Skip to content

Month: September 2015

A shocker. Small donors sending Carson barrels full of cash

A shocker. Small donors sending Carson barrels full of cash

by digby

Yep, a good ploy. Carson’s got game:

For Republican presidential candidate Ben Carson, months of robocalls, campaign speeches, and merchandise sales paled in comparison to the campaign donations he received after a series of anti-Muslim remarks. Carson, who drew widespread criticism after declaring on Sunday that the United States should not elect a Muslim president, is now raking in the cash from donors who share his anti-Islam sympathies.

“We sent out an email to Carson supporters, and we’ve never had an email raise so much money so quickly—it’s unbelievable,” John Philip Sousa IV, chair of the National Draft Ben Carson for President PAC, and great-grandson of the marching band icon, told The Washington Times.

Carson delivered his original anti-Muslim remarks Sunday on Meet the Press, telling host Chuck Todd that, “I would not advocate that we put a Muslim in charge of this nation. I absolutely would not agree with that.”

During a Monday appearance on Fox News, Carson clarified that he would accept a Muslim candidate, so long as they renounced the central tenets of their religion and culture.

Apology or not, Sousa says Carson struck a chord with voters, specifically with those who fear that a Muslim president will bring America under the reign of Sharia law.

“My phone has exploded over the last 48 hours—of people wanting me to pass on to Dr. Carson how much they respect his truthfulness and believe in the American system, and how absolutely not should anyone who believes in Sharia law come close to the White House. The people are on Dr. Carson’s side on this one—sorry NBC, you lose,” Sousa said.

Makes sense. This is what they over about him. I wish I fully understood why the Villagers are so resistant to understanding just how nuts the Republicans are. I get that they hate the dirty hippies and all. But seriously, these people are just awful. At what point will the media accept that and stop assuming that the Real Americans of the GOP are going to put a stop to it? These are the Real Americans of the GOP.

.

But he didn’t bring up the Crusades so it’s all good

But he didn’t bring up the Crusades so it’s all good

by digby

Gary Emerling of US News and World Report noticed a similarity between the Pope’s address this morning and a speech by Obama that was harshly criticized by conservatives when he gave it:

Many of his comments were lightly delivered and unlikely to elicit much controversy, though the reaction might be different if they were given by another world leader.
Case in point: Toward the beginning of his address, Francis alluded to religious extremism, noting that “no religion is immune” from it. His full quote as prepared for delivery: 

“Our world is increasingly a place of violent conflict, hatred and brutal atrocities, committed even in the name of God and of religion. We know that no religion is immune from forms of individual delusion or ideological extremism. This means that we must be especially attentive to every type of fundamentalism, whether religious or of any other kind. A delicate balance is required to combat violence perpetrated in the name of a religion, an ideology or an economic system, while also safeguarding religious freedom, intellectual freedom and individual freedoms.” 

The remarks echo those delivered – albeit with more explicit historical references – by President Barack Obama at the National Prayer Breakfast in February. 

“Lest we get on our high horse and think this is unique to some other place, remember that during the Crusades and the Inquisition, people committed terrible deeds in the name of Christ. In our home country, slavery and Jim Crow all too often was justified in the name of Christ … So this is not unique to one group or one religion. There is a tendency in us, a sinful tendency that can pervert and distort our faith.” 

Obama’s comments were criticized as “offensive,” “wrongheaded” and detached from present-day reality. Of course, it’s more politically acceptable to criticize the president then the pope – time will tell if Francis’ remarks draw a similar response.

Actually, the right wing is furious with this pope and is having no problem criticizing him. But  I did note that on Fox’s “Outnumbered” this morning they were simply saying the Pope was obviously talking about Islam and left it at that.

The idea that all religions have the capacity to be barbaric in the name of God is indisputable. Not that right wingers  care.  In fact, they don’t even care about religion, unless it’s a useful tool for their ideology. That point has become obvious over the past few days as we’ve seen them trashing the Pope like he was the fourth Dixie Chick.

Update: Haha. The White House tweeted this story out:

.

“There’s nothing like God”

“There’s nothing like God”

by digby

… to create a nice piece of real estate.

Well I say God is the ultimate. You know you look at this? Here we are on the Pacific Ocean. How did I ever own this? I bought it fifteen years ago. I made one of the great deals they say ever. I have no more mortgage on it as I will certify and represent to you. And I was able to buy this and make a great deal. That’s what I want to do for the country. Make great deals. We have to, we have to bring it back, but God is the ultimate. I mean God created this (points to his golf course and nature surrounding it), and here’s the Pacific Ocean right behind us. So nobody, no thing, no there’s nothing like God.

For sure.

You have to watch the whole interview between Christian Broadcasting Network’s John Brody and Trump on the golf course. I know there have been a lot of surreal moments already in this campaign but this is right up there.

Trump will be attending the “Values Voter” summit this week-end. We’ll see if these folks are more forgiving of Trump than they were the pope. (Carson, Cruz, Huckabee, Jindal, Rubio, Santorum and Graham will all be there too. No Jeb…)

By the way, here’s Brody trying to explain why his allegedly pious, true believing evangelical audience likes Trump and it’s about the biggest pile of nonsense you will ever read. He claims they don’t like hypocrites so they are attracted to Trump which is absurd. The truth is that the evangelical Trump supporters like him because he hates who they hate. It’s that simple. There are plenty of sincere evangelicals in this country who see through Trump.

.

Unraveling a smear of a smear

Unraveling a smear of a smear

by digby

So the wingnuts are all claiming that Hillary Clinton is the source of the “Obama is a Muslim” smear and too many young journalists are willing to believe it. As it happens, in 2007 a young journalist by the name of Chris Hayes actually did the shoe leather reporting on this. The smear started back in 2004.

The most notorious smear forward of this cycle is the Obama/madrassa canard, which represents the cutting edge of electronic rumor. At least two weeks before the Obama/madrassa smear appeared in the online magazine Insight, on January 17, it had been circulating widely in an e-mail forward that laid out the basics of Obama’s bio in a flat, reportorial tone before concluding thus:

Obama takes great care to conceal the fact that he is a Muslim…. Lolo Soetoro, the second husband of Obama’s mother…introduced his stepson to Islam. Osama was enrolled in a Wahabi school in Jakarta. Wahabism is the radical teaching that is followed by the Muslim terrorists who are now waging Jihad against the western world. Since it is politically expedient to be a Christian when seeking major public office in the United States, Barack Hussein Obama has joined the United Church of Christ in an attempt to downplay his Muslim background.

 Let us all remain alert concerning Obama’s expected presidential candidacy.

Did you catch that typo in the crucial sentence? And the strategic deployment of Obama’s middle name? It’s a coldly effective bit of slander: a single damning lie (the school Obama attended was a run-of-the mill public elementary school) snuggled tightly within a litany of mundane facts, followed by dark insinuation.

Who wrote it? The unsatisfying answer is, we’ll probably never know. “The thing to keep in mind about e-mail is that there is absolutely zero built-in security or data integrity,” my friend Paul Smith, a software developer with EveryBlock.com, explained to me when I asked him if there was any way I could trace the Obama e-mail to its original author. “That’s why there is spam. I could construct an e-mail from scratch and deliver it and have it seem like it was coming from Steve Jobs, and for all intents and purposes the receiver would have no way of knowing it wasn’t from Cupertino.”

But even if the identity of the e-mail’s author was unrecoverable, it was still possible to trace back the roots of its content. The origin proved even more bizarre than I could have guessed.

On August 10, 2004, just two weeks after Obama had given his much-heralded keynote speech at the DNC in Boston, a perennial Republican Senate candidate and self-described “independent contrarian columnist” named Andy Martin issued a press release. In it, he announced a press conference in which he would expose Obama for having “lied to the American people” and “misrepresent[ed] his own heritage.”

Martin raised all kinds of strange allegations about Obama but focused on him attempting to hide his Muslim past. “It may well be that his concealment is meant to endanger Israel,” read Martin’s statement. “His Muslim religion would obviously raise serious questions in many Jewish circles where Obama now enjoys support.”

A quick word about Andy Martin. During a 1983 bankruptcy case he referred to a federal judge as a “crooked, slimy Jew, who has a history of lying and thieving common to members of his race.” Martin, who in the past was known as Anthony Martin-Trigona, is one of the most notorious litigants in the history of the United States. He’s filed hundreds, possibly thousands, of lawsuits, often directed at judges who have ruled against him, or media outlets that cover him unfavorably. A 1993 opinion by the US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, in Atlanta, described these lawsuits as “a cruel and effective weapon against his enemies,” and called Martin a “notoriously vexatious and vindictive litigator who has long abused the American legal system.” He once even attempted to intervene in the divorce proceedings of a judge who’d ruled against him, petitioning the state court to be appointed as the guardian of the judge’s children.

When I asked Martin for the source of his allegations about Obama’s past, he told me they came from “people in London, among other places.” Why London, I asked? “I started talking to them about Kenyan law. Every little morsel led me a little farther along.”

Within a few days of Martin’s press conference, the conservative site Free Republic had picked it up, attracting a long comment thread, but after that small blip the specious “questions” about Obama’s background disappeared. Then, in the fall of 2006, as word got out that Obama was considering a presidential run, murmurs on the Internet resumed. In October a conservative blog called Infidel Bloggers Alliance reposted the Andy Martin press release under the title “Is Barack Obama Lying About His Life Story?” A few days later the online RumorMillNews also reposted the Andy Martin press release in response to a reader’s inquiry about whether Obama was a Muslim. Then in December fringe right-wing activist Ted Sampley posted a column on the web raising the possibility that Obama was a secret Muslim. Sampley, who co-founded Vietnam Veterans Against John Kerry and once accused John McCain of having been a KGB asset, quoted heavily from Martin’s original press release. “When Obama was six,” Sampley wrote, “his mother, an atheist, married Lolo Soetoro, an Indonesian Muslim, and moved to Jakarta, Indonesia…. Soetoro enrolled his stepson in one of Jakarta’s Muslim Wahabbi schools. Wahabbism is the radical teaching that created the Muslim terrorists who are now waging Jihad on the rest of the world.”

On December 29, 2006, the very same day that Sampley posted his column, Snopes received its first copy of the e-mail forward, which contains an identical charge in strikingly similar language. Given the timing, it seems likely that it was a distillation of Sampley’s work.

Despite the fact that CNN and others have thoroughly debunked the smear, the original false accusation has clearly sunk into people’s consciousness. One Obama organizer told me recently that every day, while calling prospective voters, he gets at least one or two people who tell him they won’t be voting for Obama because he’s a Muslim. According to Google, “Barack Obama Muslim” is the third most-searched term for the Illinois senator. And an August CBS poll found that when voters were asked to give Obama’s religion, as many said Muslim as correctly answered Protestant.

Oh yeah. And the e-mail continues to circulate.

It was all over the place long before Clinton and Obama faced off in 2008, which is where another young journalist who actually knows his job picks up the story. Dave Weigel wrote in the Washington Post:

“The whole birther thing was started by the Hillary Clinton campaign in 2008 against Barack Obama,” Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) confidently told Yahoo News this summer.

The problem: This is simply not true. Clinton’s campaign, one of the most thoroughly dissected in modern history, never raised questions about the future president’s citizenship. The idea that it did is based largely on a series of disconnected actions by supporters of Clinton, mostly in the months between Obama’s reaction to the Jeremiah Wright story and the Democratic National Convention. I know, because I spent/wasted quite a lot of time covering this stuff.

Read on for the details.

Supporters of both Clinton and Obama hardly covered themselves in glory that summer. I know, I was in the crossfire of both of them and it was the ugliest internecine political experience in my life. I certainly recall some denizens of the Clinton fever swamps peddling that nonsense. But unlike everyone in the Village I have never signed on to the notion that Clinton has super human ability to control everything around her so I assumed it was cranks, and there was little she could do about it. I was also aware at the time of the right wing peddling it furiously and much more openly all over the internet. That wingnut email Hayes talks about along with many others in the same vein were landing in my mailbox hourly.

As Weigel points out in his piece, Clinton’s campaign tried to quash this nonsense and fired people who tried to push it, and it takes some real chutzpah of the King of the Birthers Donald Trump to now claim she was responsible. He can run but he can’t hide:

.

I gotcher moderate Republican for ya right heah

I gotcher moderate Republican for ya right heah

by digby

Yeah, this is what passes for a compassionate conservative these days:

HANNITY: The only two issues I ever hear conservatives critical towards you about, immigration, and the refugee issue, which you and I discussed the last time you were on the program. I want to give you an opportunity to expand on this. Should people who do not respect our law and sovereignty, why should they have a path towards citizenship?

KASICH: I’m for legalization, Sean. I’m not for giving anybody a path to citizenship here.

HANNITY: No citizenship?

KASICH: No, I don’t believe in that. But I do believe if they’ve been law abiding in this country, they can get to legalization. They have to pay a fine and everything else.

But the wall has to go up, Sean.

Look, Reagan was for letting these folks stay in 1986. Where did they fall down? They didn’t enforce the law. We need to finish the wall. And if you come over for any reason, you’re going back. I don’t want to argue or discuss it with them. You got to go back. But for the ones that are here, I think they can be given a path to legalization. If they broke the law, that’s a whole other story.

HANNITY: A path to legalization but no citizenship. Just to be clear —

KASICH: No, I don’t believe we should —

HANNITY: OK.

KASICH: Correct. I believe we should go to legalization, but not citizenship. I don’t believe in that path.

And out pragmatic, moderate really wants to build that wall. National Memo found and engineer to discuss what it would take to get that done. It’s so insane you simply cannot believe anyone’s actually talking about it.

An excerpt:

human beings have built a 2,000-mile-long frontier wall exactly one time. Once. And it was accomplished only through a centuries-long building campaign that necessitated the forced labor of millions of Chinese peasants.

The challenge of Trump’s border wall is not technical, but logistical. The leap in complexity between “building a wall” and “building a 2,000-mile-long continuous border wall in the desert” is about equal to the gap between “killing a guy” and “waging a protracted land war.” Trump’s border wall, if built as he has described it, would be one of the largest civil works projects in the history of the country and would face an array of challenges not found when constructing 95-story skyscrapers.[…]

If we assume a border wall length of 1,954 miles (there are 600 or so miles of existing border barrier, but much of this would not qualify for Trump’s wall), then we can make some estimates as to the volume of concrete needed for the project:

Foundation: 6 feet deep, 18 inch radius = 42.4 cubic feet
Column: 4 square feet area by 30 feet tall = 120 cubic feet
Wall panels: 25 feet tall by 10 feet long by 8 inches thick = 166.7 cubic feet
Total concrete per 10-foot segment = 329.1 cubic feet
1,954 miles = 10,300,00 feet = 1,030,000 segments (10-feet long each)
1,030,000 segments * 329.1 cubic feet per segment = 339,000,000 cubic feet = 12,555,000 cubic yards. (The cubic yard is the standard unit of measure of concrete volume in the United States.)
Twelve million, six hundred thousand cubic yards. In other words, this wall would contain over three times the amount of concrete used to build the Hoover Dam — a project that, unlike Trump’s wall, has qualitative, verifiable economic benefits.

Such a wall would be greater in volume than all six pyramids of the Giza Necropolis — and it is unlikely that a concrete slab in the town of Dead Dog Valley, Texas would inspire the same timeless sense of wonder.

That quantity of concrete could pave a one-lane road from New York to Los Angeles, going the long way around the Earth, which would probably be just as useful.

Concrete, of course, requires reinforcing steel (or rebar). A reasonable estimate for the amount of rebar would be about 3 percent of the total wall size, resulting in a steel volume of 10,190,000 cubic feet, or about 5 billion pounds. We could melt down 4 of our Nimitz-class aircraft carriers and would probably be a few cruisers short of having enough steel.

But the challenge is far greater than simply collecting the necessary raw materials. All of these hundreds of miles of wall would need to be cast in concrete facilities, probably project-specific ones that have been custom built near the border. Then, the pre-cast wall pieces would need to be shipped by truck through the inhospitable, often roadless desert.

The men and women doing the work of actually installing the wall would have to be provided with food, water, shelter, lavatory facilities, safety equipment, transportation, and medical care, and would sometimes be miles away from a population center of any size. Sure, some people would be willing to to do the work, but at what price? Would Trump hire Mexicans?

This analysis also ignores the less sexy aspects of large-scale engineering projects: surveying, land acquisition, environmental review, geological studies, maintenance, excavating for foundations, and so on. Theoretical President Trump may be able to executive-order his way through the laser grid of lawsuits that normally impede this kind of work, but he can’t ignore the physical realities of construction.

He doesn’t even mention cost which would obviously be immense. And all so that we can appease some moronic bigots who think their problems will be solved if we only keep Mexicans from coming over here to work.

Lowry loses his composure

Lowry loses his composure

by digby

Via John Amato I see there was a little dust-up over at Fox last night:

Lowry: Look, Trump obviously attacks everyone, but she has become a much bigger target and part of what’s going on here is that last debate, let’s be honest, Carly cut his balls off with the precision of a surgeon…

Kelly: What did you just say!

Lowry: …And he knows it.

Kelly: You can’t say that.

Lowry: He’s insulted and bullied his way to the top of the polls…

Trumpie responded:

The news media seems to be ignoring this probably out of respect for the pope. I do love Trump getting all Emily Post over this, though.

Republicans. Whatta buncha kooks.

Tom Sullivan has more on this below.

.

Coulter goes after religion

Coulter goes after religion

by digby

I wrote about her attacks on Jews and Catholics for Salon today:

Coulter was way ahead of her time with the immigrant and Muslim bashing and took the heat for it.  Now even establishment favorites like Jeb Bush, the man whose own children are the product of a multicultural upbringing, isdecrying multiculturalism in a vain attempt to attract the xenophobes who loathe the fact that he’s married to a Mexican-American woman. And Marco Rubio this weekruled out a path to citizenship for undocumented workers forever. Her influence is profound.
So it’s a good idea to check in with what’s she’s saying today so that we might have an idea where the GOP will be going tomorrow. Lo and behold, she is once again pushing the boundaries in ways that seem so shocking and un-American that you can hardly believe anyone who is accepted into polite company would go there in 2015.
It all started at the last Republican debate when Coulter tweeted, “How many f—ing Jews do these people think there are in the United States?” It was jarring even for her — if there is a GOP sacred cow these days, it is Israel, and Coulter started hacking away at it in public with a metaphorical machete. (It’s not that there is no precedent for Republican hostility toward Jewish people, but we haven’t seen it in a long time.)
By way of explanation, Coulter told The Daily Beast:
“I’m accusing Republicans of thinking the Jews have so much power. They’re the ones who are comedically acting out this play where Jews control everything,” …
“My point was this whole culture of virtue-signaling where debates are about nothing. Look, Republicans all agree 100 percent that we are pro-Israel, pro-Life, pro-gun. So why do we spend so much time on these issues? It’s just pandering, so who are they pandering to?”
In a follow up tweet to her comment about the “f—ing Jews,” she pondered whether the GOP’s focus on Israel was really a ploy to kiss up to evangelicals, thus proving that she has finally caught up with the conventional wisdom every pundit this side of Honolulu has known for decades. She later told the Daily Beast, “I don’t think the Republicans understand evangelicals. We don’t need to be coddled to constantly—we’re not Democrats. There is no doubt that the Republican Party is the party of Israel and of Life. So why keep sucking up on Israel?”
It’s still unclear why she cares so much about this, other than that perhaps she doesn’t like Jewish people any better than she likes Asians, Latinos, or any other group outside her own racial, ethnic and religious identity. Just yesterday she went on a twitter tirade rattling off numbers of immigrants who come to the U.S. from from countries like Mexico, China, Vietnam etc., than come from England. There is no explanation offered for why she felt this was important to share with her followers, but it doesn’t take a mind reader to figure it out. (No word on why more Brits aren’t trying to emigrate here, but it might be because they don’t want to live in a country that turns bigots like Coulter into highly paid celebrities.)
But Coulter wasn’t content to slam the Republicans for pandering to the “f—ing Jews.” With the Pope’s visit this week, she has gone on a tear against Catholics too. Not that she is the only right winger criticizing Francis. They are nearly apoplectic about his preaching on behalf of the poor and climate change. In fact,  they have taken it upon themselves to dictate what issues the Pope is entitled to address and it appears that in their view his role is solely that of vagina policeman. (The papacy has certainly diminished since the days it rules over all Christendom.) Conservative commentator David Limbaugh — admittedly not even a Catholic, which means his knowledge of Catholic theology is likely confined to binge watching re-runs of “The Flying Nun” on Netflix — put it this way in a tweet yesterday:

Case closed.  Coulter piled on:

Oddly, “American Catholics” have not yet been informed of their official separation with the Roman Catholic church. You’d think this would be bigger news. And it’s going to be a heck of a surprise to the citizens of Maryland to learn that the Catholic founders of their state weren’t allowed to be American citizens.
But the bigger picture here is that while we all know it’s a right wing prerogative to attack Islam, Coulter has also attacked Jews and Catholics in the space of a week. And attacking any of the Judeo-Christian religious traditions had been off limits at least since Nixon was insulting every religion known to man. Surely she knows that the religious right is one of the GOP’s most valuable constituencies, and that most certainly includes conservative Jews and Catholics. It’s causing some of her fellow Republicans to recoil.
But maybe that’s the point. Trump is as disdainful of Republican leadership as he is of the Democrats. Carson and Fiorina are total outsiders who have never held office before. Ted Cruz is accusing the GOP of “surrender politics.” And a large number of Republican voters loathe and despise their own leaders. Perhaps Coulter, as is often the case, is simply out front in the next phase of the Republican party crack-up: She’s signaling an impulse to discipline religious factions in the Party which may deviate from or otherwise compromise the central mission of the conservative movement — to preserve the (white) American way of life. It’s obvious that she believes the party’s extreme fealty to Israel and it’s vulnerability to the social justice teachings of the Catholic Church are threats to that project.

They are …

Read on …

Punching each other in the family jewels by @BloggersRUs

Punching each other in the family jewels
by Tom Sullivan

Pope Francis’ speech to Congress is scheduled for 10:00 a.m. EDT, shortly after this posts. I hope I’ll be somewhere I can watch it live. I wonder if would-be next president of the United States Donald Trump will be live-tweeting it? He might be too busy practicing being presidential.

Or not. Trump v. Fox News erupted again yesterday:

Trump’s tweet was a lame attempt at doing The Doors’ Jim Morrison, à la “Hey, man, we just did the Sullivan show.” But he knows how to hit below the belt, right in Roger Ailes’ bottom line. Politico reported yesterday:

Fox News fired back a couple hours later, saying Trump had it all wrong, and that it was Fox who dumped Trump. A spokesman issued a statement, condeming Trump’s attacks on Fox’s journalists.

“At 11:45am today, we canceled Donald Trump’s scheduled appearance on The O’Reilly Factor on Thursday, which resulted in Mr. Trump’s subsequent tweet about his ‘boycott’ of FOX News,” the statement reads. “The press predictably jumped to cover his tweet, creating yet another distraction from any real issues that Mr. Trump might be questioned about. When coverage doesn’t go his way, he engages in personal attacks on our anchors and hosts, which has grown stale and tiresome. He doesn’t seem to grasp that candidates telling journalists what to ask is not how the media works in this country.”

Actually, that’s right. Journalists who want to preserve their “access” already know what they can and cannot ask. They don’t need to be told.

Things escalated from there:

The media world was waiting for it and Donald Trump delivered Wednesday night, performing his now nightly Twitter assault on Fox News after announcing his boycott of the network earlier in the day.

This time, the GOP frontrunner’s outrage came after the National Review’s Rich Lowry suggested that Carly Fiorina “cut [Trump’s] balls off with the precision of a surgeon” at the CNN Republican debate, much to host Megyn Kelly’s shock. “You can’t say that,” Kelly said. For once, she and Trump agreed.

Trump immediately took to Twitter to demand an apology. Rich Lowry replied (for once) with something with which we can all agree:

Somewhere, Vladimir Putin is taking notes, just in case.

Look at it #ISAIDLOOKATIT

Look at it

by digby

I SAID LOOK AT IT!

Now, don’t you feel better?

Tofu, a newborn red panda, has made her debut at the Detroit Zoo. 

The cub was born June 22 to mother Ta-Shi, age 10, and dad Shifu, 6. 

Her mother brought her out for public inspection Saturday morning in their wooded habitat at the zoo in Royal Oak. 

“Ta-Shi took her time bringing her adorable baby girl out into public view, but it was worth the wait,” said Scott Carter, Detroit Zoological Society chief life sciences officer, in a news release. “We’re happy to welcome Tofu to the Detroit Zoo and to contribute to the captive population of this threatened species.”

Found in the mountainous regions of Nepal, Myanmar and central China, red pandas are classified as “vulnerable” on the International Union for Conservation of Nature’s Red List of Threatened Species because of deforestation 

They are known as shy and solitary animals, except when mating. Red pandas are about the size of a house cat, with rust-colored fur and an 18-inch white-ringed tail. Red pandas are agile climbers, spending most of their time hanging from tree branches or lounging on limbs.

The latest in American STASI-style

The latest in American STASI-style

by digby

I’m sure you’ll be glad to know that the government has been working hard to improve its ability to have government co-workers efficiently spy on one another:

A major element of the Defense Department’s new program to better detect insider threats will be up and running by next month, at least on an initial operating capability basis, a top Pentagon security official said last week.

The DoD Insider Threat Management Analysis Center (DITMAC) will be in charge of collecting and coordinating potentially “adverse” information about Defense employees and other people with access to DoD facilities including automated criminal records checks, tracking cases of possible insider threats and helping to decide whether intervention of some kind is warranted.

“It really is intended to be the central hub for the department’s insider threat programs,” said Carrie Wibben, the director for security and policy oversight within the office of the undersecretary of Defense for intelligence. “They are focused on establishing a lot of the enterprise capabilities — the things that we don’t want all 43 of our components doing on their own or duplicating. That means behavioral analysis, predictive analytics, risk rating tools and insider threat systems for centralized reporting.”

After the DITMAC is up and running and serving as a central information clearinghouse, DoD plans to shift its focus to helping the military departments and combatant commands establish their own “hubs” that will feed information of potential concern into the DITMAC.

If you work for the government, folks, I wouldn’t make any enemies of your co-workers or give anyone the impression you are competing with them for a promotion. Certainly, don’t act in any way that someone might call “suspicious.” If someone wants to do a little sabotage on your career, if not your life, your behavior will be noted and stored in the database. Forever.

.

.