Right Wingers Are Broken, Frightened Creatures - CIA Torture?

So I am reading this really interesting book titled The Authoritarians.
It is by a social scientist at the University of Manitoba, Bob Altemeyer, who has been studying Authoritarianism in Canada and the USA for about 40 years.

"Authoritarianism is something authoritarian followers and authoritarian leaders cook up between themselves. It happens when the followers submit too much to the leaders, trust them too much, and give them too much leeway to do whatever they want--which often is something undemocratic, tyrannical and brutal. In my day, authoritarian fascist and authoritarian communist dictatorships posed the biggest threats to democracies, and eventually lost to them in wars both hot and cold. But authoritarianism itself has not disappeared, and I'm going to present the case in this book that the greatest threat to American democracy today arises from a militant authoritarianism that has become a cancer upon the nation.

We know an awful lot about authoritarian followers. In one way or another, hundreds of social scientists have studied them since World War II. We have a pretty good idea of who they are, where they come from, and what makes them tick. By comparison, we know little about authoritarian leaders because we only recently started studying them. That may seem strange, but how hard is it to figure out why someone would like to have massive amounts of power? The psychological mystery has always been, why would someone prefer a dictatorship to freedom? So social scientists have focused on the followers, who are seen as the main, underlying problem."

As it turns out, he also had something to say in 2006 about a current item of news today - CIA Torture.

"If some day George W. Bush is indicted for authorizing torture, you can bet your bottom dollar the high RWAs will howl to the heavens in protest. It won’t matter how extensive the torture was, how cruel and sickening it was, how many years it went on, how many prisoners died, how devious Bush was in trying to evade America’s laws and traditional stand against torture, or how many treaties the U.S. broke. Such an indictment would grind right up against the core of authoritarian followers, and they won’t have it. Maybe they’ll even say, “The president was busy running the war. He didn’t really know. It was all done by Rumsfeld and others.”

This easy to read, fascinating book can be downloaded free from the author as a PDF here.

Why should you read this book?  I'll let the author tell you.

"But why should you even bother reading this book? I would offer three reasons.
First, if you are concerned about what has happened in America since a radical right-wing segment of the population began taking control of the government about a dozen years ago, I think you'll find a lot in this book that says your fears are well founded.
(check out this fulfilled prophecy!)
As many have pointed out, the Republic is once again passing through perilous times. The concept of a constitutional democracy has been under attack--and by the American government no less! The mid-term elections of 2006 give hope that the best values and traditions of the country will ultimately prevail. But it could prove a huge mistake to think that the enemies of freedom and equality have lost the war just because they were recently rebuffed at the polls. I’ll be very much surprised if their leaders don’t frame the setback as a test of the followers’ faith, causing them to redouble their efforts. They came so close to getting what they want, they’re not likely to pack up and go away without an all-out drive.

But even if their leaders cannot find an acceptable presidential candidate for 2008, even if authoritarians play a much diminished role in the next election, even if they temporarily fade from view, they will still be there, aching for a dictatorship that will force their views on everyone. And they will surely be energized again, as they were in 1994, if a new administration infuriates them while carrying out its mandate. The country is not out of danger.

The second reason I can offer for reading what follows is that it is not chock full of opinions, but experimental evidence. Liberals have stereotypes about conservatives, and conservatives have stereotypes about liberals. Moderates have stereotypes about both.
Anyone who has watched, or been a liberal arguing with a conservative (or vice versa) knows that personal opinion and rhetoric can be had a penny a pound. But arguing never seems to get anywhere. Whereas if you set up a fair and square experiment in which people can act nobly, fairly, and with integrity, and you find that most of one group does, and most of another group does not, that’s a fact, not an opinion. And if you keep finding the same thing experiment after experiment, and other people do too, then that’s a body of facts that demands attention.

Some people, we have seen to our dismay, don’t care a hoot what scientific investigation reveals; but most people do. If the data were fairly gathered and we let them do the talking, we should be on a higher plane than the current, “Sez you!”

The last reason why you might be interested in the hereafter is that you might want more than just facts about authoritarians, but understanding and insight into why they act the way they do.
Which is often mind-boggling.
How can they revere those who gave their lives defending freedom and then support moves to take that freedom away?
How can they go on believing things that have been disproved over and over again, and disbelieve things that are well established?
How can they think they are the best people in the world, when so much of what they do ought to show them they are not?
Why do their leaders so often turn out to be crooks and hypocrites?
Why are both the followers and the leaders so aggressive that hostility is practically their trademark?
By the time you have finished this book, I think you will understand the reasons. All of this, and much more, fit into place once you see what research has uncovered going on in authoritarian minds."

Big Problems In ObamaCareLand

Everyone is aware of the problems with the roll out of ObamaCare, the ACA (Affordable Care Act) and how the Federal website just didn't work right and all.

Everyone can be happy now because the website works well.  We tried it today and it was a snap.

What everyone seems not to recognise is that the Federal site only was available to cover the people in those States that refused to comply with the ACA and set up their own exchanges.
So all the problems were in GOP governed states.  The states that set up their own exchanges had success from day one, with a few minor politically motivated obstructionist burps.

I am a proponent of single-payer health care aka Medicare For All, but we don't have that.

What we do have is a plan that pretends to provide for the poor specifically - those who could not afford or otherwise qualify for health insurance.

The ACA however has it's "plans for the poor" designed by rich idiots I guess.

There is no way a poor person can afford the premiums on even their most basic plan, much less the co-pays and $10,000 per year deductible.

This article in the Detroit Free Press explores this a little further.

 

Affordable Care Act won't solve all our health care problem

 

Part of the HealthCare.gov website is photographed in Washington on Nov. 29, 2013. / Associated Press

 

    
By Mary Ellen Howard
December 14, 2013
Detroit Free Press guest writer

 Many people in the community — even those close to our clinic — are asking what will be the effect of the Affordable Care Act on the Cabrini Clinic and other providers of charitable care around the state. Some wonder whether we will continue to be needed, and whether they should still support us.

There are a lot of myths out there about health care reform. But here are some facts. In 2014, the ACA will offer two new opportunities for insurance coverage:
■ One is to purchase insurance through the exchange. Small businesses and anyone whose income is below 400% of the federal poverty level may receive a tax subsidy to help them buy coverage. However, most of our patients at the Cabrini Clinic are too poor to take advantage of this option.
■ The second is Medicaid expansion, and that is more likely to affect the uninsured people served by free clinics. Up until now, many have been excluded from Medicaid, not because they have too much income, but because they are childless adults. Under the ACA, childless adults become eligible for Medicaid. In Michigan, this take effect in April.
Michigan is one of the 25 states where the legislature voted for Medicaid expansion, albeit reluctantly. Statewide, it is estimated that more than 400,000 of Michigan’s 1.3 million uninsured will people become eligible for Medicaid.
I was hopeful that about 80% of the uninsured patients we see at Cabrini Clinic would be among them. However, the Michigan Legislature asked the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services for waivers on the program that it is calling Healthy Michigan. Federal approval is required because the Michigan plan varies from the Medicaid expansion outlined in the Affordable Care Act.
For the uninsured poor, these waivers will pose barriers. They require enrollees in Healthy Michigan to establish a health savings account from which the state will deduct an income-based monthly premium for those earning between 100 and 133% of the federal poverty level.
The premiums can be reduced through healthy behaviors. The plan also requires co-pays for basic services. These premiums and co-pays will be a barrier to poor people who need care. I wonder how many will actually sign up. I am beginning to think that my 80% projection was wildly optimistic.
To make matters worse, Michigan plans to seek a second waiver in the future, imposing a soft cap on coverage at 48-months, at which point recipients would be cut off from Medicaid for life.
Michigan still has not received a ruling from the federal government on the waivers, so we are stuck with a lot of unanswered questions.
What if the feds say “no” to Michigan’s requested waivers? Do we become the 26th state to refuse the opportunity to expand Medicaid? Enrollment is to begin in April. Now is when we should be educating the 1.3 million uninsured Michiganders regarding Medicaid expansion — what is coming, what it will mean, who is eligible, what do I have to do to enroll and what will it cost? Instead, we have no answers.
There are many unknowns, but the future of free clinics for the uninsured is not one of them. In fact, it appears that we are needed more than ever.

Mary Ellen Howard, RSM, is executive director of St. Frances Cabrini Clinic of Most Holy Trinity Church in Detroit.

Anal Probe for a Traffic Stop?

Anal Probe for a Traffic Stop?

 

By Allison Frankel, Criminal Law Reform Project, ACLU  

 11/07/2013

 

David Eckert was pulling out of a Wal-Mart parking lot when police officers pulled him over for failing to stop at a parking lot stop sign. Police ordered Eckert to step out of his vehicle, and that's when he committed the highly suspicious act of "clenching his buttocks." The officers' natural reaction? This man must be hiding narcotics in his anal cavity.
Being pulled over for a minor traffic violation is never a pleasant experience, but these Deming, New Mexico police officers took it to an atrocious new level, forcing Mr. Eckert to undergo a colonoscopy, anal probes, and defecation in a search for drugs. Yes, you read that correctly: the War on Drugs is being waged on minor traffic violators with enemas and sedatives.
After pulling Mr. Eckert over, officers obtained a search warrant for an anal cavity search and drove Eckert to a Deming hospital. In the one act of sanity in this insane saga, doctors at that hospital refused to conduct the search, saying it would be unethical. Undeterred by such ethical concerns, police then took Eckert to Gila Regional Medical Center, where, over Eckert's objections, doctors performed an x-ray of Eckert's cavity, three enemas, a colonoscopy, and several cavity searches, as well as forced him to defecate in front of them. No drugs were ever found.
As egregious as the police conduct here was, sadly this case is only one of many examples of police overreach in fighting the failed War on Drugs. This August, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit held that police could not use drugs discovered in the buttocks of Felix Booker, a Texas man who was pulled over for driving with expired tags and, upon being suspected of having marijuana, was strip-searched, sedated intravenously, intubated, and subjected to an anal probe. Calling the search "one of the greatest dignitary intrusions that could flow from a medical procedure," the Court ruled that the forced procedures violated Booker's Fourth Amendment rights. In two separate incidents in Texas this August, police officers probed the genitals and anal regions of four women suspected of possessing marijuana during routine traffic stops (you can see the horrifying video footage of the searches here). No drugs were found during the cavity searches.
Minor traffic stops should not be pretexts for invasive, degrading, and needless medical procedures. Eckert has filed a lawsuit against the City of Deming and its police officers for their outrageous conduct, including arguing that the search went far beyond what was permitted by the warrant. His lawsuit, and the media coverage of the indignity to which he was subjected, should serve as yet another wake-up call to police departments and politicians around the country that the War on Drugs – which has trampled constitutional rights and overcrowded our jails and prisons – must end.

Profiteering Off The War On Families (er....drugs)

The blatant appeal to greed and irresponsible approach to what is crafted to "sound like" a good thing (the war on drugs) is doing something essentially similar in your town too.

Putting a bounty, bonus or property seizure ahead of genuine public service has only made a new super-class of "justice" and "law enforcement" CROOKS!

Climate Change Deniers In Congress Work The System As Climate Victims

From the Daily Kos  http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/09/13/1238702/-The-states-that-get-the-most-natural-disaster-aid-sent-47-climate-change-deniers-to-Congress?detail=facebook

The states that get the most natural disaster aid sent 47 climate-change deniers to Congress

Fri Sep 13, 2013 at 01:51 PM PDT

by Meteor Blades 

At the Center for American Progress, Daniel J. Weiss, Jackie Weidman and Stephanie Pinkalla teamed up on a new study of the $62 billion that the federal government sent to the states in disaster aid during 2011-2012. Much of that money was spent to ameliorate the impact of extreme weather events during that period:

There is recent evidence that climate change played a role in the extreme weather events of 2012. The recently released analysis from the American Meteorological Society determined that:

Approximately half the analyses found some evidence that anthropogenically caused climate change was a contributing factor to the extreme event examined, though the effects of natural fluctuations of weather and climate on the evolution of many of the extreme events played key roles as well.

Interestingly, many of the states that received the most federal recovery aid to cope with climate-linked extreme weather have federal legislators who are climate-science deniers. The 10 states that received the most federal recovery aid in FY 2011 and 2012 elected 47 climate-science deniers to the Senate and the House. Nearly two-thirds of the senators from these top 10 recipient states voted against granting federal emergency aid to New Jersey and New York after Superstorm Sandy.

Now these 47 (and many like-minded colleagues in other states making up perhaps a third of Congress that can be called deniers) either don't accept the evidence of human-caused climate change because they're scientific illiterates or they do know that such change is happening but continue to spout their nonsense. Apparently those in the latter group are eager to keep collecting the campaign contributions from fossil fuel companies and various front groups that keep them in their congressional seats. Whatever the case, the situation, scientists tell us, is going to worsen. As the CAP study's authors point out, in the 1980s, there were an annual average of less than two extreme weather events causing more than a $1 billion (in inflation-adjusted dollars). From 2010 to 2012, the annual average of billion-dollar extreme weather events was more than nine.
The CAP authors make several recommendations:
• Support programs to reduce greenhouse gas pollution, including continued support for President Obama's Climate Action Plan.
• Improve federal and state budget planning by following the National Academy of Sciences proposal for “a national resource of disaster-related data should be established that documents injuries, loss of life, property loss, and impacts on economic activity.”
• Urge Congress to provide full funding for disaster relief in future budget and spending bills, which, among other things will make clear to everyone the costs of extreme weather.
• Invest more federal funds in community efforts "to become more resilient to extreme weather." CAP recent found that the feds spent $6 on disaster recovery for every $1 on reducing disaster damages, "even though resilience investments reduce economic damages 4-to-1."
These are all reasonable ideas. But transforming most of them into policy requires either getting them past the 47 know-nothings (and other clueless deniers in Congress) or throwing them out on their ear at the next election. Either is a tall order. The consequences of doing neither ought to be clear enough by now to anyone who is really listening.

'Branding' Eases Resistance For Corporate Thugs

I really appreciate the dedicated reporting of Police State USA.

When we recall that police are essentially investigators and enforcers who though first commissioned to serve and protect "the people", now are only in the service of politicians and their cronies, who don't seem to care one whit about "the people" - well, then it is not too surprising I guess, that social scientists would extend government's public relations efforts to include "Branding" - especially for the agents most threatening to the general public.

Our corporations and politicians have taken "speak softly and carry a big stick" to a whole new and profoundly disgusting, disturbed and depraved level.

 

Government works to make federal agencies appear as protagonists on TV

'Branding' the agencies is important to keep the public complacently accepting police state behavior 

Police State USA   August 18, 2013

(Source: Lifetime’s ‘Baby Sellers’)

The federal government actively works to get its agencies to appear on television and portrayed as the protagonists. They say that “branding” is important to their image and boosts the morale of the agents. What they don’t mention is that it also acclimates the citizenry to living in a police state.
Many agencies, including U.S. Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE), actually staff an “entertainment and multimedia liaison” in order to coordinate the agencies starring roles.
Brandon A. Montgomery is such a liaison for ICE. In a news release from his agency, he is described as “actively working to generate an agency presence in film and TV.”
“It’s important to get (ICE) on TV because it ensures we are on the top of the mind to the American public and our stakeholders,” Montgomery said, noting that it was 10 times as effective as putting an agency in a news blurb.
When the public is used to seeing federal agents on television every day, it desensitizes them to the Federal government’s agenda of expanding its centralized authority, broadening it jurisdiction, and federalizing crime and law enforcement across the country.
Not only that, but it embeds a caricature image of what government is into viewer’s subconscious.  The repeated portrayal of government agents as the heroes and saviors of serves to reinforce the existence of agencies and laws that shouldn’t exist in the first place.
Montgomery touts his influence at acquiring ICE features in TV shows such as “To Catch a Smuggler,” “Border Wars,” “Chicago Fire,” “Hawaii 5-0,” “Burn Notice” and “Bones.”
It is unclear how much of the police promotion we see on mainstream television is inspired by agency liaisons, but it is evident that the airwaves are absolutely full of pro-government propaganda disguised as entertainment.

A federal agent tears apart a vehicle at a checkpoint (Source: National Geographic’s ‘Border Wars’)

National Geographic’s Border Wars regularly promotes checkpoints and prohibition laws.  The viewership is conditioned to seeing travelers stopped by federal agents, often followed by intensive searches.  Agents strive to tear apart vehicles to locate prohibited plants and substances, fighting a Drug War that terrorizes the public in more ways than I care to list.
“It’s not just for the public,” Montgomery said, “it boosts morale for special agents and the agency too.”
A morale boost may be in order for agents who develop a cognitive dissonance when struggling to rationalize their employment duties with the oaths they took.  In the back of their mind it must be uncomfortable throwing non-violent people in cages,  and hearing Americans decrying the violation of their rights at internal domestic checkpoints.

Written by: PSUSA on August 18, 2013.

I always like to read the comments on articles I find provoking and was impressed with this single formal reply to this one.

“TV SUCKS ANYHOW!!!”

 

 

About PSUSA

Political activist, journalist, and rabble rouser. Police State USA began with a Facebook page, which has been growing since 2010 and has amassed more than 100,000 followers. In August 2013, he launched policestateusa.com, intent on becoming a force in the alternative media. View all posts by PSUSA →

Post navigation

← U.S./Canadian border deal allows cross-border policing, with foreign cops exempt from local law 

 Las Vegas Sheriff’s refusal to fire trigger-happy cop prompts mass-resignations from civilian review panel →

10 Signs That You’re Fully Awake

I thought this article from True Activist was awfully interesting.
It is worth paying attention to the idea that our world is fairly "suddenly" waking up to these very issues.
Is this awakening really more widespread than before or is it just the broader awareness of each others awakening that is different?
Number 9 I think, needs another paragraph or two - but all in all, this is pretty good.
How do we change our actions to compliment our understanding?
How do we take ownership of our experience?

September 4, 2012  

by: True Activist

Isn’t it obvious that there is a significant global awakening happening? Just as the Mayans predicted so many years ago, the apocalypse would become apparent in 2012. But many misinterpret the apocalypse to be the end of the world, when in fact it actually means an “un-covering, a revelation of something hidden.”

As many continue to argue the accuracy of the Mayan calendar, it can no longer be argued that a great many people are finally becoming aware of what has been hidden from them for so long. Of course this awakening is not an overnight process. It takes time to peel away the many layers of lies to get to the core of the ultimate truths.

It would be beyond pretentious for us to claim to know all of the secrets of the universe. We don’t. Everyday we are humbled by what we don’t yet know.

However, it is becoming clearer by the day what isn’t true. And by that measure alone, it is possible to determine if you’re one of the people beginning to wake up.

Here are ten signs you may be fully awake:

1. You know there’s no meaningful difference between major political parties (Democrats and Republicans): It’s so easy to get caught up the left-right debate and believe there’s a difference between the two major political parties. However, debate is one thing, while actions are another. By their deeds you shall know them, and it is indisputable that there is no significant difference between political parties when it comes to action on the most important issues. Even hardened ideologues like John Cusack are beginning to wake up.

2. You understand that the Federal Reserve, or international central banking more broadly, is the engine of our economic problems: Debt slavery is the totalitarian force that threatens all of humanity, not some temporary political puppet or some greedy Wall Street trader. When a small group of people have the ability to create wealth out of nothing and charge interest on it, they have the ability to enslave the planet to their ownership despite what type of government a country claims to have.

3. You know that preemptive war is never necessary: When we realize that self-defense is the only acceptable form of violence, then we become awakened human beings. To suggest war because someone is different from you, or they may pose a threat in the future is simply ludicrous. And when did the idea of bombing civilians become humanitarian? No one wants war except for the immoral creeps that benefit from it.

4. You know that you’re being systematically poisoned, how, by whom, and why: Admittedly, there’s a lot to learn in terms of how we are secretly being poisoned. But the fact remains that we are being systematically poisoned, and it is likely for the deliberate purpose of dumbing us down and, ultimately, culling the population. Who could believe anyone is so evil to do that to innocent people, you may ask. Well, once you begin to seek the answer to that question, you’re one step closer to enlightenment.

5. You understand that government can never legislate morality, nor should they: When you realize the role of government is only to protect your liberty and work for the well being of the citizens, you’re awakened. There should be one simple law regulating morality: Do no harm. Thus, it’s impossible for the government to enforce morality with guns, cages, and taxes because those clearly cause severe harm to your liberty and our well-being.

6. You know that the mainstream media is wholly owned and manipulated by the ruling elite: A dwindling number of people still actually believe what they hear coming from the establishment media as if it’s gospel, even when they already accept that they are bought and paid for by the elite controllers. Yet, recognizing that they are nothing more than a propaganda machine and a form of mind control are the first steps in being able to critically think beyond the scientific messaging they broadcast.

7. You know that your neighbors are not your enemy even if you have fierce ideological disagreements: This is perhaps the most difficult thing to overcome in the awakening process. But it’s vital to understand that your neighbors have been indoctrinated and hypnotized like the rest of the us, until someone helps shine a light on inconsistencies in our thoughts and beliefs. Most of their ideas are not their own. They are suffering just like the rest of us. It’s okay to condemn their actions if they’re harmful, but those who are awake will not give up on spreading information that can enlighten those who might still be in the dark. None of us were born “awake” and all of us can learn even more.

8. You know that the endgame is one-world control of planet Earth: Once you understand that the endgame for the ruling elite is to have complete control of all vital facets of society through a global government, one-world currency, international armed forces, and so on, it is simple to see through the lies and propaganda surrounding even the most confusing world events. You will never go back to sleep when you fully accept this reality.

9. You recognize that there are esoteric powers manipulating our physical world: Whether you’re a religious or spiritual person, scientific or just plain curious, there are many theories about an invisible force at play in all of this. Obviously it’s impossible to prove exactly what it is. You may not want to believe it, but the ruling elite takes their occult rituals deadly serious. And they likely know something we don’t. Just by keeping an open mind about this possibility, you’ll forever keep an open mind about the things we can actually see, hear, taste and touch. Current science has shown that we can only “see” what the visible light spectrum reveals, which amounts to the tiniest fraction of all that can theoretically be seen within the full spectrum of energy. Part of any awakening is realizing that there is much more that is possible than impossible.

10. The power to change the world rests with you and you alone: For too long people have believed themselves to be weak, or relied on others to change the world for them. You’ll know that you’re fully awake when you realize that you have infinite power to change the world by simply living the change you want to see. First, you have to identify the principles that you believe in and then go out and live by them. If just a small minority took steps to do this, it would shake the establishment to its core.

XKeyscore: NSA tool collects 'nearly everything a user does on the internet'

It seems that our government has not been very honest with us about their surveillance practices and goals.

The tools they use do just what they say cannot be done.   

• XKeyscore gives 'widest-reaching' collection of online data
• NSA analysts require no prior authorization for searches
• Sweeps up emails, social media activity and browsing history
• NSA's XKeyscore program – read one of the presentations

From: theguardian.com, Wednesday 31 July 2013 08.56 EDT

One presentation claims the XKeyscore program covers 'nearly everything a typical user does on the internet'

A top secret National Security Agency program allows analysts to search with no prior authorization through vast databases containing emails, online chats and the browsing histories of millions of individuals, according to documents provided by whistleblower Edward Snowden.
The NSA boasts in training materials that the program, called XKeyscore, is its "widest-reaching" system for developing intelligence from the internet.
The latest revelations will add to the intense public and congressional debate around the extent of NSA surveillance programs. They come as senior intelligence officials testify to the Senate judiciary committee on Wednesday, releasing classified documents in response to the Guardian's earlier stories on bulk collection of phone records and Fisa surveillance court oversight.
The files shed light on one of Snowden's most controversial statements, made in his first video interview published by the Guardian on June 10.
"I, sitting at my desk," said Snowden, could "wiretap anyone, from you or your accountant, to a federal judge or even the president, if I had a personal email".
US officials vehemently denied this specific claim. Mike Rogers, the Republican chairman of the House intelligence committee, said of Snowden's assertion: "He's lying. It's impossible for him to do what he was saying he could do."
But training materials for XKeyscore detail how analysts can use it and other systems to mine enormous agency databases by filling in a simple on-screen form giving only a broad justification for the search. The request is not reviewed by a court or any NSA personnel before it is processed.
XKeyscore, the documents boast, is the NSA's "widest reaching" system developing intelligence from computer networks – what the agency calls Digital Network Intelligence (DNI). One presentation claims the program covers "nearly everything a typical user does on the internet", including the content of emails, websites visited and searches, as well as their metadata.
Analysts can also use XKeyscore and other NSA systems to obtain ongoing "real-time" interception of an individual's internet activity.
Under US law, the NSA is required to obtain an individualized Fisa warrant only if the target of their surveillance is a 'US person', though no such warrant is required for intercepting the communications of Americans with foreign targets. But XKeyscore provides the technological capability, if not the legal authority, to target even US persons for extensive electronic surveillance without a warrant provided that some identifying information, such as their email or IP address, is known to the analyst.
One training slide illustrates the digital activity constantly being collected by XKeyscore and the analyst's ability to query the databases at any time.

The purpose of XKeyscore is to allow analysts to search the metadata as well as the content of emails and other internet activity, such as browser history, even when there is no known email account (a "selector" in NSA parlance) associated with the individual being targeted.
Analysts can also search by name, telephone number, IP address, keywords, the language in which the internet activity was conducted or the type of browser used.
One document notes that this is because "strong selection [search by email address] itself gives us only a very limited capability" because "a large amount of time spent on the web is performing actions that are anonymous."
The NSA documents assert that by 2008, 300 terrorists had been captured using intelligence from XKeyscore.
Analysts are warned that searching the full database for content will yield too many results to sift through. Instead they are advised to use the metadata also stored in the databases to narrow down what to review.
A slide entitled "plug-ins" in a December 2012 document describes the various fields of information that can be searched. It includes "every email address seen in a session by both username and domain", "every phone number seen in a session (eg address book entries or signature block)" and user activity – "the webmail and chat activity to include username, buddylist, machine specific cookies etc".

Email monitoring

In a second Guardian interview in June, Snowden elaborated on his statement about being able to read any individual's email if he had their email address. He said the claim was based in part on the email search capabilities of XKeyscore, which Snowden says he was authorized to use while working as a Booz Allen contractor for the NSA.
One top-secret document describes how the program "searches within bodies of emails, webpages and documents", including the "To, From, CC, BCC lines" and the 'Contact Us' pages on websites".
To search for emails, an analyst using XKS enters the individual's email address into a simple online search form, along with the "justification" for the search and the time period for which the emails are sought.


The analyst then selects which of those returned emails they want to read by opening them in NSA reading software.
The system is similar to the way in which NSA analysts generally can intercept the communications of anyone they select, including, as one NSA document put it, "communications that transit the United States and communications that terminate in the United States".
One document, a top secret 2010 guide describing the training received by NSA analysts for general surveillance under the Fisa Amendments Act of 2008, explains that analysts can begin surveillance on anyone by clicking a few simple pull-down menus designed to provide both legal and targeting justifications. Once options on the pull-down menus are selected, their target is marked for electronic surveillance and the analyst is able to review the content of their communications:

Chats, browsing history and other internet activity

Beyond emails, the XKeyscore system allows analysts to monitor a virtually unlimited array of other internet activities, including those within social media.
An NSA tool called DNI Presenter, used to read the content of stored emails, also enables an analyst using XKeyscore to read the content of Facebook chats or private messages.

An analyst can monitor such Facebook chats by entering the Facebook user name and a date range into a simple search screen.

Analysts can search for internet browsing activities using a wide range of information, including search terms entered by the user or the websites viewed.

As one slide indicates, the ability to search HTTP activity by keyword permits the analyst access to what the NSA calls "nearly everything a typical user does on the internet".

The XKeyscore program also allows an analyst to learn the IP addresses of every person who visits any website the analyst specifies.

The quantity of communications accessible through programs such as XKeyscore is staggeringly large. One NSA report from 2007 estimated that there were 850bn "call events" collected and stored in the NSA databases, and close to 150bn internet records. Each day, the document says, 1-2bn records were added.
William Binney, a former NSA mathematician, said last year that the agency had "assembled on the order of 20tn transactions about US citizens with other US citizens", an estimate, he said, that "only was involving phone calls and emails". A 2010 Washington Post article reported that "every day, collection systems at the [NSA] intercept and store 1.7bn emails, phone calls and other type of communications."
The XKeyscore system is continuously collecting so much internet data that it can be stored only for short periods of time. Content remains on the system for only three to five days, while metadata is stored for 30 days. One document explains: "At some sites, the amount of data we receive per day (20+ terabytes) can only be stored for as little as 24 hours."
To solve this problem, the NSA has created a multi-tiered system that allows analysts to store "interesting" content in other databases, such as one named Pinwale which can store material for up to five years.
It is the databases of XKeyscore, one document shows, that now contain the greatest amount of communications data collected by the NSA.

In 2012, there were at least 41 billion total records collected and stored in XKeyscore for a single 30-day period.

Legal v technical restrictions
While the Fisa Amendments Act of 2008 requires an individualized warrant for the targeting of US persons, NSA analysts are permitted to intercept the communications of such individuals without a warrant if they are in contact with one of the NSA's foreign targets.
The ACLU's deputy legal director, Jameel Jaffer, told the Guardian last month that national security officials expressly said that a primary purpose of the new law was to enable them to collect large amounts of Americans' communications without individualized warrants.
"The government doesn't need to 'target' Americans in order to collect huge volumes of their communications," said Jaffer. "The government inevitably sweeps up the communications of many Americans" when targeting foreign nationals for surveillance.
An example is provided by one XKeyscore document showing an NSA target in Tehran communicating with people in Frankfurt, Amsterdam and New York.

In recent years, the NSA has attempted to segregate exclusively domestic US communications in separate databases. But even NSA documents acknowledge that such efforts are imperfect, as even purely domestic communications can travel on foreign systems, and NSA tools are sometimes unable to identify the national origins of communications.
Moreover, all communications between Americans and someone on foreign soil are included in the same databases as foreign-to-foreign communications, making them readily searchable without warrants.
Some searches conducted by NSA analysts are periodically reviewed by their supervisors within the NSA. "It's very rare to be questioned on our searches," Snowden told the Guardian in June, "and even when we are, it's usually along the lines of: 'let's bulk up the justification'."
In a letter this week to senator Ron Wyden, director of national intelligence James Clapper acknowledged that NSA analysts have exceeded even legal limits as interpreted by the NSA in domestic surveillance.
Acknowledging what he called "a number of compliance problems", Clapper attributed them to "human error" or "highly sophisticated technology issues" rather than "bad faith".
However, Wyden said on the Senate floor on Tuesday: "These violations are more serious than those stated by the intelligence community, and are troubling."
In a statement to the Guardian, the NSA said: "NSA's activities are focused and specifically deployed against – and only against – legitimate foreign intelligence targets in response to requirements that our leaders need for information necessary to protect our nation and its interests.
"XKeyscore is used as a part of NSA's lawful foreign signals intelligence collection system.
"Allegations of widespread, unchecked analyst access to NSA collection data are simply not true. Access to XKeyscore, as well as all of NSA's analytic tools, is limited to only those personnel who require access for their assigned tasks … In addition, there are multiple technical, manual and supervisory checks and balances within the system to prevent deliberate misuse from occurring."
"Every search by an NSA analyst is fully auditable, to ensure that they are proper and within the law.
"These types of programs allow us to collect the information that enables us to perform our missions successfully – to defend the nation and to protect US and allied troops abroad."

Even Evil Must Lose Once In A While - SCOTUS and SCROTUS

I seem to find myself rolling my eyes and letting out a big sigh of exasperation when I hear of SCOTUS delivering a decision along strictly partisan lines.
Sadly, my eyes have been suffering repetitive stress with  the current United States Supreme Court.

It is repulsive to me that the members of the Court seem to think the public that I am part of is so blind, stupid and uninterested that they can use their truly SACRED office to play politics and advance Corporate Interests over the needs of Real People.
May they all get what they deserve.

They all seem to know the LAW well enough - so when they attempt to use the color of law to promote their personal preference overturning the concept of equality in the process, I am double disgusted.

Sometimes, never without dissent, of course - SCOTUS actually gets something right - or at least right enough to promote Liberty.

So, first let me CONGRATULATE everyone, especially the Gay Community on the decision clearly stating that people who identify as Gay cannot be treated any differently that anyone else.

This is a wonderful Civil Rights victory.  I will not be surprised to find many benefits of civil rights protections suddenly enjoyed by the Gay Community in ways no one ever considered.

I hope there are lots of Happy Weddings and that love and commitment can now be officially socially revered regardless of gender or gender identification.

I hope we all recognize that govt. is playing catch-up with most of our culture and that now the rest will feel free to jump on board with the ideas of Equality, Liberty and Freedom.

While I am really and truly overjoyed by this validation of Gay Rights, I am equally crushed by the insane, idiotic SCROTUS decision to dump sec. 5 of the Voting Rights Act.

The simple fact that this was decided on strict partisan lines is a GIANT RED FLAG that Constitutionality and the Rule of Law were not considerations in the arguments of over half of the "Justices"!

Even if the intent (which surely some (D) Justices would have embraced at least in theory) was to cause Congress to expand the controls and put ALL States under the same scrutiny when it comes to voting rules and practices - and if anyone asked me to also include controls on redistricting that made it truly representative - well - even if that were the case, which it's not - even though the Court suggested that Congress could re-legislate on the issues of sec. 5 - my suggestion was obviously not their intention.

To send anything as serious as Civil Rights in general and Voting Rights in particular to the current Congress for any rational, productive, Liberty promoting action is just about the stupidest thing I think anyone could ever do!

I remember what kind of feet-in-the-streets actions were required to win recognition of Civil Rights in the 1960's and I think that is what it is going to take to get them back now that an asinine and IMO traitorous SCOTUS has thrown out Equality.

Both of these decisions should have been made some 200 years ago, recognizing and practicing true equality.

How shameful it is that today so many, and so many in power - are so ignorant of it.

Jesus called it "the Law and the Prophets" meaning The Whole of The Law. 
His brother James called it The Royal Law.
Universally we know this as The Golden Rule.

Is anyone really ignorant of this?
Is anyone ignorant of this being the foundation for the Bill of Rights of the United States of America?

Just as Jesus and James claimed it was ALL of what comprised their religion and it is obviously the foundation of ALL Liberty, Freedom and Equality promised by the United States Constitution the Justices would suggest interpretations of this ONE LAW - that overshadows and governs all other law - so completely different and at odds with it!

How can the "Justices" err so horrendously and stupidly, when they know the ONE very simple rule that governs all LAW in the United States?

Well...I'd say they just did it on purpose.

They gave Gays official recognition of their pre-existing Constitutional Protections (Equality) because somehow they felt it benifitted them personally, not because they were championing equality - though - I admit they did a really good job of describing it.  (probably some of them will regret that later)

And why they took a total racist/supremacist/fascist posture on Voting Rights is just the same. 

They felt they personally had something to gain by crapping on the Bill of Rights.

And "the people"? 

SCOTUS couldn't care less.

And they obviously feel that there is nothing that any of "the people" can do about it.

Much like a lot of other politicians and corporations that quickly jump to mind.

What About Those Voting Rights?

Tue Jun 25, 2013 at 11:59 AM PDT

Why voting rights are under assault

by kosFollow

The Supreme Court's worst nightmare.

We've had plenty of coverage on today's Supreme Court decision gutting the Voting Rights Act, here, here, here and here. Conservatives all around the country now have the green light to push every effort to disenfranchise voters—from curtailing voting hours, to imposing draconian identification requirements, to the dilution of the voting power of communities of color via even more egregious gerrymandering.
Remember, conservatives are on the outs with the changing face of America. Mitt Romney won the white vote by 20 points, 59-39, those white voters were 72 percent of all voters, and Republicans still lost the election. Last year, more white people died than were born, for the first time perhaps ever. And of the 2.4 million new Americans last year, just seven percent were white—and all of those were immigrants (hence, our whites, not theirs).
Republicans gave that whole "rebranding" thing a shot, but have essentially abandoned it just months later. When you've built a party around the politics of racial resentment, you don't turn that shit off overnight, if ever.
So what's left? Keep those brown, black, young, and Asian people from voting. Make it impossible for college students to cast ballots on campus. Limit the number of voting machines in urban precincts so Democratic base groups have to wait hours in line to vote (many will abandon their effort), while ensuring there are plenty of machines available in suburban Republican precincts. Keep felons off the voting rolls, even after they've paid their debt to society. Create voter ID laws so restrictive, that even drivers licenses aren't good enough to vote.
In 2012, voter disenfranchisement efforts backfired on the GOP, as African Americans voted in record numbers—outpacing white turnout rates. But Republicans don't have any other answers, so the partisan Supreme Court gave them a hefty assist. None of the five judges on the majority want a Democratic president naming their replacement. This is it, their final play for any semblance of long-term viability. If this fails, they, as a party, have failed.
Things are going to be ugly over the next few years, as the GOP's war on voting gets amped to whole new levels. We on the left must remain vigilant, educate our voters about these efforts, make sure those disenfranchisement efforts continue to backfire.
And remember, this decision was possible because the United States Constitution does not guarantee the right to vote. Please sign the petition to join Daily Kos, Color of Change, and a growing movement to pass a constitutional amendment guaranteeing and protecting the freedom to vote for all. I just signed that petition, and I fully expect to spend the next several years working to make this a reality.

I signed this petition also.  Maybe you want to do it too. - Doc

United States Govt. Spies On Peaceful Assemblies

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

---

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated,...

The United States Government has violated these Constitutional Protections for decades.  It needs to stop.

"The Patriot Act gives the Feds the power to break into private homes, snoop around, steal or plant items, and them leave the property without ever notifying the owner that a search took place. They call these "Sneak and Peek" searches, and the vast majority are for non-violent crime. Less than 1% was terror-related."

http://www.aclu.org/national-security/surveillance-under-patriot-act

Published on Monday, June 24, 2013 by Common Dreams

Anti-War Activists Targeted as 'Domestic Terrorists'

Shocking new revelations come as activists prepare to sue the U.S. military for unlawful spying

- Sarah Lazare, staff writer

Port Militarization Resistance (Photo: Brendan Maslauskas Dunn)

Anti-war activists who were infiltrated and spied on by the military for years have now been placed on the domestic terrorist list, they announced Monday. The shocking revelation comes as the activists prepare to sue the U.S. military for unlawful spying.
"The fact that a peaceful activist such as myself is on this domestic terrorist list should be cause for concern for other people in the US," declared Brendan Maslauskas Dunn, plaintiff in the lawsuit. "We've seen an increase in the buildup of a mass surveillance state under the Obama and Bush Administrations."
The discovery is the latest development in a stunning saga that exposes vast post-9/11 spying networks in which military, police, and federal agencies appear to be in cahoots.
Documents declassified in 2009 reveal that military informant John Towery, going by the name 'John Jacob,' spent over two years infiltrating and spying on Olympia, Washington anti-war and social justice groups, including Port Militarization Resistance, Students for a Democratic Society, the Industrial Workers of the World, and Iraq Veterans Against the War.
Towery admitted to the spying and revealed that he shared information with not only the military, but also the police and federal agencies. He claimed that he was not the only spy.
The activists, who blast the snooping as a violation of their First and Fourth Amendment rights, levied a lawsuit against the military in 2009.
"The spying resulted in plaintiffs and others being targeted for repeated harassment, preemptive and false arrest, excessive use of force, and malicious prosecution," reads a statement by the plaintiffs.
The Obama Administration attempted to throw out the litigation, but in December 2012 the 9th Circuit Court ruled that the case could continue.
When the plaintiffs were preparing their deposition for the courts two weeks ago, they were shocked to discover that several Olympia anti-war activists were listed on the domestic terrorist list, including at least two plaintiffs in the case.
The revelations prompted them to amend their lawsuit to include charges that the nonviolent activists were unlawfully targeted as domestic terrorists.
"The breadth and intensity of the spying by U.S. Army officials and other law enforcement agents is staggering," said Larry Hildes, National Lawyers Guild attorney who filed the lawsuit in 2009. "If nonviolent protest is now labeled and treated as terrorism, then democracy and the First Amendment are in critical danger."
Plaintiffs say this case takes on a new revelevance as vast NSA dragnet spying sparks widespread outrage.
"I think that there is a huge potential for the case to set precedent," declared plaintiff Julianne Panagacos. "This could have a big impact on how the U.S. military and police are able to work together."
She added, "I am hopeful we will win."

Trillion Dollar Corporate Tax Avoidance Robs Every Family On Earth

I got this email from Avazz today and thought it was very worth sharing.  I hope you all do also.

There is a link (all links go to the same petition) to sign the petition to encourage our government to do the right thing for a change.

The additional revenue lost from multinational corporate tax avoidance is calculated to be worth $1,000 per month to every family on earth!

What would that do to your family budget?

From Alex Wilks - Avaaz.org (avaaz@avaaz.org)

Dear friends,

In days, world leaders will decide whether to plug a gigantic $1 trillion per year corporate tax loophole - and get enough money to end poverty, put every child in school and double green investment! A deal is close, but US President Obama and Canadian PM Harper are being lobbied and on the fence - let's press them to stand up to corruption and end the massive yearly heist:

In days, governments will discuss whether to plug a gigantic $1 trillion per year corporate tax loophole - enough money to end poverty, put every child in school, and double green investment! Most governments want powerful multinationals to pay these taxes, but the US and Canada are on the fence. To get a deal, we need them to feel the pressure.

$1 trillion is more than every country combined spends on their military. It's bigger than the budgets of 176 nations. It's $1000 each for every family on the planet. And believe it or not, it's the amount that our largest corporations and wealthiest individuals evade each year in taxes.

This should be a no-brainer. To massively boost our public finances in a time of painful cuts and debt, all we need to do is ensure that everyone pays the taxes they're supposed to. But big US corporations are fiercely lobbying to protect their dodgy practices. A massive public campaign will help identify and hold accountable the two leaders - President Obama and Prime Minister Harper, who are considering siding with corruption over this gigantic step forward for the planet. Let's get to one million voices and then Avaaz will deliver our call to leaders and the media in the middle of the negotiations:

http://www.avaaz.org/en/g8_tax_havens_r/?bzjNZcb&v=25627

Apple, one of the world's wealthiest companies, paid basically $0 in tax on $78 billion they made in recent years by setting up shell corporations in low-tax countries and posting profits abroad. This kind of global tax evasion gives multinational firms a huge advantage over smaller domestic companies. It's as bad for a healthy market economy as it is for democracy and economic stability.

But in days, governments will consider a plan that would make it harder for companies and individuals to evade taxes by hiding their money offshore and in tax shelters. The plan would require countries to share information to expose where the money is hidden and require "fake" companies to reveal who's really behind them. If talks go well this week, the G8 could agree to the whole thing later this month.

In hard times, when governments everywhere are cutting spending on vital social priorities, it's particularly galling that the wealthiest get a free pass from paying their fair share. (Even more so when the hard times were caused by massive government handouts to bailout banks owned by the same people). Governments are finally getting serious about plugging these holes in our finances, but the US and Canada are falling sway to powerful business lobbies.

A large public petition that's well covered by the media will help highlight which countries are blocking the agreement, and make this a political issue for Obama and Harper to deal with. A powerful call from the world's people to choose to give a massive boost to our planet instead of preserving corrupt loopholes will also help these leaders to find their consciences and good sense. We can't let the lobbyists win this one in the shadows, let's bring the spotlight of public attention to this massive decision for our planet:

http://www.avaaz.org/en/g8_tax_havens_r/?bzjNZcb&v=25627

Um....Civil Rights? I Don't Think So!

Published on Thursday, June 6, 2013 by Common Dreams

'Beyond Orwellian': Outrage Follows Revelations of Vast Domestic Spying Program

FISA court order 'broadest surveillance order ever issued' against private citizens

- Jon Queally, staff writer

Outrage and rebuke are flying after explosive news broke late Wednesday that the National Security Agency, claiming authority under the Patriot Act and using a secret court order, has demanded (and been receiving) millions of phone records from Verizon which include all the company's "telephony metadata" for all its US-based customers over a three month period.
The "metadata" being provided to the NSA does not provide individual names for each record, but is a blanket order that allows the government spy agency access to all call information for any Verizon Business Network Services customer, including the phone dialed from and to, the location from which the call was made, and the duration of the call.
Civil rights groups, privacy advocates, and others expressed shock at the extent of the order signed by the government's secretive Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) Court, a copy of which was obtained by the Guardian newspaper.
Breaking the story, Guardian columnist Glenn Greenwald said the document shows "for the first time that under the Obama administration the communication records of millions of US citizens are being collected indiscriminately and in bulk – regardless of whether they are suspected of any wrongdoing."
"It is beyond Orwellian, and it provides further evidence of the extent to which basic democratic rights are being surrendered in secret to the demands of unaccountable intelligence agencies." - ACLU
Though the Guardian report contains only one order from the FISA Court covering a set period, most experts agree that the program has likely been going on for years without disclosure.
Articulating the revelations in plain language, the Electronic Frontier Foundation's Cindy Cohn and Mark Rofuld explain that the "order gave the NSA a record of every Verizon customer’s call history -- every call made, the location of the phone, the time of the call, the duration of the call, and other 'identifying information' for the phone and call—from April 25, 2013 (the date the order was issued) to July 19, 2013.  The order does not require content or the name of any subscriber and is issued under 50 USC sec.1861, also known as section 215 of the Patriot Act."
More worrisome, write the EFF staffers is that no indications exist "that this order to Verizon was unique or novel."
"It is very likely that business records orders like this exist for every major American telecommunication company," they continued. "If you make calls in the United States, the NSA has those records. And this has been going on for at least 7 years, and probably longer."
The reaction was harsh and swift, with the ACLU and others calling for an immediate halt to the program and a large scale investigation.
What follows is a sampling of the responses from those deeply troubled—if not wholly surprised—by the program.
ACLU Calls for End to Program, Disclosure of Program’s Scope, Congressional Investigation:

"From a civil liberties perspective, the program could hardly be any more alarming. It’s a program in which some untold number of innocent people have been put under the constant surveillance of government agents," said Jameel Jaffer, American Civil Liberties Union deputy legal director. "It is beyond Orwellian, and it provides further evidence of the extent to which basic democratic rights are being surrendered in secret to the demands of unaccountable intelligence agencies."
"Since 9/11, the government has increasingly classified and concealed not just facts, but the law itself. Such extreme secrecy is inconsistent with our democratic values of open government and accountability."
The program was put in place under the Patriot Act’s Section 215, a controversial provision that authorizes the government to seek secret court orders for the production of "any tangible thing" relevant to a foreign-intelligence or terrorism investigation. Recipients of Section 215 orders, such as telecommunications companies, are prohibited from disclosing that they gave the government their customers’ records.
"Now that this unconstitutional surveillance effort has been revealed, the government should end it and disclose its full scope, and Congress should initiate a full investigation," said Michelle Richardson, legislative counsel with the ACLU Washington Legislative Office. "This disclosure also highlights the growing gap between the public’s and the government’s understandings of the many sweeping surveillance authorities enacted by Congress. Since 9/11, the government has increasingly classified and concealed not just facts, but the law itself. Such extreme secrecy is inconsistent with our democratic values of open government and accountability."

Center for Constitutional Rights calls it "broadest surveillance order ever issued":

As far as we know this order from the FISA court is the broadest surveillance order to ever have been issued: it requires no level of suspicion and applies to all Verizon subscribers anywhere in the U.S. It also contains a gag order prohibiting Verizon from disclosing information about the order to anyone other than their counsel.
"The broadest surveillance order to ever have been issued: it requires no level of suspicion and applies to all Verizon subscribers anywhere in the U.S."
The Patriot Act’s incredibly broad surveillance provision purportedly authorizes an order of this sort, though its constitutionality is in question and several senators have complained about it. The Patriot Act provision requires the FBI to notify Congress about the number of such warrants, but this single order covering millions of people is a deceptive end-run around that disclosure requirement.

Electronic Frontier Foundation says NSA should "stop hiding behind legal privileges":

This type of untargeted, wholly domestic surveillance is exactly what EFF, and others have been suing about for years. In 2006, USA Today published a story disclosing that the NSA had compiled a massive database of call records from American telecommunications companies. Our case, Jewel v. NSA, challenging the legality of the NSA’s domestic spying program, has been pending since 2008, but it's predecessor, Hepting v. AT&T filed in 2006, alleged the same surveillance. In 2011, on the 10th Anniversary of the Patriot Act, we filed a FOIA lawsuit against the Department of Justice for records about the government’s use of Section 215 – the legal authority the government was relying on to perform this type of untargeted surveillance. [...]
"It’s time to end the NSA’s unconstitutional domestic surveillance program."
The American people have confirmed how the government has secretly interpreted Section 215. And we’re angry. It’s time to stop hiding behind legal privileges and to come clean about Section 215 and FISA. It’s time to start the national dialogue about our rights in the digital age. And it’s time to end the NSA’s unconstitutional domestic surveillance program.

Senator Mark Udall (D-CO), a member of the Senate Intelligence committee who has publicly, though "vaguely," warned about such a program responded to the news by telling CNET:

"While I cannot corroborate the details of this particular report, this sort of widescale surveillance should concern all of us and is the kind of government overreach I've said Americans would find shocking. As a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, it's why I will keep fighting for transparency and appropriate checks on the surveillance of Americans."

Former US Vice President Al Gore tweeted:
Guardian columnist James Ball details what "metadata" is and what authorities can learn about you from accessing such data through phone records:

The primary purpose of large-scale databases such as the NSA's call records is generally said to be data-mining: rather than examining individuals, algorithms are used to find patterns of unusual activity that may mark terrorism or criminal conspiracies.
However, collection and storage of this information gives government a power it's previously lacked: easy and retroactive surveillance.
If authorities become interested in an individual at a later stage, and obtain their number, officials can look back through the data and gather their movements, social network, and more – possibly for several years (although the secret court order only allows for three months of data collection).
In essence, you're being watched; the government just doesn't know your name while it's doing it.
Until now, such actions have been kept a tightly guarded and classified secret, speculated upon, suspected, and occasionally disclosed by sources, but never proven by documents.
Now the confirmation is in the open, the American public have the opportunity to decide which definition of private information they prefer: that of the privacy advocates, or that of the NSA and White House.

And Twitter:

_________________________________________

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License

Feed the Hungry?

Another timely article from Common Dreams.

The inhumane attitudes toward the poor and needy in our nation, especially in government are disgusting and un-American.

Go to http://www.usa.gov/Contact/Elected.shtml to identify and email all your Federal (and State) Representatives.

Published on Friday, May 31, 2013 by Common Dreams

Congress' Farm Bill Readies to Kick Poor Off Food Assistance

Despite billions in subsidies to giant agricultural operations, some of nation's neediest about to lose

- Jon Queally, staff writer

 
People wait in line at a grocery store in New Orleans. With long-term unemployment still high, and with overall unemployment expected to drop only slowly for several more years, cutting the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program is likely to do significant harm to millions of families and workers. (SOURCE: AP/Eric Gay)If the House GOP gets its way, the new Farm Bill passing through Congress will prove the perfect opportunity to make some of the nation's most poor and vulnerable even less secure.
At stake, funding for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (called SNAP), which provides access to staple foods for millions of families living beneath or skirting the poverty line.
"For millions of Americans, that monthly food allowance is an unsavory reminder of the consequences of social disinvestment: no matter how hard you work, at the end of the day, you’ll still be hungry."
–Michelle Chen, In These Times
And as Paul Krugman describes in his Friday column, readers who understand what is happening in the bill should not just be shocked or cynical about the Republican's latest attempt to "shrink" then "effectively kill" a key social program, they "should be very, very angry."
Krugman writes:

The shrinking part comes from the latest farm bill released by the House Agriculture Committee (for historical reasons, the food stamp program is administered by the Agriculture Department). That bill would push about two million people off the program. You should bear in mind, by the way, that one effect of the sequester has been to pose a serious threat to a different but related program that provides nutritional aid to millions of pregnant mothers, infants, and children. Ensuring that the next generation grows up nutritionally deprived — now that’s what I call forward thinking.
And why must food stamps be cut? We can’t afford it, say politicians like Representative Stephen Fincher, a Republican of Tennessee, who backed his position with biblical quotations — and who also, it turns out, has personally received millions in farm subsidies over the years.
These cuts are, however, just the beginning of the assault on food stamps. Remember, Representative Paul Ryan’s budget is still the official G.O.P. position on fiscal policy, and that budget calls for converting food stamps into a block grant program with sharply reduced spending. If this proposal had been in effect when the Great Recession struck, the food stamp program could not have expanded the way it did, which would have meant vastly more hardship, including a lot of outright hunger, for millions of Americans, and for children in particular.

Also addressing the assault on SNAP in a recent column, Michelle Chen lashed out at the GOP, saying conservative lawmakers are going a step further from their well-known “starve the beast” strategy "by trying to starve actual people."
And what's worse, explains Chen, is that the GOP rationale is a refusal of the realities that have caused the recent increase in food stamp assistance. She writes:

Ever since 2009, conservatives have been railing against the rapid expansion of the SNAP program as if it was a policy choice by Obama. (Recall Newt Gingrich’s endless invocations of the “food stamp president” during the 2012 GOP primary.)
But food stamp usage increased as a natural function of the steep recession, which created a lot more people who were eligible for the program. (In fact, Republican counties are responsible for most of the food stamp growth.) Republican demands to enact deep SNAP cuts, while crudely punitive to the millions of low-income Americans who depend on food stamps, are also unnecessary.

As economists repeatedly point out, food assistance programs like SNAP actually have a stimulative effect on the economy. As Krugman explains, "estimates from the consulting firm Moody’s Analytics suggest that each dollar spent on food stamps in a depressed economy raises G.D.P. by about $1.70 — which means, by the way, that much of the money laid out to help families in need actually comes right back to the government in the form of higher revenue."
And it gets worse. As The Nation's George Zornick recently reported:

[Cutting poverty assistance is] absurdly out of sync with economic realities of the working poor. (They’re also heaped on top of a current cut to food stamps due to the expiration of a temporary boost from the federal stimulus package.) Food Research and Action Center (FRAC) estimatesthat over one-sixth of the population faces hardship in securing an adequate food supply--with appalling rates of food insecurity among black and Latino households. And among those who can afford to keep their pantries stocked, many are still too poor to afford healthy, fresh food. Food stamps just dent that gap in food security, with monthly payments averaging a luxurious $280 per household.
For all the eagerness in Congress to shrink food stamps, the program’s problem is not that it helps too many, but that it reaches too few, as Monica Potts has reported. About one in four people who qualify for some reason do not receive benefits, according to federal estimates, perhaps due to stigma or bureaucratic barriers in the application process. Many immigrant families are also excluded due to their legal status.

And Chen's argues that the debate around SNAP provides a perfect symbol of the overall debate surrounding the nation's economy and ongoing budget negotiations.
"That millions of people can’t afford to eat is not a cause for alarm for politicians so much as a burdensome line item," writes Chen. And continues:

Erasing public benefits make it easier to make the poor invisible in the public mind. After all, food stamps symbolize not only the failure of “free markets” but the power of social policy to reduce endemic human suffering. For millions of Americans, that monthly food allowance is an unsavory reminder of the consequences of social disinvestment: no matter how hard you work, at the end of the day, you’ll still be hungry.

And for those lucky enough not yet starved of their political will, as Krugman urges, perhaps it's time to get "very, very angry" about the nature and substance of this lousy debate.

____________________________________________

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License