I’m waking up, and the clock radio is playing, and a sponsorship (advertisement) came on from the Maryland Alpaca Breeders Association.
The Maryland Alpaca Breeders Association?
Seriously?
I wouldn’t think that there would be enough Alpaca breeders in Maryland to organize a softball game against the Pennsylvania Potbellied Pig Breeders Association.
Posted via mobile.
Any analysis of the First World War shows it to be an exercise in futility, much most wars.
Because it appears that the good Mr. Feith appears not to be the dumbest guy on the f%$#ing planet.
Rather, it appears everyone at Breitbart’s research/fact-checking department are way stupider:
Members of the conservative media are attempting to scandalize President Obama’s Attorney General nominee Loretta Lynch by suggesting she was involved in the Whitewater investigations of the 1990s. However, the Loretta Lynch that played a bit role in Whitewater — an investigation into fraudulent real estate deals that did not include any wrongdoing by the Clintons — is a different person than Obama’s attorney general nominee.
According to a November 8 Breitbart.com article by Warner Todd Huston, “few are talking about” the fact nominee Lynch “was part of Bill Clinton’s Whitewater probe defense team in 1992.” Huston pointed to a March 1992 New York Times article that “reported that Lynch was one of the Clintons’ Whitewater defense attorneys as well as a ‘campaign aide.'” And in a November 9 article Huston’s colleague, Breitbart.com Senior Editor-at Large Joel Pollak wrote, “The connection to Whitewater ought to provide additional fodder for Republicans during Lynch’s confirmation hearings”:The connection to Whitewater ought to provide additional fodder for Republicans during Lynch’s confirmation hearings. It is odd that Obama chose someone so close to the Clintons–or perhaps not, given the prominent role played by Clinton insider John Podesta in the second term of the Obama White House. Lynch has been rewarded throughout her career for her political loyalty–not an unusual path up the career ladder for federal prosecutors, but certainly one that will allow the GOP, as well as Obama, to raise the political stakes.
Because it is so easy to confuse the two:
Morons.
That place must have even been more dysfunctional before Andrew Breitbart drank himself.
My older brother, Sasquatch Stephen, makes a very good point about the tactics of ALEC (American Legislative Exchange Council), which is that while they are a bunch of evil mother f%$#ers who will be first up against the wall when the revolution comes, their tactics viewed in isolation are in fact both laudable and effective:
In the well duh category, the Huffington Post recently posted an article entitled Democrats Create An ALEC-Killer.
Gee, often I have heard the cries about these dark, underhanded, suspicious tactics of this group.
And what are these tactics, why the Republicans have organized a right-wing group to push for its policies at the state level, providing political discipline, they create draft statutes, coordinate activities, and support people who agree with them across the spectrum. And all this has worked for them very well over the last decade.
You know, this is called activism. I once tried to point this out at a MoveOn meeting I was stupid enough to attend. The reception to that comment wasn’t good.
Sure it’s financed by the right’s most fanatical and finanically interested participants, and you expected different?
(emphasis mine)
The reaction at the MoveOn meeting is not surprising.
MoveOn has always been more about giving comfortable people the impression that they are doing something than it is about actually getting sh%$ done.
*I have it on good authority that he once frightened a Chinese village that described him as a “Hairy Giant.”
Barack Obama just came out in favor of Title 2 regulation of broadband providers:
U.S. President Barack Obama on Monday said Internet service providers should be regulated more like public utilities to make sure they grant equal access to all content providers, touching off intense protests from cable and telecoms companies and Republican lawmakers.
Obama’s detailed statement on the issue of “net neutrality,” a platform in his 2008 presidential campaign, was a rare intervention by the White House into the policy setting of an independent agency.
Shares of major Internet service providers Comcast Corp and Time Warner Cable Inc fell sharply after Obama said ISPs should be reclassified to face stricter regulations and banned from striking paid “fast lane” deals with content companies.
The president also said the Federal Communications Commission’s new rules should apply equally to mobile and wired ISPs, with a recognition of special challenges that come with managing wireless networks.
“Simply put: No service should be stuck in a ‘slow lane’ because it does not pay a fee,” Obama, currently in Asia, said in a statement released by the White House. “That kind of gate keeping would undermine the level playing field essential to the Internet’s growth.”
It’s a remarkably strong statement, and he included mobile providers in it.
that being said, it’s mind-bogglingly stupid timing, as Charlie Pierce so aptly observed:
Where in the name of god was this before a midterm election when, because the kidz stayed home, the average age of the voter was approximately half-past the Hallmark Channel? Yeesh.
He’s right.
The average Fox News viewer barely understands email, and would not understand, nor would Fox be able to work them into a frenzy, over network neutrality.
Meanwhile, the younger Democratic voters are disgusted and dispirited, and were expecting to get f%$#ed like a drunk sorority girl by Obama’s former cable lobbyist FCC chairman.
A statement like Obama’s would have driven a more turnout.
Seriously, both Barack Obama, and the Democratic political establishment seem to be paralyzed by fear of offending people who go to Sally Quinn’s cocktail parties.
BTW, I still expect Obama to find a way to f%$# the ordinary guy and benefit the big corporations again, just like he did with Wall Street.
I hope to be wrong about this, but I fear that I won’t.
Text of White House Statement follows:
Statement by the President on Net Neutrality
An open Internet is essential to the American economy, and increasingly to our very way of life. By lowering the cost of launching a new idea, igniting new political movements, and bringing communities closer together, it has been one of the most significant democratizing influences the world has ever known.
“Net neutrality” has been built into the fabric of the Internet since its creation — but it is also a principle that we cannot take for granted. We cannot allow Internet service providers (ISPs) to restrict the best access or to pick winners and losers in the online marketplace for services and ideas. That is why today, I am asking the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to answer the call of almost 4 million public comments, and implement the strongest possible rules to protect net neutrality.
When I was a candidate for this office, I made clear my commitment to a free and open Internet, and my commitment remains as strong as ever. Four years ago, the FCC tried to implement rules that would protect net neutrality with little to no impact on the telecommunications companies that make important investments in our economy. After the rules were challenged, the court reviewing the rules agreed with the FCC that net neutrality was essential for preserving an environment that encourages new investment in the network, new online services and content, and everything else that makes up the Internet as we now know it. Unfortunately, the court ultimately struck down the rules — not because it disagreed with the need to protect net neutrality, but because it believed the FCC had taken the wrong legal approach.
The FCC is an independent agency, and ultimately this decision is theirs alone. I believe the FCC should create a new set of rules protecting net neutrality and ensuring that neither the cable company nor the phone company will be able to act as a gatekeeper, restricting what you can do or see online. The rules I am asking for are simple, common-sense steps that reflect the Internet you and I use every day, and that some ISPs already observe. These bright-line rules include:
- No blocking. If a consumer requests access to a website or service, and the content is legal, your ISP should not be permitted to block it. That way, every player — not just those commercially affiliated with an ISP — gets a fair shot at your business.
- No throttling. Nor should ISPs be able to intentionally slow down some content or speed up others — through a process often called “throttling” — based on the type of service or your ISP’s preferences.
- Increased transparency. The connection between consumers and ISPs — the so-called “last mile” — is not the only place some sites might get special treatment. So, I am also asking the FCC to make full use of the transparency authorities the court recently upheld, and if necessary to apply net neutrality rules to points of interconnection between the ISP and the rest of the Internet.
- No paid prioritization. Simply put: No service should be stuck in a “slow lane” because it does not pay a fee. That kind of gatekeeping would undermine the level playing field essential to the Internet’s growth. So, as I have before, I am asking for an explicit ban on paid prioritization and any other restriction that has a similar effect.
If carefully designed, these rules should not create any undue burden for ISPs, and can have clear, monitored exceptions for reasonable network management and for specialized services such as dedicated, mission-critical networks serving a hospital. But combined, these rules mean everything for preserving the Internet’s openness.
The rules also have to reflect the way people use the Internet today, which increasingly means on a mobile device. I believe the FCC should make these rules fully applicable to mobile broadband as well, while recognizing the special challenges that come with managing wireless networks.
To be current, these rules must also build on the lessons of the past. For almost a century, our law has recognized that companies who connect you to the world have special obligations not to exploit the monopoly they enjoy over access in and out of your home or business. That is why a phone call from a customer of one phone company can reliably reach a customer of a different one, and why you will not be penalized solely for calling someone who is using another provider. It is common sense that the same philosophy should guide any service that is based on the transmission of information — whether a phone call, or a packet of data.So the time has come for the FCC to recognize that broadband service is of the same importance and must carry the same obligations as so many of the other vital services do. To do that, I believe the FCC should reclassify consumer broadband service under Title II of the Telecommunications Act — while at the same time forbearing from rate regulation and other provisions less relevant to broadband services. This is a basic acknowledgment of the services ISPs provide to American homes and businesses, and the straightforward obligations necessary to ensure the network works for everyone — not just one or two companies.
Investment in wired and wireless networks has supported jobs and made America the center of a vibrant ecosystem of digital devices, apps, and platforms that fuel growth and expand opportunity. Importantly, network investment remained strong under the previous net neutrality regime, before it was struck down by the court; in fact, the court agreed that protecting net neutrality helps foster more investment and innovation. If the FCC appropriately forbears from the Title II regulations that are not needed to implement the principles above — principles that most ISPs have followed for years — it will help ensure new rules are consistent with incentives for further investment in the infrastructure of the Internet.
The Internet has been one of the greatest gifts our economy — and our society — has ever known. The FCC was chartered to promote competition, innovation, and investment in our networks. In service of that mission, there is no higher calling than protecting an open, accessible, and free Internet. I thank the Commissioners for having served this cause with distinction and integrity, and I respectfully ask them to adopt the policies I have outlined here, to preserve this technology’s promise for today, and future generations to come.
After Republicans passed yet another open carry law, this time in Michigan, a school board had a problem with a parent open carrying in school.
It turns out that this is not illegal so long as you carry the proper permits (great law there, huh?), but the school came up with an ingenious response.
They determined that they did not have the ability to determine whether or not a person bringing a gun onto campus had his papers in order, so if anyone comes onto campus with a gun, the response will be a lock-down and calling 911:
A Michigan man, picking his child up at school, carried his pistol into the building in his hip holster. The staff was not amused. Since open carry is legal in Michigan, the parent was within his rights. But the Huron Valley School District’s board decided that they needed to have a procedure in place for future incidents.
Open carry is perfectly legal in Michigan but only if you have a Concealed Pistol License (CPL). The parent — who remains anonymous — did have a CPL. But both state and federal law prohibits guns on school property except for a legal parent or guardian who must leave the weapon in the car and this only applies to CPL holders, who must pass a comprehensive background check and carry the gun visibly.
That’s all well and good for open-carry folks. But the school district is committed to keeping the children in their care safe. To that end, School Board President Rebecca Walsh has set out the following plan:“If this occurs during school hours, the building will immediately go into lockdown status, and 9-1-1 will be called so law enforcement agencies can make a determination on the status of the person with the weapon.”
She added that the same policy applies when school is not in session, without the lockdown. The police will be summoned for any visitor who brings a gun onto school property. The School District feels that they must use this procedure for everyone because they have no way of knowing who is properly licensed.
This is a proper, and well deserved, f%$# you to the ammosexuals, and I wholeheartedly approve.
Richmond, California, whose town is dominated by a Chevron oil refinery, had local elections, and Chevron’s dumping $3 million into the race netted them nothing:
Richmond voters handed Chevron a resounding rejection in Tuesday’s election, defeating all four candidates supported by the oil giant despite Chevron outspending its opponents by a 20-to-1 margin.
Voters elected City Councilman Tom Butt as mayor and outgoing mayor Gayle McLaughlin, incumbent Jovanka Beckles and retired teacher Eduardo Martinez to the City Council, giving the panel a potential 6-1 left-leaning majority.
“It’s extraordinary. This is a celebration of democracy,” said San Francisco State political science Professor Robert Smith, who studies Richmond politics. “This means that big money doesn’t always win, that ordinary people can defeat huge corporate power.”
Chevron spent more than $3 million supporting Charles Ramsey, Donna Powers and Albert Martinez for council, and longtime Councilman Nat Bates for mayor. Butt won with 51.4 percent of the votes, with Bates trailing at 35.5 percent.
Seeing as how that refinery has had fires and explosions in 1989, 1999, and 2012, (along with a long history of toxic emissions, and litigation over taxes, which Chevron lost) and the fact that the Richmond City Council was working on a lawsuit over the last fire, it’s pretty clear what this massive dump of election cash was about getting a “friendly” city council.
Unfortunately, I cannot see how this could be applied more general.
In the realm of diplomacy, the statement that something is difficult is a polite way of saying, “No.”
But the significance of such a statement will vary across cultures.
From an American, it might mean, “I want a better deal.”
That being said, the Japanese are famously oblique about saying no, so when it’s the Japanese economy minister saying it, this is a remarkably strong statement:
Japan’s Economy Minister Akira Amari said on Saturday he saw progress in Asia-Pacific regional trade negotiations, although it would be difficult to reach an agreement by the end of the year, according to Jiji press.
Trade ministers from the 12 nations participating in the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) pact held talks on the sidelines of an annual Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation Forum (APEC) meeting in Beijing
This is a good thing.
The TPP is a very bad thing, even by the standards of trade agreement.
It is a neoliberal corporatist wet dream.
Basically, the comparison with the F-22 seems to reveal a very different sort of role from the F-22 Lightning:
The J-20’s wing and control surface layout is very different from that of the Lockheed Martin F-22, but the body layout is quite similar, with twin main weapon bays under the belly and side bays for rail-launched air-to-air missiles (AAMs), all located under and outside the inlet ducts. On both aircraft, the main landing gear is housed in the fuselage behind the weapon bays and the engines are close together. The big difference, however, is that the J-20 is 9.5 ft. (17%) longer than the F-22, from the nose to the engine nozzles. Most of this is in the widest part of the fuselage, and since the weapon bays are similar in size, it is almost all available for fuel. It is a reasonable estimate that the J-20 could have as much as 40% more internal fuel capacity than the F-22. The longer body will also improve fineness ratio, with benefits for transonic drag.
Despite the larger body, the empty weight of the J-20 may be close to that of the F-22, largely because it has less-powerful engines without the heavy two-dimensional thrust-vectoring nozzles of the F-22’s F119s. The J-20 prototypes are believed to be flying with United Engine Corp. (UEC) AL-31F engines. The thrust difference between the two designs is very large: The F-22 has almost as much power in intermediate thrust as the J-20 does in full afterburner, although newer versions of the UEC AL-31/117S/117 could close the gap in later versions of the Chinese aircraft.
The conventional circular nozzles and the aft-body shape are less conducive to stealth than the F-22, as is the case with the T-50. This is most likely a conscious decision because a fast aircraft can tolerate a higher radar cross-section in the aft quadrant. While some observers have suggested that canards are incompatible with stealth, an engineer who was active in Lockheed Martin’s early Joint Strike Fighter efforts says the final quad-tail configuration was no stealthier than the earlier canard-delta design.
………
The J-20’s weapon arrangement is similar to the F-22, except that the ventral bays are shorter and narrower, and are apparently capable of accommodating only four weapons the size of the SD-10 AAM. However, they do appear large enough to accommodate bigger folding-wing missiles—and China is reported to be negotiating to buy the Russian Kh-58UShKE, a Mach 4 anti-radar missile that is also intended for internal carriage on the T-50.
The side missile bays differ from those of the F-22 in that the doors can be closed after the missile rail has been extended, and have been seen with a missile—or test shape—with low-aspect-ratio wings and folding tails. So far, no gun has been seen on J-20s, nor has there been a sign of provision for one.
The J-20 design, therefore, is an air-to-air fighter with an emphasis on forward-aspect stealth, efficient high-speed aerodynamics and range, with a modest internal payload and more than adequate agility for self-defense. The aircraft has considerable potential for development, because of its currently unsophisticated engines. But it is also large and expensive, and continued development of the J-10B shows that China plans to maintain a high-low mix of fighters for a long time to come.
The J-20’s weapon arrangement is similar to the F-22, except that the ventral bays are shorter and narrower, and are apparently capable of accommodating only four weapons the size of the SD-10 AAM. However, they do appear large enough to accommodate bigger folding-wing missiles—and China is reported to be negotiating to buy the Russian Kh-58UShKE, a Mach 4 anti-radar missile that is also intended for internal carriage on the T-50.
The side missile bays differ from those of the F-22 in that the doors can be closed after the missile rail has been extended, and have been seen with a missile—or test shape—with low-aspect-ratio wings and folding tails. So far, no gun has been seen on J-20s, nor has there been a sign of provision for one.
The J-20 design, therefore, is an air-to-air fighter with an emphasis on forward-aspect stealth, efficient high-speed aerodynamics and range, with a modest internal payload and more than adequate agility for self-defense. The aircraft has considerable potential for development, because of its currently unsophisticated engines. But it is also large and expensive, and continued development of the J-10B shows that China plans to maintain a high-low mix of fighters for a long time to come.………
J-20 vs. F-22 J-20 F-22 Overall length (ft.) 66.8 62 Wingspan (ft.) 44.2 44.5 Wing area (sq. ft.) 840 840 Operating empty weight (lb.) 42,750 43,340 Internal fuel (lb.) 25,000 18,000 Normal takeoff weight (lb.) 70,750 64,840 Max. thrust (lb.) 55,000 70,000 Min. thrust (lb.) 34,250 52,000 Clean-fuel fraction, normal T/O 0.35 0.28 Max. thrust-to-weight ratio, combat weight 0.94 1.25 Military thrust-to-weight ratio, combat weight 0.59 0.93 Wing loading at combat weight, lb./sq. ft. 69 66.5 Sources: Lockheed Martin, AW&ST analysis
Basically, the F-22 was designed to provide air supremacy by engaging in air to air combat over an enemy territory protected by an integrated Integrated Air Defense System (IADS).
It is essentially an offensive capability, where there bases relatively close to the battle space.
By contrast, the J-20 is less agile, it has about and less stealthy from the rear quarter, so it is intended to provide area denial, without a significant tankerbility, it has about 30% less installed thrust, and it carries about 40% more internal fuel.
Basically, it reflects a concern that the the US, operating from bases in places like Korea, Japan, and the Philippines, will launch an attack on China and near her allies, (I am thinking Myanmar might end up on the US’s “Axis of Evil”) and the presence of the capabilities of the J-20 would tend to really throw a monkey wrench into any planning.
Seeing as how China is developing the J-31 at the same time, which is roughly analogous to the F-35 (without all the excess baggage that the STO/VL capabilities of the B model), it would appear that the J-20 is directed very specifically toward US adventurism.
As such, I would not expect that they would make a whole bunch of these aircraft.
A few dozen would suffice to provide sufficient deterrence,
A Bike Salmon:
A cyclist that puts themselves at risk by cycling into traffic or “against the stream”.
It’s a wonderfully poetic description.
H/t Atrios.
The JSF Program Office is looking to accelerate deliveries of the F-35 to Canada in an attempt to induce them to finish their purchase of the aircraft:
A radical fast-track plan to jump-start Canada’s stalled effort to buy the Lockheed Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighter is revealed in a briefing document obtained by Aviation Week.
The Oct. 27 brief from JSF Program Executive Office director USAF Lt. Gen. Chris Bogdan to Air Force secretary Deborah James calls for Canada to receive four F-35s next year, by diverting them from U.S. Air Force low-rate initial production (LRIP) Lot 7 orders. Canada would then buy four Lot 9 aircraft that would be delivered to the Air Force in 2017. According to the briefing, Canada would sign a letter of intent within days — “mid-November” — and Congress would be notified by the end of November.
Neither the JSF Program Office nor the Canadian Department of National Defense responded to repeated inquiries about the planned deal this week. The legal basis for such an exchange, absent an urgent operational need, is uncertain. The proposed LRIP 9 replacement aircraft are not on contract, and as far as is known, negotiations for them have not started.
According to the briefing, the Air Force has said it can spare four aircraft — budgeted at more than $160 million each — but with “no flex left” in the schedule for the aircraft to achieve initial operational capability. Aircraft availability is already a risk factor in meeting the objective initial operational capability date of August 2016.
Canada is a founding partner in the JSF program, with one of the largest near-term export orders. Its plan to buy 65 F-35As has been controversial since 2010, when prime minister Stephen Harper’s government attempted to bypass Canadian law that states that all major government acquisitions must be competed. The government asserted that the F-35 was the only aircraft that could meet Canadian requirements, but was forced to back down after Canada’s auditor-general reported in 2012 that the project’s costs had not been presented correctly and the air force’s “statement of requirements” had been compiled after the decision to make a sole-source procurement had been made.
The program to acquire new fighters has been supervised since 2012 by a special secretariat within Canada’s public works department. The most recent development was the announcement at the end of September of a plan to extend the life of Canada’s Boeing Hornet fleet to 2025. This was seen as confirming that Harper’s team had accepted the need to defer the JSF decision past the next general election, which is due no later than October 2015.
According to one Canadian industry observer close to the fighter program, the F-35 swap proposal is being pushed by Lockheed Martin and the JSF Program Office. “It would be a huge game changer,” the source says, and another observer, former procurement official Alan Williams, calls it “explosive.” The industry source is dubious that it can happen as scheduled: “The decision to go with the F-35 has not been made. This requires three key ministers to sign off and that hasn’t happened yet.” A Harper attempt to lock Canada into the F-35 program before the election would risk an electoral backlash, sources say. “The fighter file is simply toxic right now,” the industry observer says.
This reeks of desperation. The Air Force is sacrificing its margin in an attempt to prevent Canada from cancelling its order.
If Canada, or for that matter any of the the Nato countries that have signed on, cancels its F-35 order, it’s going to set off a death spiral of cancellations and unit price escalation.
The problem is that the F-35 is too expensive, not just for Canada, and not just for the US, but the entire f%$#ing world.
BTW, the Canadian government is categorically denying this report:
Canada’s Public Works Department denied reports it’s decided to purchase F-35 fighter jets from the U.S.
Reports suggested a leaked U.S. Defence Department document revealed Canada agreed to buy up to four of the controversial planes from the U.S., to be delivered as early as 2016.
The Conservative government shelved its plan to buy the F-35 from Lockheed Martin in 2012 after a scathing report from the auditor general that highlighted cost overruns and other mismanagement problems in the procurement process.
Like I said, desparation.
We had the 17th bank failure of the year, Frontier Bank, FSB D/B/A El Paseo Bank, in Palm Desert, CA.
Not much to add, except that this is the clearly going to be the fewest FDIC closings in over 5 years.
So, here is the graph pr0n with last few years numbers for comparison (FDIC only):
Obama is escalating in Iraq:
President Barack Obama has approved doubling the U.S. military force in Iraq and allowing troops to venture beyond headquarters already established in Baghdad and Erbil, in an escalation of the U.S. effort to defeat Islamic State extremists.
………
The president’s approval to send as many as 1,500 personnel is in addition to 1,600 he previously authorized, 1,400 of whom are in Iraq today protecting U.S. facilities and assisting the Iraqi military. Troops that have been confined to Baghdad, the capital, and Erbil in Kurdish northern Iraq now will be permitted to train and advise Iraqi forces at a number of Iraqi military facilities, according to a White House statement.
This of course, not going any sort of escalation, they promise:
“U.S. troops will not be in combat, but they will be better positioned to support Iraqi security forces as they take the fight” to the Sunni extremists, White House press secretary Josh Earnest said today in the statement.
Nope, no escalation here.
It bears reading, but in the The Atlantic, Conor Friedersdorf makes a point about Barack Obama that I have been making since 2007:
But here’s what I find alarming: Confronted with a president who 1) spied on every American; 2) covered up torture; 3) continued a War on Drugs ruinous to minorities and whole foreign nations; 4) killed hundreds of innocents in drone strikes; 5) waged war illegally and killed an American citizen without due process (while suppressing the legal reasoning used to do so); 6) let high-ranking national-security officials break the law with impunity; and 7) persecuted whistleblowers—confronted with all of those transgressions, more than four in 10 Americans still approve of the job Obama is doing. And most of them are loyal Democrats. Partisanship and tribalism are overriding the moral compass of too many liberals, who ought to be furious with Obama. National-security policies he unilaterally pursued will be harming the U.S., its moral standing, and its most vulnerable citizens for years if not decades to come, especially since Democrats are poised to make civil illibertarian Hillary Clinton their party’s next leader.
To see it all with open eyes is to disapprove.
But for the fact that he leaves off the bit about his relentless protection of the corrupt ratf%$#s on Wall Street who destroyed our economy, he lays it out pretty well.
Read the rest.
My wife & I are at the Ottobar to see Natalie’s favorite local band, 3PM.
This does more make me a cool parent. I am the least cool person in the universe.
At least that is what my kids say.
Posted via mobile.
Democrats Have Great Exciting New Idea: Being Democrats:
Here’s an idea that’s so crazy, it just might work! After the thorough ass-kicking the Democratic Party suffered on Election Day, some Democrats are considering the possibility that maybe running “Democratic” candidates who are embarrassed to be Democrats is not the best way to appeal to the Democratic Party. Crazy, huh? With candidates refusing to support Obamacare, refusing to support Democratic policies, refusing to even say “Hell, yes, I voted for Barack Obama because I am a Democrat, DUH,” the new minority is thinking maybe it’s time to get back to being Democrats.
According to Faiz Shakir, a senior adviser to the soon-to-be-ex Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, the new plan for 2016 is to maybe — maybe — run Democratic candidates on a Democratic platform.
Your mouth to God’s year, Faiz.
Cowardice is bad politics.
The European Union has classified spyware as a restricted item requiring an export license, much like weapons:
Companies which make spyware will have to apply for permission to export the software once new EU regulations come into effect in late December.
Officially referred to as “intrusion software”, the software will now be included on the EU’s list of “dual use” items, defined as “goods, software and technology normally used for civilian purposes but which might have military applications or contribute to the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.”
The restriction means that companies will have to apply for a licence to export spyware, although it doesn’t affect the sale of the software within the UK. Inclusion on the dual-use list places the technology alongside nuclear reactors, ultra-high-resolution cameras, and rocket fuel.
While the regulation is implemented by the European commission, the British government supports the restriction of spyware. “The UK has made it clear over the last two years that we believe that while these kind of technologies do have legitimate uses, they also pose threats to national security and to human rights and should be subject to export controls,” said a spokesperson for the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills.
Hopefully, this the export of such software to repressive regimes, as FinFisher did with its FinFish spyware, which it probably exported to Egypt, Bahrain, Ethiopia, etc.
Additionally, I hope that it will serve to also restrict the use of such programs by commercial entities.
Things like tracking cookies, and Verizon’s new “super cookies”, should be included in this category.
Now that Matt Taibbi is no longer being gaslighted by FirstLook media, he’s back to writing about corruption in finance, and this one is a doozy.
Basically, he has found a whistle blower who taking the step of breaching her confidentiality agreement to reveal extensive and systematic fraud at J.P. Morgan Chase:
She tried to stay quiet, she really did. But after eight years of keeping a heavy secret, the day came when Alayne Fleischmann couldn’t take it anymore.
“It was like watching an old lady get mugged on the street,” she says. “I thought, ‘I can’t sit by any longer.'”
Fleischmann is a tall, thin, quick-witted securities lawyer in her late thirties, with long blond hair, pale-blue eyes and an infectious sense of humor that has survived some very tough times. She’s had to struggle to find work despite some striking skills and qualifications, a common symptom of a not-so-common condition called being a whistle-blower.
leischmann is the central witness in one of the biggest cases of white-collar crime in American history, possessing secrets that JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon late last year paid $9 billion (not $13 billion as regularly reported – more on that later) to keep the public from hearing.
Back in 2006, as a deal manager at the gigantic bank, Fleischmann first witnessed, then tried to stop, what she describes as “massive criminal securities fraud” in the bank’s mortgage operations.
Thanks to a confidentiality agreement, she’s kept her mouth shut since then. “My closest family and friends don’t know what I’ve been living with,” she says. “Even my brother will only find out for the first time when he sees this interview.”
………
She was blocked at every turn: by asleep-on-the-job regulators like the Securities and Exchange Commission, by a court system that allowed Chase to use its billions to bury her evidence, and, finally, by officials like outgoing Attorney General Eric Holder, the chief architect of the crazily elaborate government policy of surrender, secrecy and cover-up. “Every time I had a chance to talk, something always got in the way,” Fleischmann says.
This past year she watched as Holder’s Justice Department struck a series of historic settlement deals with Chase, Citigroup and Bank of America. The root bargain in these deals was cash for secrecy. The banks paid big fines, without trials or even judges – only secret negotiations that typically ended with the public shown nothing but vague, quasi-official papers called “statements of facts,” which were conveniently devoid of anything like actual facts.
And now, with Holder about to leave office and his Justice Department reportedly wrapping up its final settlements, the state is effectively putting the finishing touches on what will amount to a sweeping, industrywide effort to bury the facts of a whole generation of Wall Street corruption. “I could be sued into bankruptcy,” she says. “I could lose my license to practice law. I could lose everything. But if we don’t start speaking up, then this really is all we’re going to get: the biggest financial cover-up in history.”
Read the rest.
It’s a long read, but well worth it.
The fact that all the big banks are criminal enterprises is now a surprise to anyone who reads the paper, but Taibbi’s description of Fleischmann’s experience with the so called regulators and so called authorities a searing indictment of the deeply craven and corrupt people at the Justice Department, particularly Eric “Place” Holder.
Ford Motor Company, who fired about 100 workers by robocall over this weekend:
Nearly 100 workers at Ford’s Chicago Assembly Plant got a robocall on Halloween telling them their services were no longer needed and they were terminated.
It wasn’t a trick or a morbid prank.
Dozens of workers missed the call or didn’t believe it, so they showed up to work Saturday anyway, according to an autoworker who wished to remain anonymous. They found their ID badges had been disabled and were told by security they had been fired.
“As part of our normal business process, we’ve temporarily adjusted our workforce numbers at Chicago Assembly Plant,” Ford Motor Co. said in a statement.
Remember what I said about honey and rabid wolverines?
HR at Ford should get this treatment too.
What Atrios says:
One thing that I think people tend to forget is that Howard Dean’s 50 state strategy wasn’t simply about fighting everywhere, it was about shoveling money out of DC before the vultures there could get their hands on it. It was about the idea that people who run campaigns out of Washington don’t know what the hell they’re doing, but that as long as the money was sitting there, candidates didn’t have much choice but to deal with them.
In case you doubt the wisdom of his words, note what some anonymous Democratic Party functionary asshat said about all this:
“This is a tsunami. Heads will roll at 1600. And if they don’t, shame,” the insider said, adding: “The president has 60 days to clean house, regrow his spine, and lay out an aggressive, centrist agenda. If he fails at any of those, he might as well just start writing his memoir.”
Note that in the same article, there is someone who gets it:
“Democratic operatives who refuse to acknowledge this is the White House’s fault are out of their f—— minds,” the operative said. “These operatives who don’t understand that the White House fucked up are the same hacks who overcharge House and Senate candidates for shitty consulting work and help lose elections year after year.”
The operative also said Obama and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid hurt the party by delaying ambitious action on immigration and other hot-button issues to protect incumbent senators in southern states.
“It also doesn’t help that Dems completely broke their promise to enact immigration reform. Reid’s strategy of ‘no big bills’ this year that could protect [Arkansas Sen. Mark] Pryor, [North Carolina Sen. Kay] Hagan, and [Louisiana Sen. Mary] Landrieu obviously backfired,” the operative said. “They lost anyway, and we pissed off our base at the same time.”
Let me make a note here: Were the Democratic Party to adopt a “F%#@ the South strategy”, much in the same way that Republicans have adopted a “F%$# New York City & Hollywood & San Francisco & Boston & non white Americans”, there really wound not be a down side.
Over the past 40 years, the Democratic Party has devoted increasing resources to keep its foothold in the white South, and that is simply not going to happen.
The dynamic that LBJ said over 50 years ago, “I’ll tell you what’s at the bottom of it. If you can convince the lowest white man he’s better than the best colored man, he won’t notice you’re picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he’ll empty his pockets for you. I’ll tell you what’s at the bottom of it. If you can convince the lowest white man he’s better than the best colored man, he won’t notice you’re picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he’ll empty his pockets for you.“
We as a nation are not going to change this dynamic until we as a nation stop pandering to it.