Friday, June 21, 2013

Left Side of the Aisle #113 - Part 7

Clown Award: Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein

Now for one of our regular features, the Clown Award, given for acts of meritorious stupidity.

This week, the winner of the big red nose is the CEO of the Goldman Sachs, Lloyd Blankfein, or, as he is also known, Dr. Evil.

He told Politico last week that when people are gloomy about the economy, they get scared and that can hold back economic growth. "[The] culture of America has gotten too negative," he said, and "sentiment matters."

In other words, what's wrong with the economy, what's keeping it from growing as it should? You! You're not happy enough.

The US is currently in the the weakest labor-market recovery since World War II. The unemployment rate is still above pre-recession levels. And the jobs that are being created are mostly low-paying: 60% of the jobs lost in the recession were middle-wage jobs, while 58% of those gained in the recovery were low-wage jobs. About a third of working families in the US, representing about 47 million people, are in low-wage jobs today.

But the problem is, you're not happy enough.

Hourly pay has grown by just 2 percent per year, on average for the past four years, the weakest four-year stretch on record, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, hourly pay for nonfarm workers fell at a 3.8 percent annualized rate in the first quarter - the biggest quarterly decline since the BLS started keeping track in 1947.

But the problem is, you're not happy enough.

The unemployment rate for African-Americans rose to 13.5 percent. The U-6 unemployment rate, which includes the jobless and people who are working part-time because they can't find anything better, is at 13.8 percent. And the number of long-term unemployed - people out of work for 27 weeks or more - is 4.4 million. The percentage of people working part-time is still higher than it was before the recession - nearly 19 percent of all workers.

The economy is still 2.4 million jobs short of where it was in January 2008. At the current pace of job growth, the economy may not be back to full employment until 2021.

But the problem is, you're not happy enough.

Meanwhile, corporate profits are at an all-time high. Which I'm sure makes Lloyd Blankfein, who made $26 million last year working for a company that only still exists because of a $10 billion taxpayer bailout in 2008, very happy indeed.

He's still a clown. A happy clown, but a clown.

Sources:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/13/blankfein-blames-economy_n_3435040.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/07/may-jobs-report-unemployment-rate_n_3401718.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/05/us-pay-drop_n_3391664.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/13/low-paying-jobs_n_3266737.html
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/money/economy/2009-04-14-tarp-repay-bank-bailout_N.htm

Left Side of the Aisle #113 - Part 6

George Zimmerman's father releases e-book; claims African-American organizations are "the real racists"

Pierre Beaumarchais, author of the play versions of 'The Barber of Seville' and 'The Marriage of Figaro,' once wrote that "I hasten to laugh at everything, for fear of being obliged to weep." I often feel the same way. Here's an example:

Robert Zimmerman is George Zimmerman's father; George Zimmerman, in case you've forgotten, is the man standing trial for murder for killing 17-year-old Trayvon Martin.

Well, Robert Zimmerman has released an e-book called "Florida v. Zimmerman: Uncovering the Malicious Prosecution of my Son, George." It's - well, you can tell what it is from the title. It's his views on the "how and why" of the case.

He loudly declares that racism had nothing to do with what happened, that no way is his son a racist; in fact, he actually says some of his best friends are African-American.

In fact, he thinks the racism - he actually says that until this case he believed that racism "was a thing of the past" - apparently he had never come across anything like this:















or this:











or this:











So with racism against blacks obviously banned to a distant past, he insisted that the racism involved in the case is coming from elsewhere and he devotes an entire chapter of his book, entitled "Who Are The True Racists," to the question of where.

Who are the true racists, according to Robert Zimmerman?

For one, the Congressional Black Caucus, which he calls "a pathetic, self-serving group of racists ... advancing their purely racist agenda” who "are truly a disgrace to all Americans.”

The NAACP, which he says "simply promotes racism and hatred for their own, primarily financial, interests” because “without prejudice and racial divide, the NAACP would simply cease to exist.”

NAACP President Benjamin Jealous was labeled "what I would expect of a racist.”

Even Trayvon Martin’s funeral director got dragged in, being called a “racial activist.”

Others on the list include: the National Basketball Players Association, the Black Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Black Law Enforcement Officers, the National Black United Fund, and the United Negro College Fund. Are you seeing a pattern here?

While he doesn't outright call Barack Obama a racist, he does claim that he has “shamelessly” sought to exploit the case “to obtain great advantage in the African-American community.”

And to, to use a wonderful old phrase, cap the climax, Zimmerman says that because of Eric Holder’s "politically motivated decision" to investigate whether Trayvon Martin’s death violated federal civil rights laws, the FBI did not have “adequate resources to investigate clearly identified potential terrorists in the Boston area.”

That's right, he's blaming the Boston Marathon bombing on the investigation of George Zimmerman.

And the laughs just keep on coming.

Sources:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre_Beaumarchais
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/15/george-zimmerman-father-african-americans-racist_n_3447025.html
http://thinkprogress.org/media/2013/06/14/2162501/george-zimmermans-father-says-the-true-racists-are-all-african-american/

Left Side of the Aisle #113 - Part 5

Feel-good news #2: Five-year-old Jayden Sink leaves Westboro Baptist Church fuming and frustration with "Pink Lemonade for Peace" stand

The feel-good story you may not have heard about comes from Topeka, Kansas. A couple of months ago, in March, in fact, I mentioned the house directly across the street from the compound of the Westboro Baptist Church, a house which was being painted in the rainbow colors of gay pride. It's called The Equality House and is maintained by a group called Planting Peace, which campaigns for human rights, gay rights, and anti-bullying efforts.

Last week, five-year-old Jayden Sink of Kansas City decided to set up a pink lemonade stand in front of the house after her parents explained its meaning to her. She put up a sign saying "Pink Lemonade for Peace: $1 Suggested Donation." Supporters came in droves and $1 turned into hundreds.

By the end of the day she had collected $400 - plus another $1000 through an online campaign, which had ballooned to $16,000 by Tuesday. All the money is going to Planting Peace.

The bigots in the compound across the street tried to shut her down. They tried to get the police called in. They failed. Like the losers they are, they resorted to yelling profanities at those who stopped by and, later, putting up a sign with an anti-gay slur.

The mighty, mighty, God-is-on-our-side Westboro Baptist Church, left fuming and frustrated by a 5-year-old girl. Now, that is a feel-good story.

Sources:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/15/westboro-baptist-church-lemonade_n_3444490.html?ir=Politics&ref=topbar
http://www.plantingpeace.org/equality.htm
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/18/westboro-baptist-church-responds-lemonade_n_3455642.html?utm_hp_ref=mostpopular

Left Side of the Aisle #113 - Part 4

Feel-good news #1: Sebastien De La Cruz sings national anthem again in face of racist tweets

I've got two feel-good stories involving giving a stick in the eye of the bigots. I know you heard about the first one, how could you not have, but I wanted to mention it anyway.

Before Game 3 of the NBA finals in San Antonio between the Spurs and the Miami Heat, an 11-year-old mariachi singer named Sebastien De La Cruz performed the national anthem. That set of a flood of racist tweets, such as referring to him as a "beaner" and, worse, a wetback" who "just snuck in 4 hours ago" and who was singing "the Mexican hat dance" and demanding to know why this "Mexican kid" - who was born and has lived his whole life in San Antonio, by the way - was singing "our" anthem.

The response by the San Antonio Spurs? They had him come back and do it again before Game 4. Which he did to an ovation and loud cheers.

That was a class act, Spurs. Along with the fans and especially De La Cruz.

Like I said, I know you heard about it, but it deserved to get mentioned.

Sources:
http://www.sportingnews.com/nba/story/2013-06-13/spurs-national-anthem-sebastien-de-la-cruz-racist-tweets-gregg-popovich-erik-spo
http://publicshaming.tumblr.com/post/52763976629/racist-basketball-fans-pissed-a-mexican-american-boy

Left Side of the Aisle #113 - Part 3

Good news #3: SCOTUS says drug companies' "pay for delay" deals can be challenged as violating antitrust laws

The third SCOTUS decision is one that got much less notice than the others, but could - could - have a real impact on the cost of medications for Americans.

The big pharmaceutical corporations have become notorious for manipulating the patent laws to keep their greedy hands in our pockets. Patents on drugs usually last for 20 years but BigPharma has often succeeded in getting patents renewed by claiming a "new use" for an existing drug (thus extending the monopoly) or in getting a new patent for a "new" drug which is nothing but a minor reformulation of an existing one.

Generic drug makers sometimes challenge these patents on various grounds; if a challenge succeeded, it would enable a generic version of the drug to be on the market years sooner than it would otherwise. The brand-name makers usually respond by suing the generic maker. So they reach a "compromise" under which the brand-name maker pays the generic maker a sometimes hefty settlement in exchange for the generic version being held off the market for some number of years. The overall effect is that the extremely over-priced brand name drugs for which there is no generic alternative continue to be big profit centers for BigPharma and big drains on the budgets of many, particularly seniors.

Drug companies had wanted the Supreme Court to immunize these agreements from possible antitrust attack in court. By 5-3, the Court said no. The ruling said that "precedents make clear that patent-related settlement agreements can sometimes violate antitrust law," which would make them illegal.

The Court resisted motions to make all such so-called "reverse payment settlements," or "pay-for-delay" deals as they're sometimes called, illegal, but did say they can be challenged. And as their invariable result is to guarantee a delay in a generic alternative reaching the market, that's good news.

Sources:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/17/supreme-court-generic-drugs_n_3454164.html

Left Side of Aisle #113 - Part 2

Good news #2: SCOTUS says states can't require demand additional ID to register with federal form

Another bit of good news coming out of the Court came on Monday, June 17, when by 7-2 the Justices ruled that states cannot demand proof of citizenship from people registering to vote in federal elections unless they get federal or court approval to do so.

The issue is that of the voter-registration form produced under the federal "motor voter" registration law. In striking down an Arizona law, Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion - good lord, what is the world coming to - said federal law "precludes Arizona from requiring a federal form applicant to submit information beyond that required by the form itself."

To do that, they would need permission from the federal Election Assistance Commission or a federal court ruling overturning an adverse decision by the commission.

The decision was a clear slap in the face to the Arizona reactionaries who, despite their orchestrated whines about "voter fraud," seem much more frightened by brown skin than by busted ballots.

However, the state can still demand the extra information from anyone who registers via state offices rather than via the federal motor-voter form. And state officials say they will ask the Election Assistance Commission to approve the citizenship proof for the federal form and will fight any denial in court.

That's the process laid out in the Supreme Court's ruling, which Arizona Attorney General Tom Horne called "a clear path to victory for the people of Arizona."

I think a victory is what the people of Arizona just won.

Sources:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/17/supreme-court-arizona-voter-registration_n_3453965.html

Left Side of the Aisle #113 - Part 1

Good news #1: SCOTUS says human DNA cannot be parented

I always like to start off when I can with some good news and this week there are three good news items, all of them from a truly unexpected source: the US Supreme Court.

On June 13, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously in a suit brought by the Association for Molecular Pathology that companies cannot patent parts of naturally-occurring human genes, reversing three decades of patent awards by government officials.

The opinion was written by Clarence Thomas, who wrote that patents held by Myriad Genetics Inc. on an increasingly popular breast cancer test are invalid because they violate patent rules. The court has said in the past that laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas are not patentable, standards that have been long ignored by the US Patent Office.

Myriad had claimed a patent on two specific human genes it used to come up with its BRACAnalysis test, which looks for mutations on the breast cancer predisposition gene, or BRCA. Those mutations are linked to an increased risk of breast and ovarian cancer. Myriad sells the only BRCA gene test because it can use the patents to keep other researchers from working with the BRCA gene to develop other tests.

The Court ruled that "a naturally occurring DNA segment is a product of nature and not patent eligible merely because it has been isolated."

The Chicken Littles who say that research will collapse if companies can't patent things like genes and plants and other natural phenomena are either foolish or corporate shills. For one thing, the Court also ruled that synthetically created DNA, known as complementary DNA or cDNA, can be patented “because it is not naturally occurring,” that is, it doesn't exist in nature.

And as Thomas pointed out, there are ways for Myriad to make money off its discovery. For one example, it could have sought a method patent on the particular way its test works. You just can't patent nature. And that's good news.

There's an amusing - sort of amusing, anyway, because it doesn't make a difference here but could under other circumstances - anyway, a sort of amusing footnote:

Justice Antonin Scalia voted with the majority, but wrote his own concurrence to make it clear that he didn't agree with parts of Thomas's opinion. He said "I join the judgment of the Court, and all of its opinion except Part I–A and some portions of the rest" because "I am unable to affirm those details on my own knowledge or even my own belief."

What's section I-A? That's the part where Thomas recited the basic fundamentals of molecular biology, stuff any first-year college student - or maybe even high-school senior - would have to know to pass a biology course, stuff Scalia is "unable to affirm on my own knowledge or even belief." Antonin Scalia, it seems, doesn't believe in genes.

Sources:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/13/antonin-scalia-biology_n_3437496.html?ref=topbar
http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2013/jun/13/supreme-court-rules-9-0-companies-cannot-patent-hu/
http://gawker.com/antonin-scalia-does-not-believe-in-molecular-biology-513125290

Left Side of the Aisle #113



Left Side of the Aisle
for the week of June 20-26, 2013

This week:
Good news #1: SCOTUS says human DNA cannot be parented
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/13/antonin-scalia-biology_n_3437496.html?ref=topbar
http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2013/jun/13/supreme-court-rules-9-0-companies-cannot-patent-hu/
http://gawker.com/antonin-scalia-does-not-believe-in-molecular-biology-513125290

Good news #2: SCOTUS says states can't require demand additional ID to register with federal form
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/17/supreme-court-arizona-voter-registration_n_3453965.html

Good news #3: SCOTUS says drug companies' "pay for delay" deals can be challenged as violating antitrust laws
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/17/supreme-court-generic-drugs_n_3454164.html

Feel-good news #1: Sebastien De La Cruz sings national anthem again in face of racist tweets
http://www.sportingnews.com/nba/story/2013-06-13/spurs-national-anthem-sebastien-de-la-cruz-racist-tweets-gregg-popovich-erik-spo
http://publicshaming.tumblr.com/post/52763976629/racist-basketball-fans-pissed-a-mexican-american-boy

Feel-good news #2: Five-year-old Jayden Sink leaves Westboro Baptist Church fuming and frustrated with "Pink Lemonade for Peace" stand
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/15/westboro-baptist-church-lemonade_n_3444490.html?ir=Politics&ref=topbar
http://www.plantingpeace.org/equality.htm
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/18/westboro-baptist-church-responds-lemonade_n_3455642.html?utm_hp_ref=mostpopular

George Zimmerman's father releases e-book; claims African-American organizations are "the real racists"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre_Beaumarchais
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/15/george-zimmerman-father-african-americans-racist_n_3447025.html
http://thinkprogress.org/media/2013/06/14/2162501/george-zimmermans-father-says-the-true-racists-are-all-african-american/

Clown Award: Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/13/blankfein-blames-economy_n_3435040.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/07/may-jobs-report-unemployment-rate_n_3401718.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/05/us-pay-drop_n_3391664.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/13/low-paying-jobs_n_3266737.html
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/money/economy/2009-04-14-tarp-repay-bank-bailout_N.htm

Outrage of the Week: SCOTUS says no right to remain silent before arrest
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miranda_v._Arizona
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/17/supreme-court-silence_n_3453968.html

Hero Award: Edward Snowden
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/09/edward-snowden-nsa-whistleblower-surveillance

More on NSA spying: significance of leaks can be measured by ferocity of the response
http://fair.org/take-action/media-advisories/pundits-vs-edward-snowden/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/11/peter-king-reporters-prosecuted_n_3424541.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/12/peter-king-glenn-greenwald_n_3430048.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/14/eric-holder-nsa_n_3442244.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/08/nsa-leaks-investigation_n_3409590.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/11/john-boehner-edward-snowden_n_3420635.html
http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/304635-nsa-leak-is-treason-says-sen-feinstein
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/12/nsa-director-terrorist-attacks_n_3430043.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/15/nsa-terrorist-surveillance_n_3448090.html
http://www.mediaite.com/online/sens-wyden-udall-we-have-seen-no-evidence-nsa-surveillance-has-prevented-dozens-of-terrorist-events/
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/06/white-house-spying-on-us-citizens-critical-tool-for-fighting-terror/

Thursday, June 13, 2013

Weekly reminder

As of June 11, at least 4,924 people had been killed by gunfire in the US since Newtown, at least 46 of them in Massachusetts.

Left Side of the Aisle #112 - Part 5

NSA spying

All right, you have to know that I was going to talk about this. The big news of the past week was the twin revelations about massive warrantless surveillance of Americans.

One revelation was that the federal government has been actively and secretly collecting the telephone records of every telephone call, both landline and mobile, made within, into, or out of the United States. Data about all your phone calls is being sucked up by the feds and stored for later retrieval.

That's been reported before, yes, in fact I mentioned it twice last year on this show, once in May and again in September. But two things broke through the "ho-hum" these reports have gotten in the past. One was that this was the first clear evidence that the Obama crowd was continuing and even expanding the sweeping surveillance of Americans that the Bush gang initiated.

Second, this time there was a smoking gun: The Guardian, a leading newspaper in the UK, got hold of a copy of the court order authorizing a three-month renewal of an order to Verizon to turn over "metadata" records on an "on-going, daily basis."

Those records don't include the content of the calls, but they do include what number you called from, what number you called, when you called, the routing information to transmit the call, which can reveal where each party was as the time of the call, and how long you talked. For every single Verizon phone call in the US. It doesn't include the content? As even Joe Biden pointed out, you don't have to listen to the content of the calls to create a picture of your life that is, quoting him, "very, very intrusive."

The court order obtained by the Guardian only mentions Verizon specifcally but it would be bizarre to imagine that other companies were not also so ordered, and in any event, NBC News soon reported that the government has been collecting records on every phone call made in the US - all of it being done without even making a pretense of the "individualized suspicion" that's a hallmark of what's required by the Fourth Amendment.

That report about the blanket collection data on all phone calls was quickly followed by the revelation of a program code-named PRISM, which involves connecting directly into the central servers of nine leading US Internet companies, those being Microsoft, Yahoo, Google, Facebook, PalTalk, AOL, Skype, YouTube, and Apple, with Dropbox, the cloud storage and synchronization service, described as “coming soon.” The NSA can extract audio, video, photographs, e-mails, documents, and connection logs. Remarkably, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper admitted to the program's existence.

All the companies have denied involvement in or in some cases even knowledge of PRISM, but it's quite possible they're hanging their denials on a very small nail: The documents describing the program refer to being plugged into the companies' central servers, but another classified report refers to NSA “collection managers" sending instructions to equipment installed at company-controlled locations - that is, the NSA can't send instructions to the central servers, just to its own equipment that is linked to the central servers. In terms of the issue at hand, that's an example of what I call a distinction without a difference.

Because PRISM obviously involves collecting content - in fact, in the case of Skype calls, it can include audio and even video - the spooks have to make at least something of a nod to Constitutional protections, especially since the NSA is barred by law from actual surveillance of Americans within the US, it's only supposed to do it to "foreigners."

So the PRISM program is not a sweeping dragnet like the phone data. The NSA is capable of pulling out anything it likes from a company's data stream, it's all there for the taking, but under current rules the agency does not try to collect it all.

Instead, analysts key in search terms that are designed to produce at least 51 percent confidence in a target’s “foreignness,” which is hardly what anyone could call a tough standard to meet; in fact it's about the weakest standard you could have and still claim to have one. In a great line, John Oliver said on the Daily Show that "it's flipping a coin plus one percent."

The result is that even when no American is singled out for targeting, the NSA routinely collects a great deal of American content. That is described as “incidental" and training materials for new analysts tell them “it’s nothing to worry about.”

But of course it is. Analysts are typically taught to chain through contacts two “hops” out from their target. That means, at a minimum, everyone in the suspect’s inbox or outbox is swept in along with everyone in all those people's in and out boxes and everyone in all those people's in and out boxes and the “incidental collection” expands exponentially. This is “six degrees of separation” played out in the real world.

The response from the White House to all this was, not surprisingly, that this was all perfectly legal, all according to law, nothing to see here, move along, go back to watching The Bachelorette or whatever. In fact, The Amazing Mr. O inisted that the program is essential - Remember what I said last week in reference to DNA testing that whenever official types get a tool it instantly becomes absolutely essential for the preservation of all that is good and decent and chaos will reign if it's taken away? Well, he said these programs are essential to combatting terrorism. Quoting him, the program "may identify potential leads with respect to folks who might engage in terrorism."

That is, again, his defense for this spying being "essential" is that they "may identify potential leads with respect to folks who might engage in terrorism." Just how many weasel words can you fit into one sentence?

If you're looking to Congress for relief, don't. One thing the White House is right about is that members of Congress knew about this. Every member of the Senate was informed. Ron Wyden and Mark Udall tried to raise the alarm, but as members of the Senate Intelligence Committee they were bound by an oath to not reveal the details, because they were classified. The point, however, is that members of Congress, particularly in the Senate, had multiple opportunities to rein in the program or at least establish some transparency and tighter controls - and they failed to do so time and time again, being willing - most of them - to sacrifice the rights and privacy of the public rather than risk being accused of voting against "national security" or of being "soft on terrorism."

So what you heard instead was a boatload of CYA.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, the chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said "I know that people are trying to get to us. This is called protecting America."

Sen. Saxby Chambliss, ranking member of the committee, said "This is nothing particularly new," a sentiment echoed by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who said "Everyone should just calm down and understand this isn't anything that's brand new."

So it's been going on for years. That's supposed to make me feel better?

Sen. Lindsey Graham, demonstrating his usual grasp of reality, said that he was "glad" the NSA is collecting the phone records before saying that "you just can't track people's phone calls," that there must be a reasonable belief that the people being surveilled are involved in terrorism - which is exactly what the program does not do. He is such a twerp.

Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner, a conservative GOPper who was one of the authors of the provision of the Patriot Act which the White House and its defenders are using to claim this is all legal, made that same point: In a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder, he asked “How could the phone records of so many innocent Americans be relevant to an authorized investigation as required by the Act?”

In fact, it can't. But don't expect Congress to do a damn thing about it, not when that would involve admitting they had screwed up so badly for so long.

More on this and on the hero who revealed the phone spying, next week.

Sources:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/06/nsa-verizon-phone-records-white-house_n_3395423.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/us-intelligence-mining-data-from-nine-us-internet-companies-in-broad-secret-program/2013/06/06/3a0c0da8-cebf-11e2-8845-d970ccb04497_story_1.html
http://techcrunch.com/2013/06/06/report-nsa-collects-data-directly-from-servers-of-google-apple-microsoft-facebook-and-more/
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/interactive/2013/jun/06/verizon-telephone-data-court-order
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-june-10-2013/moment-of-zen---joe-biden---government-surveillance
https://twitter.com/nbcnightlynews/status/342771225195597824
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/07/obama-nsa_n_3403389.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/06/verizon-phone-records-nsa_n_3397058.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/06/nsa-phone-records-verizon-court-order
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/06/lindsey-graham-nsa_n_3396223.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/06/jim-sensenbrenner-nsa_n_3397440.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/07/clapper-secret-nsa-surveillance-prism

Left Side of the Aisle #112 - Part 4

Outrage of the Week: Privacy? What's that?

It's time for our other regular feature, the Outrage of the Week.

You know, sometimes I think when you ask a government official - at the federal or even the state level - about privacy, they'll think you mean their privacy, their ability to keep secrets, not your ability to do it. It's becoming a mixture of amazing and frightening how cavalierly government officials will propose programs that involve more and more tracking of individuals without, it sometimes seems, even realizing the implications of what they are saying.

The latest example of this is the plan by the Massachusetts Department of Transportation to no longer accept cash at Tobin Bridge* tolls beginning early next year. Over the next several years, the Department hopes to transition to electronic-only payment systems on the Massachusetts Turnpike and at the Logan International Airport tunnels as well.

And oh, aren't they all a-flutter about all the benefits accruing to us, the driving and riding public, as a result of this! It will reduce congestion! You'll be able to fly right through the toll plaza without even slowing down! Isn't that wonderful? Not like having to slow down to a crummy 15 miles per hour or even to - gasp! - have to stop for a toll!

The new system does away with toll booths entirely and replaces them with overhead sensors that can read your E-ZPass. The E-ZPass system, currently used in 15 states, allows commuters to pass through toll booths without stopping. An electronic scanner identifies an E-ZPass transponder in the vehicle and charges the cost of the toll to the driver’s account, which is linked to a debit or credit card.

Wait - what if you don't have an E-ZPass? Well, yeah, says State Secretary of Transportation Richard Davey, the plan will necessitate a wholesale shift to E-ZPasses. But that's no big deal, we'll provide them for free! See? Problem solved!

Okay, what if you still don't have an E-ZPass? Again, no problem: Cameras will capture the license plates of drivers who don’t have passes, and they will receive a bill for the toll in the mail.

The state estimates that once the $120 million project is fully implemented, the state will save around $50 million a year - most of which will come from firing three-quarters of the people currently working the toll booths.

So let's run it down: In order to provide you the enormous, incalculable benefit of not having to slow down at a toll booth, the state is proposing a program that involves throwing 300 people out of work, essentially requiring you to open a credit or debit account to which the state has access with the alternative of having to effectively pay a penalty (the postage cost of returning a bill for a toll), and - and here's that privacy part - enabling the state to create, if it chooses, a database of every car that uses the MassPike, the Tobin Bridge, or the Logan tunnels, when it did, and where it was on the MassPike when it did.

The program itself I think is bad enough. The idea that it enables the state to build that sort of citizen-tracking database is an outrage - and the fact that state officials may honestly have not even thought of this when they proposed it is an even bigger one.

*For those of you unfamiliar with the area, the Tobin Bridge carries US Route 1 over the Mystic River between Charlestown and Chelsea, just north of Boston.

Sources:
http://boston.com/metrodesk/2013/05/20/mass-transportation-secretary-people-are-going-need-pick-zpasses/fhhxtQAQRx5RulYGpv1zcI/story.html

Left Side of the Aisle #112 - Part 3

Frustration about Obamacare

Time here for a quick personal note before we take a break.

It's been a little over three years since the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, commonly called Obamacare, was signed into law. During the months of the debate over the law, there were persistent polls saying that a majority or at the very least a sizable minority of the country was against it.

But to my own great frustration, those polls all but never asked people who said they were against it why they were. When polls finally did get around to asking, several months into the argument, they found pretty consistently that about 1/3 of those who were against it - generally around 16-18% of the total sample - felt that way because the proposal was not liberal enough, was not broad enough, did not regulate the insurance industry enough, did not provide enough access to care, it was, bottom line, just not good enough.

I was among those who felt that way. I still do. At the time, those of us who thought that way were denounced by those who supported the bill. We were fools, unrealistic, we didn't understand politics; the quote on the right side here saying I "live in a magical fantasy world" comes from that time. "This is what can pass," we were told and "when it goes into effect people will love it."

I said at the time that if you start by calling for "what will pass" you'll inevitably wind up with less than you could have gotten. Which is, of course, exactly what happened.

What brings this up is a CNN poll from the end of May, which found that 43 percent of Americans support Obamacare, thirty-five percent oppose the law because it’s too liberal and 16 percent oppose it because it isn’t liberal enough - which is pretty much the same breakdown there was three years ago when the law passed. So much for everyone will love it.

But while that poll is what brought this up, this is why I brought it up: Something else people like me were told over and over again at the time was that we should get on board because, it was said, "this is just the start, we'll come back next year to make it better!" I said at the time that you wouldn't be fighting for improvements, the only thing you'd be fighting for was to protect the program against attacks and cutbacks. Which, again, is exactly what happened.

So I just want to say to everyone who said "we'll be back, we'll make it better" in any form to anyone: Just where the hell have you people been these last three years? Where are your campaigns for improvements? Where is your "fight to make it better?" When does "next year" get here?

If your real interest was in access to health care for everyone rather than in access to a political victory for Barack Obama, I ask you again: Just where the hell are you?

Unhappily, saying "I told you so" never actually fixes anything. But it does allow me to vent some frustration.

Sources:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act
http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2013/images/05/28/healthcarepoll.pdf
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/05/poll-54-percent-against-obamacare-91902.html

Left Side of the Aisle #112 - Part 2

Clown Award: Bill O'Reilly

The whole preceding item could be taken as a very long introduction to one of our regular features, the Clown Award, given for acts of meritorious stupidity.

This one starts with the news that Tippecanoe School for the Arts and Humanities in Milwaukee recently celebrated School Spirit Week with a series of events for students in kindergarten through eighth grade. As part of that, the student council chose Friday of the week to be what they called "Gender Bender Day," a voluntary event that called for boys to dress like girls and girls to dress like boys.

And of course some parents hit the roof. It was called “ridiculous,” “creepy," "the wrong lesson," it's "having students dress as transvestites," and in one particularly revealing comment, one mother claimed the event promotes the acceptance of homosexuality among students - and we all know what a horrible thing being accepting of gay people is.

The school tried to cool things off by renaming it "Switch It Up Day" but that of course failed. Still, what happened is that the day came and went, some participated, some didn't, and the world, naturally did not come to an end.

Despite that, those parents are not the winners of the big red nose this week. No, this week, it goes to that supremo of stupidity, that icon of idiocy, the clown's clown, Bill O'Reilly.

The topic of "Gender Bender Day" came up on his show, and he denounced the school's teachers as his favorite long-since cliched epithet "pinheads" while claiming the whole thing was a "politically correct" "anti-bullying" project. Which first off shows how, typically, he has no idea what he is talking about: recall this was done by the student council, not the teachers or administration, as part of "school spirit week" and had nothing to do with any anti-bullying effort.

But that sort of base ignorance is not enough for the high standards BO usually sets. In response to BO's "it's an anti-bullying tactic" rant, his guest, comedian Adam Carolla, said "I have a six-year-old son, I have twins. He had to ride in his sister's pink car seat the other day for a mile and he screamed like a stuck pig the entire time."

O'Reilly says, quoting, "That's a good sign. That's a good sign because, if he had liked that, you might have to send him to camp."

That's right, according to Bill O'Reilly, if a boy likes pink, there's something wrong with him. He needs correction. He needs treatment, he needs to be sent to - just what sort of camp were you thinking of, Mr. BO?

This kind of rigid, doctrinaire, sexist thinking is stupid, it is bigoted, it is damaging to children, it is the notion of a complete and total clown.

Oh, and by the way: Apparently, according to BO, a boy liking a pink car seat is a sign of - well of something being wrong with him. I wonder if the same applies to pink ties.

Sources:
http://fox6now.com/2013/05/24/gender-bender-day-causes-controversy-at-tippecanoe/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/28/gender-bender-day-homosexuality_n_3346285.html
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/06/04/bill-oreillys-parenting-advice-punish-boys-who/194335

Left Side of the Aisle #112 - Part 1

Progress on marriage equality

The Supreme Court is expected to issue its rulings on two cases related to marriage equality within the next two or three weeks, those cases being whether or not to uphold California's Proposition 8, or PropHate as it came to be called, which stripped away an existing right to same-sex marriage in the state, and the question of DOMA, the Defense of Marriage Act, a section of which defines marriage as one man-one woman for all federal purposes, meaning that even same-sex couples legally married in their home state are denied marriage-related federal benefits.

While obviously no one can say for sure what will happen, legal observers are predicting that the Court will strike down the relevant section of DOMA on the grounds that it creates two groups of legally-married people and treats them differently - which you can't legitimately do. As a result, legally-married same-sex couples would have the same access to marriage-related federal benefits that legally-married straight couples do.

Those observers are also predicting that the Court will punt on Proposition 8, avoiding a decision. If that happens, it will leave intact a Court of Appeals decision that struck down Prop8, making same-sex marriage again legal in California without affecting the laws of any other state.

So with that coming up, I thought I'd take a couple of minutes to check out some recent news on this front.

I've said a number of times before that this may be the only area about which it's true, but on this issue, on marriage equality, we - that is, we progressives, we believers in justice - are winning.One example of that is how attitudes about same-sex marriage have changed in California since the passage, in 2008, of Prop8 by a margin of 52-48.

According to a USC/Los Angeles Times poll two years later, that is, in 2010, 52% of registered voters in the state favored gay marriage and 40% opposed it, a 12-point spread and a dramatic shift from the Prop8 results.

Now, just three years after that, in 2013, another USC/Los Angeles Times poll shows 58% of the state's registered voters believe same-sex marriage should be legal, compared with 36% against, a margin of 22 points and a gap 10 points wider than just three years earlier. The poll showed that support for legal same-sex marriage had increased, sometimes dramatically, across every age group and every region of the state. Only those over 65 and those living in the Central Valley did not show majority support for marriage equality and even in those categories opinion was evenly split. Which is itself telling, since those even splits mark clear gains from three years before, at which time Central Valley residents opposed marriage equality by a margin of six points and those over 65 did so by a margin of 19 points.

In fact, the change in the US in general, not just in California, is notable enough that both supporters and opponents of marriage justice agree on one thing: ultimate legal recognition has become inevitable. According to a recent poll from the Pew Research Center, nearly three-quarters of Americans say same-sex marriage is certain to become legal. That includes 85 percent of supporters of the idea and 59 percent of those who oppose it.

Even places that have supposedly iced same-sex marriage out entirely may find change coming their way: Michigan is one of the states that adopted a state constitutional amendment defining marriage as one man-one woman. In 2004, that measure passed by the substantial margin of 58-42. But a poll released last month found that 55% of likely voters in the state said they would vote to amend the state constitution to allow same-sex marriage.

That number needs to grow; conventional wisdom says you need 60% support for a referendum to be confident of passage when the votes are finally counted. Even so, the shift to date is clear enough that marriage justice activists are planning a ballot drive in 2016 aiming to overturn Michigan's constitutional ban on same-sex marriage.

Even the traditional arguments against same-sex marriage are falling apart. Consider the famous "the Bible says" argument, the claim that the Bible defines marriage as one man-one woman. Three Iowa-based Biblical scholars recently ripped that apart in an op-ed in the Des Moines Register.

In fact, they noted, the Bible offers multiple descriptions of marriage. For example, it endorses polygamy, practiced by both Abraham and David. 2 Samuel has God telling David "I gave you your master’s house, and your master’s wives into your bosom. ... And if all this had been too little, I would have given you even more.”

Deuteronomy says that rape victims must marry their rapist. Genesis, Deuteronomy, and Ruth all say a man is obligated to marry his brother’s widow, regardless of his own marital status. Ezra forbinds interracial marriage and orders those who already had foreign wives to divorce them immediately. Paul said it's better to not marry at all and remain celibate, and the gospel of Matthew has Jesus encouraging those who can to castrate themselves “for the kingdom” and live a life of celibacy.

So while it wouldn't be true to say that biblical texts specifically allow same-sex marriage, saying the Bible defines marriage as “one man and one woman” is complete claptrap.

That, of course, doesn't mean the bitter and bigoted opposition won't continue. Just consider Illinois, where the hope for a legislative victory has been put on hold. The state Senate has passed a same-sex marriage bill, the governor has said he will sign it, but a vote in the state House of Representatives has been put off until the fall.

It now develops that the Catholic Church is trying to financially force local groups in the state that work with the poor to oppose same-sex marriage. The groups in question receive grants from the Catholic Campaign for Human Development, the anti-poverty arm of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops. They are also part of the Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights.

On May 23, the coalition issued a statement in support of “marriage equality” for same-sex partners. In response, Catholic Church officials contacted the groups involved that receive grants and told them that they either withdraw from the coalition and renounce its position in favor of marriage equality or forget about the funding.

So faced with a choice between aid the poor and immigrants and "protect our bigoted notion about marriage," the Church has made its very revealing choice.

Sources:
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865581389/Legal-experts-lay-odds-on-gay-marriage-decision.html?pg=all
http://articles.latimes.com/2013/jun/10/local/la-me-poll-gay-marriage-20130610
http://newsfeed.time.com/2013/06/07/same-sex-marriage-legalization-seen-as-inevitable-to-most-americans/
http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/national_world/2013/06/10/same-sex-marriage-considered-inevitable.html
http://www.mlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2013/06/gay_marriage_vote_may_come_to.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/06/biblical-marriage-iowa-scholars-op-ed_n_3397304.html?utm_hp_ref=mostpopular
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20130603/OPINION01/306030016/Iowa-View-1-man-1-woman-isn-t-the-Bible-s-only-marriage-view?gcheck=1
http://www.suntimes.com/news/brown/20664816-452/brown-catholic-church-playing-hardball-with-groups-that-supported-legalizing-same-sex-marriages.html

Left Side of the Aisle #112




Left Side of the Aisle
for the week of June 13-19, 2013

This week:

Progress on marriage equality
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865581389/Legal-experts-lay-odds-on-gay-marriage-decision.html?pg=all
http://articles.latimes.com/2013/jun/10/local/la-me-poll-gay-marriage-20130610
http://newsfeed.time.com/2013/06/07/same-sex-marriage-legalization-seen-as-inevitable-to-most-americans/
http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/national_world/2013/06/10/same-sex-marriage-considered-inevitable.html
http://www.mlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2013/06/gay_marriage_vote_may_come_to.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/06/biblical-marriage-iowa-scholars-op-ed_n_3397304.html?utm_hp_ref=mostpopular
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20130603/OPINION01/306030016/Iowa-View-1-man-1-woman-isn-t-the-Bible-s-only-marriage-view?gcheck=1
http://www.suntimes.com/news/brown/20664816-452/brown-catholic-church-playing-hardball-with-groups-that-supported-legalizing-same-sex-marriages.html

Clown Award: Bill O'Reilly
http://fox6now.com/2013/05/24/gender-bender-day-causes-controversy-at-tippecanoe/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/28/gender-bender-day-homosexuality_n_3346285.html
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/06/04/bill-oreillys-parenting-advice-punish-boys-who/194335

Frustration about Obamacare
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act
http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2013/images/05/28/healthcarepoll.pdf
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/05/poll-54-percent-against-obamacare-91902.html

Outrage of the Week: Privacy? What's that?
http://boston.com/metrodesk/2013/05/20/mass-transportation-secretary-people-are-going-need-pick-zpasses/fhhxtQAQRx5RulYGpv1zcI/story.html

NSA spying
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/06/nsa-verizon-phone-records-white-house_n_3395423.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/us-intelligence-mining-data-from-nine-us-internet-companies-in-broad-secret-program/2013/06/06/3a0c0da8-cebf-11e2-8845-d970ccb04497_story_1.html
http://techcrunch.com/2013/06/06/report-nsa-collects-data-directly-from-servers-of-google-apple-microsoft-facebook-and-more/
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/interactive/2013/jun/06/verizon-telephone-data-court-order
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-june-10-2013/moment-of-zen---joe-biden---government-surveillance
https://twitter.com/nbcnightlynews/status/342771225195597824
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/07/obama-nsa_n_3403389.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/06/verizon-phone-records-nsa_n_3397058.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/06/nsa-phone-records-verizon-court-order
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/06/lindsey-graham-nsa_n_3396223.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/06/jim-sensenbrenner-nsa_n_3397440.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/07/clapper-secret-nsa-surveillance-prism

Saturday, June 08, 2013

Weekly reminder

This was already said in the post just below this one, but I still wanted to give my weekly reminder:

As of June 4, at least 4,720 people have been killed by gunfire in the US since Newtown, 45 of them in Massachusetts.

That total is 234 more than the number of American soldiers killed in the entire eight years of the Iraq War.

Friday, June 07, 2013

Left Side of the Aisle #111 - Part 9

The dirty secret of gun control: handguns

As of June 4, at least 4,720 Americans - including at least 45 in Massachusetts - have been killed by gunfire since Newtown. That is 234 more than the number of American soldiers killed in the entire eight years of the Iraq War.

This deserves more time than I'm going to give it. But every time I try to start it, I'm sorry, my stomach knots up. But I had to at least mention the dirty little secret of gun control.

That secret is that there is one way in which the gun nuts are right: All of the proposals, at least the "serious" proposals, the ones that the political and social elites will dare to raise for fear that going beyond them is "not politically feasible," those "serious" proposals will do little to control our shocking rate of death by gun. If every one of those proposals passed - and they should pass, make no mistake about it  - but if every one of them passed, it would make only a small difference in the gun murder rate and the overall gun death rate.

Why? Because those proposals arise from and are driven by the events that shock us, that are large enough to move us from our torpor. The mass shootings. The Auroras. The Newtowns. But those are almost exclusively done with weapons like assault rifles, semi-automatics, using large-capacity magazines. Such events might take the lives of hundreds of innocents over the course of a year - but that is but a fraction of the thousands of deaths, both by murder and by accident, that occur every year in this country as the result of handguns. And beyond the standard answer of "background checks," handgun control is not even on the agenda.

It was at one time; in fact, not even handgun control, a ban on handguns. In 1959, 60% of Americans told a Gallup poll that they supported a ban on handguns except for people who actually could show a need for them. By 2011, before Aurora and Newtown managed to sufficiently shock our national conscience, Gallup said that support for gun control as an issue had fallen to its lowest level in 50 years - but even then, at that lowest point, still 26% of the people of this country favored a handgun ban.

So even though if you suggest it now you'll be made to feel it's a fringe position, don't let anyone fool you: It's really not.

And it shouldn't be. We are an incredibly violent nation. We have whole neighborhoods terrorized by guns, by handguns, whole neighborhoods where people dream of being able to just go for a walk in the evening without risking their lives. And that's not going to change, it's not going to stop, until we do two things: one, realize just how much crime is rooted in economic injustice and inequality.

And two, ban handguns.

Sources:
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/crime/2012/12/gun_death_tally_every_american_gun_death_since_newtown_sandy_hook_shooting.html
http://www.icasualties.org/Iraq/
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1011/66874.html
http://miami.cbslocal.com/2013/05/01/gun-violence-the-norm-for-some-south-florida-students/
http://miami.cbslocal.com/2013/05/08/booker-t-washington-hs-students-live-with-learning-in-a-war-zone/
http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2013/05/02/in-the-aftermath-of-violence-a-neighborhood-is-torn/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/02/new-orleans-violence-documentary-shell-shocked_n_3202560.html
http://www.americanprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/AmericaUnderTheGun-4.pdf

Left Side of the Aisle #111 - Part 8

Outrage of the Week: SCOTUS and DNA

You know what's one of the worst things about the Supreme Court? On too many issues, the members of the Court are faced with cases involving scientific and technical issues and called on to make decisions which they are not competent to make.

By the narrowest majority, 5-4, the Supreme Court has cleared the way for police at all levels to take a DNA swab from anyone they arrest for a serious crime and use that to check a database of DNA from unsolved crimes, and do this without evidence that they are suspected of a different crime, without a warrant, and directly contrary to the long-standing understanding that the Fourth Amendment means that the police cannot search for evidence of a crime without individualized suspicion – and, as Steven Shapiro of the ACLU noted, all nine justices agreed that DNA testing is a search.

But for the majority, that didn't matter because, according to the opinion written by Anthony Kennedy, a DNA swab is no different from a fingerprint or a photograph. It's just a routine part of the booking procedure, he said, just a way to identify the prisoner. He actually called it, as such things are invariably called, a “minor intrusion.” No big deal.

But of course it's not minor and the majority showed itself to be abysmally ignorant of just how revealing DNA is. Your face is your face. Your fingerprints are your fingerprints. Your DNA is who you are. Advocates of swabbing - and you know there are advocates, there are always advocates for whatever new violation of your rights is proposed because we just must have this because otherwise the world will fall apart; as one said in this case, "DNA is a tool we could not afford to lose."

Anyway, advocates of swabbing insist that a cheek swab is deliberately chosen because it doesn't tell anything about you beyond your identity. Which is flatly untrue: It can, for one thing, reveal who you may be related to. In fact there is a whole growing industry of collecting and storing voluntary cheek swabs in order for people to find relatives. For that same reason, they are used in determining paternity and in some immigration cases. They are also used in and in matching patients for bone marrow transplants and other medical matches. They can be used to reveal your racial characteristics, your ethnic heritage, and at least some of your medical history, including to what conditions you may be more susceptible. Yes, several of those uses are basically voluntary - but that doesn't change the fact that the claim that a cheek swab is only for for identifying the particular individual and has no other use is complete nonsense if not a deliberate lie.

The fact is, calling a cheek swab just a "booking procedure" and a "minor intrusion" demonstrates that the majority of the Supreme Court doesn't know what it's talking about and is incompetent to reach the decision it did. And now, because of their ignorance, another slice has been taken out of the 4th Amendment and our privacy.

That's especially true because the court's decision contains no limits. The particular case involved someone arrested of a violent crime in Maryland, but in an insightful dissent, Antonin Scalia - and there are six words I never thought I'd say together in that order - in an insightful dissent, Antonin Scalia noted the slippery slope: There is nothing in the decision to prevent this from being applied to every arrest, no matter how minor the infraction.

"Make no mistake about it,” he said, writing for the minority, “as an entirely predictable consequence of today’s decision your DNA can be taken and entered into a national DNA data base if you are ever arrested, rightly or wrongly, and for whatever reason.”

Maryland state officials agree: State Attorney General Doug Gansler agreed that there's nothing stopping his state from expanding DNA collection from those arrested for serious crimes to those arrested for lesser ones like shoplifting.

In fact, Scalia said, why should this stop with people arrested? Why not, he said, take your DNA when you fly on an airplane? Quoting again, "surely the TSA must know the 'identity' of the flying public. For that matter, so would taking your children's DNA when they start public school."

Getting DNA swabs from people convicted of crimes is already common: All 50 states and the federal government take cheek swabs from convicted criminals. According to court documents, the FBI's Combined DNA Index System (CODIS) - a coordinated system of federal, state and local databases of DNA profiles - already contains more than 10 million criminal profiles and 1.1 million profiles of those arrested but not convicted. According to the FBI, the DNA samples from people whose charges have been dismissed, who have been acquitted or against who no charges have been brought are to be expunged from the federal system.

However, those rules do not apply to states and municipalities, which can keep the records as long as they want.

Open wide.

Sources:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/03/supreme-court-dna-samples_n_3378379.html?utm_hp_ref=mostpopular
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/editorials/la-ed-dna-20130604,0,2983670.story
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/06/supreme-court-upholds-minor-intrusion-of-arrestee-dna-swabs/
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/06/04/privacy-experts-supreme-court-ruling-on-dna-swabs-could-lead-to-big-brother-scenario_print.html
http://www.familytreedna.com/dna-test-kit.aspx
http://www.dnatesting.com/blog/dnatesting/tag/cheek-swab/
http://www.dnadrugts.com/service.html
http://www.sgvtribune.com/ci_15223744

Left Side of the Aisle #111 - Part 7

The Little Thing #2: Lindsey Graham's Freudian slip

So recently President Hopey-Changey announced as how he wants to end the global war on terror - but of course he doesn't, since the secrecy remains, it appears the biggest change is moving control of the drone program from the CIA to the Pentagon, and Bradley Manning is still on trial. But leave that aside for the moment to enjoy one of the more delicious Freudian slips you'll hear:

In response to the Amazing Mr. O's speech, Senator Lindsey Graham, member in good standing of the Brotherhood of Perpetual Smirk, had this to say:
At the end of the day, this is the most tone-deaf president I ever could imagine, making such a speech at a time when our homeland is trying to be attacked literally every day.
Yep, Lindsey Graham says the "homeland" is "trying to be attacked every day.” And if such an attack were ever to happen, just whose interests would that serve?

Sources:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/28/us/politics/in-terror-shift-obama-took-a-long-path.html

Left Side of the Aisle #111 - Part 6

The Little Thing #1: Starbucks knows no limits

Once in a while, there is a news item that strikes me in an odd way - specifically, there is something, some little thing, that the coverage just doesn't seem to address. Calling it "little" doesn't mean it's something unimportant, although sometimes it is, sometimes it's something that just bugs me a little, or even amuses me. But what it really means is that it's something glossed over, maybe mentioned in passing, but deserves more notice than it got.

So this is a new and very occasional feature, The Little Thing. I have two of them this week, just to get things going.

First up is the news that Starbucks adopted a policy as of June 1 of requiring smokers to stand at least 25 feet away from its businesses when lighting up. The company already bans smoking indoors. A company representative said about 7,000 stores will be affected - both those that have outdoor seating and those that do not. However, the rule won't apply to Starbucks that are housed in other stores, such as Target.

So here's the thing: Most all of the coverage was about how affecting outdoor seating is a kind of new area and wondering how, or even if, it will affect Starbucks' business.

But none of the coverage asked the obvious question: Starbucks, just who the hell do you think you are?

You want to ban smoking in your palaces of overpriced lattes? Fine. You want to extend that to property you control outside where you have seating? Fine. Your place, your rules.

But where do you get off even thinking that you can control the actions of people on a public sidewalk? Who the hell do you think you are?

And it's utterly creepy how, if you read the news accounts, this is apparently taken as a matter of course at least among our journalistic elite that yes, a corporation can do that, can tell people on a public sidewalk in an area not under the control of the corporation what they can and can't do, it if wants to.

It shouldn't be necessary to say this, but in case some think it is: This has nothing to do with smoking. It has to do with corporate power.

Sources:
http://dfw.cbslocal.com/2013/05/30/starbucks-shoos-smokers-away-cigarettes-banned-within-25-ft-of-entrance/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/31/starbucks-bans-smoking-june-1_n_3365544.html

Left Side of the Aisle #111 - Part 5

Clown #2: John Stossel

Our other red nose this week goes to a man who is not only a clown, I believe he's also a self-serving hypocrite and a phony. He's Fox Business host John Stossel.

Last week, he told the hosts of Fox & Friends that government programs should be cut, in fact whole whole departments should disappear. To show the intellectual depths of his analysis, he said "Why do we have a Commerce Department? Commerce just happens!" Which doubtless would seem like a solid argument to anyone who thinks the government is saying that there would be no such thing as commerce absent the department. The Department of Agriculture is likewise unnecessary because "farmers do that!" He also wants to dump the Department of Education, apparently thinking that education is something else that "just happens."

But his receipt of the big red nose comes from his astonishingly lamebrain assertion in that same appearance that before the modern "welfare state" came into existence, "no one" died of starvation. Literally:
Think about the [Great] Depression. That was before there was any welfare state at all. How many people starved? No one.
In fact, the number of cases of starvation in New York City alone went from 20 in 1931 to 110 in 1934. There were so many accounts of people starving in New York that the West African nation of Cameroon sent $3.77 in relief.

Malnutrition was a much larger problem. One 1933 study of 514 children in New York found that more than one-third were in "poor" or "very poor" health.

And the fact is, many more died as the result of starvation, deaths by starvation that do not appear on the records. Starvation is rarely listed as a cause of death because few people actually literally die of starvation, that is, literally die directly from lack of food. Rather, they die of some immediate cause, some injury or illness which would not have killed them if they were not starving. They did die of starvation, but the cause of death will be listed as the disease.

Stossel later made what has become for him a typical non-apology when challenged: He said - on his twitter account and his blog, not on the air where most people heard the original statement and most would hear the not-really-but-kinda-sorta retraction - he said it was "dumb" to say "no one" died. But he then claimed that governors at the time said there was no starvation and cited a study claiming that - get this - the Depression was, and recessions in general are, actually good for public health. In other words, his "retraction" was actually a way of making the same anti-government claim in a different way. As clownish as they come.

And by the way, why do I call John Stossel a self-serving hypocrite and a phony as well as a clown? Because I remember him from WCBS-TV in NYC, where - at a time when consumer protection was a hot topic - he was the hotshot consumer reporter, uncovering misfeasance and malfeasance by corporations and local businesses alike.

But right around 1980, when the right came to power in the form of the Reagan administration and right-wing media was on the rise, he claimed with remarkably career-convenient timing to have discovered "the magic of the market" and became the extreme "business good, government bad" fruitcake he is. Bluntly, I think that if the pendulum swings the other way soon enough, he will have a new awakening to the "necessity of close regulation of the market" and government assistance.

Sources:
http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/david/fox-business-host-cut-government-because-no-
http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/learning_history/children_depression/depression_children_menu.cfm
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/john-stossel-issues-correction-for-dumb-statement-claiming-no-one-starved-during-great-depression/

Left Side of the Aisle #111 - Part 4

Clown #1: Marsha Blackburn

Now for the Clown Award, given for acts of meritorious stupidity.

This week I had two leading candidates, so close and such sterling examples that ultimately I couldn't decide between them, so I declared it a tie and gave the big red nose to each of them.

Our first winner is Rep. Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee. She embraces all the usual right-wing jackassery, such as opposing Hurricane Sandy relief after accepting federal aid for her district in the wake of floods, claiming action against global warming will "destroy millions of American jobs and damage our economic competitiveness for decades to come," and trying to defund Planned Parenthood. But she goes above and beyond the required norm: For example, in 2011 she gave lightbulbs as Christmas gifts because of a wholly fictitious supposed government plan to ban incandescent bulbs and she wanted people to have stockpiles of them before they were banned.

So her status as a clown is well-established. But she is the gift that keeps on giving, and she gets her award for her appearance on Meet the Press on June 2, where she declared that women "don't want" equal pay laws:
They don’t want the decisions made in Washington. They want to be able to have the power and the control and the ability to make those decisions for themselves.
Um, just what decisions is she talking about? What, what women want is the power to decide for themselves to be underpaid? To get paid less for equal work, equal worth? Or what? I guess that's what she means, since Blackburn voted against the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act and the Paycheck Fairness Act.

Oh, maybe she means women want companies to on their own, just out of the sheer goodness of their hearts, to just decide to pay them the same as men. Right. Just look how well that worked out so far: Despite literally decades of pushing, the gender pay gap remains; in fact, it has expanded in recent years. In 2012, women earned less than 81% of what men earned for the equivalent work. According to a recent analysis, over the course of a 40-year career, the average US woman now stands to lose out on $443,000 in pay.

Which will pay for a lot of clown make-up for Marsha Blackburn.

Sources:
http://washingtonexaminer.com/rep.-marsha-blackburn-offers-bill-to-defund-planned-parenthood/article/2517576
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2009/12/12/rep_marsha_blackburn_delivers_gop_address_on_climate_change.html
https://southernbeale.wordpress.com/category/rep-marsha-blackburn/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/02/marsha-blackburn-equal-pay-laws_n_3375167.html?ref=topbar
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/07/gender-wage-gap-2012_n_2830173.html

Left Side of the Aisle #111 - Part 3

Update: marriage equality bill delayed in Illinois

I have to give an update to something I said last week. I said, as was reported at the time, that supporters of same-sex marriage in the Illinois House of Representatives were confident they had the votes to pass a bill to that end before the legislative session ended May 31.

It didn't work out that way. State Rep. Greg Harris, the bill's sponsor, addressed the House on the evening of the last day and announced that he would not be calling the vote because House colleagues asked for more time to consider it. The marriage equality bill had already been approved by the state Senate and Gov. Pat Quinn has promised to sign it, so the House vote was the last remaining obstacle to final passage and approval.

Now it won't be considered until the fall at the earliest.

“I’ve never been sadder,” Harris said. He teared up as he made the announcement. However, he added that “We will be back and we will be voting on this bill in this legislature, in this room. Until then, I apologize to the families who were hoping they would wake up tomorrow as full, equal citizens of this state.” And he remains confident it will pass. Until then, however, the sting of defeat is felt by many.

But even now, there are good signs on the issue as a whole: Across the nation, one of the driving forces behind the opposition to marriage equality has been the Catholic Church. But as a recent article points out, the evidence is that the Church's influence is waning: Recall, for example, that just last month Rhode Island became the last of the six New England states to approve same-sex marriage, a victory in the most Catholic state in the most Catholic region of the country.

A good part of the reason is that according to polls, the Church hierarchy is increasingly out of touch with the feelings of rank-and-file Catholics: For example, a CBS News/New York Times poll in February found that 62 percent of American Catholics think same-sex marriages should be legal.

There are still battles to be fought, losses to endure. But I say again: On this one, if on nothing else, we are winning.

Sources:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/31/illinois-gay-marriage-hou_0_n_3367329.html?ref=topbar
http://chicagophoenix.com/2013/05/31/no-vote-on-illinois-marriage-equality-bill-held-until-fall-session/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/01/catholic-influence-gay-marriage-_n_3371052.html

Left Side of the Aisle #111 - Part 2

RIP: Frank Lautenberg

Just a quick RIP. New Jersey Senator Frank Lautenberg has died at the age of 89. I mention him for two reasons: One is that he was the oldest Senator, in fact the only remaining World War II veteran and probably the only remaining child of the Depression in Congress.

Lautenberg was always a liberal in the classical sense, not a radical by any means but a good, Democratic party liberal at a time when the term still meant something rather than a cause for sneering. Among his last acts was being brought to the Senate chambers in a wheelchair to vote in favor of gun control and filing a bill for background checks on the sale of explosive powders in the aftermath of the Boston Marathon bombing.

Maybe it was just the contrast between him and Shrub, but it seemed to me that he moved at least a little to the left in his time in office, perhaps especially on environmental issues.

Which raises the other reason I have for mentioning his death: I recall saying of him one time that he stood as proof that it is not necessarily true that you grow more conservative as you grow older. In fact, it's possible get more liberal.

Yes, there were a lot of reason to criticize him from the left, lots of reasons, but that's not the point here and I'm not going to deal with that. I prefer, at least for today, to remember him as, again, proof that progressivism is not a matter of age, but of insight and understanding.

RIP, Frank Lautenberg.

Sources:
http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/RIP_Frank_Lautenberg
http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/obituaries/sen-frank-lautenberg-five-term-new-jersey-democrat-dies-at-89/2013/06/03/c8b60c8e-c5da-11df-94e1-c5afa35a9e59_story.html

Left Side of the Aisle #111 - Part 1

Good news: fast-food workers demand better pay

Last week, fast food workers in Seattle walked off their jobs in a one-day strike. That made Seattle the seventh city where fast food workers have gone on strike in recent months.

Workers from chains including McDonald’s, Burger King, Taco Bell, Subway, Arby’s, Chipotle, Qdoba, and Jack in the Box participated.

Cities affected previously were New York, Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Louis, Detroit, and Washington, DC. Note that in the case of Washington, not all the strikers were fast-food workers.

The Seattle strike comes two weeks after New York’s fast food workers campaign released a report alleging rampant wage theft in the industry. Wage theft can include employees being made to work, without pay, before or after their shift; employees working overtime without being paid time-and-a-half; employees working during their breaks or not receiving breaks at all; and delivery employees not being reimbursed for expenses like gasoline or safety equipment. A huge portion of fast food workers reported having experienced some form of wage theft.

The strike also came just hours after the Congressional Progressive Caucus announced plans for a nationwide tour intended to “highlight the problem of stagnant and low wages for American workers.”

The workers in these strikes are looking for wages to be raised to $15 an hour and the right to form unions without intimidation.

So why are low wages and exploited workers good news? They're not. But the fact that some American workers are finally fed up enough to do something about it - and the fact that in each of these cases they have acted with the support of community groups - is good news. Very good news.

Sources:
http://jobs.aol.com/articles/2013/05/30/seattle-fast-food-strike/
http://jobs.aol.com/articles/2013/04/12/mcdonalds-employees-rude-service/
http://www.thenation.com/blog/174577/fast-food-workers-striking-seattle
http://www.thenation.com/blog/174375/84-percent-nyc-fast-food-workers-report-wage-theft-new-survey
http://tv.msnbc.com/2013/05/29/congressional-progressive-caucus-to-launch-campaign-on-behalf-of-low-wage-workers/

Left Side of the Aisle #111




Left Side of the Aisle
for the week of June 6 - 12, 2013

This week:
Good news: fast-food workers demand better pay
http://jobs.aol.com/articles/2013/05/30/seattle-fast-food-strike/
http://jobs.aol.com/articles/2013/04/12/mcdonalds-employees-rude-service/
http://www.thenation.com/blog/174577/fast-food-workers-striking-seattle
http://www.thenation.com/blog/174375/84-percent-nyc-fast-food-workers-report-wage-theft-new-survey
http://tv.msnbc.com/2013/05/29/congressional-progressive-caucus-to-launch-campaign-on-behalf-of-low-wage-workers/

RIP: Frank Lautenberg
http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/RIP_Frank_Lautenberg
http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/obituaries/sen-frank-lautenberg-five-term-new-jersey-democrat-dies-at-89/2013/06/03/c8b60c8e-c5da-11df-94e1-c5afa35a9e59_story.html

Update: marriage equality bill delayed in Illinois
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/31/illinois-gay-marriage-hou_0_n_3367329.html?ref=topbar
http://chicagophoenix.com/2013/05/31/no-vote-on-illinois-marriage-equality-bill-held-until-fall-session/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/01/catholic-influence-gay-marriage-_n_3371052.html

Clown #1: Marsha Blackburn
http://washingtonexaminer.com/rep.-marsha-blackburn-offers-bill-to-defund-planned-parenthood/article/2517576
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2009/12/12/rep_marsha_blackburn_delivers_gop_address_on_climate_change.html
https://southernbeale.wordpress.com/category/rep-marsha-blackburn/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/02/marsha-blackburn-equal-pay-laws_n_3375167.html?ref=topbar
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/07/gender-wage-gap-2012_n_2830173.html

Clown #2: John Stossel
http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/david/fox-business-host-cut-government-because-no-
http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/learning_history/children_depression/depression_children_menu.cfm
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/john-stossel-issues-correction-for-dumb-statement-claiming-no-one-starved-during-great-depression/

The Little Thing #1: Starbucks knows no limits
http://dfw.cbslocal.com/2013/05/30/starbucks-shoos-smokers-away-cigarettes-banned-within-25-ft-of-entrance/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/31/starbucks-bans-smoking-june-1_n_3365544.html

The Little Thing #2: Lindsey Graham's Freudian slip
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/28/us/politics/in-terror-shift-obama-took-a-long-path.html

Outrage of the Week: SCOTUS and DNA
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/03/supreme-court-dna-samples_n_3378379.html?utm_hp_ref=mostpopular
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/editorials/la-ed-dna-20130604,0,2983670.story
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/06/supreme-court-upholds-minor-intrusion-of-arrestee-dna-swabs/
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/06/04/privacy-experts-supreme-court-ruling-on-dna-swabs-could-lead-to-big-brother-scenario_print.html
http://www.familytreedna.com/dna-test-kit.aspx
http://www.dnatesting.com/blog/dnatesting/tag/cheek-swab/
http://www.dnadrugts.com/service.html
http://www.sgvtribune.com/ci_15223744

The dirty secret of gun control: handguns
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/crime/2012/12/gun_death_tally_every_american_gun_death_since_newtown_sandy_hook_shooting.html
http://www.icasualties.org/Iraq/
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1011/66874.html
http://miami.cbslocal.com/2013/05/01/gun-violence-the-norm-for-some-south-florida-students/
http://miami.cbslocal.com/2013/05/08/booker-t-washington-hs-students-live-with-learning-in-a-war-zone/
http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2013/05/02/in-the-aftermath-of-violence-a-neighborhood-is-torn/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/02/new-orleans-violence-documentary-shell-shocked_n_3202560.html
http://www.americanprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/AmericaUnderTheGun-4.pdf

Thursday, May 30, 2013

Weekly reminder

As of May 28, at least 4,437 people have been killed by gunfire in the US since Newtown, 38 of them in Massachusetts.
 
// I Support The Occupy Movement : banner and script by @jeffcouturer / jeffcouturier.com (v1.2) document.write('
I support the OCCUPY movement
');function occupySwap(whichState){if(whichState==1){document.getElementById('occupyimg').src="https://sites.google.com/site/occupybanners/home/isupportoccupy-right-blue.png"}else{document.getElementById('occupyimg').src="https://sites.google.com/site/occupybanners/home/isupportoccupy-right-red.png"}} document.write('');