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
WillyT
WillyT's Journal
WillyT's Journal
September 21, 2013
So if you haven't seen it... or want to see it again... there it is.
Tonight on MSNBC... Right after Rachael.
Heads-Up, If This Is For You... When Rachel Ends Tonight...Her Special, 'Hubris" Will Be...
RebroadcastAbout how we were lied into the Iraq War.
So if you haven't seen it... or want to see it again... there it is.
Tonight on MSNBC... Right after Rachael.
September 21, 2013
Would't actively advocate for the bringing down of an economy???
and therefoe a government that they do not like???
This... is who they are catering to.
Again: Is It Any Wonder That Groups Of People Who Believe In The End Times, And Violence...
And Have Historically Used Economic/Political Upheaval For Their Own Violent Gains...Would't actively advocate for the bringing down of an economy???
and therefoe a government that they do not like???
This... is who they are catering to.
September 20, 2013
By Charles P. Pierce - Esquire
at 9:30am 9/20/13
<snip>
"Hey, Dianne, here's the thing on that First Amendment business. I get to define what you do for a living. And if I decide to define what you do for a living is to be a mewling apologist for the national-security community and a lapdog for the surveillance state, I get to do that, and I get to do it in a newspaper, or video, or on-line, or on a pamphlet stapled to a telephone pole outside your door, if I so choose. You get to sit there, collect your government salary, raise money from plutocrats, and shut...the...hell...up.
Which part of "Congress shall make no law..." do you not understand?
I think I mentioned a while back that, while I was in journalism school -- And, yes, I went to J-school. Don't let that get around, OK? -- we were all the time debating the notion of a shield law. It was the late, great George Reedy, without whom I likely would have been the one lawyer who broke the camel's back, who pointed out that, if we accepted a shield law, then we also would have to accept government's right to define who it would be that the shield law covered, which meant we had to accept the government's right essentially to define what a journalist was, and this way, George said, lay madness. He mentioned the Royal licenses against which colonial pamphleteers rebelled. And the Stamp Act. And the use of the post office to restrict the circulation of unpopular ideas, from abolitionist newspapers to the Comstock laws. (George believed that nothing repressive ever really was new.) Since he'd already written a brilliant book that pretty much said that the nature of the modern presidency made something like Watergate completely inevitable -- The Twilight Of The Presidency. Read it, kidz. -- I tended to take George's clairvoyance on such matters quite seriously. And now I have Dianne Feinstein presuming to define what I do for a living. Wherever you are, George, take a bow.
<And...>
I understand that we are going through an accelerated redefinition of what journalism is, and that technology has made the old definition of a journalist obsolete. But there is nothing about the technology -- or about the effects that technology has had on the profession -- that requires us to abandon the fundamental requirement that journalism always -- and let us speak slowly, lest the gobshites misundertand us, a-l-w-a-y-s, is a profession outside of, and adversarial to, government, politics, and, yes, indeed, even the doings of the all-to-human, error-prone heroes of our intelligence apparatus. Nothing about the internet changes that.
There are far too many people right now in Washington who are far too comfortable in being a de facto part of the country's power structure. Their profession is not mine. Let me be quite clear. If you accept the Congress's right to define what a journalist is, you are a miserable traitor to the profession you presume to practice. You have, quite simply, become something less worthy than an informer, something lower than a jailhouse snitch."
<snip>
More: http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/dianne-feinstein-sheild-laws-091913
By Popular DU Request... Charles Pierce On DiFi Defining A Journalist And The Shield Law...
Dianne Feinstein Defines "Journalist"By Charles P. Pierce - Esquire
at 9:30am 9/20/13
<snip>
"Hey, Dianne, here's the thing on that First Amendment business. I get to define what you do for a living. And if I decide to define what you do for a living is to be a mewling apologist for the national-security community and a lapdog for the surveillance state, I get to do that, and I get to do it in a newspaper, or video, or on-line, or on a pamphlet stapled to a telephone pole outside your door, if I so choose. You get to sit there, collect your government salary, raise money from plutocrats, and shut...the...hell...up.
Which part of "Congress shall make no law..." do you not understand?
I think I mentioned a while back that, while I was in journalism school -- And, yes, I went to J-school. Don't let that get around, OK? -- we were all the time debating the notion of a shield law. It was the late, great George Reedy, without whom I likely would have been the one lawyer who broke the camel's back, who pointed out that, if we accepted a shield law, then we also would have to accept government's right to define who it would be that the shield law covered, which meant we had to accept the government's right essentially to define what a journalist was, and this way, George said, lay madness. He mentioned the Royal licenses against which colonial pamphleteers rebelled. And the Stamp Act. And the use of the post office to restrict the circulation of unpopular ideas, from abolitionist newspapers to the Comstock laws. (George believed that nothing repressive ever really was new.) Since he'd already written a brilliant book that pretty much said that the nature of the modern presidency made something like Watergate completely inevitable -- The Twilight Of The Presidency. Read it, kidz. -- I tended to take George's clairvoyance on such matters quite seriously. And now I have Dianne Feinstein presuming to define what I do for a living. Wherever you are, George, take a bow.
<And...>
I understand that we are going through an accelerated redefinition of what journalism is, and that technology has made the old definition of a journalist obsolete. But there is nothing about the technology -- or about the effects that technology has had on the profession -- that requires us to abandon the fundamental requirement that journalism always -- and let us speak slowly, lest the gobshites misundertand us, a-l-w-a-y-s, is a profession outside of, and adversarial to, government, politics, and, yes, indeed, even the doings of the all-to-human, error-prone heroes of our intelligence apparatus. Nothing about the internet changes that.
There are far too many people right now in Washington who are far too comfortable in being a de facto part of the country's power structure. Their profession is not mine. Let me be quite clear. If you accept the Congress's right to define what a journalist is, you are a miserable traitor to the profession you presume to practice. You have, quite simply, become something less worthy than an informer, something lower than a jailhouse snitch."
<snip>
More: http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/dianne-feinstein-sheild-laws-091913
September 20, 2013
Link: http://photoblog.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/09/19/20579658-photographer-captures-electrifying-images-from-rim-of-the-grand-canyon?lite
Wow !!!
Link: http://photoblog.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/09/19/20579658-photographer-captures-electrifying-images-from-rim-of-the-grand-canyon?lite
September 20, 2013
General Keith Alexander and deputy director John Inglis sign letter 'in light of unauthorised disclosure of classified information'
Adam Gabbatt in New York - theguardian.com
Friday 20 September 2013 13.43 EDT
<snip>
The National Security Agency has sent a letter to its employees' family members, in an effort to "reassure" relatives about the agency's work.
The letter, signed by NSA director General Keith Alexander and deputy director John Inglis, is dated 13 September and is addressed to "NSA/CSS family". It characterises press reports of NSA overreaches as "sensationalised" and laments how stories published on documents leaked by Edward Snowden have seen the agency portrayed "as more of a rogue element than a national treasure".
"We are writing to you, our extended NSA/CSS family, in light of the unauthorized disclosure of classified information by a former contractor employee," says the letter, which was published on The Dissenter website on Friday: http://dissenter.firedoglake.com/2013/09/19/nsa-sends-letter-to-its-extended-family-to-reassure-them-that-they-will-weather-this-storm/ "We want to put the information you are reading and hearing about in the press into context and reassure you that this Agency and its workforce are deserving and appreciative of your support."
The NSA has been under scrutiny since details of its surveillance programs were revealed by the Guardian and other outlets. The agency has been criticised for collecting Americans' phone and internet data, in what some see as a breach of the fourth amendment.
"Some media outlets have sensationalized the leaks to the press in a way that has called into question our motives and wrongly cast doubt on the integrity and commitment of the extraordinary people who work here at NSA/CSS – your loved one(s)," the letter says. "It has been discouraging to see how our Agency frequently has been portrayed in the news as more of a rogue element than a national treasure. You've seen the dedication, skill and integrity that those employees bring to their job each and every workday, contributing to the accomplishments of the agency over the past 61 years."
The message is aimed at providing a morale boost to NSA staff and their families while also providing talking points and rebuttals to criticisms of the agency. Alexander and Inglis write that they will continue to provide employees with "materials they can bring home to help you understand that our activities are lawful, appropriate and effective".
The letter repeats a claim previously made by the agency that...
<snip>
More: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/20/nsa-chiefs-letter-employees-families
Wha ??? - 'NSA Chiefs Defend Agency's Conduct In Letter To Families Of Employees' - GuardianUK
NSA chiefs defend agency's conduct in letter to families of employeesGeneral Keith Alexander and deputy director John Inglis sign letter 'in light of unauthorised disclosure of classified information'
Adam Gabbatt in New York - theguardian.com
Friday 20 September 2013 13.43 EDT
<snip>
The National Security Agency has sent a letter to its employees' family members, in an effort to "reassure" relatives about the agency's work.
The letter, signed by NSA director General Keith Alexander and deputy director John Inglis, is dated 13 September and is addressed to "NSA/CSS family". It characterises press reports of NSA overreaches as "sensationalised" and laments how stories published on documents leaked by Edward Snowden have seen the agency portrayed "as more of a rogue element than a national treasure".
"We are writing to you, our extended NSA/CSS family, in light of the unauthorized disclosure of classified information by a former contractor employee," says the letter, which was published on The Dissenter website on Friday: http://dissenter.firedoglake.com/2013/09/19/nsa-sends-letter-to-its-extended-family-to-reassure-them-that-they-will-weather-this-storm/ "We want to put the information you are reading and hearing about in the press into context and reassure you that this Agency and its workforce are deserving and appreciative of your support."
The NSA has been under scrutiny since details of its surveillance programs were revealed by the Guardian and other outlets. The agency has been criticised for collecting Americans' phone and internet data, in what some see as a breach of the fourth amendment.
"Some media outlets have sensationalized the leaks to the press in a way that has called into question our motives and wrongly cast doubt on the integrity and commitment of the extraordinary people who work here at NSA/CSS – your loved one(s)," the letter says. "It has been discouraging to see how our Agency frequently has been portrayed in the news as more of a rogue element than a national treasure. You've seen the dedication, skill and integrity that those employees bring to their job each and every workday, contributing to the accomplishments of the agency over the past 61 years."
The message is aimed at providing a morale boost to NSA staff and their families while also providing talking points and rebuttals to criticisms of the agency. Alexander and Inglis write that they will continue to provide employees with "materials they can bring home to help you understand that our activities are lawful, appropriate and effective".
The letter repeats a claim previously made by the agency that...
<snip>
More: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/20/nsa-chiefs-letter-employees-families
September 20, 2013
And... With A H/T To DUer bullwinkle428... I Direct You To Charles Pierce... On DiFi's Shield Law..
DULink: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3702622
September 20, 2013
James Tracy - Activist Post
Tuesday, September 17, 2013
<snip>
The fact that the US Senate is now defining what a journalist actually is sets a dangerous precedent threatening the present marketplace of ideas that in recent history has been greatly expanded by the internet.
According to the text of an amendment sponsored by Senators Diane Feinstein and Dick Durbin to the proposed “Free Flow of Information Act” (PDF): http://www.spj.org/pdf/s-987-ffia-schumer-graham.pdf that passed the Senate Judiciary Committee on September 12, only salaried journalists will be given the free press protections guaranteed to all US citizens by the Constitution.
Under such a law presumably only the news reporters and analysts employed by moderate-to-substantial revenue-generating news entities are regarded as “legitimate” journalists. This is because the Feinstein-Durbin amendment’s wording is especially vague on exactly what type of news organization the writer needs to be affiliated with to be able to comment and report freely.
The major concern with this move is twofold. First, it is fundamentally unconstitutional. The First Amendment unambiguously states that
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
If such legislation achieves passage...
<snip>
More: http://www.activistpost.com/2013/09/free-flow-of-information-act-targets.html
Wow... George Orwell Would Be Proud... The "Free Flow" Of Information Act...
“Free Flow of Information Act” Targets Independent JournalismJames Tracy - Activist Post
Tuesday, September 17, 2013
<snip>
The fact that the US Senate is now defining what a journalist actually is sets a dangerous precedent threatening the present marketplace of ideas that in recent history has been greatly expanded by the internet.
According to the text of an amendment sponsored by Senators Diane Feinstein and Dick Durbin to the proposed “Free Flow of Information Act” (PDF): http://www.spj.org/pdf/s-987-ffia-schumer-graham.pdf that passed the Senate Judiciary Committee on September 12, only salaried journalists will be given the free press protections guaranteed to all US citizens by the Constitution.
Under such a law presumably only the news reporters and analysts employed by moderate-to-substantial revenue-generating news entities are regarded as “legitimate” journalists. This is because the Feinstein-Durbin amendment’s wording is especially vague on exactly what type of news organization the writer needs to be affiliated with to be able to comment and report freely.
The major concern with this move is twofold. First, it is fundamentally unconstitutional. The First Amendment unambiguously states that
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
If such legislation achieves passage...
<snip>
More: http://www.activistpost.com/2013/09/free-flow-of-information-act-targets.html
September 20, 2013
Full Transcript Here: http://www.pbs.org/now/transcript/transcript_tdfull.html
Video Here: http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/tradingdemocracy.html
If You Want To Know Why The TPP Is A Terrible Idea, Look At NAFTA's Chapter 11 Here:
Bill Moyers Reports: "Trading Democracy."
BILL MOYERS: This is the story of how a trade agreement – supported by two Presidents and ratified by the Congress – became an end-run around the Constitution. The terms were influenced by Washington lawyers and lobbyists – and the companies who employ them. It is now played out in rooms like this.
Chapter 11 is only one provision in the five hundred and fifty-five page North American Free Trade Agreement – negotiated to promote business among the US, Canada and Mexico. It was supposedly written to protect investors if foreign governments tried to seize their property.
But corporations have stretched NAFTA's Chapter 11 to undermine environmental decisions – the decisions of local communities – even the verdict of an American jury. The cases brought – so far – total almost four billion dollars.
The claims are being decided not in open court, but in what has become a system of private justice, in secret tribunals. That's exactly the way the authors of Chapter 11 designed it.
WILLIAM GREIDER (NATIONAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT, THE NATION): What offends me most is that these lawyers understood that public laws were gonna come under attack in this system, and they just walked right past the question of where's the American public in this?
BILL MOYERS: William Greider has covered economics and politics, both national and global, for 35 years – first for The Washington Post and now for The Nation magazine. But even William Greider was taken aback by the broad new powers given foreign corporations under NAFTA's Chapter Eleven.
BILL MOYERS: They now have the right to sue governments?
WILLIAM GREIDER: Right, and sue them directly, without having to get the approval of their own government. And that's one of the features of NAFTA which is distinctively different from all previous trade agreements.
BILL MOYERS: Chapter Eleven gives corporations the right to sue for damages if they believe they have been hurt by the action of a government. The case is treated as if it were a simple trade dispute – and argued in this room at the World Bank in Washington – or in others in cities like New York and Toronto.
The parties in the case – the company and the government it is suing – choose a three-man tribunal, drawn mostly from a select pool of experts in international law. Nothing is open to the public.
WILLIAM GREIDER: I think of it actually as kind of an exclusive court for capital. American citizens not admitted, even American legislators not admitted. And if that doesn't up-end democracy, I don't know what does.
BILL MOYERS: This is the story of how a trade agreement – supported by two Presidents and ratified by the Congress – became an end-run around the Constitution. The terms were influenced by Washington lawyers and lobbyists – and the companies who employ them. It is now played out in rooms like this.
Chapter 11 is only one provision in the five hundred and fifty-five page North American Free Trade Agreement – negotiated to promote business among the US, Canada and Mexico. It was supposedly written to protect investors if foreign governments tried to seize their property.
But corporations have stretched NAFTA's Chapter 11 to undermine environmental decisions – the decisions of local communities – even the verdict of an American jury. The cases brought – so far – total almost four billion dollars.
The claims are being decided not in open court, but in what has become a system of private justice, in secret tribunals. That's exactly the way the authors of Chapter 11 designed it.
WILLIAM GREIDER (NATIONAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT, THE NATION): What offends me most is that these lawyers understood that public laws were gonna come under attack in this system, and they just walked right past the question of where's the American public in this?
BILL MOYERS: William Greider has covered economics and politics, both national and global, for 35 years – first for The Washington Post and now for The Nation magazine. But even William Greider was taken aback by the broad new powers given foreign corporations under NAFTA's Chapter Eleven.
BILL MOYERS: They now have the right to sue governments?
WILLIAM GREIDER: Right, and sue them directly, without having to get the approval of their own government. And that's one of the features of NAFTA which is distinctively different from all previous trade agreements.
BILL MOYERS: Chapter Eleven gives corporations the right to sue for damages if they believe they have been hurt by the action of a government. The case is treated as if it were a simple trade dispute – and argued in this room at the World Bank in Washington – or in others in cities like New York and Toronto.
The parties in the case – the company and the government it is suing – choose a three-man tribunal, drawn mostly from a select pool of experts in international law. Nothing is open to the public.
WILLIAM GREIDER: I think of it actually as kind of an exclusive court for capital. American citizens not admitted, even American legislators not admitted. And if that doesn't up-end democracy, I don't know what does.
Full Transcript Here: http://www.pbs.org/now/transcript/transcript_tdfull.html
Video Here: http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/tradingdemocracy.html
September 20, 2013
Astronomy Photographer Of The Year 2013 – Winning Pictures - GuardiaUK
X-Posted From Video/MultMedia Forum
Astronomy Photographer of the Year 2013 – winning pictures
GuardianUK
Thursday 19 September 2013 10.23 EDT
<snip>
The competition is run by the Royal Observatory Greenwich and BBC Sky at Night Magazine. The winners, runners-up and highly commended photographs are showcased in a free exhibition at the Royal Observatory's Astronomy Centre.
<snip>
Fist two of seventeen...
The rest are here: http://www.theguardian.com/science/gallery/2013/sep/19/astronomy-photographer-year-2013-winning-pictures#/?picture=417742446&index=0
September 20, 2013
By E.J. Dionne Jr. - WaPo
Published: September 18, 2013
<snip>
The coming battles over budgets, the debt ceiling, a government shutdown and Obamacare are not elements of a large political game. They involve a fundamental showdown over the role of government in stemming rising inequality and making our country a fairer and more decent place.
Anyone who doesn’t see this should be forgiven. The stakes in this battle are almost always buried in news accounts about tactics and obscured by an unquenchable desire across the media to provide the latest take on whether President Obama is growing “weak” and has already become the lamest of lame ducks.
Yes, Obama has work to do in quelling doubts about his leadership. But little of what we’re hearing offers enlightenment as to why this big argument is happening in the first place, and why it matters.
To begin with, this is not just a fight between Republicans and Democrats. The GOP is clearly divided between those who take governing seriously — they still believe in government enough to accept responsibility for keeping it open — and those who see in every issue the “final conflict” that Marxists kept predicting. Stopping Obamacare, in their view, is necessary to prevent the country from reaching the end of the road to serfdom. Compared with this hellish prospect, who cares about shutdowns?
What’s fascinating, and this speaks to the perceived power of the tea party in primaries, is that it has taken only a small minority of House Republicans to push toward Armageddon. The Post’s Lori Montgomery and Paul Kane estimated that roughly 40 conservatives revolted against their leadership’s efforts to keep the government open past Sept. 30. That’s 40 in a 435-member House of Representatives. What’s become of us when less than 10 percent of one chamber of Congress can unleash chaos? What does this say about the House Republican leadership gap?
But it’s also important to understand why the Republican right is so fixated on killing or delaying Obamacare before it goes into effect. Its central worry is not that the program will fail but that it will succeed...
<snip>
More: http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ej-dionne-republicans-are-desperate-for-a-shutdown/2013/09/18/1f59e80c-207e-11e3-94a2-6c66b668ea55_story.html
Why Republicans Are Desperate For A Shutdown - E.J. Dionne/WaPo
Why Republicans are desperate for a shutdownBy E.J. Dionne Jr. - WaPo
Published: September 18, 2013
<snip>
The coming battles over budgets, the debt ceiling, a government shutdown and Obamacare are not elements of a large political game. They involve a fundamental showdown over the role of government in stemming rising inequality and making our country a fairer and more decent place.
Anyone who doesn’t see this should be forgiven. The stakes in this battle are almost always buried in news accounts about tactics and obscured by an unquenchable desire across the media to provide the latest take on whether President Obama is growing “weak” and has already become the lamest of lame ducks.
Yes, Obama has work to do in quelling doubts about his leadership. But little of what we’re hearing offers enlightenment as to why this big argument is happening in the first place, and why it matters.
To begin with, this is not just a fight between Republicans and Democrats. The GOP is clearly divided between those who take governing seriously — they still believe in government enough to accept responsibility for keeping it open — and those who see in every issue the “final conflict” that Marxists kept predicting. Stopping Obamacare, in their view, is necessary to prevent the country from reaching the end of the road to serfdom. Compared with this hellish prospect, who cares about shutdowns?
What’s fascinating, and this speaks to the perceived power of the tea party in primaries, is that it has taken only a small minority of House Republicans to push toward Armageddon. The Post’s Lori Montgomery and Paul Kane estimated that roughly 40 conservatives revolted against their leadership’s efforts to keep the government open past Sept. 30. That’s 40 in a 435-member House of Representatives. What’s become of us when less than 10 percent of one chamber of Congress can unleash chaos? What does this say about the House Republican leadership gap?
But it’s also important to understand why the Republican right is so fixated on killing or delaying Obamacare before it goes into effect. Its central worry is not that the program will fail but that it will succeed...
<snip>
More: http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ej-dionne-republicans-are-desperate-for-a-shutdown/2013/09/18/1f59e80c-207e-11e3-94a2-6c66b668ea55_story.html
Profile Information
Member since: 2002Number of posts: 72,631