The Commentariat -- June 13, 2013
I won't be able to do any more today, but I should be back at work more-or-less full-time tomorrow. Thanks for your patience. -- Marie
Lee Ferran & Akito Fujita of ABC News: "Alleged NSA leaker Edward Snowden claimed today to have evidence that the U.S. government has been hacking into Chinese computer networks since at least 2009 -- an effort he said is part of the tens of thousands of hacking operations American cyber spies have launched around the world... The South China Morning Post reported it had conducted a lengthy interview with the 29-year-old former NSA contractor.... The Post said Snowden provided documents, which the paper described as 'unverified,' that he said showed U.S. cyber operations targeting a Hong Kong university, public officials and students in the Chinese city. The paper said the documents also indicate hacking attacks targeting mainland Chinese targets, but did not reveal information about Chinese military systems." ...
... The New York Times story, by Keith Bradsher, is here. The Guardian story, by Ewen MacAskill & Tania Branigan, is here. ...
... CW: I would say this revelation helps answer the question my local paper asked this morning: Snowden, traitor or hero? I cannot see how U.S. citizens benefit from this latest revelation, & there are obvious downsides. ...
... Andrew Rafferty of NBC News: "The expansive government surveillance programs made public last week have helped prevent 'dozens' of terrorist attacks, National Security Agency Director Keith Alexander told a Senate committee Wednesday. It is unclear, however, what specific surveillance practices helped thwart the alleged plots. And Alexander, an Army general, was quick to clarify that in most cases multiple programs have successfully been used together to stop attacks both in the United States and abroad." ...
... The Washington Post story, by Ellen Nakashima & Jerry Markon, is here.
... Ed Pilkington & Nicholas Watt of the Guardian: "Lawyers and intelligence experts with direct knowledge of two intercepted terrorist plots that the Obama administration says confirm the value of the NSA's vast data-mining activities have questioned whether the surveillance sweeps played a significant role, if any, in foiling the attacks." ...
... Not too worried about the Obama administration's little lapses? Paul Waldman of the American Prospect is: "when President Paul Ryan or whoever takes office and meets with his national security team, what he'll say is, 'Let's see here. I can get every American's phone records, I can read their emails, I can send drones out to kill an American citizen anywhere in the world if I decide that person is a threat, and hell, I can even start a little war without bothering to get Congress' permission if I want to. I'll certainly be using these powers with restraint -- 'ha ha!' And don't forget that when that next Republican president does come along, his administration is going to be stocked to the gills with people who worked for George W. Bush, just because that's how things work in Washington." ...
... Obama 2.0. Karen DeYoung & Greg Miller of the Washington Post: "The CIA's deputy director plans to retire and will be replaced by White House lawyer and agency outsider Avril D. Haines, Director John O. Brennan said Wednesday. Haines, who will succeed career officer Michael Morell on Aug. 9, has served for three years as President Obama's deputy counsel in charge of national security issues and as legal adviser to the National Security Council.... The surprise move gives Brennan an ally in the CIA's executive suite who helped him with the revision of drone-campaign rules that was recently announced by Obama. Unlike an agency insider, Haines has no direct investment in any of the counterterrorism programs that Brennan has indicated he will seek to rein in."
Michael McAuliff & Sabrina Siddiqui in the Huffington Post: some GOP Senators -- e.g., Mitch McConnell -- who thought gun background checks were way too intrusive are A-okay with NSA surveillance of Americans' phone records. CW: nice to know that consistency is not among the hobgoblins of their little minds.
The Grand Old Misogynist Party, Ctd.
Aaron Blake of the Washington Post: "The House Judiciary Committee on Wednesday signed off on a bill that would ban abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy. The bill would narrow the window currently set out by federal law and the Supreme Court, which bans most abortions after 24 weeks of pregnancy. Some Republican-controlled state legislatures have passed similar laws in recent months. The bill passed committee by a 20-12 vote and is headed for the House floor." ...
... Dana Milbank: "... the nameplates on the majority side told the story: Mr. Goodlatte. Mr. Sensenbrenner. Mr. Coble. Mr. Smith. Mr. Chabot. Mr. Bachus. Mr. Issa. Mr. Forbes. Mr. King. Mr. Franks. In all, the nameplates of 23 misters lined both rows on the GOP side; there isn't one Republican woman on the panel. The guys muscled through a bill that, should it become law, would upend Roe v. Wade by effectively banning all abortions after 20 weeks."
Congressional Races
David Bernstein of Boston Daily: President Obama traveled to Massachusetts to a get-out-the-vote rally for U.S. Senate candidate Ed Markey.
Gail Collins on Michael Bloomberg's brilliant plan to defeat anti-gun-safety Democratic Senators Mark Pryor (Arkansas) & Mark Begich (Alaska), thus greatly increasing the likelihood that the entire Senate will fall to the Grand Ole Shoot-'em-up Party. Here's the ad against Pryor:
... Here's Mark Pryor's response. CW: I'm not sure the Mayors Against Gun Violence ad will hurt him a great deal in Arkansas:
News Ledes
Orlando Sentinel: "The judge presiding over George Zimmerman's trial in the fatal shooting of Trayvon Martin announced Thursday that the jury will be sequestered. None has yet been seated in the case...."
AP: "An argument inside a St. Louis home health care business escalated into gun violence Thursday when a man shot three other people before turning the gun on himself, police said. The shooting occurred at AK Home Health Care LLC.... Authorities said the shooter either owned or was a co-owner of the small business and his three victims were employees."
Reader Comments (15)
Another great look into Brownbackistan by Rolling Stones magazine:
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/rogue-state-how-far-right-fanatics-hijacked-kansas-20130612?page=2
Hailing from Koch Empire HQ, I really appreciate these types of articles as I get constant questions about 'life in Kansas.' Especially from foreigners trying to decrypt the Midwest U.S.
A typical convo looks about like:
Yes, same state as Wizard of Oz, Yes, tornadoes threaten life every year, No, I do not own cows nor do I have spurs on my non-existant cowboy boots, Perhaps I have a redneck but it's for natural reasons and not stupidity and bigotry, Yes liberal thought does exist within the rolling countryside of Kansas.... At about that time, I attempt to explain the cordoned-off, last Alamo of liberal thought that is Douglas County, fighting off the sea of Reds that would love to topple the Bastille and complete their revolution. When they look at me confused (inevitably), I direct them to articles like these.
And on another note, if this Snowden character really did spill the beans to China with hard evidence, then his credibility went right out the window. No way to fight government intrusion in ordinary citizen's lives and then go eat cake with the Party. Sounds like a Black-Ops rendition package might be appropriate.
Frank Rich on Snowden: " His main civic contribution thus far is — in the words of President Obama and countless others — to open up a debate about the state of privacy in America. I fear that debate will not survive August."
See http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2013/06/frank-rich-snowden-wont-undo-the-patriot-act.html
Or as the French say, "plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose."
@safari: Just finished reading that beautifully written piece on Kansas and its movers and shakers. You can hope that Brownback DOES run for President in 2016 because he will lose and you just may get a new governor who leans to the left of all those corn fields. When someone like Jean Schodorf gets beaten by a 26 yr. old upstart who still lives with his parents then you know you got trouble in River City. One gets shivers reading this piece which ends on this note:
"As for Brownback, well, his State of the State address in January seemed pitched not only to voters at home, but to a potentially broader audience. "When our country seems adrift, Kansas leads," he said. "In an era when many believe that America has lost its way, Kansas knows its way."
Re: Diving into the megadata dumpster or Uber Santa's list. OK Naughty; listen up Nice, we've got the skinny on you and it ain't so pretty as we say in the listening business.
Of course if you haven't done anything wrong (our standards, not yours) your secrets are safe with us, mum's the word (a lot to spend on a egg topper, but that's just me). Your government needs to know every detail of your most private life to keep your rights to privacy from being trampled on.
Think of it as a open pit coal mine operation; we move a mountain of dirt to get a spoonful of hard, black carbon. If we squeeze hard enough we can turn that carbon into diamond and if we look at every facet of that diamond we get information that may or may not be useful. Takes energy to make energy; and what's best?... You; you mountain of dirt, are paying for it! That's right, taxpayer, you're the one picking up the tab.
Seems a little strange to me; but then again a lot of things in the Post-911 world seem a little strange to me. We are making that list; we're checking it twice; surveillance sure is nice. I'm watching you.
So the big question on my plate this morning is: Edward Snowden, narcissistic jerk or delusional creep?
Is he a hero, as Marie's local paper (and plenty of others) asks? Let's look at that possibility.
If Snowden was appalled by what was going on, and let's face it, what the fuck did he think the CIA and NSA do all day long? Play mahjong and watch reruns of the Six Million Dollar Man? That was one of my first thoughts when I heard of this disgruntled low level operative who had sprung this leak. Then I thought, well, maybe the guy went into it with the idea of patriotic duty, helping the nation, blah, blah, blah, and once he was farther down the rabbit hole discovered things he didn't really like.
Okay, then. So what to do?
If your inclination is to open Pandora's Box and let the shit fly because you think it's right and it's not illegal, then why run away afterwards? My sense is that a more honorable person would have stood up, told his story and damn the consequences, especially if, as he claims, he had done nothing wrong.
But that's not what happened. This guy buggers off to Hong Kong and once there he blabs about the US hacking Chinese computer networks, perhaps to curry favor with party bigwigs. Now he says he wants to be judged by the people. What people? The Chinese? What's the purpose there? If his actions were, as he claims, to open the eyes of American citizens shouldn't they be the ones he'd want to decide his fate?
But once again, he rings false. Or maybe just not that bright. Just because he can hack computer networks doesn't make him Immanuel Kant.
I'm inclined to agree with at least some of what Jeff Toobin wrote in the New Yorker the other day, that this guy may be a bit overly self-regarding. I don't have enough facts to go as far as "grandiose narcissist" as Toobin calls him. I think there's a lot more to this story. For instance, was there some event or trigger that spurred these leaks? Some tipping point he reached? Maybe he set out to do some good with his whistleblowing but then realized that if he stayed in the US he could very well be fucked and didn't relish that. None of us are perfect, maybe he didn't think this through all the way.
Nonetheless, it's one thing to spill the beans within the family (the US), it's another thing to rat out the family to a foreign government. Running to the Chinese press with stories of back door intelligence gathering is a deal breaker for me. And if he's doing it to try to get himself a better deal with the Chinese, it's even worse.
The other day Marie and I wrote about our younger selves, noting that we were both (and, I will wager, many others here) raving idealists. Some things were right. Others were wrong. Not much in between. But as we all grew older and wiser we were able to see things a bit differently. Even in the Snowden story, I'm willing to grant that there may be some gray areas and information we still don't have. But a recognition of gray zones and an appreciation of nuanced positions doesn't mean we blind ourselves when someone does something clearly wrong.
And running to the Chinese with stories of official hacking from within the US Government fits that bill. I don't care if the Chinese already know we're doing it. We know that they do it too. But Snowden has pretty much made himself China's very own Gary Powers to parade around and wave under our noses. This we don't need.
And when they're done with him, they'll either extradite him just for shits and grins, to stand trial, or stick him in a factory somewhere in Mongolia for the rest of his life.
So, hero? I don't think so. Traitor? I didn't agree with Boehner when he made his knee jerk assertion, but I'm not too far from agreeing with him now.
A surprise vote from our tail gunner Ted yesterday when he voted WITH Gillibrand's proposal. The Times editorial spells out the outcome: "Mr. Levin, a Democrat of Michigan, then proceeded to put forward his amendment to the 2014 defense authorization bill — which passed by a 17-to-9 vote — to strike a bipartisan measure championed by Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, a Democrat of New York. Ms. Gillibrand’s proposal would have given independent military prosecutors, rather than commanders, the power to decide which sexual assault crimes to try, fixing a basic structural flaw in the military justice system that deters people from reporting assaults." I'm a little puzzled by Cruz's vote, simply because I don't trust the guy––and wonder why he's on the side of most of the democrats on this issue. I'm also sorely disappointed that Levin is sticking with the top brass who he thinks will change their ways. It's that old Change You Can Believe In, I guess. We'll see how well that works.
@Akhilleus:
(Ron) Paulists ARE narcissists, as they must be to think any one human being--always starting with themselves--is that important.
The complexity here (there's always one..or two..or... isn't there?) is the likelihood that a tower of narcissism is often built within a scaffold of self-doubt, and it's not hard to see how the Snowdens among us might have come to build that shaky tower.
Paulism provides a pleasant home for the disaffected who don't want to think too much. And yes, that makes them dangerous.
Forgive my intrusiveness, but it's raining hard here preventing my outside activities. Last night PBS had a Nova production on the Atomic bomb; I only saw bits and pieces yet today I'm thinking about all the secrecy that surrounded that endeavor and how Oppenheimer was later racked over the coals during the Gray Board Hearings––a veritable kangaroo court––and our FBI guy whose name is the same as my vacuum cleaner was bugging Oppie's phone, house and mistress. (Hoover, as we all know now, bugged anyone and everyone to his heart's content). During this time a group of scientists in Chicago wanted to persuade Washington that an Atomic attack on Japan was inadvisable. The Frank report, as it was known, never got off the ground. When Frank himself went to Stimson (Sec. of state) he was informed, falsely, that Stimson was out of town. Truman never saw the Frank report; it was seized by the army and classified. Somehow this history now seems clear of complexities that now prevail in all this surveillance business and whether someone is a hero or a traitor. Our times have become fraught with complexity and the need for reasoned discourse is needed more than ever. Rainy day ramblings.
Well, maybe the GOP will just die off: http://www.salon.com/2013/06/13/deaths_exceed_births_for_first_time_among_non_hispanic_white_americans/
@P.D. Pepe
The article on Kansas is indeed a good summary of how the loonies hijacked our State. Whether Brownback thinks he's got a chance at the Presidency he's obviously living in an altered universe, high on his capitalist drug called unlimited $$$ being fed by the Kochs.
I imagine him as Uncle Scrooge McDuck, waking up every morning to dive into his riches, but in this case it's Mr. Burns who's the sugar daddy.
I don't think he'd last long as a national contender once the country got a whiff of the real shit this man's been cooking up. But then again Rmoney had a decent shot so it doesn't take much these days, especially with the PR machines polishing dirt into diamonds. Add that to the mass media's inability to differentiate between blatant lies and political exaggerations. Mitt's Mendacity never became a glaring factor of disqualification of his candidacy and I'm afraid we'll see it rear its ugly head again for 2016. Prematurely brushing off any Republican candidates, regardless of their extreme views, could come at our nation's peril.
Yet I think the rise of the fringe in Kansas gives us a stronger warning, but on another scale. Conservatives won't change their message (or are incapable, more likely) thus Presidential ambitions seem less likely for now as long as the Democrats can get the vote out. But as Marie and others have noted on here before, we should be more worried about State elections because they're much easier (and cheaper) to undermine. With our federal system, taking over a State government gives you enormous power over almost the entire institutional structure and a few years can be enough to retool the structure as the paymaster's wish (see Brownbackistan). Undoing such a process is clearly much more difficult as the interest groups settle into their new nests of power and privilege.
The transformation of Kansas to right extremism could be a blueprint for Brownback's national ambitions, but it's even a stronger blueprint for effecting serious political change "bottom-up". We'll see if the cancer spreads soon enough.
Ken,
I see where you’re going with the Paulist/narcissist idea.
I’m not sure Liberatarians, at least the ones I know, fit the mold of classical narcissism (Kate could help us there). They tend more towards a world view that places their needs and the desire for complete freedom to attend those needs ahead of pretty much everything else. That may or may not be narcissistic but I’m guessing the outcomes are very similar to what you might find with narcissistic personalities. But the most prominent quality of most Libertarian tracts is selfishness. Certainly we are all wired to be selfish to a point, but there is also a strain of altruism that tempers pure selfishness in most human beings. Unfortunately there isn’t much of that present in Libertarianism. At least not as a primary sense of what constitutes the good in a society.
In college I read Robert Nozick’s “Anarchy, State, and Utopia” and found myself fascinated by this treatise on Libertarianism. Until I started playing out some of Nozick’s thought experiments which promoted an image of a Libertarian landscape full of heavily fortified domiciles, each with an M1 Abrams tank in the front yard and an RPG launcher in the front hall just in case the nightwatchman state didn’t have the juice or the means to provide protection (because that would mean supporting a bit more than a bunch of George Zimmermans strolling the neighborhood at night. It would mean real protection which would mean TAXES and maybe even GOVERNMENT! ). It was an interesting theory. But that’s all it is. A theory. Which has never really been tested. Anywhere.
The idea that everyone will be free to pursue whatever they wish without regard to neighbors or country or state (except insofar as there are contractual obligations required to keep the economy afloat) seems compelling, in a certain way, until you realize that Libertarianism is the exact opposite of altruism. Liberal democracies attempt to find some middle ground in which citizens can find a certain amount of freedom but that other members of society aren’t left to sink beneath the waves. Do we really want a social order that ignores those at the bottom? That allows unbridled capitalism? A purely Darwinian system? What makes Libertarians dangerous is not that they will be able to successfully institute a Libertarian state, but that the useless bantering back and forth, especially in congress, about such silly fantasy solutions keeps us from serious discussions about solutions that might actually work in the real world.
The Libertarian Paulists and the Objectivist Randians seek a social order that is unachievable in the real world. It’s stuff best left for writers of fiction.
just a test
Ken,
I see where you’re going with the Paulist/narcissist idea.
I’m not sure Liberatarians, at least the ones I know, fit the mold of classical narcissism (Kate could help us there). They tend more towards a world view that places their needs and the desire for complete freedom to attend those needs ahead of pretty much everything else. That may or may not be narcissistic but I’m guessing the outcomes are very similar to what you might find with narcissistic personalities. But the most prominent quality of most Libertarian tracts is selfishness. Certainly we are all wired to be selfish to a point, but there is also a strain of altruism that tempers pure selfishness in most human beings. Unfortunately there isn’t much of that present in Libertarianism. At least not as a primary sense of what constitutes the good in a society.
In college I read Robert Nozick’s “Anarchy, State, and Utopia” and found myself fascinated by this treatise on Libertarianism. Until I started playing out some of Nozick’s thought experiments which promoted an image of a Libertarian landscape full of heavily fortified domiciles, each with an M1 Abrams tank in the front yard and an RPG launcher in the front hall just in case the nightwatchman state didn’t have the juice or the means to provide protection (because that would mean supporting a bit more than a bunch of George Zimmermans strolling the neighborhood at night. It would mean real protection which would mean TAXES and maybe even GOVERNMENT! ). It was an interesting theory. But that’s all it is. A theory. Which has never really been tested. Anywhere.
The idea that everyone will be free to pursue whatever they wish without regard to neighbors or country or state (except insofar as there are contractual obligations required to keep the economy afloat) seems compelling, in a certain way, until you realize that Libertarianism is the exact opposite of altruism. Liberal democracies attempt to find some middle ground in which citizens can find a certain amount of freedom but that other members of society aren’t left to sink beneath the waves. Do we really want a social order that ignores those at the bottom? That allows unbridled capitalism? A purely Darwinian system? What makes Libertarians dangerous is not that they will be able to successfully institute a Libertarian state, but that the useless bantering back and forth, especially in congress, about such silly fantasy solutions keeps us from serious discussions about solutions that might actually work in the real world.
The Libertarian Paulists and the Objectivist Randians seek a social order that is unachievable in the real world. It’s stuff best left for writers of fiction.
@Ak: You probably don't remember last week about the drink that
I planned with Judy Nye (Ted Turner"s first wife). It went swimmingly; she's still wearing the bell bottoms she wore when Ted
left her and the long hair that I could do something with, but it fits her. Life in a small town. We don't be in Atlanta anymore; we be
on the coast of Lake Michigan among the billionaires with second
and third and fourth homes. But not Judy and I. We just be simple
folks doing our gardening and enjoying the number one beach and
hiking dunes in the world.
This is quite amusing. Really.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/06/13/1215754/-The-hilarious-travails-of-the-Prohibition-nbsp-Party