Month: May 2014

Hope and change, baby

by digby

From the ACLU:

Congress finally had enough. Almost one year after the first disclosure about the NSA’s abusive surveillance programs, the House Judiciary Committee made history on Wednesday when it voted unanimously to pass the USA FREEDOM Act. Much to our surprise, the House Intelligence Committee followed suit yesterday and also unanimously passed the same version of the bill. The next step: consideration by the full House of Representatives. 

While this version is lacking some of the key privacy protections included in the original, it is an important step to reining in the surveillance state. At base, the bill attempts to stop the government from sweeping up personal information without having to present a compelling reason to a judge.

Will this be enough?  Of course not.  Half the time these actions serve to legalize what was formerly illegal. So keep your eye on the prize.  But it does mean that the government has been forced to take a hard look at these programs and at least acknowledge that the people have reason to be concerned.

Oh, and it totally would have happened without Edward Snowden.  Obviously. He should have to pay a very stiff price for making our government accountable to the people. We just can’t have that.

.

An interesting chart

by digby

This shows the changes in college majors since the 1970s.  It’s too bad you can’t get a degree in being a manservant or a ladies maid. Those are going to be the big growth careers of the future. And begging.

% of all majors in Sociology 4% in 1970, 2% in 2011 Education 22%, 6% Business 14%, 21% (ht @surveyfunk) pic.twitter.com/PYiohb6KdF
— Conrad Hackett (@conradhackett) May 9, 2014

Support for net neutrality starts to go bipartisan

by David Atkins

The pressure is mounting on behalf of net neutrality not just among Democrats, but among Republicans too:

Another FCC commissioner called for a delay of the agency’s fast-approaching net neutrality vote, while top Internet companies and venture capitalists took even more shots Thursday at Chairman Tom Wheeler’s controversial plan.
Wheeler’s proposal, which isn’t final, already has sparked a firestorm of criticism because it could allow Internet service providers like AT&T and Verizon to charge companies for faster delivery of their content.

Inside the FCC, GOP Commissioner Ajit Pai on Thursday said he had “grave concerns about the chairman’s proposal.” Pai, like most Republicans, never has backed strong FCC net neutrality rules — but his statement put him in the company of Democratic Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel, a vocal supporter of open Internet protections who also asked Wheeler to push the vote back.

The cynic in me says that Republicans like Ajit Pai are only starting to voice their concerns after a huge pushback from a number of corporations who would stand to lose big to the greedy telecoms over it. We seem to be in an era where the only successful pushbacks against abject corporate greed are when other corporations might also take the hit.

But I suppose any help is better than none.

.

It brought tears to Emptywheel’s eyes


by digby

I caught this story about “Emperor Keith” Alexander’s cashing in last night and wasn’t entirely surprised. That’s what they all do.   But, like Emptywheel, I was a bit surprised about this. She writes:

But the part of this story that even I couldn’t have predicted — but makes so much sense it brings tears to my eyes — is that he’s shacking up with Promontory Financial Group, the revolving door regulator to hire that has been caught underestimating its clients’ crimes for big money.

Alexander will lease office space from the global consulting firm Promontory Financial Group, which confirmed in a statement on Thursday that it plans to partner with him on cybersecurity matters.

“He and a firm he’s forming will work on the technical aspects of these issues, and we on the risk-management compliance and governance elements,” said Promontory spokesman Chris Winans.

That really takes some cojones. I’m sure he’ll be worth every single million they pay him. After all, their job is to hide the crimes of their clients.  I’m quite sure Emperor Keith knows exactly how to get that done — what with all his knowledge of the “technical aspects of these issues.” He’s a patriot though so everybody can feel fully confident that he would never do anything untoward.

.

Water-carrying for the genius

by digby

Joan Walsh decisively dispatches this wingnut linkbait so I won’t bother to engage it more fully Suffice to say that the I’d be very surprised if the Obama White House felt that, on the whole, the progressive blogosphere is a particularly loyal constituency.

But it provides a nice excuse to revisit one of my favorite right wing blogger quotes of all time, from 2005:

It must be very strange to be President Bush. A man of extraordinary vision and brilliance approaching to genius, he can’t get anyone to notice. He is like a great painter or musician who is ahead of his time, and who unveils one masterpiece after another to a reception that, when not bored, is hostile.

It’s entirely possible that there are progressive bloggers out there who have said similar things about President Obama in his 5th year in office. But I think it’s pretty clear that such “water-carrying” was perfected by the right wing fever swamps about a decade ago.

.

QOTD: a hero

by digby

Joshua Garcia jumped on the tracks in front on an oncoming subway train to save an unconscious girl who had fallen. He said:

It was adrenaline and the power of the Lord,” Garcia said.

For a moment, he found himself looking up from the tracks at scores of faces watching them. Some people were snapping photos or taking video with their cellphones, he said.

“It was amazing seeing all these people doing nothing,” he said. “It was an eye-opener.”

You know, it’s not just that they were doing nothing. That might be human. People can freeze in such a situation or might not be able to move fast enough to help. But the ones who were taking pictures and video didn’t freeze, did they? They were all capable of moving quickly enough to pull out their phones and record the event.

I noticed this not long ago on the freeway in the wake of an accident that happened right in front of me. Some people stopped to help. Some people immediately called 911. But there were a dozen or so people who just started filming the carnage. And in a couple of cases laughing and chatting about it as they did it. An eye-opener indeed.

Maybe people have always been this way. But sometimes I think that the ability to record everything has replaced the impulse to get involved. They’re so caught up in recording their lives that they aren’t really living it.

.

Primaries are healthy for the body politic

by digby

I wrote about why a presidential primary opponent for Hillary Clinton would be good for her and for progressives over at Salon:

The Fix revisits the infamous moment when Reid supposedly called then Sen. Obama to his office to tell him that he could win the presidency if he decided to run, thus challenging the notion that Hillary Clinton was the inevitable nominee in 2008. His comments above are therefore naturally interpreted as a new attempt to deny Clinton the nomination, perhaps in favor of Reid’s old friend Joe Biden. Parsing such comments that way is the bread and butter of such chroniclers of Beltway intrigue so it’s not surprising they’d frame it that way. But the truth is that Harry Reid may just be sincere in his belief that primaries are healthy. And even if he isn’t sincere, he’s still right.

Primaries make politicians listen more closely to their voters. It gives their voters a vehicle to exert pressure on politicians. And it helps to set the agenda. It’s he only time the voters really get a chance to influence the standard bearers of their own party.

It’s no knock on Hillary to suggest that the process would be better served if she were challenged for the nomination. The problem is that there isn’t anyone who’s stepped up to do it.

.

.

Reminder: a majority of the 1% actually get it, and want their taxes raised

by David Atkins

I’ve written on this topic based on some previous data, but a new poll demonstrates that the problem isn’t the entire 1%. It’s a very motivated, morally bankrupt and sociopathic minority of the 1%.

In one of the first surveys of its kind, a CNBC poll has revealed that 51% of millionaires in America believe that inequality is “a major problem”, and nearly two-thirds advocate being taxed at a higher rate.
The CNBC Millionaire Survey polled 514 Americans with investable assets of $1 million or more, which is representative of the top 8% of American households. Respondents represented Democrats, Republicans and Independents.
A range of views were expressed, some of them largely in keeping with traditional views. However the headline statistic was that a massive 64% of America millionaires openly say that they should be taxed at a higher rate to help reduce inequality. Almost the same number, 63%, support a higher minimum wage.”

Many of the views expressed in the survey were not surprising. For example, when asked to explain the reason for their success, 23% said hard work, 21% said “smart investment” and 18% said saving wisely. Only 10% ranked education as important, and just 1% said “luck” had anything to do with it. Multimillionaires (those worth $5 million or more) ranked “running my own business” as the main reason for their wealth.

In terms of the gender split, women were three times more likely to rank inheritance as the main reason for their wealth, with 15% ranking it as important compared to just 5% of male respondents. Men ranked saving as more important than women, with 20% ranking it as important, compared to 14% of women.

Now, it’s entirely possible that the top tenth of one percent are the ones with the most selfish views. It’s hard to know.

But it’s important to remember that while it’s accurate to say that the 1% has hoovered up and is hoarding all the wealth, it’s not even a majority of them that are the direct villains of our political story.

It’s less than a third of the top one percent. They’re the ones causing almost all the problems.

.

Using his power for profit

by digby

What a fine public servant:

Alexander will lease office space from the global consulting firm Promontory Financial Group, which confirmed in a statement on Thursday that it plans to partner with him on cybersecurity matters.

“He and a firm he’s forming will work on the technical aspects of these issues, and we on the risk-management compliance and governance elements,” said Promontory spokesman Chris Winans.

“After a 40-year career in the military and the government, I am beginning an effort to see what I could do to help address the cybersecurity threats facing the financial services industry, its customers, and their assets,” Alexander said in a statement.
“This effort is in it’s exploratory stages, and I look forward to the work ahead.”

Alexander spoke recently to a large industry trade group on his post-government plans. One person familiar with his pitch said it had an appeal much like the consulting expertise of Tom Ridge and Michael Chertoff, two former homeland security secretaries who went on to establish their own firms.

“Clearly, there will be companies who’d have great interest in having an affiliation with him,” the source said.

Hey, these people need his input and protection. There’s a lot of money … er … freedom at sake.

This sounds about right:

Thinking Keith Alexander’s marketing pitch is, “I know where all the holes I’ve left in the Internet are.”
— emptywheel (@emptywheel) May 9, 2014

.

The Supreme Court brought this on itself

by digby

When the Bush campaign petitioned the Supreme Court in 2000 to stop the recount in Florida I very energetically insisted to all of my friends that the Court would never take such a partisan case because of the risk to their prestige and reputation as the objective deciders of fact. They had no obligation to take it. The process was playing itself out according to the constitution without anyone taking to the streets. And the country was humming along nicely with a popular president still at the helm. It seemed completely unlikely to me that the court would interfere.Obviously, I was wrong.

And according to Gallup its poll numbers have plummeted ever since then. Now they are seen as just another political entity. Here are the results of a new poll done by Greenberg, Quinlan and Rossner:

Wide majorities disagree with the recent 5-4 party-line rulings that have upended a century of campaign finance law and tilted the rules in favor of the extremely wealthy and major corporations. The landmark Citizens United ruling was opposed by a whopping 80-18 margin. The more recent McCutcheon decision, which lifted caps on total giving, was said by a 51 percent majority to be likely to create more corruption, while 8 percent suggested it would lead to less.

By a 60-36 spread, those surveyed said that Supreme Court justices were more likely to be carrying out a personal or political agenda than working to render a fair and impartial judgment, an opinion that cut across party lines. John Roberts swore before Congress during his confirmation hearings that he had great respect for precedent. But once confirmed as chief justice, he embarked on a remarkable run of conservative judicial activism that has favored the wealthy while undermining affirmative action and protection for voting rights.

The people are seeing reality. And the ramifications of this Federalist Society takeover of the court majority are profound:

Big majorities in the GQR poll said that Supreme Court justices should no longer be appointed for life, that cameras should be allowed in the courtroom and that justices should disclose financial conflicts of interest and be bound by ethics rules.

It’s hard to believe they aren’t bound by conflict of interest and ethics rules already. But certain conservatives on the court routinely flout what common decency would suppose anyone with integrity in that powerful position would do. They don’t care. (What are we going to do, impeach them? Not likely …) And as for term limits, it appears that people are seeing that the court is such a powerful force in American politics that allowing them to remain on the bench for as many as 30 or 40 years beyond the the president who appointed them may not be such a great idea.

When I was growing up the Court seemed like a magnificent institution that had the ability to reach beyond normal politics and take the country past its failures and into the future. It never really was all that — it was always a political institution peopled by political actors. But it wasn’t a nakedly partisan institution like it is now. The conservative majority isn’t just driven by ideology — it identifies very strongly with the Republican party and its decisions are colored by that identification. It seems they have not been able to hide that from the American people and they may end up paying a big price for it as an institution.

.