Tag: ek Politics

U.S. dairy fears holding up TPP deal, source says

By Victoria Guida, Politico

09/30/15 10:00 AM EDT

A fear by U.S. dairy producers of competition from New Zealand is proving to be among the final challenges to wrapping up the Trans-Pacific Partnership talks, Pro Trade’s Doug Palmer reports from Atlanta.

After four days of negotiations there, trade ministers are scheduled to arrive today to try to resolve the toughest issues. Several snags remain, including the U.S. dairy industry demand that any reductions in U.S. trade barriers be offset with a nearly equal opportunity to sell U.S. cheese, butter, powder and other dairy products to other countries in the proposed 12-nation pact.

“The United States is the blocker at the moment because they’re not making a decent offer,” Robert Pettit, a trade specialist at Dairy Australia, told POLITICO. Because the United States is holding back, so are Canada and Japan, he said.

A government-appointed New Zealand industry representative spread the blame more broadly among all the participants in the dairy talks. “In my view, the level of ambition right across the talks on dairy is not high enough,” said Mike Petersen, New Zealand’s special agricultural trade envoy. Petersen reports that New Zealand Trade Minister Tim Groser, who is in New York for United Nation meetings, is mulling whether it’s worth his time to fly to Atlanta.

…

Mexican Economy Minister Ildefonso Guajardo told POLITICO in Atlanta Tuesday evening that there had been progress in talks on automotive rules-of-origin since the last ministerial two months ago in Maui, where Mexico and Canada were unpleasantly surprised by the terms of a deal worked out by Japan and the United States.

“Yes, there’s been some progress,” Guajardo said, echoing remarks from Japan’s TPP minister Akira Amari to reporters on Tuesday. “Right now, we’re going to find whether’s [there is] enough progress,”” he said just before a meeting with Mexican negotiators.

…

The difficult slate of issues still left to resolve in areas like autos and intellectual property protections for biologics prompted speculation the TPP talks could be extended until Friday, despite USTR’s current plans to wrap up on Thursday with a closing press conference. But Senate Finance Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch, in a floor statement Tuesday, said the United States shouldn’t be in a hurry to close the negotiations “if it means getting a less-than-optimal result for our country.”

“If the administration and our negotiating partners do conclude an agreement this week, they can be sure that I will examine it very carefully to ensure it meets these standards,” Hatch said, referring to market access, intellectual property and other priorities laid out in the trade promotion authority law passed by Congress this summer. “And, as I have stated many times before, if the agreement falls short, I will not support it. And, I don’t think I’ll be alone on that.”

Who Needs Balanced Trade? Who Needs Balanced Budgets?

By Joe Firestone, Corrente

Posted on September 30, 2015

It is now the end of September … and there are enough difficulties in the way of completion mentioned by Politico today to suggest that completion before the end of October is highly unlikely, and probably also another forlorn hope for those favoring the TPP. That Michael Froman, the STR, is now talking in public as if the Administration cares more about getting the TPP right than getting it done soon suggests that the expectations of our trade negotiators for quick completion of the TPP negotiations are now scaled down considerably.

…

So, let’s say the Administration did get this done by October 31, 2015. If one then adds the minimum 4.5 months to get the agreement ratified, then, one is looking at the final vote about March 15, 2016, right in the middle of the primary season, both for presidential candidates and for both Houses of Congress. A controversial vote at that time is poison for office holders wanting to win office again. It is poison for Republican candidates for President and for Hillary Clinton on the Democratic side. No one is going to want to take an unpopular vote in favor of the TPP and take the thunder from the right and the left about the various issues surrounding the treaty.

The votes for the TPA were very difficult for both Houses of Congress, and Democratic Congressmen who voted for it have come under heavy fire. These Congressmen and some Republicans who ignored the TPP sovereignty issues raised by some of the more conservative Republicans will get challenged in the primaries for their TPA vote.

Will they then vote for the TPP in the middle of their campaigns and then, even if they win their primary, face opposition from the other Party in the fall making their vote on trade a political issue aligning them with the multinationals against the American people? I’m afraid I don’t see that happening.

Instead, I see the President being told by the leadership of both Houses that if he submits the TPP to Congress on a schedule to get a vote for it in March or April of next year, then the TPP will be voted down. I see Hillary Clinton telling him not to force that vote then, or she will be forced to publicly oppose it, and to use her influence to defeat it for fear of compromising her own chances to win the Democratic Party nomination. I also see a wholesale rebellion among Democratic Congressmen against their lame duck President who is trying to build his legacy by making them take a poison pill ruining their re-election chances, and I don’t think the President will be able to get near the number of Democratic votes for the TPP, that he was able to get for the TPA, in June. I then see the President trying to make a deal with the leadership in both Houses to get a vote during the lame duck after the election.

But whether that happens or not will depend on the results of the election and the extent to which there is a reaction against the corporate establishment expressed in them. If there is, then I doubt that the trade deals will be back for some time to come. If there is not, then there will be another fight during the lame duck to do everything possible to stop the TPP.

But, regardless, of the exact scenario in the coming months, the TPP is coming up for Congressional consideration, and when it does, it will be the most intense struggle between neoliberal forces in both parties, and anti-corporate forces among both progressives and conservatives, we’ve seen yet. In addition, there will be more new developments such as the ones here and here, about the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), and the Trade in Services Agreement (TiSA), perhaps the most dangerous of the three major current trade agreements in negotiation, which will impact perspectives on the TPP in Congress, and the eventual fate of all three agreements.

A short notice meeting has started in Atlanta to attempt to resolve the disputes that caused the Maui talks to collapse in acrimony.

There is a great deal to be concerned about, not only the terrible provisions that seem to be settled and the rumored sausage making sellouts, but the fierce urgency of Obama and his Administration to conclude a deal that is good only for multi-national mega corporations (and only the specially influential like Banksters and Big Pharma) and Billionaire Plutocrats of no particular allegiance (Global Citizens don’t you know) BEFORE the 2016 Elections heat up and Representatives and Senators (and Presidential Candidates) have to start worrying that voters, regardless of their long term memory deficiencies, will hold this shameless and despicable theft of prosperity and sovereignty against them at the polls, costing them their Phony Baloney jobs.

Personally I think the sticking points are a little too… well, sticky, and that this round will dissolve in a similar discordant futility.  Others are not as sanguine but our old buddy dday argues that it is already too late for Obama and the reason may surprise you.

The unexpected upshot of John Boehner’s ouster: The Trans-Pacific Partnership is in danger

David Dayen, Salon

Tuesday, Sep 29, 2015 05:57 AM EST

(E)ven if negotiators work out a tentative agreement this week, the biggest announcement on TPP may have already happened. That would be last Friday’s resignation of House Speaker John Boehner.

Trade promotion authority, which allows the president to negotiate trade agreements and bring them to Congress for an expedited vote, barely passed the House earlier this year. Fifty-four Republicans voted against it, among them practically all the ringleaders of the campaign against Boehner – like Mark Meadows, R-N.C., who took the leadership role in ousting him; David Brat, the man who upset Eric Cantor and took his House seat; Jim Jordan, chairman of the anti-Boehner House Freedom Caucus; and 23 members of that caucus in all.

Obviously, those who spurred the Boehner revolt are emboldened by their apparent victory. In the short term this will not bear fruit. Boehner has vowed to use his final month to prevent a government shutdown and defuse other potential crises. He could reauthorize the Export-Import Bank, pass highway spending, and even raise the debt ceiling. “I want to clean the barn up a little bit before the next person gets here,” Boehner said on “Face the Nation” on Sunday.

But the peculiarities of trade promotion authority make it impossible for Boehner to be in the speaker’s office when TPP comes up for a vote. Under the law, even if trade officials announce an agreement today, they must provide notification to Congress, wait 30 days, and then post the deal’s text on a public website for an additional 60 days before signing. Then there’s another 30 to 60 days where the administration must submit the final legal text and describe what changes to U.S. law must be put into implementing legislation. Only after that does the congressional process start.

What this all means is that an agreement announced at the end of the ministerial meetings could not reach Congress until Feb. 1, 2016, at the very earliest. Trade expert Lori Wallach of Public Citizen puts the earliest possible date at Feb. 15. And these are based on very accelerated timelines that assume no slip-ups or delays when the legal text gets scrubbed.

Wallach correctly calls this “the most politically perilous moment in U.S. politics.” Feb. 1 is the current scheduled date of the Iowa caucuses. And rank-and-file House Republicans would have to vote on TPP around the same time that potential challengers can raise the issue in their 2016 primaries.

Without a liberated John Boehner around to partner with Democrats, the task of shepherding through a trade agreement disliked by conservatives becomes difficult. After a potential blitz of legislation in October, right-wing House members will be frustrated and eager to flex their muscle. The new leadership – presumed Speaker Kevin McCarthy and his team – will have to look over their shoulders, mindful of exactly what happened to Boehner and what can happen to them if they get tangled in an issue opposed by the base. And the same right-wingers animated by Boehner’s perceived slights are also animated against TPP.

…

Given all these forces, how exactly will the House muster the votes necessary to pass TPP, after the text has been available (and demagogue-able) for months? What House Republican will vote to give Obama a long-sought victory, after seeing the outcome of the House speaker who committed the offense of merely not wanting to embark on a futile fight over defunding Planned Parenthood? And while a few corporate Democrats have joined with Obama to support TPP, how many would McCarthy need – and could he even try to get them, given the power of the naysayers to his right?

Maybe if there weren’t a clear example of what happens to GOP leaders who are seen as betraying the base, Republican elites could fend off resistance to TPP. That seems remote now given the Boehner outcome. Renegade conservatives, with positive feedback from the presidential campaign at their back, could simply make it impossible for TPP to pass.

We don’t even know if the meetings in Atlanta can produce a deal, given all the deadlocks and unresolved provisions between the nations involved. But even if there’s a big announcement this week, don’t get ahead of yourself, because the administration won’t have John Boehner in their corner to help them this time.

Oh and by the way, the misogyny with which the two Arnolds (Schwarzenegger and Tom) treat Jamie Lee Curtis make this film unwatchable for me.

Still a failure.  Let’s just lie about it shall we?

U.S. Air Force instructs airmen on exactly how to praise the F-35

by  Clay Dillow, Fortune Magazine

September 25, 2015, 4:40 PM EDT

The Pentagon’s embattled F-35 jet fighter program received some much-needed good press last week when a group of U.S. Air Force F-35 pilots heaped praise upon the aircraft. This week those remarks-made at an event showcasing the fighter aircraft at Andrews Air Force Base-appear somewhat less genuine.

An eight-page internal Air Force memo marked “not for public release” is nonetheless making the public rounds this week, potentially erasing any P.R. bump last week’s showcase may have imparted on the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program. Simply titled “Public Affairs Guidance,” the document details how airmen should “articulate the capabilities of the aircraft and (explain why we need the F-35)” to members of the news media, lawmakers, and other “opinion leaders”.

…

One particular response in the leaked media script directly addresses an earlier leaked memo unearthed and partially published by defense blog War is Boring. In that memo, an F-35 pilot details the many shortcomings (and defeats) of the F-35 when pitted in mock air-to-air “dogfights” with a much older F-16-one of the many older combat jets the F-35 is slated to replace. The memo instructs airmen to repeat the assertion the Air Force made at the time: That the F-35 is designed to attack stealthily from a distance rather than up close, and that the mock air-to-air trials in question weren’t even designed to evaluate the F-35’s dogfighting skills (the editors at War is Boring who saw the leaked memo say otherwise).

…

This summer alone the program has had to defend itself against both the leaked dogfighting memo and a scathing analysis from think tank National Security Network. The security analysis concluded that the F-35 will perform poorly against “near-peer” enemies and suggested the Pentagon find a way to reduce its planned purchase of more than 2,400 jets for the Navy, Marines, and Air Force.

…

The program faces another potential image challenge in the days ahead as Congress continues battling over the U.S. federal budget. If the gridlock continues, a government shutdown or a continuing resolution capping defense spending at fiscal 2015 levels would almost certainly derail the Pentagon’s plan to ramp up F-35 production in the next year.

The Pentagon needs that production boost in order to push down the per-aircraft price and fend off the oft-repeated criticism that at roughly $100 million per copy (depending on which version) the F-35 program is simply too expensive.

Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it’s the only thing that ever has.- Margaret Mead

It’s too early to celebrate the end of TPP (secret meetings next week) or the stopping of Keystone XL (sure, Hillary’s against it… now) BUT Shell Oil is done drilling in the Arctic this season and says they’ll never come back.

Shell abandons Alaska Arctic drilling

Terry Macalister, The Guardian

Monday 28 September 2015 04.27 EDT

Shell has abandoned its controversial drilling operations in the Alaskan Arctic in the face of mounting opposition.

Its decision, which has been welcomed by environmental campaigners, follows disappointing results from an exploratory well drilled 80 miles off Alaska’s north-west coast. Shell said it had found oil and gas but not in sufficient quantities.

…

The company has come under increasing pressure from shareholders worried about the plunging share price and the costs of what has so far been a futile search in the Chukchi Sea.

Shell has also privately made clear it is taken aback by the public protests against the drilling which are threatening to seriously damage its reputation.

Ben van Beurden, the chief executive, is also said to be worried that the Arctic is undermining his attempts to influence the debate around climate change.

His attempts to argue that a Shell strategy of building up gas as a “transitional” fuel to pave the way to a lower carbon future has met with scepticism, partly because of the Arctic operations.

A variety of consultants have also argued that Arctic oil is too expensive to find and develop in either a low oil price environment or in a future world with a higher price on carbon emissions.

In a statement today, Marvin Odum, director of Shell Upstream Americas, said: “Shell continues to see important exploration potential in the basin, and the area is likely to ultimately be of strategic importance to Alaska and the US. However, this is a clearly disappointing exploration outcome for this part of the basin.”

“Shell will now cease further exploration activity in offshore Alaska for the foreseeable future. This decision reflects both the Burger J well result, the high costs associated with the project, and the challenging and unpredictable federal regulatory environment in offshore Alaska.”

Shell Will Stop Drilling In The Arctic

by Samantha Page, Think Progress

Sep 28, 2015 9:25am

“This is a victory for everyone who has stood up for the Arctic. Whether they took to kayaks or canoes, rappelled from bridges, or spread the news in their own communities, millions of people around the world have taken action against Arctic drilling,” Greenpeace USA executive director Annie Leonard said in a statement.

…

Leonard took the opportunity to call on President Obama to prohibit any future drilling in the area.

“Today, President Obama can also make history by cancelling any future drilling and declaring the U.S. Arctic Ocean off limits to oil companies. There is no better time to keep fossil fuels like Arctic oil in the ground, bringing us one step closer to an energy revolution and sustainable future,” she said.

Shell backtracks on controversial Arctic drilling plan

By Yanan Wang, Washington Post

September 28 at 6:37 AM

(A) serendipitous moment arrived for environmentalists early Monday, when Shell announced that it will abandon its drilling venture in the Arctic waters off Alaska’s coast for the “foreseeable future.”

“Shell has found indications of oil and gas in the Burger J well,” said a company statement referring to its exploration in the Chukchi Sea, “but these are not sufficient to warrant further exploration in the Burger prospect. The well will be sealed and abandoned in accordance with U.S. regulations.”

…

“That’s incredible. That’s huge,” the Anchorage World Wildlife Fund’s Margaret Williams told the AP. “All along the conservation community has been pointing to the challenging and unpredictable environmental conditions. We always thought the risk was tremendously great.”

Normally the beat of my Tech Dirt homes, this one struck me because I’m a sucker for Gummy Bears.

Lindt wins legal battle after court rules Haribo claim does not bear up

by Sean Farrell, The Guardian

Wednesday 23 September 2015 12.21 EDT

The decision ended a dispute between the companies that started in 2012 when Haribo accused Lindt & Sprüngli of copying its Gold Bear trademark by launching a foil-wrapped teddy.

Haribo, which invented gummy bears in the 1920s, said shoppers would confuse the two products, even though Lindt’s bears are made of chocolate and gummy bears are a jelly sweet.

Lindt argued that its bears were a variation on its Easter rabbit chocolates. Both are wrapped in gold foil with a red ribbon. Haribo’s gummy bear marketing is fronted by a yellow cartoon bear with a red ribbon round its neck.

…

Last week the European court of justice failed to uphold Nestlé’s attempt to protect its four-fingered KitKat in another long-running dispute between the Swiss company and Cadbury. Cadbury tried to thwart Nestlé’s attempt to trademark KitKat in 2010 after Nestlé blocked Cadbury’s effort to trademark the shade of purple used for its chocolate wrappers.

Georgie Collins, a partner at the law firm Irwin Mitchell, said: “The confectionery industry is extremely competitive so it’s not surprising that you often see these rivals coming up against each other.

“The cost of these cases is significant, but it’s about being seen to take action and ringfencing your brand and intellectual property rights as much as you can.”

Why this is at once hilarious and very, very wrong is a little too involved to go into right now, but you should really read Tech Dirt.  And now, a recipe to make Gummy Bears at home-

Take one 3 oz. box of any flavored jello and add sugar according to directions if required (not usually).  Add 7 packs of unflavored gelatin and 1/2 cup of water.  Heat over low in a pan until everything is completely dissolved.  Pour into molds (available at most cooking stores) and chill in freezer for 5 minutes, then refrigerate until very firm.  If you coat the molds with a little flavorless cooking oil spray (canola works) you can remove them easier.  Let them continue to dry unrefrigerated until they have the chewiness you like.

If you follow my Formula One coverage you’ll remember that at the Marina Bay race last week Singapore had to resort to cloud seeded rain to reduce the level of particulates and general air pollution enough so that divers could see all the way down the straights (not to mention the breathing problems).

The acute levels of toxicity had to do with massive fires in Indonesia, how’s that working out for them?

Smoke from Indonesia fires puts Singapore’s air at ‘hazardous’ level

Al Jazeera

September 24, 2015 12:28PM ET

Air quality deteriorated to officially “hazardous” levels Thursday in Singapore – a key Southeast Asian business and transit hub – as choking smog blew in from Indonesia’s neighboring island of Sumatra, where forests and brush are being illegally burned to clear land for oil palm plantations and other farming.

The Singapore government’s three-hour Pollutant Standards Index (PSI) hit 319, its highest level so far this year, around midnight local time. The country’s National Environment Agency lists a level of 201-300 as “very unhealthy,” and above 300 as “hazardous.” Thick gray smoke shrouded the island city-state’s gleaming skyscrapers and crept into homes, even as many residents were staying indoors in attempt to escape the pollution.

…

For the past two decades, smoke from Indonesia has been spreading to other parts of Southeast Asia during the region’s annual mid-year dry season, when plantation owners and other farmers deliberately start brush and forest fires to clear land.

Southeast Asia’s most damaging cross-border haze came in 1997 and 1998, when the smog caused an estimated $9 billion in losses in economic activity across the region.

Skull and Bones.

David Cameron, a pig’s head and a secret society at Oxford University – explained

by Nadia Khomami, The Guardian

Monday 21 September 2015 09.29 EDT

What have we learned about David Cameron today?

An unofficial biography of David Cameron written by the Conservative donor Lord Ashcroft contains a series of allegations. They include that the prime minister spent time in a drug-taking environment at university, that he took part in a bizarre dinner club initiation ritual, and another claim about Cameron’s knowledge of the peer’s offshore tax status.

One specific allegation is that, in the words of the Daily Mail, Cameron took part in an initiation ceremony in which he “put a private part of his anatomy” into a dead pig’s mouth. It cites a source – a current MP – who claims to have seen photographic evidence. It allegedly took place at a notorious Oxford University drinking club, the Piers Gaveston Society.

…

What is the Piers Gaveston Society?

“Piers Gav” is highly exclusive, made up of a self-selecting group of 12 undergraduates. The men-only club, named after the alleged male lover of Edward II, king of England from 1307 to 1327, was founded in 1977 and carries the motto: “Fane non memini ne audisse unum alterum ita dilixisse.” It translates to:

Truly, none remember hearing of a man enjoying another so much.

…

What do people say about it?

Valentine Guinness, one of the founders of the society, once told the journalist Toby Young that the appearance of Piers Gav and other similar societies in the 70s “was a conscious effort to say, look, you know, the country may be in a mess but we’re still going to have a good time”.

And so they do. For its summer ball, members each invite 20 guests – preferably more women than men, who were last year given 72 hours’ notice, when they were told to turn up for a hired coach that would drive them to an undisclosed destination in the countryside. “Cross-dressing is as likely to feature as speed-laced jelly,” says the Telegraph of these parties. “The rules are simple – there are none.”

…

What’s the difference between Piers Gaveston and the Bullingdon Club?

The Bullingdon Club is the other drinking society Cameron was known to be a member of. Most of the sonorous members of the Bullingdon are old Etonians. The prime minister was one such member, as were the London mayor, Boris Johnson and the chancellor, George Osborne.

They wore a bespoke uniform of tailcoats, waistcoats and bow ties, which could cost thousands of pounds, making membership difficult for ordinary students. One MP who was once asked to join the club said he walked out of a gathering in disgust. “What it basically involved was getting drunk and standing on restaurant tables, shouting about ‘f***ing plebs’. It was all about despising poor people,” he told the Daily Mail of the scene reminiscent of film The Riot Club, based on Laura Wade’s play Posh.

So, there are a couple of reasons why otherwise sensible and well raised people do these kind of embarrassing and horrific things.

The first is that they’re so drunk, stoned, or both that it seems like a good idea at the time.

A more powerful reason is that hazing rituals are frequently used to promote what we called in my club “Bonding Experiences.”

“Hah.  Remember when we wacked Bruno and it was raining and Fat Tony slipped and fell in the grave so Vito thought it would be funny to shovel some dirt on him?  Ah, good times.”

In truth shared events increase unit cohesiveness, either in enforcing a sense of superiority and dominance or in leveling class differences between leaders and the led.

Here’s a true story.  I was visiting a local as capo di tutti and they had just succeeded in a task for which the promised reward was they could pick someone to kiss a pig.  A live one that they had somehow smuggled into the ballroom of the hotel they met at.  I was of course a “lucky” nominee and, because I understood my responsibilities as a motivator, I was fully prepared, if not very comfortable with the concept, to kiss that pig.  In this instance the local capo was the target and he very gracefully acknowledged the accomplishment of his team.

But as I said, this type of group reinforcement can easily lead to feelings of entitlement and exclusivity.  That’s why the more drastic and formalized versions practiced by many upper classes, including our own, have a tendency to get more severe as those who have had to suffer humiliation to gain admittance consider it their privilege to not only continue, but increase it.

Is Trump too honest for the GOP? He’s actually challenging Republican fantasies – but it could spell trouble

by Simon Maloy, Salon

Thursday, Sep 17, 2015 02:45 PM EST

One thing I did notice that might end up stinging Trump is the fact that he’s a little bit too honest when it comes to certain key issue areas. The Republican Party and the conservative movement have dogmas and mythologies that they take great care to insulate from the corrosive effects of real life, particularly when it comes to economics and national security. At last night’s debate, Trump did his part to tear them down.

About halfway into the festivities, CNN moderator Jake Tapper asked Ben Carson about his Bible-inspired flat tax plan, which would have every taxpayer in America kick in ten percent of their income, regardless of what they make. Carson explained that his plan is an improvement upon our current system of progressive taxation, because the very idea of asking a wealthy person to pay a higher tax rate is “socialism,” and “that doesn’t work so well.”

Trump was given his opportunity to respond, and he correctly pointed out that progressive taxation isn’t “socialism,” but rather a matter of basic fairness: a multi-millionaire can shed ten percent of their income with little difficulty, but that’s not the case for someone living on a subsistence wage.

…

That answer was a direct challenge to many of the other candidates in the race, who have proposed plans that either completely flatten the tax code or skew it more in favor of the wealthy. So much of Republican and conservative economic policy is premised on the idea that the tax code is unfair to high earners, who need more money so that they can create jobs for normal people, and Trump said that way of thinking is indefensible.

On national security, Trump went even bigger, having the temerity to suggest that George W. Bush’s eight years of bumbling mishaps and misguided invasions are the root cause of all instability in the Middle East. “Your brother – and your brother’s administration gave us Barack Obama, because it was such a disaster, those last three months, that Abraham Lincoln couldn’t have been elected,” Trump shot at Jeb. “You know what?” Jeb said in response. “As it relates to my brother, there’s one thing I know for sure. He kept us safe.” Trump fired back: “I don’t know. You feel safe right now? I don’t feel so safe.” At that point, Scott Walker joined the conversation to defend Jeb and his brother. “It’s not because of George W. Bush; it’s because of Barack Obama,” he said to applause from the audience.

The idea that George W. Bush’s foreign policy was ultimately a success is a fiction Republicans and conservatives tell themselves in order to keep faith in the “Bush Doctrine” or the “Freedom Agenda” or whatever the hell they’re calling the “invade and/or bomb everyone everywhere” strain of foreign policy thought. For the foreign policies of Jeb Bush, Scott Walker, Marco Rubio, and Lindsey Graham to make even the slightest bit of sense, you have to start from the premise that The Surge in Iraq fixed all the problems in the country after years of bloody sectarian violence and political intransigence. Then you have to convince yourself that the rise of the Islamic state and the attendant destabilization of the region are the fault of Obama for not forcing the Iraqis to agree to a residual force of few thousand U.S. troops. Trump challenged those fictions, causing the establishment candidates to huff in disagreement.

Statements like these might end up hurting him because there has to be a limit on how un-Republican the Republican primary electorate will allow a candidate to be. GOP voters and conservatives like being told that all the undocumented immigrants will be kicked out and that we’ll stick it to the Chinese. They also like being told that tax hikes are socialism and that all the problems in the Middle East are Barack Obama’s fault for surrendering to the terrorists. The worst thing that could happen to Trump is if those voters get tired of his immigration act and start paying more attention to the other things he says.

The Donald is an umitigated asshole but I think he’s very important.  He shows how fundamentally angry even Republicans are at the Beltway Neo-Lib consensus and how thin support for the tired tropes is.

Nick Merrill: the man who may unlock the secrecy of the FBI’s controversial subpoenas

by Spencer Ackerman, The Guardian

Thursday 17 September 2015 07.30 EDT

Unless the US Justice Department challenges a federal judge’s order that was kept secret until Monday, 27 November will be a landmark date for transparency in the post-9/11 era. The black bars obscuring the specific kinds of data the FBI sought from Merrill in 2004 will lift, revealing categories of information the bureau seeks to acquire outside the normal warrant process.

…

Merrill, president of the firm Calyx, which at the time provided web hosting services, chose to fight the NSL instead of complying. He said that the public would be horrified to see the sorts of things the FBI acquires without a warrant.

“Internet service providers, email providers and other online services often store huge amounts of intensely personal and revealing data. NSLs have allowed the FBI to run rampant, demanding the sensitive records of innocent people in complete secrecy, avoiding the constitution’s carefully designed system of checks and balances, without ever appearing before a federal judge,” Merrill, now 42, told the Guardian.

…

The 2001 Patriot Act lowered the standards for issuing NSLs substantially. No longer did the FBI need a particularized suspicion against an individual target, just “relevance” to a terrorism or espionage investigation. Special agents-in-charge at the FBI’s 56 field offices could now issue an NSL, not merely senior officials at its Washington headquarters. The gag orders, however, remained.

Accordingly, the Patriot Act transformed NSLs from a rarity into a routine tool. While secrecy has made hard numbers about NSLs hard to acquire, the FBI made 8,500 requests for data through NSLs in 2000. In 2014 an advisory group on surveillance appointed by Barack Obama reported that the FBI now issues 60 NSLs on average every day, which works out to 21,900 annually. Since a single NSL can request records from multiple people, the total number of people affected is likely to be vastly higher – and remains obscured in secrecy.

…

Obama’s surveillance advisory group, which included former US intelligence officials, warned that NSLs sought for intelligence investigations “are especially likely to implicate highly sensitive and personal information and to have potentially severe consequences for the individuals under investigation”. It said it was “unable to identify a principled reason why NSLs should be issued by FBI officials“.

…

As Merrill sought to disclose more, the FBI said, according to New York federal judge Victor Marrero, Merrill “would reveal law enforcement techniques that the FBI has not acknowledged in the context of NSLs, would indicate the types of information the FBI deems important for investigative purposes, and could lead to potential targets of investigations changing their behavior to evade law enforcement detection”.

Marrero, on 28 August, ruled in Merrill’s favor anyway. But the judge’s opinion was kept secret until Monday to ensure that it did not itself reveal classified information.

“The gag was never necessary to protect national security, but to prevent a fulsome debate about the scope of the government’s unchecked power to obtain personal information about Americans,” said German, the former FBI agent, now with the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU Law School.

“Its release should be just the first step in a much more comprehensive discussion about the full range of government programs to spy on its own citizens.”

If you see Stupid say Stupid.

Here’s The Ridiculous Texas Law That Allows Law Enforcement To Pretend A Digital Clock Is A Hoax Bomb

by Tim Cushing, Tech Dirt

Thu, Sep 17th 2015 10:37am

There may be some method behind the zero tolerance, racially-tinged madness of the Irving, Texas, police department. The department perp-walked fourteen-year-old Ahmed Mohamed out of school and into its welcoming arms for the crime of not building a bomb. It was a clock, but because it had wires and a circuit board and was contained in a metal case and was on school grounds and Ahmed Mohamed’s name is Ahmed Mohamed, the police decided that if it wasn’t a bomb, it was the next best thing: a “bomb hoax.”

So, after handcuffing him “for his safety” (ACTUAL QUOTE) and holding the non-bomb “as evidence” of a crime that wasn’t committed, the department has dropped all charges. It isn’t very repentant, however, despite everyone else — including the President of the United States — expressing support for the student. It still claims everything about the horrendous debacle was by the book. And, sadly enough, it probably was.

…

Mohamed didn’t pretend the clock was a bomb. Far from it. But that doesn’t matter because of subsection (2), which takes away anything involving intent and puts it all in the fearful minds of nearly any government official. “Alarm or reaction of ANY type.” How does one avoid causing an alarm or reaction in others, especially others that seem particularly easily alarmed? It’s impossible.

Mohamed’s science teacher wasn’t alarmed, but he did remark that maybe Ahmed shouldn’t show this project to anyone else. Mohamed didn’t plan to, but the clock started beeping during another class and shortly thereafter, his English teacher started panicking. (But in the controlled sort of panic where a person demands someone hand over a bomb — something no rational person would do if they actually thought the device in question was a bomb.)

Now, if we’re going to play along with this statute’s wordings, a whole lot of everyday items suddenly become much more “dangerous.” Road flares, cell phones, batteries, a box full of wires, a vibrator, a doorbell, a power inverter… basically anything someone might feel could explode or could trigger an explosion would fall under the enormous shadow this statute casts.

But if we’re going to play along with the police and the stupid law they used to defend their actions, we have to ask why several school officials — including the English teacher who reported Mohamed to them — weren’t arrested as well. After all, they very likely knew they didn’t have an actual “explosive or incendiary device” in their hands, and yet they approached the police department with claims that they did. This very definitely provoked a reaction and, at that point, the device was in the possession of school personnel. That’s subsection (2).

By claiming a bomb was on the school’s premises (when they likely knew it wasn’t a bomb — see also: no evacuation of the school, no warning sent to parents, etc.), they also violated subsection (1) of the statute.

…

Perp walking a few school officials out of the building and into squad cars would certainly teach them not to waste valuable law enforcement resources with stupid, fearful bullshit. But these actions would only be taken by a police department not so inclined to waste its own time investigating bombs that aren’t bombs and arresting students who aren’t criminals. And, as can clearly be seen, the Irving PD does not meet these standards.

No, the dog is not there to lick your plate and it’s terribly undignified.  Hey look!  There are more clowns!

I’d tell you to send in the lions except they’re clowns too.