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
unhappycamper
unhappycamper's Journal
unhappycamper's Journal
January 31, 2014
Is this the beginning of a big negotiation revolving around the return of a man who disclosed the spying activities of the NSA and other Western secret services?
Possible Deal with NSA Exposer — US Attorney General Attracts Snowden
Süddeutsche Zeitung, Germany
By Johannes Kuhn
Translated By Daniel Eck
24 January 2014
Edited by Phillip Shannon
Eric Holder is not just the U.S. attorney general — he is also familiar with the nuances of political rhetoric. He told MSNBC that pardoning whistle-blower Edward Snowden would be going too far. Snowden had “caused harm to our national security and I think he has to be held accountable for his actions.”
Yet Holder is willing to make a compromise. His department is more than ready to discuss reducing Snowden’s sentence with his lawyers, as long as Snowden comes back to the U.S. This is the footnote that leaves people speculating: Is this the beginning of a big negotiation revolving around the return of a man who disclosed the spying activities of the NSA and other Western secret services?
Recently, Snowden himself suggested that he would be happy to leave his involuntary exile in Moscow. He wrote in a chat on the website freesnowden.is that ‘"Returning to the U.S., I think, is the best resolution for the government, the public and myself.”
However, due to the current whistle-blower protection laws, Snowden’s return is not possible. Through a shortcoming in the law, “national security contractors like (Snowden)” were not covered.
--
Obama has used the Espionage Act of 1917 to prosecute more whistle-blowers than all previous presidents combined.
Possible Deal with NSA Exposer — US Attorney General Attracts Snowden
http://watchingamerica.com/News/231147/possible-deal-with-nsa-exposer-us-attorney-general-attracts-snowden/Is this the beginning of a big negotiation revolving around the return of a man who disclosed the spying activities of the NSA and other Western secret services?
Possible Deal with NSA Exposer — US Attorney General Attracts Snowden
Süddeutsche Zeitung, Germany
By Johannes Kuhn
Translated By Daniel Eck
24 January 2014
Edited by Phillip Shannon
Eric Holder is not just the U.S. attorney general — he is also familiar with the nuances of political rhetoric. He told MSNBC that pardoning whistle-blower Edward Snowden would be going too far. Snowden had “caused harm to our national security and I think he has to be held accountable for his actions.”
Yet Holder is willing to make a compromise. His department is more than ready to discuss reducing Snowden’s sentence with his lawyers, as long as Snowden comes back to the U.S. This is the footnote that leaves people speculating: Is this the beginning of a big negotiation revolving around the return of a man who disclosed the spying activities of the NSA and other Western secret services?
Recently, Snowden himself suggested that he would be happy to leave his involuntary exile in Moscow. He wrote in a chat on the website freesnowden.is that ‘"Returning to the U.S., I think, is the best resolution for the government, the public and myself.”
However, due to the current whistle-blower protection laws, Snowden’s return is not possible. Through a shortcoming in the law, “national security contractors like (Snowden)” were not covered.
--
Obama has used the Espionage Act of 1917 to prosecute more whistle-blowers than all previous presidents combined.
January 31, 2014
Dirty Fuel Corporations to American Public: Frack You!
By Juan Cole | Jan. 31, 2014
(By Ellen Cantarow)
For the past several years, I’ve been writing about what happens when big oil and gas corporations drill where people live. “Fracking” — high-volume hydraulic fracturing, which extracts oil and methane from deep shale — has become my beat. My interviewees live in Pennsylvania’s shale-gas fields; among Wisconsin’s hills, where corporations have been mining silica, an essential fracking ingredient; and in New York, where one of the most powerful grassroots movements in the state’s long history of dissent has become ground zero for anti-fracking activism across the country. Some of the people I’ve met have become friends. We email, talk by phone, and visit. But until recently I’d always felt at a remove from the dangers they face: contaminated water wells, poisoned air, sick and dying animals, industry-related illnesses. Under Massachusetts, where I live, lie no methane- or oil-rich shale deposits, so there’s no drilling.
But this past September, I learned that Spectra Energy, one of the largest natural gas infrastructure companies in North America, had proposed changes in a pipeline it owns, the Algonquin, which runs from Texas into my hometown, Boston. The expanded Algonquin would carry unconventional gas — gas extracted from deep rock formations like shale — into Massachusetts from the great Marcellus formation that sprawls along the Appalachian basin from West Virginia to New York. Suddenly, I’m in the crosshairs of the fracking industry, too.
~snip~
Gas fracked from shale formations goes by several names (“unconventional gas,” “natural gas,” “shale gas”), but whatever it’s called, it’s mainly methane. Though we may not know it, fracked gas increasingly fuels our stoves and furnaces. It also helps to fuel the floods, hurricanes, droughts, wildfires, and ever-hotter summers that are engulfing the planet. The industry’s global-warming footprint is actually greater than that of coal. (A Cornell University study that established this in 2011 has been reconfirmed since.) Methane is a far more powerful greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide (CO2) and an ecological nightmare due to its potential for dangerous leaks.
According to former Mobil Oil executive Lou Allstadt, the greatest danger of fracking is the methane it adds to the atmosphere through leaks from wells, pipelines, and other associated infrastructure. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has found leakage rates of 2.3% to 17% of annual production at gas and oil fields in California, Colorado, and Utah. Moreover, no technology can guarantee long-term safety decades into the future when it comes to well casings (there are hundreds of thousands of frack wells in the U.S. to date) or in the millions of miles of pipelines that crisscross this country.
Dirty Fuel Corporations to American Public: Frack You!
http://www.juancole.com/2014/01/corporations-american-public.htmlDirty Fuel Corporations to American Public: Frack You!
By Juan Cole | Jan. 31, 2014
(By Ellen Cantarow)
For the past several years, I’ve been writing about what happens when big oil and gas corporations drill where people live. “Fracking” — high-volume hydraulic fracturing, which extracts oil and methane from deep shale — has become my beat. My interviewees live in Pennsylvania’s shale-gas fields; among Wisconsin’s hills, where corporations have been mining silica, an essential fracking ingredient; and in New York, where one of the most powerful grassroots movements in the state’s long history of dissent has become ground zero for anti-fracking activism across the country. Some of the people I’ve met have become friends. We email, talk by phone, and visit. But until recently I’d always felt at a remove from the dangers they face: contaminated water wells, poisoned air, sick and dying animals, industry-related illnesses. Under Massachusetts, where I live, lie no methane- or oil-rich shale deposits, so there’s no drilling.
But this past September, I learned that Spectra Energy, one of the largest natural gas infrastructure companies in North America, had proposed changes in a pipeline it owns, the Algonquin, which runs from Texas into my hometown, Boston. The expanded Algonquin would carry unconventional gas — gas extracted from deep rock formations like shale — into Massachusetts from the great Marcellus formation that sprawls along the Appalachian basin from West Virginia to New York. Suddenly, I’m in the crosshairs of the fracking industry, too.
~snip~
Gas fracked from shale formations goes by several names (“unconventional gas,” “natural gas,” “shale gas”), but whatever it’s called, it’s mainly methane. Though we may not know it, fracked gas increasingly fuels our stoves and furnaces. It also helps to fuel the floods, hurricanes, droughts, wildfires, and ever-hotter summers that are engulfing the planet. The industry’s global-warming footprint is actually greater than that of coal. (A Cornell University study that established this in 2011 has been reconfirmed since.) Methane is a far more powerful greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide (CO2) and an ecological nightmare due to its potential for dangerous leaks.
According to former Mobil Oil executive Lou Allstadt, the greatest danger of fracking is the methane it adds to the atmosphere through leaks from wells, pipelines, and other associated infrastructure. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has found leakage rates of 2.3% to 17% of annual production at gas and oil fields in California, Colorado, and Utah. Moreover, no technology can guarantee long-term safety decades into the future when it comes to well casings (there are hundreds of thousands of frack wells in the U.S. to date) or in the millions of miles of pipelines that crisscross this country.
January 31, 2014
US Economic Policy in Afghanistan Doomed it: From Dogmatic Privatization to Neglect of Rural Sector
By Juan Cole | Jan. 31, 2014
(By Graciana del Castillo via The Boston Review)
. . . The promises made by President Bush in April 2002 to help rebuild Afghanistan in the tradition of the Marshall Plan created high expectations among the Afghan population after the rout of the Taliban and the Bonn Agreement of December 2001. But despite costly international efforts, Afghanistan has relapsed into conflict and become one of the most aid-dependent countries in the world. The failure of peace negotiations with the Taliban, the upcoming presidential elections in April 2014, and the impending complete withdrawal of U.S. and NATO combat troops by the end of this year have contributed to uncertainty and instability in the country. Meanwhile, the population has grown to 33 million (from around 23 million in 2002), and the economy remains highly dependent on drugs, imports, and aid.
Afghanistan is not unique, of course. The success rate of peace transitions in countries torn by civil war since the end of the Cold War is dismal: roughly half the countries that embarked in a multi-pronged transition to peace involving security, political, social, and economic reconstruction—either through negotiated agreements or military intervention—have reverted to conflict within a few years. Of the half that managed to maintain peace, a large majority ended up highly dependent on foreign aid. What can the history of the last two decades teach us about how to improve international assistance to Afghanistan and to other countries coming out of conflict in the Middle East and North Africa?
One thing that recent history teaches us is that, because economic reconstruction takes place amid the multifaceted transition to peace, it is fundamentally different from development in countries not affected by war. Economic reconstruction has proved particularly challenging because Afghanistan must reactivate the economy while moving away from the economics of war—that is, the underground economy of illicit activities (drug production and trafficking, smuggling, arms dealing, extortion,etc) that thrives in situations of war and makes the establishment of governance and the rule of law extremely difficult. To succeed, economic reconstruction requires peace-building activities like the reintegration of former combatants, returnees, and other conflict-affected groups into productive activities, as well as rehabilitation of services and infrastructure. As John Maynard Keynes argued at the end of World War I, the economic consequences of building peace are high. The imperative of peace consolidation competes with the conventional imperative of development, putting tremendous pressure on policy decisions, especially budgetary allocations. Because there cannot be economic stability and long-term development without peace, it follows that, to avoid a relapse into conflict, peace should prevail as the main objective at all times—even if it delays the development objectives.
Another thing we learned from recent history is that economic policymaking in war-torn countries at low levels of development requires a simple and flexible macroeconomic framework. . . a simpler framework would have required less foreign expertise (reducing the distortions created by such presence) and restricted the opportunities for mismanagement and corruption among uneducated and low-paid civil servants.
unhappycamper comment:: Afghanistan was dubya & dick's chance to take our war machine out for a spin and tune it up for the real thing:Iraq.
Since 2001 the tab for these two invasion and occupations has escalated to trillions of dollars.
For what?
US Economic Policy in Afghanistan Doomed it: From Dogmatic Privatization to Neglect of Rural Sector
http://www.juancole.com/2014/01/economic-afghanistan-privatization.htmlUS Economic Policy in Afghanistan Doomed it: From Dogmatic Privatization to Neglect of Rural Sector
By Juan Cole | Jan. 31, 2014
(By Graciana del Castillo via The Boston Review)
. . . The promises made by President Bush in April 2002 to help rebuild Afghanistan in the tradition of the Marshall Plan created high expectations among the Afghan population after the rout of the Taliban and the Bonn Agreement of December 2001. But despite costly international efforts, Afghanistan has relapsed into conflict and become one of the most aid-dependent countries in the world. The failure of peace negotiations with the Taliban, the upcoming presidential elections in April 2014, and the impending complete withdrawal of U.S. and NATO combat troops by the end of this year have contributed to uncertainty and instability in the country. Meanwhile, the population has grown to 33 million (from around 23 million in 2002), and the economy remains highly dependent on drugs, imports, and aid.
Afghanistan is not unique, of course. The success rate of peace transitions in countries torn by civil war since the end of the Cold War is dismal: roughly half the countries that embarked in a multi-pronged transition to peace involving security, political, social, and economic reconstruction—either through negotiated agreements or military intervention—have reverted to conflict within a few years. Of the half that managed to maintain peace, a large majority ended up highly dependent on foreign aid. What can the history of the last two decades teach us about how to improve international assistance to Afghanistan and to other countries coming out of conflict in the Middle East and North Africa?
One thing that recent history teaches us is that, because economic reconstruction takes place amid the multifaceted transition to peace, it is fundamentally different from development in countries not affected by war. Economic reconstruction has proved particularly challenging because Afghanistan must reactivate the economy while moving away from the economics of war—that is, the underground economy of illicit activities (drug production and trafficking, smuggling, arms dealing, extortion,etc) that thrives in situations of war and makes the establishment of governance and the rule of law extremely difficult. To succeed, economic reconstruction requires peace-building activities like the reintegration of former combatants, returnees, and other conflict-affected groups into productive activities, as well as rehabilitation of services and infrastructure. As John Maynard Keynes argued at the end of World War I, the economic consequences of building peace are high. The imperative of peace consolidation competes with the conventional imperative of development, putting tremendous pressure on policy decisions, especially budgetary allocations. Because there cannot be economic stability and long-term development without peace, it follows that, to avoid a relapse into conflict, peace should prevail as the main objective at all times—even if it delays the development objectives.
Another thing we learned from recent history is that economic policymaking in war-torn countries at low levels of development requires a simple and flexible macroeconomic framework. . . a simpler framework would have required less foreign expertise (reducing the distortions created by such presence) and restricted the opportunities for mismanagement and corruption among uneducated and low-paid civil servants.
unhappycamper comment:: Afghanistan was dubya & dick's chance to take our war machine out for a spin and tune it up for the real thing:Iraq.
Since 2001 the tab for these two invasion and occupations has escalated to trillions of dollars.
For what?
January 31, 2014
Investor Peter Schiff digs himself in deeper after ‘Daily Show’ remarks about the ‘retarded’
By Tom Boggioni
Thursday, January 30, 2014 18:43 EST
Radio commentator and investment adviser Peter Schiff , who was recently interviewed by The Daily Show’s Samantha Bee for a segment on the minimum wage, is very upset that he has been pilloried for using the not very politically-correct expression “mentally retarded” on air. During the episode, when prodded by Bee to explain who might be willing to work for $2 an hour, Schiff responded, “You know someone that might be? Maybe someone who is – what’s the politically correct word, you know, for mentally retarded. I believe in the principles this country was founded on.”
Responding to public criticism about his star turn, Schiff has taken to his blog to express his displeasure with The Daily Show by pointing out that that Samantha Bee didn’t assist him with his answer and that he had delivered a four hour long disquisition on the free market and pay rates that somehow didn’t make it onto the half-hour long satirical news program.
Mr. Schiff pointed out that “Of the more than four hours of taped discussion I conducted, the producers chose to only use about 75 seconds of my comments. Of those, my use of the words ‘mentally retarded’ (when Samantha Bee asked me who might be willing to work for $2 per hour – a figure she suggested) has come to define the entire interview.” He then added, “I just couldn’t remember the politically correct term currently in use (it is “intellectually disabled”). Assuming she knew it, Bee could have prompted me with the correct term, but she chose not to.”
~snip~
Turning back to the “intellectually disabled”, Mr. Schiff added that if they “…can’t perform work that produces a minimum wage level of output, then no employer seeking to make a profit could afford to pay that person the official minimum wage. ” and that “Many of the jobs they perform may seem mundane to those of normal intelligence, but they are often the most enjoyable and rewarding aspects of the lives of people with intellectual disabilities. I pointed out that if the federal minimum wages were to apply to them, a great many of those opportunities would vanish. Others may disagree, but I believe a job for such a person at $2 per hour is better than no job at all.”
Investor Peter Schiff digs himself in deeper after ‘Daily Show’ remarks about the ‘retarded’
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/01/30/investor-peter-schiff-digs-himself-in-deeper-after-daily-show-remarks-about-the-retarded/Investor Peter Schiff digs himself in deeper after ‘Daily Show’ remarks about the ‘retarded’
By Tom Boggioni
Thursday, January 30, 2014 18:43 EST
Radio commentator and investment adviser Peter Schiff , who was recently interviewed by The Daily Show’s Samantha Bee for a segment on the minimum wage, is very upset that he has been pilloried for using the not very politically-correct expression “mentally retarded” on air. During the episode, when prodded by Bee to explain who might be willing to work for $2 an hour, Schiff responded, “You know someone that might be? Maybe someone who is – what’s the politically correct word, you know, for mentally retarded. I believe in the principles this country was founded on.”
Responding to public criticism about his star turn, Schiff has taken to his blog to express his displeasure with The Daily Show by pointing out that that Samantha Bee didn’t assist him with his answer and that he had delivered a four hour long disquisition on the free market and pay rates that somehow didn’t make it onto the half-hour long satirical news program.
Mr. Schiff pointed out that “Of the more than four hours of taped discussion I conducted, the producers chose to only use about 75 seconds of my comments. Of those, my use of the words ‘mentally retarded’ (when Samantha Bee asked me who might be willing to work for $2 per hour – a figure she suggested) has come to define the entire interview.” He then added, “I just couldn’t remember the politically correct term currently in use (it is “intellectually disabled”). Assuming she knew it, Bee could have prompted me with the correct term, but she chose not to.”
~snip~
Turning back to the “intellectually disabled”, Mr. Schiff added that if they “…can’t perform work that produces a minimum wage level of output, then no employer seeking to make a profit could afford to pay that person the official minimum wage. ” and that “Many of the jobs they perform may seem mundane to those of normal intelligence, but they are often the most enjoyable and rewarding aspects of the lives of people with intellectual disabilities. I pointed out that if the federal minimum wages were to apply to them, a great many of those opportunities would vanish. Others may disagree, but I believe a job for such a person at $2 per hour is better than no job at all.”
January 31, 2014
California church leader accused of hiding ex-trustee’s sexual abuse of employee
By Arturo Garcia
Thursday, January 30, 2014 22:30 EST
The head of a San Francisco church is accused of covering up one of his former trustees’ sexual abuse toward an employee, including paddlings and coerced sexual activities, KGO-TV reported on Thursday.
“Many of these sex acts and demands and the spankings occurred inside the shrine premises, in the sacristy of the shrine,” the alleged victim’s attorney, Sandra Ribera, told KGO.
Ribera’s client, Jhona Mathews, claims that the incidents took place over the course of her year working at St Francis of Assisi Church, saying her supervisor, trustee Bill McLaughlin, forced her to have sex under threat of termination. The suit also accuses McLaughlin of using a paddle given to McLaughlin by Monsignor James Tarantino. Tarantino is also accused of hiding McLaughlin’s alleged activities. McLaughlin is no longer a trustee at the church.
The paddle, Ribera told KGO, bears “the inscription ‘BNO,’ which stands for ‘boys night out.’ And it says, ‘To Bill M. from Father T.’”
California church leader accused of hiding ex-trustee’s sexual abuse of employee
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/01/30/california-church-leader-accused-of-hiding-trustees-sexual-abuse-of-employee/California church leader accused of hiding ex-trustee’s sexual abuse of employee
By Arturo Garcia
Thursday, January 30, 2014 22:30 EST
The head of a San Francisco church is accused of covering up one of his former trustees’ sexual abuse toward an employee, including paddlings and coerced sexual activities, KGO-TV reported on Thursday.
“Many of these sex acts and demands and the spankings occurred inside the shrine premises, in the sacristy of the shrine,” the alleged victim’s attorney, Sandra Ribera, told KGO.
Ribera’s client, Jhona Mathews, claims that the incidents took place over the course of her year working at St Francis of Assisi Church, saying her supervisor, trustee Bill McLaughlin, forced her to have sex under threat of termination. The suit also accuses McLaughlin of using a paddle given to McLaughlin by Monsignor James Tarantino. Tarantino is also accused of hiding McLaughlin’s alleged activities. McLaughlin is no longer a trustee at the church.
The paddle, Ribera told KGO, bears “the inscription ‘BNO,’ which stands for ‘boys night out.’ And it says, ‘To Bill M. from Father T.’”
January 31, 2014
Afghan ministries incapable of managing U.S. aid
By Agence France-Presse
Thursday, January 30, 2014 18:52 EST
Millions of dollars in US aid is flowing into Afghanistan even though the ministries receiving the funds are incapable of managing such large sums of money, a US official report said Thursday.
Despite moves by the US Agency for International Development (USAID) to boost safeguards over direct assistance to the Afghan government, “a number of troubling issues remain,” a special watchdog found.
The US has committed some $1.6 billion in direct aid to the Afghan government this year to fund some 18 programs across 10 ministries.
But according to the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction, “USAID contractors assessed 16 Afghan ministries and found they are unable to manage and account for funds.”
unhappycamper comment: In addition to the $1.6 billion dollars of US aid to Afghanistan this month (note article timestamp), we are still paying at least $2 billion a week to keep the occupation going.
Time to do some math:
52 weeks in a year - 4 = 48 remaining weeks this year
48 x $2 billion = $96 billion dollars for occupation costs only
Talk to your congresscritter if this pisses you off and VOTE if this really pisses you off.
Afghan ministries incapable of managing U.S. aid
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/01/30/afghan-ministries-incapable-of-managing-u-s-aid/Afghan ministries incapable of managing U.S. aid
By Agence France-Presse
Thursday, January 30, 2014 18:52 EST
Millions of dollars in US aid is flowing into Afghanistan even though the ministries receiving the funds are incapable of managing such large sums of money, a US official report said Thursday.
Despite moves by the US Agency for International Development (USAID) to boost safeguards over direct assistance to the Afghan government, “a number of troubling issues remain,” a special watchdog found.
The US has committed some $1.6 billion in direct aid to the Afghan government this year to fund some 18 programs across 10 ministries.
But according to the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction, “USAID contractors assessed 16 Afghan ministries and found they are unable to manage and account for funds.”
unhappycamper comment: In addition to the $1.6 billion dollars of US aid to Afghanistan this month (note article timestamp), we are still paying at least $2 billion a week to keep the occupation going.
Time to do some math:
52 weeks in a year - 4 = 48 remaining weeks this year
48 x $2 billion = $96 billion dollars for occupation costs only
Talk to your congresscritter if this pisses you off and VOTE if this really pisses you off.
January 30, 2014
330 US drone strikes in Pakistan recorded in Leaked official document
By Juan Cole | Jan. 30, 2014
(By Alice K. Ross)
The Bureau is today publishing a leaked official document that records details of over 300 drone strikes, including their locations and an assessment of how many people died in each incident.
The document is the fullest official record of drone strikes in Pakistan to have yet been published. It provides rare insight into what the government understands about the campaign.
It also provides details about exactly when and where strikes took place, often including the names of homeowners. These details can be valuable to researchers attempting to verify eyewitness reports – and are often not reported elsewhere. But interestingly, the document stops recording civilian casualties after 2008, even omitting details of well-documented civilian deaths and those that have been acknowledged by the government.
Last July the Bureau published part of the document for the first time. This documented strikes, which hit the northwest tribal areas of Pakistan between 2006 and late 2009, and revealed that the Pakistani government was aware of hundreds of civilian casualties, even in strikes where it had officially denied civilians had died.
--
The Bureau's report: http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/2014/01/29/get-the-data-pakistani-governments-secret-report-on-drone-strikes/
330 US drone strikes in Pakistan recorded in Leaked official document
http://www.juancole.com/2014/01/recorded-official-document.html330 US drone strikes in Pakistan recorded in Leaked official document
By Juan Cole | Jan. 30, 2014
(By Alice K. Ross)
The Bureau is today publishing a leaked official document that records details of over 300 drone strikes, including their locations and an assessment of how many people died in each incident.
The document is the fullest official record of drone strikes in Pakistan to have yet been published. It provides rare insight into what the government understands about the campaign.
It also provides details about exactly when and where strikes took place, often including the names of homeowners. These details can be valuable to researchers attempting to verify eyewitness reports – and are often not reported elsewhere. But interestingly, the document stops recording civilian casualties after 2008, even omitting details of well-documented civilian deaths and those that have been acknowledged by the government.
Last July the Bureau published part of the document for the first time. This documented strikes, which hit the northwest tribal areas of Pakistan between 2006 and late 2009, and revealed that the Pakistani government was aware of hundreds of civilian casualties, even in strikes where it had officially denied civilians had died.
--
The Bureau's report: http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/2014/01/29/get-the-data-pakistani-governments-secret-report-on-drone-strikes/
January 30, 2014
Obama as Unreliable Narrator on Climate Action: from SOTU to NSA spying at Copenhagen
By Juan Cole | Jan. 30, 2014
When President Obama looked us in the eye and said that the US is not engaged in electronic surveillance for economic reasons, but only for the sake of security and anti-terrorism, he was lying through his teeth. He should be careful. His approval ratings have tanked in some large part because he has lost those who care about the 4th amendment and personal privacy. Reagan also became unpopular with Iran-Contra, when it became clear that he was lying to us what weapons he sold to Iran and what he did with the black money.
Lying is not fatal to a political career, but for the public to come to realize that you are systematically lying to them about something they care about– that is deadly.
Laura Poitras broke the story in a Danish newspaper and The Huffington Post also reported it, late Wednesday. The United States National Security Agency spied on delegates to the 2009 Climate Summit and used the knowledge they gained to game the negotiations in favor of the US (one of the world’s two major carbon polluters).
In the end, armed with knowledge of the summit leaders’ proposals, Obama sidestepped the UN process and essentially made a separate peace with a handful of other countries calling for holding global warming to a 3.4 degrees F. increase (2 degrees C.), but declining to put it into law or specify any specific steps to achieve that goal. It now appears clear that the US and the world will miss this goal by a large margin, and we are likely going to an average surface temperature increase of 9 degrees F., which could so destabilize the earth’s climate over time as to endanger human life.
Obama as Unreliable Narrator on Climate Action: from SOTU to NSA spying at Copenhagen
http://www.juancole.com/2014/01/unreliable-narrator-copenhagen.htmlObama as Unreliable Narrator on Climate Action: from SOTU to NSA spying at Copenhagen
By Juan Cole | Jan. 30, 2014
When President Obama looked us in the eye and said that the US is not engaged in electronic surveillance for economic reasons, but only for the sake of security and anti-terrorism, he was lying through his teeth. He should be careful. His approval ratings have tanked in some large part because he has lost those who care about the 4th amendment and personal privacy. Reagan also became unpopular with Iran-Contra, when it became clear that he was lying to us what weapons he sold to Iran and what he did with the black money.
Lying is not fatal to a political career, but for the public to come to realize that you are systematically lying to them about something they care about– that is deadly.
Laura Poitras broke the story in a Danish newspaper and The Huffington Post also reported it, late Wednesday. The United States National Security Agency spied on delegates to the 2009 Climate Summit and used the knowledge they gained to game the negotiations in favor of the US (one of the world’s two major carbon polluters).
In the end, armed with knowledge of the summit leaders’ proposals, Obama sidestepped the UN process and essentially made a separate peace with a handful of other countries calling for holding global warming to a 3.4 degrees F. increase (2 degrees C.), but declining to put it into law or specify any specific steps to achieve that goal. It now appears clear that the US and the world will miss this goal by a large margin, and we are likely going to an average surface temperature increase of 9 degrees F., which could so destabilize the earth’s climate over time as to endanger human life.
January 30, 2014
Teddy, Teddy, Teddy....
To quote Stephanie Miller: You're a lying sack of crap.
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/01/29/ted-cruz-gripes-that-folks-in-the-media-still-blame-him-for-government-shutdown/
Ted Cruz gripes that ‘folks in the media’ still blame him for government shutdown
By David Ferguson
Wednesday, January 29, 2014 12:46 EST
Freshman Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) chided reporters on Tuesday for continuing to ask him about last fall’s Republican-led shutdown of the federal government. According to Yahoo! News, the Tea Party favorite is trying to change the subject every time he’s asked about it.
From a risible appearance on CBS’ “Face the Nation with Bob Schieffer” last Sunday to a press conference on Tuesday, Cruz appears determined to shift the blame for the disastrous political maneuver on to Democrats and the Obama administration.
“I didn’t threaten to shut down the government the last time. I don’t think we should ever shut down the government. I repeatedly voted to fund the federal government,” Cruz told Schieffer. “It was Harry Reid and President Obama.”
His remarks on Tuesday continued in that vein.
--
Uuuuuh.
January 30, 2014
Iraqi forces ‘take back control’ of western areas after weeks-long struggle
By Agence France-Presse
Wednesday, January 29, 2014 12:16 EST
Iraqi forces Wednesday wrested back control of key areas west of Baghdad that have been out of government hands for weeks amid a deadly standoff between militants and security forces.
The battles in Anbar province, a mostly-Sunni desert region bordering on Syria, and a protracted surge in nationwide violence, have killed more than 850 people this month, fuelling fears Iraq is slipping back into the all-out conflict that plagued it from 2006 to 2008.
Washington has said it plans to sell Iraq 24 Apache attack helicopters in a $4.8 billion deal to help the country fight militants.
But foreign leaders have also urged the Shiite-led government to address long-term grievances in the disaffected Sunni community to undercut support for militancy.
Iraqi forces ‘take back control’ of western areas after weeks-long struggle
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/01/29/iraqi-forces-take-back-control-of-western-areas-after-weeks-long-struggle/Iraqi forces ‘take back control’ of western areas after weeks-long struggle
By Agence France-Presse
Wednesday, January 29, 2014 12:16 EST
Iraqi forces Wednesday wrested back control of key areas west of Baghdad that have been out of government hands for weeks amid a deadly standoff between militants and security forces.
The battles in Anbar province, a mostly-Sunni desert region bordering on Syria, and a protracted surge in nationwide violence, have killed more than 850 people this month, fuelling fears Iraq is slipping back into the all-out conflict that plagued it from 2006 to 2008.
Washington has said it plans to sell Iraq 24 Apache attack helicopters in a $4.8 billion deal to help the country fight militants.
But foreign leaders have also urged the Shiite-led government to address long-term grievances in the disaffected Sunni community to undercut support for militancy.
Profile Information
Member since: Wed Mar 16, 2005, 11:12 AMNumber of posts: 60,364