Jump to content

washparkhorn

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    9843
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by washparkhorn

  1. 5 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

    You need to get it through your extraordinarily thick skull that people can take a higher perspective on the situation, considering current statutes, and come away with a different viewpoint.  But no, you'll never do that.

    Well the experts disagree with you - from the same article you read by NYT Savage:

     

    Quote

    His exposé left some former officials who generally defend government surveillance practices aghast.

    “These errors are bad,” said David Kris, an expert in FISA who oversaw the Justice Department’s National Security Division in the Obama administration. “If the broader audit of FISA applications reveals a systematic pattern of errors of this sort that plagued this one, then I would expect very serious consequences and reforms.”

     

     

  2. The IG report has primarily been interpreted through a Trump lens. But if we shelve politics for a moment and focus on surveillance policy & civil liberties issues, what it revealed about the FBI's national-security wiretapping powers is devastating. - The author Charlie Savage. 

    What are you missing JJ?

  3. The Church Committee - http://csweb.brookings.edu/content/research/essays/2014/big-snoop.html

    Watergate shocked the American public and spurred many of its representatives in Congress to demand an investigation into the past activities of both organizations as well as the NSA and others. The result was the creation of two congressional committees in 1975, chaired by Frank Church (D-ID) in the Senate and Otis Pike (D-N.Y.) in the House of Representatives.

    Their hearings exposed secret, arguably illegal wiretapping, bugging, and harassment of American citizens, including Supreme Court justices, reporters, and government officials, all in the name of collecting intelligence about threats to national security. The most notorious case, first exposed in the 1960s and fully documented by the Church Committee, was the wiretapping of Martin Luther King, Jr. by the NSA and by the FBI under J. Edgar Hoover, who believed him to be part of a Communist conspiracy.

    Too much power unchecked and the FISA Court hamstrung. 

    • Like 1
  4. Charlie Savage of the NYT on the FISA issue:

    While clearing the F.B.I. of acting out of political bias, the Justice Department’s independent inspector general,

    Michael E. Horowitz, and his team uncovered a staggeringly dysfunctional and error-ridden process in how the F.B.I. went about obtaining and renewing court permission under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA, to wiretap Carter Page, a former Trump campaign adviser.

    “The litany of problems with the Carter Page surveillance applications demonstrates how the secrecy shrouding the government’s one-sided FISA approval process breeds abuse,” said Hina Shamsi, the director of the American Civil Liberties Union’s National Security Project. “The concerns the inspector general identifies apply to intrusive investigations of others, including especially Muslims, and far better safeguards against abuse are necessary.”

    Congress enacted FISA in 1978 to regulate domestic surveillance for national-security investigations — monitoring suspected spies and terrorists, as opposed to ordinary criminals. Investigators must persuade a judge on a special court that a target is probably an agent of a foreign power. In 2018, there were 1,833 targets of such orders, including 232 Americans.

    Most of those targets never learn that their privacy has been invaded, but some are sent to prison on the basis of evidence derived from the surveillance. And unlike in ordinary criminal wiretap cases, defendants are not permitted to see what investigators told the court about them to obtain permission to eavesdrop on their calls and emails.

    Civil libertarians for years have called the surveillance court a rubber stamp because it only rarely rejects wiretap applications. Out of 1,080 requests by the government in 2018, for example, government records showed that the court fully denied only one.

    Defenders of the system have argued that the low rejection rate stems in part from how well the Justice Department self-polices and avoids presenting the court with requests that fall short of the legal standard. They have also stressed that officials obey a heightened duty to be candid and provide any mitigating evidence that might undercut their request.

    But the inspector general found major errors, material omissions and unsupported statements about Mr. Page in the materials that went to the court. F.B.I. agents cherry-picked the evidence, telling the Justice Department information that made Mr. Page look suspicious and omitting material that cut the other way, and the department passed that misleading portrait onto the court. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/we-just-got-a-rare-look-at-national-security-surveillance-it-was-ugly/ar-AAK1QRS

    It is time to convene a Church Commission to look at intelligence agency misdeeds again. 

    • Like 1
    • Fuck You 1
  5. 4 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

    There ya go Anastasis.  Can we drop this now?

    giphy.gif

    Well, . . . no. A properly functioning Congress should reconsider reform of FISA procedures. Earlier efforts were blocked by blockheads screaming "national security." Now that we have the national security apparatus clearly abusing the process, it is time to apply the brakes. The good news with that is you might actually have a President willing to sign a bill that reforms the process. Or not. 

    • Like 1
  6. To Anastasis' concern, the FBI will be audited on their FISA abuse.

    Thankfully, the ACLU is able to walk and chew gum at the same time:

    "When the Justice Department's Inspector General finds significant concerns regarding flawed surveillance applications concerning the president's campaign advisors, it is clear that this regime lacks basic safeguards and is in need of serious reform. While the report found that there wasn't an improper purpose or initiation of the investigation, it also found significant problems that are alarming from a civil liberties perspective. For instance, the litany of problems with the Carter Page surveillance applications demonstrates how the secrecy shrouding the government's one-sided FISA approval process breeds abuse. The concerns the Inspector General identifies apply to intrusive investigations of others, including especially Muslims, and far better safeguards against abuse are necessary.

    The system requires fundamental reforms, and Congress can start by providing defendants subjected to FISA surveillance the opportunity to review the government's secret submissions. The FBI must also adopt higher standards for investigations involving constitutionally protected sensitive activities, such as political campaigns."

    It's good to see that the ACLU's strong concerns about unwarranted surveillance are not affected by their opinions about who is affected. 

    https://reason.com/2019/12/10/the-fbi-will-be-audited-to-see-how-frequently-they-screw-up-other-fisa-warrants/

    • Like 1
  7. You have probably already digested Jonathan Hari's, "Chasing the Scream."  If not, here is the nutshell: 

     

    Quote

     

    What if everything you think you know about addiction is wrong? One of Johann Hari’s earliest memories is of trying to wake up one of his relatives and not be able to. As he grew older, he realized he had addiction in his family. Confused, unable to know what to do, he set out on a three-year, 30,000-mile journey to discover what really causes addiction – and what really solves it. He uncovered a range of remarkable human stories – of how the war on drugs began with Billie Holiday, the great jazz singer, being stalked and killed by a racist policeman; of the scientist who discovered the surprising key to addiction; and of the countries that ended their war on drugs – with extraordinary results.

    This is the story of a life-changing journey that showed the world the opposite of addiction is connection.  http://chasingthescream.com

     


    And to your list of people to talk to, you should seek out a chronic pain patient who needs pain medication and has difficulty getting the medication because of addicts who abuse the medication. They are caught in the middle of the hysterical war on opiates and the addicts who abuse the medications they need so dearly. They are the hidden victims in the clash between addicts and drug warriors. Many are choosing suicide rather than unending pain. 

    Congratulations on your sobriety. 

    • Like 1
  8. And it wasn't Sanders' fault she lost the 2016 Election or his supporters. She lost it. Her campaign lost it. Sanders gave 39 speeches for her after the nomination. His ground people warned Hillary and her advisors she should be campaigning hard in the Upper Midwest. She and her campaign advisors ignored the advice. They rested on their media laurels pronouncing Hillary as the Greatest Football Team, errr. . ., Hillary as the inevitable President.

    She had reason to be confident. She ran against the guy her campaign WANTED to run against.

    Hillary made some horrible mistakes and I am sorry for those of you who are stuck in that moment. It must suck. But it is not your fault. And there is no need to be defensive. The mistakes were made at the top by Robbie Mook and Hillary (and Bill). Sanders and his people tried to warn them. They ignored and now they make excuses. This display by Hillary is to try and deflect attention away from her stunning loss and her campaign's failure to blame it on anyone, I mean anyone, but them and their mistakes. She does not want that as her legacy and I can't blame her for that want - but it is not what the country needs right now. 

    She needs to get up, look at what happened, and do better. Do better for humanity. If she can't try to do better for all Americans, including the people she called deplorables. What a horrible thing to say about a person. And for political junkies, that is the worst political malpractice I have ever seen - ever. If this was Mook's decision, she needs to sue him for political malpractice. I am sure he has some E&O coverage for this. She should fight against his insurance companies if they deny the claim. 

    If it was her idea to single out a large group of people who traditionally identified as Democrats in the working and middle class who also easily VOTE,  well . . . she need to dust herself off, actually learn from her mistake, and fight for something real in the lives of others less fortunate than her. And apologize to her supporters for the mistakes of her campaign. Ask them to go out and vote for the candidate who will work for those less fortunate than her - the 99.0%. And then she should speak of ambitious plans to make this a better world.

    And for Hillary supporters only: 

    Spoiler

    Remember what caused the reopening of the server investigation just before the election. Yep - a scumbag named Elliot was married to a Huma - and he just happened to send dick pics to younger women on a computer Huma used for her work. That was on Hillary and her campaign. And the DCCC emails showing active manipulation in the "democratic" process - well that was hubris on display. Brazille giving info to Hillary before the debates?  That is not right in any election.

    And her use of unsecured servers for classified docs - that does not show good judgment. Obama warned her about that. 

    Hillary supporters did fantastic work for her. They are not to blame. The blames lies at Hillary, Bill and Mook's feet. It is okay to say that and still want Trump to lose. She needs to learn from her mistakes.

    Enabling her to continue blaming others does not help. It is time for Hillary to become the selfless Hillary. The poor, the middle and working classes, and those disillusioned enough to vote for Trump, are all looking for a brighter future. Enough with the darkness of the past and on to  polishing up that shining beacon on the hill that is the future.   

    Spoiler

    Hillary lost the election; Trump did not win it. We can't repeat the 2016 mistakes or we will lose to Trump again.

     

     

    • Like 4
  9. I dislike her because she and her neoliberal zombies think "free public college is 'chocolate milk for everybody!'"

    It is time to move on. Hillary will never be President. Thank goodness. We don't need dimwits who think a college education is priced correctly today. Absolute idiocy. And a Republican talking point. 

    Her buddy Neera Tanden is supporting Boris Johnson - a fucking Tory for fuck's sake. The neoliberal use the Democratic Party label to cover for their Goldwater Girl Republicanism. It is time to move on from them. 

    • Like 3
  10. Sounds like a great public education model.

    From the generic, and oft incorrect, Wikipedia: 

    The Finnish strategy for achieving equality and excellence in education has been based on constructing a publicly funded comprehensive school system without selecting, tracking, or streaming students during their common basic education.[3] Part of the strategy has been to spread the school network so that pupils have a school near their homes whenever possible or, if this is not feasible, e.g. in rural areas, to provide free transportation to more widely dispersed schools. Inclusive special education within the classroom and instructional efforts to minimize low achievement are also typical of Nordic educational systems.

    I know I want to learn more . . . about that region of the world and its public education system. How does it work? Would it work in the United States? If we assume MMT is correct, how could we emulate it in the United States?

    And, how do we keep the neoliberal hands off of it? 

    You know, as an experemint with a Public oriented design - something that works for the public's good, not a way to earn private capital.

    Time to invest in Public Capital, no? Raise all ships, as was promised in 2008 and voted in favor of by the public in that 2008 election. That was a choice - 2008. A lot of hope back then, yet the problem continues to grow. It might be a good flashpoint away from health care, a common good currently run for private profit. So - education, will the social democrats prove to be the pioneers of the future? Is this a future young people want? And why not?

     

  11. 19 minutes ago, qwertyu1234 said:

    As a bass guitarist, i love that bass line and vehemently disagree with this, but to each their own i guess. 

    As the dad of a drummer, I respect your disagreement and will listen to the album for the . . . millionth time with the beauty of the baseline in mind. Thank you. Love that album. 

    • Like 1
  12. 4 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

     

    I love her :):)

    Background Info:

    Amazon wanted $3B in subsidies to build an HQ in NYC. AOC helped shut down the effort to provide those subsidies.

    Amazon is building there anyway.

    Love her too. She has some very bright and innovative minds advising her. She is a force . . . for good. 

    • Like 1
  13. 2 hours ago, Hornius Emeritus said:

     

    Does Bernie say where the money is going to come from, being that we're already running trillion dollar deficits?

    Prof. Stephanie Kelton (a Sanders Economic advisor) explains the "debt" and MMT well. It does require you to question whether Federal deficits and debt and inherently "bad" - but anyone with an open mind is capable of following: 

    Quote

     

    Malter: How much is too much? The CBO estimates that if things remain unchanged, the debt will be 152 percent of GDP in 2048. That will be the highest in the nation’s history. Is that too much?

    Kelton: Let’s remember what the national debt is. The national debt is nothing more than a historical record of all of the dollars that the government spent into the economy and didn’t tax back that are currently being held in the form of safe U.S. Treasurys. That’s what the national debt is. So the question about whether the debt is too big or too small (or whether it might get too big at some point in the future) is really a question about whether that’s too many safe assets for people to hold 10, 20, 50 years from now.

    If you think about what happened after World War II, when the U.S. national debt went in excess of 100 percent, close to 125 percent of GDP. If we were talking about it the way we talk about it today as burdening future generations as posing a grave national security risk, we would have to scratch our heads and say, wait a minute. Do we think that our grandparents burdened the next generation with all of those bonds that were sold during World War II to win the war, build the strongest middle class, produce the longest period of peacetime prosperity, the golden age of capitalism, all of that followed in the wake of fighting World War II, increasing deficits, massively increasing the size of the national debt. And of course the next generation inherits those bonds. They don’t become burdens to the next generation. They become their assets.

    So it’s impossible really to put a number, nobody can. How much debt is too much debt? If you look at Japan today you see a country where the debt-to-GDP ratio is something like 240 percent. Well above, orders of magnitude above, where the U.S. is today or even where the U.S. is forecast to be in the future. And so, the question is how is Japan able to sustain a debt of that size? Wouldn’t it have an inflation problem? Wouldn’t it lead to rising interest rates? Wouldn’t this be destructive in some way? And the answer to all of those questions, as Japan has demonstrated now for years is simply: No. Japan’s debt is close to 240 percent of GDP — almost a quadrillion, that’s a very big number, yen. Long-term interest rates are very close to zero, there’s no inflation problem. And so despite the size of the debt there are no negative consequences as a result and I think Japan teaches us a really important lesson.

    Really, the only potential risk with the national debt increasing over time is inflation and to the extent that you don’t believe the U.S. has a long-term inflation problem you shouldn’t believe that the U.S. is facing a long-term debt problem.

    https://www.cnbc.com/2019/03/01/bernie-sanders-economic-advisor-stephanie-kelton-on-mmt-and-2020-race.html

    • Haha 1
  14. 13 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

    What does "getting shit under control" mean?

    Both Liz and Bernie release funding plans for all their stuff. They suffer from the brain disease of budget neutrality and are obsessed with making sure all the dollars are accounted for. It's one of their many flaws and I love grandma and grandpa anyway as much as I want them to come out and say, "The budget deficit and debt don't actually matter that much and focusing on it is just a way to get us to starve and humiliate the poor."

    Bernie too often does the Dem thing of, "Well actually, Mr. Republican Sir, YOU are the irresponsible one!" which is always lame and never convinces anyone.

    Sanders has a fine economic advisor. Prof. Stephanie Kelton is worth reading for anyone inclined to look at economic issues surrounding spending. Pete is just using Republican deficit scaremongering to aid his patrons.

    • Like 1
  15. Buttiegieg is supposed to slow the MMT transformation. Bloomberg doesn't think he can do it if Biden fails to do it.  

    Who has the most billionaires and consultant (McKinsey) donors?  Yep - Buttigieg. He is preaching austerity to protect his patrons. Bloomberg is protecting his billions. They would be great Reagan era Republicans. Or Third Way Democrats. Anyone making under $100m a year who votes for either is ignorant or sees some need to kiss up to billionaires. Pete does it because that is where his main support is.

    Choose wisely.

    • Like 3
×
×
  • Create New...