Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Segami
Segami's Journal
Segami's Journal
October 29, 2013
One of the National Security Agency's biggest defenders in Congress is suddenly at odds with the agency and calling for a top-to-bottom review of U.S. spy programs. And her long-time friends and allies are completely mystified by the switch. "We're really screwed now," one NSA official told The Cable. "You know things are bad when the few friends you've got disappear without a trace in the dead of night and leave no forwarding address." In a pointed statement issued today, Senate Intelligence Committee chairman Dianne Feinstein said she was "totally opposed" to gathering intelligence on foreign leaders and said it was "a big problem" if President Obama didn't know the NSA was monitoring the phone calls of German Chancellor Angela Merkel. She said the United States should only be spying on foreign leaders with hostile countries, or in an emergency, and even then the president should personally approve the surveillance. It was not clear what precipitated Feinstein's condemnation of the NSA. It marks a significant reversal for a lawmaker who not only defended agency surveillance programs -- but is about to introduce a bill expected to protect some of its most controversial activities.
Perhaps most significant is her announcement that the intelligence committee "will initiate a review into all intelligence collection programs." Feinstein did not say the review would be limited only to the NSA. If the review also touched on other intelligence agencies under the committee's jurisdiction, it could be one of the most far-reaching reviews in recent memory, encompassing secret programs of the CIA, the Defense Intelligence Agency, agencies that run imagery and spy satellites, as well as components of the FBI. A former intelligence agency liaison to Congress said Feinstein's sudden outrage over spying on foreign leaders raised questions about how well informed she was about NSA programs and whether she'd been fully briefed by her staff. "The first question I'd ask is, what have you been doing for oversight? Second, if you've been reviewing this all along what has changed your mind?" The former official said the intelligence committees receive lengthy and detailed descriptions every year about all NSA programs, including surveillance. "They're not small books. They're about the size of those old family photo albums that were several inches thick. They're hundreds of pages long." A senior congressional aide said, "It's an absolute joke to think she hasn't been reading the signals intelligence intercepts as Chairman of Senate Intelligence for years."
The former official added that the "bottom line question is where was the Senate Intelligence Committee when it came to their oversight of these programs? And what were they being told by the NSA, because if they didn't know about this surveillance, that would imply they were being lied to." A spokesperson for Feinstein did not respond to a request for more details in time for publication. And a spokesperson for Sen. Saxby Chambliss, the intelligence committee's vice chairman, said the senator had no comment at this time. In a tacit acknowledgement of how supportive Feinstein has been of the administration's surveillance practices, the White House issued a lengthy statement about her Monday remarks.
cont'
http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/10/28/were_really_screwed_now_nsas_best_friend_just_shivved_the_spies
'WE'RE REALLY SCREWED NOW': NSA's Best Friend Just SHIVVED The Spies
One of the National Security Agency's biggest defenders in Congress is suddenly at odds with the agency and calling for a top-to-bottom review of U.S. spy programs. And her long-time friends and allies are completely mystified by the switch. "We're really screwed now," one NSA official told The Cable. "You know things are bad when the few friends you've got disappear without a trace in the dead of night and leave no forwarding address." In a pointed statement issued today, Senate Intelligence Committee chairman Dianne Feinstein said she was "totally opposed" to gathering intelligence on foreign leaders and said it was "a big problem" if President Obama didn't know the NSA was monitoring the phone calls of German Chancellor Angela Merkel. She said the United States should only be spying on foreign leaders with hostile countries, or in an emergency, and even then the president should personally approve the surveillance. It was not clear what precipitated Feinstein's condemnation of the NSA. It marks a significant reversal for a lawmaker who not only defended agency surveillance programs -- but is about to introduce a bill expected to protect some of its most controversial activities.
Perhaps most significant is her announcement that the intelligence committee "will initiate a review into all intelligence collection programs." Feinstein did not say the review would be limited only to the NSA. If the review also touched on other intelligence agencies under the committee's jurisdiction, it could be one of the most far-reaching reviews in recent memory, encompassing secret programs of the CIA, the Defense Intelligence Agency, agencies that run imagery and spy satellites, as well as components of the FBI. A former intelligence agency liaison to Congress said Feinstein's sudden outrage over spying on foreign leaders raised questions about how well informed she was about NSA programs and whether she'd been fully briefed by her staff. "The first question I'd ask is, what have you been doing for oversight? Second, if you've been reviewing this all along what has changed your mind?" The former official said the intelligence committees receive lengthy and detailed descriptions every year about all NSA programs, including surveillance. "They're not small books. They're about the size of those old family photo albums that were several inches thick. They're hundreds of pages long." A senior congressional aide said, "It's an absolute joke to think she hasn't been reading the signals intelligence intercepts as Chairman of Senate Intelligence for years."
The former official added that the "bottom line question is where was the Senate Intelligence Committee when it came to their oversight of these programs? And what were they being told by the NSA, because if they didn't know about this surveillance, that would imply they were being lied to." A spokesperson for Feinstein did not respond to a request for more details in time for publication. And a spokesperson for Sen. Saxby Chambliss, the intelligence committee's vice chairman, said the senator had no comment at this time. In a tacit acknowledgement of how supportive Feinstein has been of the administration's surveillance practices, the White House issued a lengthy statement about her Monday remarks.
"..We consult regularly with Chairman Feinstein as a part of our ongoing engagement with the Congress on national security matters," said National Security Council spokesperson Caitlin Hayden. "We appreciate her continued leadership on these issues as Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee. I'm not going to go into the details of those private discussions, nor am I going to comment on assertions made in the Senator's statement today about U.S. foreign intelligence activities..."
cont'
http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/10/28/were_really_screwed_now_nsas_best_friend_just_shivved_the_spies
October 29, 2013
The Art Of Stacking Sh*t Ten Feet High...........
Jake Tapper has gone rogue since moving to CNN. He busted the Benghazi email lies this summer and today his interview with former Vice President Dick Cheney was aired, in which he challenged Cheney on his “deficits don’t matter” comment. Cheney told former Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill that “(Ronald) Reagan proved that deficits don’t matter.” Tapper wondered how Cheney squared that with deficit concerns now. Cheney responded to Tapper’s question by saying that the Bush administration was running surpluses at the time. From CNN:
Cheney said at the time he made that comment about the former President, the administration was running surpluses, and they were trying to determine whether they could – like Reagan – run a deficit in order to build up military capability.
“I’m not opposed, under certain circumstances, to running deficits,” said Cheney.
“The debt is another problem. And we’ve gotten to the point now, where especially because of entitlement programs, but because there really hasn’t been much done by way of trying to restrain spending, when we have, you know, trillion-dollar deficits every year,” said Cheney.
Hmmm. That’s a lot of not true. Tapper stepped up with some reality. He pointed out that economists look at the data and in addition to “entitlements”, they blame things that happened under Bush and Cheney for the deficit, “such as funding the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, the Medicare prescription drug benefit, and tax cuts.”
Cheney pooh-poohed that away because you see, it was necessary for our security (remember the days when anything was justified by invoking “security” but these days Republicans defund Libya and then investigate when it goes wrong). Cheney said, “In terms of what we had to spend with respect to the aftermath of 9/11, setting up security systems, TSA, Homeland Security and so forth, we thought that was a necessary and legitimate expense. We did it because we believed it was important to do and, still do.”
Or, “deficits don’t matter”? Yes. That’s what he’s trying to say.
Cheney won’t take responsibility for the unfunded Medicare Part D – he dumped that on Bush, and why shouldn’t we believe that Dick Cheney wanted nothing to do with Medicare Part D. It helped people and as such is an “entitlement” program.
“But how were the programs paid for?” CNN wondered.
Cheney hemmed and hawed his away around but the bottom line is it was not paid for. He claimed they tried to pay for it but mean people would not let them take away Social Security, so, “We were totally unsuccessful,” Cheney admitted to Tapper.
Oh, a speck of truth. Cherish this moment people because it didn’t last long. Cheney also claimed that the Iraq and Afghanistan wars “were paid for. The funds were appropriated.”
Oh really?
http://thelead.blogs.cnn.com/2013/10/28/dick-cheney-on-latest-nsa-disclosure-you-never-know-what-youre-going-to-need-when-you-need-it/
David Leonhardt of the New York Times disagrees:
Clive Cook of the Financial Times (via PBS) added, “But it had huge implications for deficits. Any fiscally responsible administration would’ve attended to that. And if you were going to cut taxes as much as they did, at the very least you would’ve tried very hard to squeeze down on the spending side, so the deficit didn’t run out of control. And they failed to do that.”
Jake Tapper BUSTS Dick Cheney on His ‘DEFICITS DON'T MATTER’ Comment
The Art Of Stacking Sh*t Ten Feet High...........
Jake Tapper has gone rogue since moving to CNN. He busted the Benghazi email lies this summer and today his interview with former Vice President Dick Cheney was aired, in which he challenged Cheney on his “deficits don’t matter” comment. Cheney told former Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill that “(Ronald) Reagan proved that deficits don’t matter.” Tapper wondered how Cheney squared that with deficit concerns now. Cheney responded to Tapper’s question by saying that the Bush administration was running surpluses at the time. From CNN:
Cheney said at the time he made that comment about the former President, the administration was running surpluses, and they were trying to determine whether they could – like Reagan – run a deficit in order to build up military capability.
“I’m not opposed, under certain circumstances, to running deficits,” said Cheney.
“The debt is another problem. And we’ve gotten to the point now, where especially because of entitlement programs, but because there really hasn’t been much done by way of trying to restrain spending, when we have, you know, trillion-dollar deficits every year,” said Cheney.
Hmmm. That’s a lot of not true. Tapper stepped up with some reality. He pointed out that economists look at the data and in addition to “entitlements”, they blame things that happened under Bush and Cheney for the deficit, “such as funding the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, the Medicare prescription drug benefit, and tax cuts.”
Cheney pooh-poohed that away because you see, it was necessary for our security (remember the days when anything was justified by invoking “security” but these days Republicans defund Libya and then investigate when it goes wrong). Cheney said, “In terms of what we had to spend with respect to the aftermath of 9/11, setting up security systems, TSA, Homeland Security and so forth, we thought that was a necessary and legitimate expense. We did it because we believed it was important to do and, still do.”
Or, “deficits don’t matter”? Yes. That’s what he’s trying to say.
Cheney won’t take responsibility for the unfunded Medicare Part D – he dumped that on Bush, and why shouldn’t we believe that Dick Cheney wanted nothing to do with Medicare Part D. It helped people and as such is an “entitlement” program.
“But how were the programs paid for?” CNN wondered.
Cheney hemmed and hawed his away around but the bottom line is it was not paid for. He claimed they tried to pay for it but mean people would not let them take away Social Security, so, “We were totally unsuccessful,” Cheney admitted to Tapper.
Oh, a speck of truth. Cherish this moment people because it didn’t last long. Cheney also claimed that the Iraq and Afghanistan wars “were paid for. The funds were appropriated.”
Oh really?
http://thelead.blogs.cnn.com/2013/10/28/dick-cheney-on-latest-nsa-disclosure-you-never-know-what-youre-going-to-need-when-you-need-it/
David Leonhardt of the New York Times disagrees:
He started a very expensive war in Iraq, and even apart from the debate about whether that war was a good idea, he clearly didn’t pay for the war. He didn’t even put it in his budget in the main way they budgeted, so he didn’t really even pretend to pay for it.
“And the combination of the tax cuts, the war in Iraq, Medicare Part D and some other things meant that he essentially did not run the government as if it needed to make its payments over the long term. He ran it as if it was fine to have a huge deficit.”
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/tentrillion/themes/bush.html
“And the combination of the tax cuts, the war in Iraq, Medicare Part D and some other things meant that he essentially did not run the government as if it needed to make its payments over the long term. He ran it as if it was fine to have a huge deficit.”
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/tentrillion/themes/bush.html
Clive Cook of the Financial Times (via PBS) added, “But it had huge implications for deficits. Any fiscally responsible administration would’ve attended to that. And if you were going to cut taxes as much as they did, at the very least you would’ve tried very hard to squeeze down on the spending side, so the deficit didn’t run out of control. And they failed to do that.”
October 29, 2013
A senior administration official told TPM Monday that Senate Intelligence Chair Dianne Feinstein's statement that the United States would no longer collect intelligence on U.S. allies was not accurate.
Earlier in the day, Feinstein said: “The White House has informed me that collection on our allies will not continue, which I support."
The official said that statement is not accurate.
The official said that the administration had made some specific policy changes, which could not be detailed, but not overall changes, such as across-the-board termination of intelligence collection that might be aimed at U.S. allies.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/official-feinstein-s-nsa-statement-is-not-accurate
Ooops: Official: Feinstein's Statement On Intel Collection NOT ACCURATE
A senior administration official told TPM Monday that Senate Intelligence Chair Dianne Feinstein's statement that the United States would no longer collect intelligence on U.S. allies was not accurate.
Earlier in the day, Feinstein said: “The White House has informed me that collection on our allies will not continue, which I support."
“Unlike NSA’s collection of phone records under a court order, it is clear to me that certain surveillance activities have been in effect for more than a decade and that the Senate Intelligence Committee was not satisfactorily informed," she said. "Therefore our oversight needs to be strengthened and increased."
Feinstein added that it was "a big problem" that President Obama was not aware of the surveillance. The administration has assured Feinstein that the surveillance would not continue, she said: “The White House has informed me that collection on our allies will not continue, which I support."
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/feinstein-i-am-totally-opposed-to-surveilling-foreign-leaders
Feinstein added that it was "a big problem" that President Obama was not aware of the surveillance. The administration has assured Feinstein that the surveillance would not continue, she said: “The White House has informed me that collection on our allies will not continue, which I support."
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/feinstein-i-am-totally-opposed-to-surveilling-foreign-leaders
The official said that statement is not accurate.
The official said that the administration had made some specific policy changes, which could not be detailed, but not overall changes, such as across-the-board termination of intelligence collection that might be aimed at U.S. allies.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/official-feinstein-s-nsa-statement-is-not-accurate
October 29, 2013
In January 1989, in the wake of the extreme measures passed by the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988, the marijuana-centric magazine High Times ran an advertisement from a group calling itself the Freedom Fighters asking readers to join its “cannabis protest movement”:
The advertisement was primarily speaking to men. After all, the National Survey on Drug Use and Health reported that, even in 2012, men were nearly 50 percent more likely to smoke pot than women. High Times, with its centerfolds of scantily clad women and often boorish humor, has reflected those statistics for nearly 40 years. But, given the current softening of pot's political and social stigma, more women than ever are following the Freedom Fighters’ advice and are coming out of the “cannabis closet” by exposing themselves in public as marijuana users. From articles about closing the pot gender gap to sociological studies of “Mary Jane’s Gender,” women and weed are a hot topic. Discussions of "hot bud-tenders" (the women who work at marijuana dispensaries) and how pot gives women a better sex life are rife. Yet larger questions—about who these women are, how they’re being portrayed, and what the effects of their “coming out” might be—remain.
The image of the pothead has long been a male one. The stoner is a trope, a media fixture recognizable in Half Baked, Friday, The Big Lebowski, Pineapple Express, and This Is the End, among other works. As Wendy Chapkis, a sociologist at the University of Southern Maine, put it, the stoner’s slacker attitude “relies on a mismatch between expectation and condition; this is why it is most available to white heterosexual men with some measure of class privilege.” In other words, a stoner is usually a dude who can spend all day sitting in his underwear, smoking weed and eating Cheetos and Goldfish. A woman—especially a hardworking, college-educated adult woman—would more likely be portrayed as pathetic instead of funny. And yet, recently, more women are starting to use the internet to come out of the cannabis closet. Whether on Facebook, through online journals like Ladybud, or in the comments section of popular articles on Jezebel and The Stranger, women are exposing themselves as tokers—and as mothers, lovers, students, employees, taxpayers, voters, and otherwise upstanding citizens. Many of the comments following these articles voice an overwhelming sense of relief: “I finally felt like I wasn’t alone!” There’s an air of cognitive dissonance about it, that a woman, especially a nurturing professional woman, could both smoke pot and not be Jim Breuer in Half Baked was, to many, a revelation.
cont'
http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2013/10/marijuana-and-the-modern-lady/280828/
Marijuana And The Modern Lady
What it means that more women are defending pot as a natural form of relaxation
In January 1989, in the wake of the extreme measures passed by the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988, the marijuana-centric magazine High Times ran an advertisement from a group calling itself the Freedom Fighters asking readers to join its “cannabis protest movement”:
“For three years we’ve been asking our readers to get involved in the cannabis reform movement,” the ad read. “During that time, we have witnessed the steady erosion of our civil rights. Now Congress has passed a truly reprehensible bill aimed at illegal drug users. Don’t you think it’s about time you stepped out of that cannabis closet you’re hiding in?”
The advertisement was primarily speaking to men. After all, the National Survey on Drug Use and Health reported that, even in 2012, men were nearly 50 percent more likely to smoke pot than women. High Times, with its centerfolds of scantily clad women and often boorish humor, has reflected those statistics for nearly 40 years. But, given the current softening of pot's political and social stigma, more women than ever are following the Freedom Fighters’ advice and are coming out of the “cannabis closet” by exposing themselves in public as marijuana users. From articles about closing the pot gender gap to sociological studies of “Mary Jane’s Gender,” women and weed are a hot topic. Discussions of "hot bud-tenders" (the women who work at marijuana dispensaries) and how pot gives women a better sex life are rife. Yet larger questions—about who these women are, how they’re being portrayed, and what the effects of their “coming out” might be—remain.
The image of the pothead has long been a male one. The stoner is a trope, a media fixture recognizable in Half Baked, Friday, The Big Lebowski, Pineapple Express, and This Is the End, among other works. As Wendy Chapkis, a sociologist at the University of Southern Maine, put it, the stoner’s slacker attitude “relies on a mismatch between expectation and condition; this is why it is most available to white heterosexual men with some measure of class privilege.” In other words, a stoner is usually a dude who can spend all day sitting in his underwear, smoking weed and eating Cheetos and Goldfish. A woman—especially a hardworking, college-educated adult woman—would more likely be portrayed as pathetic instead of funny. And yet, recently, more women are starting to use the internet to come out of the cannabis closet. Whether on Facebook, through online journals like Ladybud, or in the comments section of popular articles on Jezebel and The Stranger, women are exposing themselves as tokers—and as mothers, lovers, students, employees, taxpayers, voters, and otherwise upstanding citizens. Many of the comments following these articles voice an overwhelming sense of relief: “I finally felt like I wasn’t alone!” There’s an air of cognitive dissonance about it, that a woman, especially a nurturing professional woman, could both smoke pot and not be Jim Breuer in Half Baked was, to many, a revelation.
cont'
http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2013/10/marijuana-and-the-modern-lady/280828/
October 28, 2013
Michigan’s kids are one of the country’s most important natural resources. Representing the best fed, best educated, and most protected group of children this country has to offer – or so it seems. And the taking of children from state sanctioned medical marijuana patients is meant to protect that resource. At leat that’s the logic – best PR position – the agents from Michigan’s CPS could muster after ripping Bree Green from her parents arms. What was their crime you ask? Simply being medical marijuana patients in the great state of Michigan. Now, thanks to cooler minds and common sense, the recently seized six-month old Bree Green will be allowed to return to her parents.
After an evidentiary hearing late last week a Michigan judge expressed serious doubts and articulated his many reservations regarding the allegations contained in the CPS petition for custody.
As all good parents do.
In conjunction with the recently handed down order – both parents will be allowed to consume their medicine and continue cultivating cannabis for their medical needs. With two small stipulation. No smoking around the child – a big no shit! And Bree will now be subjected to regular testing for THC.
http://www.marijuana.com/news/2013/10/michigan-medical-marijuana-patients-breathe-a-sigh-of-relief-bree-green-returned-by-cps/
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/10/25/medical-marijuana-using-parents-get-baby-back/3202373/
Michigan Medical Marijuana Patients Breathe a Sigh of Relief: BREE GREEN Returned by CPS
“My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from too much government.” ~ Thomas Jefferson
Michigan’s kids are one of the country’s most important natural resources. Representing the best fed, best educated, and most protected group of children this country has to offer – or so it seems. And the taking of children from state sanctioned medical marijuana patients is meant to protect that resource. At leat that’s the logic – best PR position – the agents from Michigan’s CPS could muster after ripping Bree Green from her parents arms. What was their crime you ask? Simply being medical marijuana patients in the great state of Michigan. Now, thanks to cooler minds and common sense, the recently seized six-month old Bree Green will be allowed to return to her parents.
“I’m ecstatic,” noted the little girl’s mother, as she stood outside the courtroom supported by medical marijuana activists blazing “Free Bree” ribbons. Both parents are Michigan medical marijuana patients. Steve Green suffers from severe epileptic seizures that only marijuana’s CBD cannabinoid can treat, while Maria Green, a former preschool teacher suffers with MS.
After an evidentiary hearing late last week a Michigan judge expressed serious doubts and articulated his many reservations regarding the allegations contained in the CPS petition for custody.
Prompting Steve Green’s wife Maria, to beam with joy; “Bree will be in her own bed tonight. We’re going to hug her and read to her and love her.”
As all good parents do.
In conjunction with the recently handed down order – both parents will be allowed to consume their medicine and continue cultivating cannabis for their medical needs. With two small stipulation. No smoking around the child – a big no shit! And Bree will now be subjected to regular testing for THC.
http://www.marijuana.com/news/2013/10/michigan-medical-marijuana-patients-breathe-a-sigh-of-relief-bree-green-returned-by-cps/
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/10/25/medical-marijuana-using-parents-get-baby-back/3202373/
October 28, 2013
The legalization of marijuana is no longer a fringe issue within the Democratic Party, according to one U.S. congressman from Colorado. Rep. Jared Polis (D) said last week at the International Drug Policy Reform Conference 2013 that most Democrats now approved of changing the nation’s marijuana laws. “When I first got [to Congress]… there were a number of us who talked about it and of course a brave few Republicans — Ron Paul and others — who talked about it,” he said. “Fast forward to where we are today five years later, it has become a mainstream position in my party, the Democratic Party.”
When the House held a vote to defund prosecutions of federal marijuana offenses in states that had legalized the drug, more than three quarters of Democrats supported the proposal, Polis said. “And we still have a brave band of Republicans, whether they are for states’ rights or individual liberty, we have a brave band of Republicans, a new generation of tea party supporters and others who’ve replaced Ron Paul and work with us on all these issues,” he continued. Polis said it was only a matter of time before elected officials began to accept drug policy reforms, now that a majority of Americans support the legalization marijuana.
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/10/28/rep-jared-polis-marijuana-legalization-now-mainstream-in-the-democratic-party/
Rep. Jared Polis: Marijuana Legalization Now ‘MAINSTREAM’ In The Democratic Party
The legalization of marijuana is no longer a fringe issue within the Democratic Party, according to one U.S. congressman from Colorado. Rep. Jared Polis (D) said last week at the International Drug Policy Reform Conference 2013 that most Democrats now approved of changing the nation’s marijuana laws. “When I first got [to Congress]… there were a number of us who talked about it and of course a brave few Republicans — Ron Paul and others — who talked about it,” he said. “Fast forward to where we are today five years later, it has become a mainstream position in my party, the Democratic Party.”
When the House held a vote to defund prosecutions of federal marijuana offenses in states that had legalized the drug, more than three quarters of Democrats supported the proposal, Polis said. “And we still have a brave band of Republicans, whether they are for states’ rights or individual liberty, we have a brave band of Republicans, a new generation of tea party supporters and others who’ve replaced Ron Paul and work with us on all these issues,” he continued. Polis said it was only a matter of time before elected officials began to accept drug policy reforms, now that a majority of Americans support the legalization marijuana.
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/10/28/rep-jared-polis-marijuana-legalization-now-mainstream-in-the-democratic-party/
October 28, 2013
LONDON -- LONDON (AP) — They were once two of the most powerful people in the British media, senior executives for media mogul Rupert Murdoch and associates of Prime Minister David Cameron. Former News of the World editors Rebekah Brooks and Andy Coulson were going on trial Monday, along with several others, on charges of hacking phones and bribing officials while at the now-shuttered Murdoch tabloid. Both arrived early at London's Central Criminal Court for the first day of the trial, which was opening with legal arguments and jury selection. Brooks came by taxi with her husband, Charles Brooks, who faces a related charge of obstructing justice. The trial unfolding in a plain, starkly lit room at the Old Bailey should provide high drama for media watchers - and an unwelcome reminder for Murdoch and Cameron of the two-year-old scandal that continues to tarnish Britain's media, politicians and police. Murdoch tweeted about the upcoming trial earlier this month: "Remember, everyone innocent until proven guilty, entitled to fair trial in most countries."
WHO IS ON TRIAL?
The three highest-profile defendants are: Brooks, 45, ex-editor of the News of the World and former chief executive of Rupert Murdoch's British newspapers; Coulson, 45, another former News of the World editor who was Prime Minister David Cameron's communications chief until 2011; and Rebekah Brooks' 50-year-old husband Charles, a racehorse trainer. Coulson and Rebekah Brooks have become the faces of the scandal, though neither has been convicted of wrongdoing. He was the elusive figure - rarely photographed - behind Cameron's canny media strategy. She was the flame-haired high-flyer who exchanged text messages with her friend and neighbor Cameron while overseeing Murdoch's politically powerful British newspapers. They face trial alongside former News of the World managing editor Stuart Kuttner, ex-news editor Ian Edmondson and former royal editor Clive Goodman; Rebekah Brooks' former assistant Cheryl Carter; and Mark Hanna, former security chief at Murdoch's News International.
WHAT ARE THE CHARGES?
Brooks and Coulson are charged with conspiracy to intercept communications - phone hacking - and with conspiracy to commit misconduct in a public office, which covers bribing officials such as police and prison guards. The other former News of the World journalists face related charges. Rebekah Brooks, Charles Brooks, Carter and Hanna are accused of conspiring to pervert the course of justice by removing material from the company archive and withholding computers and documents from police. The defendants deny all the charges.
HOW DID THE ALLEGATIONS ARISE?
The charges stem from the scandal that erupted in 2011, when it was revealed that journalists at the News of the World eavesdropped on the cellphone voicemail messages of celebrities, politicians, crime victims and others in the public eye. The furor led Murdoch to close the News of The World and triggered police investigations into phone hacking, computer hacking and the bribery of officials, which have expanded to take in other newspapers. More than 30 people have been charged, including senior journalists and editors from the News of the World and its sister paper, The Sun.
cont'
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/28/rebekah-brooks-trial-andy-coulson-phone-hacking_n_4169377.html
Rupert Murdoch's NIGHTMARE Is Here: PHONE HACKING Trial Of Rebekah Brooks And Andy Coulson Begins
LONDON -- LONDON (AP) — They were once two of the most powerful people in the British media, senior executives for media mogul Rupert Murdoch and associates of Prime Minister David Cameron. Former News of the World editors Rebekah Brooks and Andy Coulson were going on trial Monday, along with several others, on charges of hacking phones and bribing officials while at the now-shuttered Murdoch tabloid. Both arrived early at London's Central Criminal Court for the first day of the trial, which was opening with legal arguments and jury selection. Brooks came by taxi with her husband, Charles Brooks, who faces a related charge of obstructing justice. The trial unfolding in a plain, starkly lit room at the Old Bailey should provide high drama for media watchers - and an unwelcome reminder for Murdoch and Cameron of the two-year-old scandal that continues to tarnish Britain's media, politicians and police. Murdoch tweeted about the upcoming trial earlier this month: "Remember, everyone innocent until proven guilty, entitled to fair trial in most countries."
WHO IS ON TRIAL?
The three highest-profile defendants are: Brooks, 45, ex-editor of the News of the World and former chief executive of Rupert Murdoch's British newspapers; Coulson, 45, another former News of the World editor who was Prime Minister David Cameron's communications chief until 2011; and Rebekah Brooks' 50-year-old husband Charles, a racehorse trainer. Coulson and Rebekah Brooks have become the faces of the scandal, though neither has been convicted of wrongdoing. He was the elusive figure - rarely photographed - behind Cameron's canny media strategy. She was the flame-haired high-flyer who exchanged text messages with her friend and neighbor Cameron while overseeing Murdoch's politically powerful British newspapers. They face trial alongside former News of the World managing editor Stuart Kuttner, ex-news editor Ian Edmondson and former royal editor Clive Goodman; Rebekah Brooks' former assistant Cheryl Carter; and Mark Hanna, former security chief at Murdoch's News International.
WHAT ARE THE CHARGES?
Brooks and Coulson are charged with conspiracy to intercept communications - phone hacking - and with conspiracy to commit misconduct in a public office, which covers bribing officials such as police and prison guards. The other former News of the World journalists face related charges. Rebekah Brooks, Charles Brooks, Carter and Hanna are accused of conspiring to pervert the course of justice by removing material from the company archive and withholding computers and documents from police. The defendants deny all the charges.
HOW DID THE ALLEGATIONS ARISE?
The charges stem from the scandal that erupted in 2011, when it was revealed that journalists at the News of the World eavesdropped on the cellphone voicemail messages of celebrities, politicians, crime victims and others in the public eye. The furor led Murdoch to close the News of The World and triggered police investigations into phone hacking, computer hacking and the bribery of officials, which have expanded to take in other newspapers. More than 30 people have been charged, including senior journalists and editors from the News of the World and its sister paper, The Sun.
cont'
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/28/rebekah-brooks-trial-andy-coulson-phone-hacking_n_4169377.html
October 28, 2013
On ABC’s This Week, Dick Cheney smeared President Obama by claiming that the president thought Bush overreached after 9/11.
Excerpt Transcript:
Cheney was referring to the president’s Cairo speech in 2009. The former vice president has been fuming for years about this speech. He even demanded an apology from President Obama in 2011 for the claim that Bush/Cheney overreached after 9/11, but the president never said anything about overreach. It never happened. It’s a Republican myth that was created by those believe that President Obama is anti-America. What Cheney really hated about the speech was that it was a rejection of the neo-con Bush Doctrine. During the same interview where he smeared the president, Cheney called for war with Iran. He also claimed that Obama had failed on Syria because he did not take military action.
Dick Cheney is telling lies about the president, because he can’t handle the fact that Barack Obama is succeeding where he failed. Cheney has been spreading this untrue story about overreach and 9/11 for years, and it is time that he finally got called out on it. Cheney’s remarks reveal that some Republicans will never accept the fact that President Obama loves his country, and they will continue to paint him as anti-American until the day that he leaves office.
http://www.politicususa.com/2013/10/27/dick-cheney-smears-president-claiming-obama-thinks-bush-overreacted-911.html
Dick Cheney SMEARS The President By CLAIMING Obama Thinks Bush Overreacted to 9/11
On ABC’s This Week, Dick Cheney smeared President Obama by claiming that the president thought Bush overreached after 9/11.
Excerpt Transcript:
STEPHANOPOULOS: One of the things they’re doing is backing away from the so-called democracy agenda that was propagated by President Bush in your administration. But you weren’t, it seemed, a big fan of that. Do you think it’s right to scale it back?
CHENEY: Well, I think the U.S. presence in the Middle East was enormously important now for decades, going all the way back certainly before Desert Storm. I think that presence and that capability and that influence has been significantly diminished as we have withdrawn from the region. We’ve cut the number of forces we have in the region.
I think our friends no longer count on us, no longer trust us and our adversaries don’t fear us. That was sort of the cornerstone and the basis of the U.S. ability and influence.
If we’re not heavily involved there, if we’ve turned our back on the region, if we’ve had a president who believes we overreacted to the terrorism attacks on 9/11, I think the Saudis, the Emirates, the Egyptians, many in that part of the world no longer have confidence in the United States.
http://abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek/week-transcript-vice-president-dick-cheney/story?id=20687048
CHENEY: Well, I think the U.S. presence in the Middle East was enormously important now for decades, going all the way back certainly before Desert Storm. I think that presence and that capability and that influence has been significantly diminished as we have withdrawn from the region. We’ve cut the number of forces we have in the region.
I think our friends no longer count on us, no longer trust us and our adversaries don’t fear us. That was sort of the cornerstone and the basis of the U.S. ability and influence.
If we’re not heavily involved there, if we’ve turned our back on the region, if we’ve had a president who believes we overreacted to the terrorism attacks on 9/11, I think the Saudis, the Emirates, the Egyptians, many in that part of the world no longer have confidence in the United States.
http://abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek/week-transcript-vice-president-dick-cheney/story?id=20687048
Cheney was referring to the president’s Cairo speech in 2009. The former vice president has been fuming for years about this speech. He even demanded an apology from President Obama in 2011 for the claim that Bush/Cheney overreached after 9/11, but the president never said anything about overreach. It never happened. It’s a Republican myth that was created by those believe that President Obama is anti-America. What Cheney really hated about the speech was that it was a rejection of the neo-con Bush Doctrine. During the same interview where he smeared the president, Cheney called for war with Iran. He also claimed that Obama had failed on Syria because he did not take military action.
Dick Cheney is telling lies about the president, because he can’t handle the fact that Barack Obama is succeeding where he failed. Cheney has been spreading this untrue story about overreach and 9/11 for years, and it is time that he finally got called out on it. Cheney’s remarks reveal that some Republicans will never accept the fact that President Obama loves his country, and they will continue to paint him as anti-American until the day that he leaves office.
http://www.politicususa.com/2013/10/27/dick-cheney-smears-president-claiming-obama-thinks-bush-overreacted-911.html
October 27, 2013
Bill Maher’s New Rules on the plea to raise the minimum wage is on point. It is hard to understand anyone’s objection to it. A country cannot frown on citizen’s using public assistance if it does not create an economy that pays a living wage to all of its citizens that are working. The following snippet with the most relevant bullets from his New Rules segment on the minimum wage is on point.
cont'
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2013/10/26/bill-maher-tired-minimum-wage/
Bill Maher’s RANT On The MINIMUM WAGE Is Something You Do NOT Want To Miss
Bill Maher’s New Rules on the plea to raise the minimum wage is on point. It is hard to understand anyone’s objection to it. A country cannot frown on citizen’s using public assistance if it does not create an economy that pays a living wage to all of its citizens that are working. The following snippet with the most relevant bullets from his New Rules segment on the minimum wage is on point.
Bill Maher’s New Rules Snippet On The Minimum Wage
When it comes to raising the minimum wage Conservatives always say it is a non-starter because it cuts into profits. … You might think that paying people enough to live is so self-evident that even crazy people could understand it. But you would be wrong. …
Michele Bachmann is not only against raising the minimum wage, she is against having one at all. She wants said “… if we took away the minimum wage … we could … virtually wipe out unemployment … because we would be able to offer jobs at whatever level.” …
And naturally Ted Cruz agrees. Ted Cruz thinks it’s a good thing that when his Cuban father came to America he was paid fifty cents an hour to work as a dishwasher. …
When did the American dream become this pathway to indentured servitude, this economic death spiral where workers get paid next to nothing, so they can only afford to buy next to nothing, so businesses are forced to sell cheaper and cheaper shit?
Consider the fact that most fast food workers whose average age by the way is 29 … are on some form of public assistance which is not surprising. When even working people can’t make enough to live they take money from the government.
This is the question the Right has to answer. Do you want smaller government with less handouts or do you want do you want a low minimum wage because you cannot have both. If Coronel Sanders isn’t going to pay the lady behind the counter enough to live on, then Uncle Sam has to. And I for one is getting a little tired of helping highly profitable companies pay their workers.
When it comes to raising the minimum wage Conservatives always say it is a non-starter because it cuts into profits. … You might think that paying people enough to live is so self-evident that even crazy people could understand it. But you would be wrong. …
Michele Bachmann is not only against raising the minimum wage, she is against having one at all. She wants said “… if we took away the minimum wage … we could … virtually wipe out unemployment … because we would be able to offer jobs at whatever level.” …
And naturally Ted Cruz agrees. Ted Cruz thinks it’s a good thing that when his Cuban father came to America he was paid fifty cents an hour to work as a dishwasher. …
When did the American dream become this pathway to indentured servitude, this economic death spiral where workers get paid next to nothing, so they can only afford to buy next to nothing, so businesses are forced to sell cheaper and cheaper shit?
Consider the fact that most fast food workers whose average age by the way is 29 … are on some form of public assistance which is not surprising. When even working people can’t make enough to live they take money from the government.
This is the question the Right has to answer. Do you want smaller government with less handouts or do you want do you want a low minimum wage because you cannot have both. If Coronel Sanders isn’t going to pay the lady behind the counter enough to live on, then Uncle Sam has to. And I for one is getting a little tired of helping highly profitable companies pay their workers.
cont'
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2013/10/26/bill-maher-tired-minimum-wage/
October 27, 2013
Bush planting a bug on German Chancellor Angela Merkel...................
After all of the concern about Obama’s spying on German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s phone, it looks like the NSA has been spying on her phone since 2002. Yeah, that’s right. Her phone got bugged under the massage artist formerly known as President George W Bush. Reuters reported Saturday that a Der Spiegel report said Merkel’s phone had been listed by the NSA since 2002. They also reported that President Obama said he didn’t know about it and would have stopped it if he had:
Cue the incredulous denial by Americans who still believe that the President is in charge of the NSA, the Pentagon, the CIA, and other secretive and powerful agencies devoted to our “protection”. The agency admitted it had not legally registered the spying branch:
Of course the NSA doesn’t tell President Obama certain things, for his sake (plausible deniability) as well as the fact that he might object and that would be awkward. Frankly this is just embarrassing all the way around, especially after the White House’s carefully crafted rebuttal days ago that they would not be spying on Merkel’s phone in the future and were not now spying on her phone (note no reference to the past):
I’m not so sure I’d believe that if I were Merkel. Maybe Obama can get them to stop spying on Merkel for now, so long as he is in office, but will they be asking permission next time and will they stop bugging others’ phones?
cont'
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/oct/23/us-monitored-angela-merkel-german
Oopsie: SPYING on Chancellor Merkel’s Phone STARTED UNDER BUSH, Not Obama
Bush planting a bug on German Chancellor Angela Merkel...................
After all of the concern about Obama’s spying on German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s phone, it looks like the NSA has been spying on her phone since 2002. Yeah, that’s right. Her phone got bugged under the massage artist formerly known as President George W Bush. Reuters reported Saturday that a Der Spiegel report said Merkel’s phone had been listed by the NSA since 2002. They also reported that President Obama said he didn’t know about it and would have stopped it if he had:
The United States may have bugged Angela Merkel’s phone for more than 10 years, according to a news report on Saturday that also said President Barack Obama told the German leader he would have stopped it happening had he known about it.
Der Spiegel said Merkel’s mobile telephone had been listed by the NSA’s Special Collection Service (SCS) since 2002 – marked as “GE Chancellor Merkel” – and was still on the list weeks before Obama visited Berlin in June….
Frankfurter Allgemeine Sonntagszeitung also said Obama had told Merkel he had not known of the bugging.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/10/26/us-germany-usa-spying-idUSBRE99P08G20131026
Der Spiegel said Merkel’s mobile telephone had been listed by the NSA’s Special Collection Service (SCS) since 2002 – marked as “GE Chancellor Merkel” – and was still on the list weeks before Obama visited Berlin in June….
Frankfurter Allgemeine Sonntagszeitung also said Obama had told Merkel he had not known of the bugging.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/10/26/us-germany-usa-spying-idUSBRE99P08G20131026
Cue the incredulous denial by Americans who still believe that the President is in charge of the NSA, the Pentagon, the CIA, and other secretive and powerful agencies devoted to our “protection”. The agency admitted it had not legally registered the spying branch:
In an SCS document cited by the magazine, the agency said it had a “not legally registered spying branch” in the U.S. embassy in Berlin, the exposure of which would lead to “grave damage for the relations of the United States to another government”.
From there, NSA and CIA staff were tapping communication in the Berlin’s government district with high-tech surveillance.
From there, NSA and CIA staff were tapping communication in the Berlin’s government district with high-tech surveillance.
Of course the NSA doesn’t tell President Obama certain things, for his sake (plausible deniability) as well as the fact that he might object and that would be awkward. Frankly this is just embarrassing all the way around, especially after the White House’s carefully crafted rebuttal days ago that they would not be spying on Merkel’s phone in the future and were not now spying on her phone (note no reference to the past):
The White House responded that Merkel’s mobile is not being tapped. “The president assured the chancellor that the United States is not monitoring and will not monitor the communications of the chancellor,” said a statement from Jay Carney, the White House spokesman.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/oct/23/us-monitored-angela-merkel-german
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/oct/23/us-monitored-angela-merkel-german
I’m not so sure I’d believe that if I were Merkel. Maybe Obama can get them to stop spying on Merkel for now, so long as he is in office, but will they be asking permission next time and will they stop bugging others’ phones?
cont'
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/oct/23/us-monitored-angela-merkel-german
Profile Information
Member since: Tue May 13, 2008, 03:07 AMNumber of posts: 14,923
