get into a race. The amounts are staggering and will have a huge impact on the congressional races, even if the president is able to collect enough to compete from the same small donor pool.

.

Whose conscience is it anyway?

by digby

My conscience is very offended by this (from Alternet and I feel believe it inhibits my religious freedom. And I would prefer that my tax dollars not even touch the tax dollars that fund it:

School vouchers have long been a pet cause of Christian school advocates who want to shore up profits and increase their ranks. In 2002, the United States Supreme Court ruled that public funds designated for private school tuition were not an infringement on church/state separation. That gave private Christian school advocates a green light to promote vouchers for themselves.

Though vouchers have become legal in some states, like Ohio, others, like North Carolina, are still holding out. Either way, Christian school advocates show no signs of slowing down their efforts. One reason vouchers remain so contested is that they sometimes fund activities in private Christian schools that many American taxpayers would not want to support. Here are 10 strange things that happen at Christian schools that may give you pause next time vouchers are debated in your state.

Click over for the full indictment. Hardcore anti-abortion lies and propaganda, fundamentalist sex-ed, racism, creationism, patriarchy etc. Here’s just one example:

Punishment by gender. Teachers in Christian schools sometimes stereotype boys as more rambunctious and rebellious than girls. In practice, this means that boys are often the targets of harsher corporal punishment. In 2007, a Chicago school was sued for injury and surgical costs after a forcing a 14-year-old boy to kneel in place for nine days, causing a hip injury. A few years later, in 2011, a Christian school teacher in Orlando was arrested on charges of beating a boy at her home with a rusted broom handle.

Many Christian schools punish girls more harshly because of perceived sexual acting out. In 2009, a California appeals court upheld a Christian school’s decision to expel two female students simply because administrators suspected they were involved in a same-sex relationship. Just last year, a 15-year-old girl was expelled from another California school for writing on Facebook that she was bisexual. Luke Jones tells AlterNet of an incident he remembers from high school, when a boy and girl were caught having sex in a school bathroom. The boy “got suspended for a little while but then came back,” but the girl was expelled for the remainder of the school year.

I’m very serious when I say that it offends my conscience to spend tax dollars for torture, child abuse and homophobia.

.

Paradise Lost

by digby

The Financial Times details Jamie Dimon’s troubles. He’s quite a guy:

For Mr Dimon himself the losses have posed a question of his credibility – fuelled in part by his initial handling of the affair. On April 13 he bluntly dismissed news reports about the big trading positions held by the CIO as “a complete tempest in a teapot”. Less than four weeks later, he was forced to reveal that the unit’s “terrible, stupid, egregious” errors had caused $2bn losses.

This jars with his image as the self-assured, charming and, at times, disarmingly frank Wall Street veteran who had successfully steered JPMorgan through the crisis, avoiding the losses that had crippled his rivals.

For some in Washington, though, his star had already dimmed. “The Jamie I first met was not the arrogant Jamie that he has become,” says a senior congressional aide. Mr Dimon, he says, “morphed into some combination of Goldman Sachs and Ken Lewis” – the former chief executive of Bank of America – “gratuitously full of himself, unnecessarily angry”.

Oh, that sounds terrible. Perhaps we should hear from some of his nobles … er, employees:

However, in a series of interviews of top executives, a handful of whom are likely successors when Mr Dimon does step down, there is unwavering hostility towards the idea that these losses could force his departure. “Ludicrous,” says one. “Crazy,” says another.

“People will throw rocks at the boat,” says Mike Cavanagh, head of treasury and securities services, who was appointed by Mr Dimon to lead an internal probe into the losses. “It doesn’t change the work we have to do.”[…]

Four executives are adamant Mr Dimon did not deliberately misrepresent the bank’s exposure on a first-quarter earnings call on April 13. “As the guy who signs the books and records of this place for the last six years I know how seriously he takes what we tell the market,” says Mr Cavanagh. “He had senior people saying we’ve got the all clear.”

The executives agree that it was only after the first-quarter earnings, with losses becoming larger and more sustained that it became obvious the CIO’s estimate of the size of the problems was not credible.

“Losses that had occurred had been explained in a variety of ways and those losses continued to mount and they picked up pace,” says one, who adds the company was then justified in waiting until its next big regulatory filing on May 10. “There was no obligation that when losses get to ‘x’ we say something. This wasn’t putting the company in harm’s way.”

Well, that’s a relief. Unfortunately, some malcontents think that no man of such talent could possibly have not been in the know:

Still people close to the bank are surprised that a man with such a grasp of detail could miss the warning signs. A renowned cost-cutter, Mr Dimon recently expressed alarm that fancy potato chips in clear cellophane tied with a ribbon were available in the JPMorgan dining room. His colleague Frank Bisignano launched an investigation, triumphantly reporting back that the chips were cheaper than alternatives bought from local stores.

Mr Dimon still prowls the corridors with a sheet of paper in his pocket – an “owe me” list of people who need to provide a report. “I used to have nightmares that my name would be on the list,” says one former employee.

Others question whether as a charismatic, headstrong leader, he has enough people to stand up to him – particularly after removing rivals such as Bill Winters, co-head of the investment bank, two years ago.

“One of Dimon’s great weaknesses is that he has not created any succession plan – he has kicked out anyone who really might challenge him,” said one person who knows him.
His executives insist they do say “no” to him.

Well, one would have to be very, very sure of oneself, wouldn’t one? After all:

Mr Lee argues that Mr Dimon may seem an outsized presence in a world of lower-key peers, but not compared with historical forebears or contemporaries in other sectors. “Look in our industry at different times: obviously Pierpont Morgan was a big, larger-than-life leader. If you look at other industries, you get your Larry Ellison and Steve Jobs.”

Also too, Jesus.

It’s very hard to sort through all the brown-nosing and back-stabbing in that article, but I suppose that’s the point. Dimon is in trouble. It doesn’t appear that people really believe the person who cares about the cost of the potato chips in the cafeteria was inattentive to the fact that this London Whale was acting like a Casino Whale.

I think the most telling opinion is the one from the congressional staffer who calls him “Jamie.” He says he’s grown arrogant, full of himself and unnecessarily angry. That could describe just about everyone in the business at the moment. The word that’s missing, I’m afraid, is hubris.

.

Mitt’s Promise

by digby

Uhm, this is why some of us aren’t for it:

As president, Mitt will work to expand and enhance access and opportunities for Americans to hunt, shoot, and protect their families, homes and property, and he will fight the battle on all fronts to protect and promote the Second Amendment.

h/t to AS

Basic competence

by David Atkins

America doesn’t spend much time thinking about the Bush Administration any more. Not surprising, given how awful and traumatizing it was. The Administration was so defined by the impact of the 9/11 attacks and their aftermath that we often forget the bumbling mess that it was in its first seven months. One of those bumbling episodes was the Hainan incident, which caused an unnecessarily severe diplomatic row with China.

Contrast with this:

Chen Guangcheng, the blind legal defender who made a dramatic escape from house arrest and whose decision to seek refuge in American Embassy jolted American-Sino relations, left China aboard a commercial flight bound for the United States, according to friends who have spoken to him.

Mr. Chen left Beijing on a United Airlines flight bound for Newark with his wife and two children at around 5:30 p.m. after facing earlier delays.

Earlier Saturday Mr. Chen told friends over a cellphone that he was excited to be leaving China but that he was also worried about the fate of relatives he leaves behind. “He’s happy to finally have a rest after seven years of suffering but he’s also worried they will suffer some retribution,” said Bob Fu, president of ChinaAid, a Christian advocacy group based in Texas…

One of China’s best known dissidents, Mr. Chen, 40, made an improbable escape last month from home confinement, scaling walls and evading the dozens of guards who were charged with keeping him and his family locked up in their Shandong Province farmhouse.

With the help of Chinese activists, Mr. Chen made his way to Beijing, and days later, into the American diplomatic compound. During several days of tense negotiations between American and Chinese officials, Mr. Chen insisted he wanted to stay in China — as long as the safety of he and his family could be guaranteed. Exile, he said, would effectively silence his voice.

A deal was reached, but Mr. Chen grew fearful and changed his mind in the hours after leaving the embassy. A fresh crisis ensued — with the Obama administration accused of pressuring him to leave the embassy — and another agreement was forged. The Chinese government agreed to allow Mr. Chen to attend New York University on a fellowship.

Notice the lack of chest-thumping from the Obama Administration on this, and the quiet calm with which it was handled. The Obama Administration is far from perfect on many things to be sure, but at least it can be counted on for basic competence and lack of drama in affairs of state.

It’s no exaggeration to suggest that under a Republican Administration, Mr. Chen might not be free or even alive today.

.

This just isn’t right

As I’m sure you’ve heard, George W. Bush is helpfully publishing a book on how to run a successful economy, should Obama or Romney need some advice on what to do in 2013. As @TheOliverStone asks on twitter, one wonders if Bush will be as honest as he once was about his real economic philosophy:

Néstor Kirchner, former president of Argentina, revealed in an interview with Oliver Stone for the director’s documentary “South of the Border” that former US president George W. Bush was convinced that war was the way to grow the US economy.

Here is the transcript of Kirchner’s account of the conversation at a summit in Monterrey, Mexico, in January, 2004:

‘ Kirchner: I said that a solution to the problems right now, I told Bush, is a Marshall Plan. And he grew angry. He said the Marshall Plan is a crazy idea of the Democrats. He said the best way to revitalize the economy is war. And that the United States has grown stronger with war.

Stone: War, he said that?

Kirchner: He said that. Those were his exact words.

Stone: Is he suggesting that South America go to war?

Kirchner: Well, he was talking about the United States: ‘The Democrats had been wrong. All of the economic growth of the United States has been encouraged by wars.’ He said it very clearly. ‘

He’s not entirely wrong, of course. Wars often lead to riches for powerful countries like the US. (And some people believe that liberals are really the prime movers behind these wars in order advance their egalitarian agenda.) Still, it’s startling to know that a US President would openly say such a thing to another world leader. But then Bush was known to get very snippy when another country’s president said something he didn’t agree with and he’d often pop out with the truth.

Pinterest: an example of our shiny new economy for the rich

by David Atkins

All the “serious” people love to talk about making sure that “innovators” can succeed and grow their businesses. We are assured that by taxing our “job creators” too much or enacting stricter regulations would kill jobs. Wise old men love to stress how important it is that we abandon the liberal arts in favor of engineering and programming degrees that will give us the real skills to survive in our supposedly vibrant new economy.

Presumably they mean innovators and companies like Pinterest, a online scrapbook site with 20 million users, which is now valued at over $1.5 billion dollars. That’s billion, with a “b.” Clearly this is a very successful, innovative company. The very sort of company crucial to America’s future.

So how people does Pinterest employ? The information doesn’t appear anywhere online for sure, but it would appear to be less than fifty. $1.5 billion in valuation. Less than fifty people actually employed.

But what about the secondary benefits? It’s argued that companies like this help the economy is other ways. But the problem is that those benefits are hard to assess. Does Pinterest actually serve the economy in other ways? Certainly it provides a service that people want. But that doesn’t mean it helps move the economy forward, or that more people have jobs because Pinterest exists than would have had them otherwise. Facebook is another good example of this. Sure, secondary companies like gaming giant Zynga are able to exist primarily because of Facebook. But how many people do these companies employ? And is it truly a new market that grows the economic pie, or does the money made by these companies simply cannibalize other markets? None of which even gets into the fact that these companies actually serve as another invasion of privacy, and that any prospective employer can now demand to see your Facebook account to know if you took a picture of yourself smoking pot that one time last weekend. All this, even as Facebook microtargets you for advertising to put you further in debt for products you don’t need.

A few people have gotten very rich off of companies like Facebook and Pinterest. With Facebook’s IPO they’ll get even richer. I don’t begrudge them their millions or their success. They’ve earned it.

But the “serious people” need to stop pretending that the American economy will prosper on the back of companies like these. It won’t. The rich shareholders will do very well, though. They always do.

.