Year: 2013

Jeebus, Now I Have to Defend Dick Cheney

No Comments

Joan Walsh is now accusing Dick Cheney of being an even bigger monster because he’s not trying to look into the background of his heart donor:

Still, I was a little startled to hear the former vice president express total indifference to questions about his heart donor in a revealing interview on Politicking with Larry King (it airs Thursday night; here’s a clip). It’s a window into his utter entitlement and self-absorption, and he comes off as an even bigger monster than I’d thought. Most people would at least feign interest in the donor; Cheney can’t manage it.

When King asks if he knows the identity of the person whose heart keeps him alive, Cheney, who is promoting a book about his transplant experience, says no, and adds, “it hadn’t been a priority for me.” ………

Seriously, why should Dick Cheney feel compelled to find out about his donor?

The idea that Cheney should somehow engage in some sort of narcissistic quest for information about his donor, with the likely effect of causing pain from his surviving loved ones?

If my heart ended up in Richard Bruce Cheney, I wouldn’t want anyone to know.

These Rat-F%$#s Keep Failing Up

No Comments

Now that education privatization advocate (and general failure) Paul Vallas appears to be on the way out in Bridgeport (background here), it looks like he will land on his feet.

It appears that Illinois Governor Pat Quinn will have Vallas on the ticket as his Lieutenant Governor:

The nation’s largest union panned the Friday afternoon announcement that Illinois’ Democratic governor is tapping an education reform lightning rod to join his reelection ticket.

“We are less than thrilled by the selection of Mr. Vallas,” Illinois Education Association president Cinda Klickna told Salon in a Friday email. “As head of the Chicago Public School System, he was known as a top-down administrator who routinely chose confrontation with the Chicago Teachers Union over collaboration.” Klickna’s comments came in response to an inquiry to the IEA’s parent union, the National Education Association. American Federation of Teachers president Randi Weingarten, who leads the country’s other top teachers’ union, sent Salon a three-word comment on Vallas’ selection: “We were surprised.”

As I’ve reported, Vallas is currently serving as superintendent of Bridgeport, Conn., schools, following past stints helming school districts in Philadelphia, New Orleans and Chicago – each marked by conflict with critics of the bipartisan education reform consensus. The Philadelphia Inquirer reported in 2006 that Vallas was “blasted” by the majority of the School Reform Commission, the agency overseeing city schools, for “his handling of a deficit that will force midyear cuts in the school system.” In New Orleans, PBS noted in 2010, “charters have exploded” from 2 percent to a majority of city schools. In Tuesday school board elections framed by activists as a referendum on the education agenda of Vallas and Bridgeport Mayor Bill Finch, a dissident faction grew to a bare majority of the board’s nine seats, putting Vallas’ future there in jeopardy.

People of Illinois, missing Rod Blagojevich yet?

Your Police State in Action

No Comments

Yes, the FBI is trying to suppress the activities of a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) wielding activist because he might actually learn what is going on:

Ryan Shapiro has just wrapped up a talk at Boston’s Suffolk University Law School, and as usual he’s surrounded by a gaggle of admirers. The crowd­, consisting of law students, academics, and activist types, is here for a panel discussion on the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act, a 2006 law targeting activists whose protest actions lead to a “loss of profits” for industry. Shapiro, a 37-year-old Ph.D. student at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, contributed a slideshow of newspaper headlines, posters, and government documents from as far back as the 1800s depicting animal advocates as a threat to national security. Now audience members want to know more about his dissertation and the archives he’s using. But many have a personal request: Would Shapiro help them discover what’s in their FBI files?

 He is happy to oblige. According to the Justice Department, this tattooed activist-turned-academic is the FBI’s “most prolific” Freedom of Information Act requester—filing, during one period in 2011, upward of two documents requests a day. In the course of his doctoral work, which examines how the FBI monitors and investigates protesters, Shapiro has developed a novel, legal, and highly effective approach to mining the agency’s records. Which is why the government is petitioning the United States District Court in Washington, DC, to prevent the release of 350,000 pages of documents he’s after.

 Invoking a legal strategy that had its heyday during the Bush administration, the FBI claims that Shapiro’s multitudinous requests, taken together, constitute a “mosaic” of information whose release could “significantly and irreparably damage national security” and would have “significant deleterious effects” on the bureau’s “ongoing efforts to investigate and combat domestic terrorism.”

 ………

 When he started using privacy waivers, Shapiro realized he was on to something. Suppose you and I volunteered for the animal rights group PETA. If Shapiro requested all PETA-related FBI documents, he might get something back, but any references to us would be blacked out. If he requested documents related to us, he’d probably get nothing at all. But if he filed his PETA request along with privacy waivers signed by us, the FBI would be compelled to return all PETA documents that mention us—with the relevant details uncensored.

 ……….

 Armed with signed privacy waivers, he sent out a few experimental requests—he calls them “submarine pings”—and when the FBI returned more than 100 pages on a close friend, he knew he’d struck gold. The response included pages of information that Shapiro had requested previously, but that the FBI had claimed didn’t exist. Using case details from those documents and a handful of additional waivers, he filed a new set of requests.

The FBI wants a Seven Year Stay on his requests.

Remember also, we are not talking about al Quaeda, we are talking about animal rights activists, folks who have not only killed fewer fewer people than Osama’s bully boys, but they have also killed fewer people than the militia movement and the anti-abortion movement.

I’d really like to see him at the helm of a well funded non-profit to continue his work once that he is done with dissertation.

We desperately need to enshrine the Swedish concept of Offentlighetsprincipen (openness) in our constitution.

Here is a video of one of his talks.

What he shows, it appears that there are no real security issues, but any close examination of their techniques and focus is pathetic and embarrassing.

This is the most common Real reason for the state security apparatus for invoking secrecy.  It’s not about protecting us, it is about covering their own asses.

Good Point ………

No Comments

Say what you will about the batsh%$ insane wing of the Republican Party, but unlike liberals who seem to invest all their hopes in the Presidential primary they managed to take control of the party:

But the huge reaction to Scheiber’s piece just reminds me that ever since Sen. Ted Kennedy’s 1980 primary challenge to Jimmy Carter – maybe since Gene McCarthy’s insurgency, followed by Bobby Kennedy’s, convinced Lyndon Johnson not to seek re-election in 1968 – progressives have been over-invested in finding a primary campaign vehicle for their hopes and dreams. And until Barack Obama came along, that hadn’t worked out very well.

Even Obama’s emergence is a cautionary tale for Warren backers, because I’d argue that investing the freshman Illinois senator with magic progressive properties was a bad bet. He was never more progressive, ironically, than Hillary Clinton, except maybe on Iraq – and his national security policies can’t make any of his anti-war, pro-civil-liberties backers comfortable that they did the right thing.

Joan Walsh, the author, misses the point here: Obama was never in the remotest sense a progressive.

He lied in 2008, which is yet another reason why liberals play a suckers game by investing too much effort in the primaries.

If you take down an sitting President of your own party, the electoral consequences down ticket are huge.

If you pick off Representatives, and state reps, and board of ed members, and everything including dog catcher, in the primaries, as the (thoroughly repulsive) Club for Growth did, you get results, and these people become front runners when a Senator’s seat opens up, and eventually the bench from where candidates are selected becomes more in line with your ideology.

BTW, while we are at this, don’t give to the DCCC. As Down With Tyranny has repeatedly documented, the Democratic Party in general, and DCCC chair Steve Israel in particular, are determined to reconstruct the Blue Dog caucus, even if it results in fewer seats for the Dems.

Elizabeth Warren’s Is Now Being Touted as the Anti-Hillary in 2016

No Comments

Basically it comes down to the fact that the Clintons policy on the FIRE sector (Finance, Insurance, & Real Estate) has always been driven by Bob Rubin and his proteges, so now Elizabeth Warren’s drive to limit the reach of big finance is being viewed in the context of the 2016 Presidential race:

You can frame this conventionally: supporting regulators, punishing rules violators, mopping up 2008-style disasters to limit the damage and attempting to prevent such chaos from happening again. But by “tougher rules,” maybe Americans are really signaling a vague but persistent dissatisfaction with an economy that has become dominated by the financial sector. And you can see within that how transforming banking back to its traditional purpose — as a conduit for putting capital in the hands of worthwhile business ventures and driving shared prosperity — would be one antidote to an unequal society full of financial titan gatekeepers, who confiscate a giant share of the money flowing through the system.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren — in many ways the avatar of a new populist insurgency within the Democratic Party that seeks to combine financial reform and economic restoration — will speak later today in Washington at the launch of a new report that marks a key new phase in this movement. Released by Americans for Financial Reform and the Roosevelt Institute – and called “An Unfinished Mission: Making Wall Street Work for Us” — the report is a revelation, because it finally invites fundamental discussions about these issues. Its 11 chapters from some of the leading thinkers on financial reform do look back at the successes and failures of the signal financial reform law of this generation, the Dodd-Frank Act. But the report also weaves in a story about how we can reorient finance as a complement to the real economy, rather than its overriding force. Mike Konczal, a fellow at the Roosevelt Institute and the co-editor of the report, tells Salon, “The financial sector is still eating up a lot of GDP [gross domestic product], and it’s not clear what we’re getting out of it. We want to get the conversation at that level.”

While Dave Dayen (above) is rather circumspect about the potential impact  on the Presidential Campaign, Noam Scheiber is not in his analysis in TNR, “Hillary’s Nightmare? A Democratic Party That Realizes Its Soul Lies With Elizabeth Warren.”

I get the sense that Warren is about as interested in running for president as I am interested in the sport of curling, but I do think that she wants to make sure that the next Democratic nominee will be free of the thrall of the Rubenites.

You Must Read This

No Comments

Digby explains how allowing torturers and over-aggressive prosecutors and cops to walk away from their crimes corrupts our entire society:

I think the rationale for this is the same one they use for failing to punish the CIA torturers — if we prosecute them they will be unwilling to take chances in the future and then criminals/terrorists will kill us all in our beds. This has always struck me as a fairly insulting indictment of public servants who take oaths to our constitution. It implies that unless they are given immunity in advance from any accountability they will refuse to do their job to protect and serve. And frankly, I don’t think that’s fair to them. Indeed, what’s happened is the opposite: there’s no advantage to being a straight arrow and following the rules so the incentives go the other way.

This is a sickness throughout our culture. Government authorities at all levels, from the cops who overuse the taser because they know there will be no ramifications if their torture leaves no mark to the top Justice Department torture advocates who are now feted as “experts” and heroes, there is little accountability. And it tars all the ones who do follow the rules of the constitution and just plain human decency with the same taint.

Read the whole thing.

Why Does Richard Cohen, and His Editor, Still Have a F%$#ing Job?

No Comments

As if Richard Cohen had not jumped the shark before, he is now claiming that people are nauseated by the sight of an interracial couple: (No link to the original article, ever)

Today’s GOP is not racist, as Harry Belafonte alleged about the tea party, but it is deeply troubled — about the expansion of government, about immigration, about secularism, about the mainstreaming of what used to be the avant-garde. People with conventional views must repress a gag reflex when considering the mayor-elect of New York — a white man married to a black woman and with two biracial children. (Should I mention that Bill de Blasio’s wife, Chirlane McCray, used to be a lesbian?) This family represents the cultural changes that have enveloped parts — but not all — of America. To cultural conservatives, this doesn’t look like their country at all.

And Fred Hiatt, his editor?  The guy who let this through?  The guy who apparrently thinks that racism is OK at the Post?  His response is, “Oops!”

Editorial page editor Fred Hiatt took the blame for outrage, telling TheWrap: “Anyone reading Richard’s entire column will see he is just saying that some Americans still have a hard time dealing with interracial marriage. I erred in not editing that one sentence more carefully to make sure it could not be misinterpreted.”

Dude, this guy is the Racist Uncle who you have to tiptoe around every holiday season!

If you want him at the table, you need to figure out how to keeping him from sh%$#ing in the f%$#ing punch bowl?

And by the way, Richard Cohen has a sad about being called a racist bigot:

“The word racist is truly hurtful,” he added. “It’s not who I am. It’s not who I ever was. It’s just not fair. It’s just not right.”

Dude, you said that it was OK for merchants to lock blacks out of their stores. You said that Trayvon Martin to be shot for wearing a hoodie!

You are a f%$#ing bigot, even if your publisher, Katherine Weymouth, calls your column genius.

Jeff Bezos, I have three people you could fire and improve the paper.

Ezra Klein, who also works for the Post, and always gives me the sense that he is walking on egg shells, felt compelled to call Cohen’s bigotry out, noting that 87% of the population approves of interracial marriage.

BTW, a quick examination of how this exploded across the Twitterverse is rather amusing and informative.

This one is my favorite:

Imagine how much Jeff Bezos would have had to pay for the Washington Post if Richard Cohen didn’t work there.
— Matt O’Brien (@ObsoleteDogma) November 12, 2013

Well, they Did Get Capone for Tax Evasion

No Comments

So I am amused that AT&T might be liable for violation of telemarketing rules over its data sharing with the CIA:

It’s like getting Al Capone for tax evasion. The CIA and AT&T figured out how to get around legal restrictions on giving the CIA access to domestic phone call information, but in doing so they violated a Federal Communications Commission (FCC) rule that protects you against telemarketing.

According to this story in the New York Times, the CIA paid AT&T to provide them with information on calls passing through its international telephone system. Because federal law prevents the CIA from spying inside the United States, the CIA could not legally get info on calls terminating in the U.S. But, of course, calls from suspected foreign terrorists (aka “anyone outside the United States”) that terminate in the United States are the most interesting to the CIA.

So what’cha gonna do if you’re a poor spy agency or a patriotic mega-corp who understand that sometimes you have to break few privacy eggs to make a freedom omelet? According to the article, when a call originated or terminated in the United States, AT&T would “mask” the person’s identity by revealing only some of the digits of their phone number. The CIA could then refer this information to the FBI, which can get a court order and require AT&T to provide the rest of the phone number and all other relevant identifying information. Then the FBI can kick that information back to the CIA.

Unfortunately for the CIA and AT&T, while this might work to get around the limits Congress imposed on the CIA, it looks like it violates the law requiring phone companies like AT&T to protect your privacy. Section 222 of the Communications Act, also known as the rule on “customer proprietary network information” (CPNI), prohibits AT&T from selling anyone information on who you call or who calls you without your consent. Nor does this contract with the CIA fit into any of the law’s exemptions for information sharing. This is a private contract, just the same as if AT&T had contracted with Blue Cross to let them know if anyone Blue Cross insured sent out too many times for pizza and other unhealthy food.

The fact that AT&T did not fully disclose the full phone number or the name of the subscriber associated with the call does not make it any less of a violation. Under the law, AT&T violates the CPNI rules just by looking at any records associated with the phone number for any purpose other than actually providing service, billing, 9-1-1, or other exemptions found in the statute. The phone company doesn’t even have to disclose the information to anyone else (which, of course, it did, and which, of course, is also illegal) to violate the law.

If you have AT&T, you might want to call them and opt out of this program, which is your right under federal regulations.

Better yet, get a lawyer, and get a class action on.

Why any Healthcare Reform Should Start With the Goal of F%$#ing the Insurance Companies

No Comments
I’m shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on here!

Who could have imagined that Anthem Blue Cross and Wellpoint would used Obamacare as a mechanism to cheat their customers:

Anthem Blue Cross tricked tens of thousands of Calfornia policyholders into giving up health insurance plans from which they could not be dropped and pushing them into policies that Anthem knew would be cancelled, according to two lawsuits filed in Los Angeles.

 The lawsuits, filed Monday in Superior Court, may signal an emerging customer pushback against the approximately 900,000 cancellations in California alone of individual health insurance policies that will take effect Dec. 31.

 Before the Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare, was passed March 23, 2010, California policyholders who bought individual insurance policies and kept up with premiums were grandfathered in, meaning the insurer cannot drop them. However, policy holders who purchased their insurance after March 23, 2010, or who switched out of plans purchased before the law was enacted, are not grandfathered and must, by Jan. 1, 2014, pay for a policy that is compliant with Obamacare. In some cases that means premium increases, especially for those who don’t qualify for federal subsidies. Others will lose access to their personal physicians or trusted specialists.

 The two lawsuits allege that Anthem Blue Cross, California’s largest insurer and a unit of insurance giant WellPoint Inc., deceptively enticed tens of thousands of Californians to switch out of their grandfathered plans, a practice known as “twisting,” in violation of a state law and to cut its own costs.

This is why Obama’s initiative to bring in the insurance companies as “Stakeholders” was a disastrous decision.

They were not stakeholders, they were among healthcare’s worst offenders. Bringing them into the decision making process is akin to bringing in Willie Sutton as a bank security consultant while he was still robbing banks.*

*It should be noted that after he left the slam, Sutton did serve as a security consultant for banks, but that was after he stopped robbing banks.

Might I Suggest Bruce Schneier?

2 Comments

It appears that the White House is looking at appointing the first civilian ever to head the NSA, but they have concerns that, “Finding the right civilian candidate with the technical understanding and familiarity with intelligence gathering would be a difficult task.”

Bruce Schneier has a sterling pedigree, and a long history of calling out wasteful security theater and the surveillance state.

Not going to happen. Obama is not going to cross the state security apparatus, but I can dream.

The Triumph of Wicked Stupid Ideas

No Comments

It appears that the US Marines are to replace the C-2 carrier onboard delivery (COD) aircraft with the V-22, because increased orders should lower the unit price of the V-22 and allow the Marines more of the expensive, crash prone, and maintenance intensive dog.

The Marines have been very good at lobbying for really bad ideas lately, the EFV,* adding STOVL to the JSF, and now, this:

“The C-2 makes us so much more flexible that we could support three separated groups, if necessary,” boasted Rear Adm. Marshall White, commanding air forces in the Western Pacific.

Faster-flying, longer-ranged and more capacious than the predecessor C-1 cargo plane, the ungainly C-2s and their crews were the unheralded heroes of the naval crises of 1968 and countless incidents since. Produced in a second batch in the 1980s and since upgraded, today a force of 35 C-2s based in key locations allows America’s 10 carriers to range the globe, waging aerial war and responding to diplomatic crises without planners having to worry about stranding the vessels beyond range of aerial resupply.

Rarely have so few airplanes of a single—and relatively unsophisticated—type been so vitally important to the conduct of a superpower’s global affairs. “The C-2A allows carriers and the fleet to maintain a ready position by supporting the vital supply line,” says Brian Scolpino, who oversees the C-2 force for the Navy.

But the Navy could end up retiring the C-2s and replacing them with a far inferior plane—one that’s not really a plane at all, but a controversial hybrid craft. The Bell-Boeing V-22 Osprey can take off vertically and cruise like an airplane thanks to its rotating wingtip engines, but lacks the C-2’s far-flying efficiency and its ease of use rooted in nearly 50 years of institutional experience.

………

The Pentagon is no stranger to pricey, ill-advised weapons development scheme, but even in this wasteful institution the plan to scrap the C-2 stands out as especially self-defeating. America’s world-spanning carrier fleet is one of its key advantages over its enemies. Constraining the flattops’ resupply could force them to stay closer to their home ports, reducing Washington’s options in the event of war and diminishing U.S. influence during peacetime.

………

The Navy is well aware of the Cod’s enduring qualities. “The C-2A has not experienced any limitations as the Cod aircraft,” Scolpino writes. But concerted lobbying by the Marines and Boeing have practically forced the sailing branch to at least consider buying the V-22. If politics triumph and the tiltrotor takes the C-2’s place, the fleet could find itself moving backwards in time, to a state of constrained fighting ability not unlike that that preceded the Cod’s arrival in 1966.

………

But the V-22 has less range and less payload than the C-2: Northrop’s prop plane can haul five tons of stuff 1,500 miles, but the V-22’s range with the same load could be as little as 50 miles, according to Navy statistics and Bell and Boeing’s own literature. That’s in part because the V-22 has just over a third the internal space of a C-2 and in the case of bulkier supplies would likely need to haul them slung by a rope suspended from the fuselage—a huge source of drag.

………

Extending the tiltrotor’s flying distance would require the constant attention of Air Force aerial tankers, which can cost up to $10,000 per hour to operate. The V-22 is also slightly slower than the C-2, can’t fly as high because it’s unpressurized and costs more: $68 million for a new V-22 compared to an estimated $50 million for a new C-2.

Note that the Marines succeeded in delaying the CH-53K, which had been under budget and ahead of schedule, in order to secure more orders for the V-22 as well.

This is a complete clusterf%$#.

*Full disclosure, I worked for General Dynamics, the prime contractor, on this vehicle when it was called the AAAV.

Another Nail in the Anti-Vaxxers Delusions

No Comments

Researchers have determined that indicatations of autism are present in children in the first 6 months of life:

An early indication of autism can be identified in babies under six months old, a study suggests.

US researchers, writing in Nature, analysed how infants looked at faces from birth to the age of three.

They found children later diagnosed with autism initially developed normally but showed diminished eye contact – a hallmark of autism – between two and six months of age.

A UK expert said the findings raise hope for early interventions.

In the study, researchers led by Emory University School of Medicine in Atlanta used eye-tracking technology to measure the way babies looked at and responded to social clues.

They found infants later diagnosed with autism had shown a steady decline in attention to the eyes of other people from the age of two months onwards, when watching videos of natural human interactions.

Lead researcher Dr Warren Jones told BBC News: “It tells us for the first time that it’s possible to detect some signs of autism in the first months of life.

“These are the earliest signs of autism that we’ve ever observed.”

I’m not surprised by this study.

My wife pegged Charlie as being on the spectrum in his first week outside of the womb. She knew something was different in the first 5 minutes.

Of course, she is a trained special educator, so it’s in her profession.

What this means is that autism is present well before when know-nothings claim that vaccinations “cause” autism.

Can we please stop listening to Jenny McCarthy Now?

It’s Bank Failure Friday!!!

No Comments

 My bad, I missed last week, Bank of Jackson County was closed last week.

What’s more it was closed on a Wednesday.  I’ve looked, but there appears to no reason for this rather rare middle of the business week act.

And here they are, ordered, and numbered for the year so far.

  1. Bank of Jackson County, Graceville, FL

Full FDIC list

So, here is the graph pr0n with last years numbers for comparison (FDIC only):