This link.
Chuckling about party insider terminology.
Chuckling over how easily you get people showing up for a puppet show.
Saturday, March 31, 2018
Friday, March 30, 2018
The Hegseth of the United States. Getting his own bio item, and beyond that he cannot throw an ax straight, something less a problem for Hegseth than for the millitary band practing behind the target.
Okay, bury the hatchet. Or ax. The ax coverage has been linked to before, with no link here, now.
But the bio - this link, cited by NewsHounds.
Likely an intent behind that reporting was to discourage the thought of Hegseth being VA head, yet while that's not to have been, noting the coverage while it is current arguably benefits the public, perhaps most FOX viewers - those who can read.
But the bio - this link, cited by NewsHounds.
Likely an intent behind that reporting was to discourage the thought of Hegseth being VA head, yet while that's not to have been, noting the coverage while it is current arguably benefits the public, perhaps most FOX viewers - those who can read.
From the horse's mouth; ferreting out and motivating chumps for Trump and working the crowd in ways that would make P.T. Barnum marvel?
This link.
But wait. There's more.
The question of whether they did a "psychographic profile" of the candidate before taking the business, would it have scared the shit out of them or had them marveling, "Wow. He's one of us. Same oil slick. Like the boss and the board. In it for what we're all about too."
Brits for Bolton? How might that shake out in an electioneering campaign stateside? Those juxtaposed images - apart from that of course - Bolton's always been on the right.
But wait. There's more.
 |
| click to enlarge and read |
The question of whether they did a "psychographic profile" of the candidate before taking the business, would it have scared the shit out of them or had them marveling, "Wow. He's one of us. Same oil slick. Like the boss and the board. In it for what we're all about too."
Brits for Bolton? How might that shake out in an electioneering campaign stateside? Those juxtaposed images - apart from that of course - Bolton's always been on the right.
We are so fortunate. The Cambridge Analytica-Facebook data harvest could have been provided to a Doctor Strangelove deranged megalomaniac war-monger instead.
This link.
UPDATE: Five thousand points of light:
[italics added, link in original] The linked to item (pdf version) is worth study, and, past the cover sheets at the complaint text itself, at its p.5 the complaint document expressed concern that the data collection/selling firm's response was incomplete; with the five thousand points of light being cited per item paragraph 19:
Stick 'em, Professor. There does seem to be a wilful noncompliance with purported lawful requirements. From review of that document it appears Prof. Carroll used a requestee form, which quelled the hoot of an idea of submitting a download demand to Cambridge Analytica in the name of "Stephanie Clifford," a notion quelled by how personal identification was required and a processing fee imposed. But wouldn't that be a fun thing to do, indeed, even to anticipate?
Back to the five thousand points of light Think Progress report (online here, also linked to at start of the update), later in that item:
[Multiple links in the original omitted.] Just think how the entire thing grows in importance when disclosure is that harvested personal data was provided to a sleaze like John Bolton. That should have any class action judicial award imposing exemplary (a/k/a punitive) damages, as a certainty.
May the effort grow big lasting legs.
For a perspective, however, consider the paragraph,
Readers may feel differently, but an "impetus [...] to find people susceptible to propaganda and manipulation," makes me think of FOX and MSNBC, and most recently, that Pence "America First" dog/pony tax-lies and possibly half-truths tour using Air Force Two to move about with the impetus to spread manipulative disinformation all over the nation's key cities to susceptible people (a/k/a the "super gullible").
Might there be a nice lawsuit for that propagandistic bluster-orgy too? Likely not, but the motive and actions arguably are as despicable, and somebody paid big bucks for fueling that big airplane's going all over creation. If not the public, who?
FURTHER: MSN news, here, presents CA-related links. Also, this MSN page presents a CNN coverage update of CA in the news.
UPDATE: Five thousand points of light:
David Carroll, an associate professor at Parsons School of Design in New York, used British data protection laws last year to ask Cambridge Analytica to provide him with a rundown of what data had been gathered about him and how it was used to construct a detailed profile. [...]
Carroll’s lawyers filed a claim last Friday asking Cambridge Analytica’s parent company, Strategic Communication Laboratories (SCL), to hand over all the data they have on the professor, as well as how they got it. According to the claim, Cambridge Analytica and SCL “by their own description, engage in the business of ‘behavioral microtargetting’ — the collating and/or creating and then selling of data profiles which are used for…targeted advertising and political campaigning.” Cambridge Analytica is said to use up to 5,000 data points to help construct their profiles.
“We have theories as to their process but part of my initial effort is to get disclosure so we can confirm what people knew,” Carroll said. “If it was Facebook likes as the single truth for the [Cambridge Analytica] algorithms or if there were other data sets, we need to figure that out.”
In late 2016, the German publication Das Magazine first ran a piece documenting how data firms could reliably predict users behavior based on their Facebook likes, which allows political firms to “micro-target” ads for very particular subsections of likely voters. Cambridge Analytica has previously said that it “abides by all relevant data protection laws and, just as importantly, the company’s core values of integrity, respect and honesty.” [...]
[italics added, link in original] The linked to item (pdf version) is worth study, and, past the cover sheets at the complaint text itself, at its p.5 the complaint document expressed concern that the data collection/selling firm's response was incomplete; with the five thousand points of light being cited per item paragraph 19:
 |
| click the image to enlarge and read |
Stick 'em, Professor. There does seem to be a wilful noncompliance with purported lawful requirements. From review of that document it appears Prof. Carroll used a requestee form, which quelled the hoot of an idea of submitting a download demand to Cambridge Analytica in the name of "Stephanie Clifford," a notion quelled by how personal identification was required and a processing fee imposed. But wouldn't that be a fun thing to do, indeed, even to anticipate?
Back to the five thousand points of light Think Progress report (online here, also linked to at start of the update), later in that item:
“Just the fact that they intended to do this — whether or not it worked — the impetus behind was to find people susceptible to propaganda and manipulation,” Carroll said. “It is truly disturbing.”
For Carroll, the important thing about his legal claim is that it sets up precedent for larger, wider suits against Cambridge Analytica. He was also extremely critical of Facebook’s role in allowing the data to be used. After initially trying to deny responsibility, Facebook suspended Cambridge Analytica from its platform last Friday, while on Monday Facebook’s shares plunged by 7 percent.
Carroll said that Facebook had a series of tough questions to answer about its relation with Cambridge Analytica, including why it currently employs Joseph Chancellor as a social psychologist. Chancellor previously worked with Cambridge University psychologist Aleksandr Kogan, and are believed to have harvested Facebook data which was ostensibly for academic research but was then shared with Cambridge Analytica.
[Multiple links in the original omitted.] Just think how the entire thing grows in importance when disclosure is that harvested personal data was provided to a sleaze like John Bolton. That should have any class action judicial award imposing exemplary (a/k/a punitive) damages, as a certainty.
May the effort grow big lasting legs.
For a perspective, however, consider the paragraph,
“Just the fact that they intended to do this — whether or not it worked — the impetus behind was to find people susceptible to propaganda and manipulation,” Carroll said. “It is truly disturbing.”
Readers may feel differently, but an "impetus [...] to find people susceptible to propaganda and manipulation," makes me think of FOX and MSNBC, and most recently, that Pence "America First" dog/pony tax-lies and possibly half-truths tour using Air Force Two to move about with the impetus to spread manipulative disinformation all over the nation's key cities to susceptible people (a/k/a the "super gullible").
Might there be a nice lawsuit for that propagandistic bluster-orgy too? Likely not, but the motive and actions arguably are as despicable, and somebody paid big bucks for fueling that big airplane's going all over creation. If not the public, who?
FURTHER: MSN news, here, presents CA-related links. Also, this MSN page presents a CNN coverage update of CA in the news.
Doing a civic duty. Twenty-seven buck checks cut for Erdmann and Phifer. A bit toward convention lapel stickers. All that stuff costs cash, so help.
Not that Craig in CD2 would be a bad candidate, but Erdmann seems a teacher-coach like Walz, who served his district well. A teaching career merits respect. It is not a job all can handle.
As to Phifer, one seeking a Congressional seat should show some form of skill besides kissing mining-money hindquarters:
Have you got that, Metsa, Stauber? You stake your position, you are buying the consequences. Many respect wilderness and fear its impairment. Wrongful impairment, maximizing profit at public sufferance is a short-term view toward a planet still around when each of us has passed. Respect future generations.
______________UPDATE____________
As best as things are understood here, Stauber and Metsa are gung-ho mining tools, while Phifer's position is that special federal level intrusions by Congressional Reps are inappropriate where the position at the State level remains in question. In light of such lip-service as Republicans have too often voiced over "states rights" it is strange to see Stauber ignoring that question in his gung-ho and damn the consequences enthusiasms.
The March 8 Timberjay did report:
[emphasis added] See a comparable concern for federal-level muscle flexing being promoted by Congress critters in an editorial by Rep. McCollum in The Hill.
Moreover, as early as October of last year the Phifer campaign site at
https://www.phiferforcongress.com/issues-1/environment-clean-energy
clearly stated, in context:
Without names being named, Emmer and Nolan seemingly had placed "thumbs on the scales" in ways Phifer noted as against judicial powers and due process. She was correct about it then, and it remains so.
People too often let second-hand rhetoric define outlooks without carefully considering first-person statements.
A prove it safe or don't do it unwinding in-state and judicially stands unresolved, and who but zealots with agendas would claim time is wasting, in order to short circuit getting things fully explored and duly resolved? From here it appears that Metsa and Stauber are showing such zealotry, and Stauber in doing so stands against all repeatedly voiced Republican "states rights" positioning in the past. "States rights" is either a true belief or a convenience, but not interchangeable one to the other as the wind blows.
FURTHER: In light of the fact that impacts of bad decisions would be local to the state [and possibly bordering Canadian locales] the conservative position would be to not do the mining unless both the state opinion and the federal opinion were together favorable. Environmental harms can be irreversible, and to lessen chances of error, both levels of government should be required to give a stamp of approval before any breaking of ground could happen. Ontario and Canada, to the extent their environment is at risk, should also be heard from, even with the mining in question being wholly within U.S. bounds. AND - know that as the opinion here, not attributed here to Phifer or anyone else.
FURTHER: Same Timberjay item quoted earlier; closing paragraphs:
That thing about "an attack on the Iron Range's way of life"? It would only be a true attack if that way of life were to lie about what's at risk. Doing a risk/benefit analysis, for the public aside from mining firm intended profits, the expectation here is a handful of short-term jobs against a poisoning of lands and waters of an unprecedented scale and duration. At a guess. Possibly as some suggest irreparable harm if the ore is not simply left where it is, undisturbed. Short term and long term are separate things. Just as sulfide mining risks are wholly separate from existing taconite mining costs and benefits.
As to Phifer, one seeking a Congressional seat should show some form of skill besides kissing mining-money hindquarters:
Have you got that, Metsa, Stauber? You stake your position, you are buying the consequences. Many respect wilderness and fear its impairment. Wrongful impairment, maximizing profit at public sufferance is a short-term view toward a planet still around when each of us has passed. Respect future generations.
______________UPDATE____________
As best as things are understood here, Stauber and Metsa are gung-ho mining tools, while Phifer's position is that special federal level intrusions by Congressional Reps are inappropriate where the position at the State level remains in question. In light of such lip-service as Republicans have too often voiced over "states rights" it is strange to see Stauber ignoring that question in his gung-ho and damn the consequences enthusiasms.
The March 8 Timberjay did report:
Across the state, the survey found that fully 91 percent of self-identified DFLers are opposed to sulfide mines near the Boundary Waters. Even within the Eighth Congressional District, 77 percent of DFLers said they were opposed to sulfide mining near the wilderness, and 61 percent indicated strong opposition.
There are a couple ramifications from this kind of sentiment. Number one, any DFLer who is seen as strongly supporting the Twin Metals project, near Ely, is likely to face an uphill battle in any party endorsement fight over the Eighth District seat. There’s a reason that Nolan bowed out three days after the precinct caucuses— challenger Leah Phifer had done remarkably well on caucus night, even against a sitting member of Congress. As this latest polling suggests, Nolan’s aggressive actions to advance the Twin Metals project had left him far out on a political limb, particularly with his own party’s base where opposition to a project like Twin Metals is vehement. Phifer, who hasn’t come out in opposition to sulfide mining (at least at this point) mainly faulted Nolan for trying to short-circuit the process.
Even with an expected Democratic surge in this fall’s election, Nolan was in trouble and he almost certainly knew it.
For those who still doubt the changing nature of the sentiment on this issue, consider the caucus results in the gubernatorial race, where Rebecca Otto, the only DFLer in the race to announce her firm opposition to sulfide mining, won handily in the Eighth District. In the Third Senate District, which encompasses Koochiching, northern St. Louis, Lake, and Cook counties, Otto won more votes in the caucus night straw poll than the five other DFL candidates combined.
And before you dismiss those results as representing just a handful of DFLers, it’s worth noting that the DFL saw record caucus turnout across the state, with nearly 4,000 DFLers turning out in the Eighth. Besides, the people who turn out at the caucuses are often the same people who donate money, door knock, and engage in the ground-level grunt work of the campaign. In the DFL, those folks are feeling very passionate in their opposition to sulfide mining right now.
[emphasis added] See a comparable concern for federal-level muscle flexing being promoted by Congress critters in an editorial by Rep. McCollum in The Hill.
Moreover, as early as October of last year the Phifer campaign site at
https://www.phiferforcongress.com/issues-1/environment-clean-energy
clearly stated, in context:
Leah believes politicians should not use their legislative power to place their thumbs on the scales of these important projects, as it prevents the regulatory process from working as intended and erodes our system of due process. She will fight to preserve Minnesotan's trust in our procedural systems, strengthen our environmental regulations and work to build a strong, sustainable economy for many years to come.
Without names being named, Emmer and Nolan seemingly had placed "thumbs on the scales" in ways Phifer noted as against judicial powers and due process. She was correct about it then, and it remains so.
People too often let second-hand rhetoric define outlooks without carefully considering first-person statements.
A prove it safe or don't do it unwinding in-state and judicially stands unresolved, and who but zealots with agendas would claim time is wasting, in order to short circuit getting things fully explored and duly resolved? From here it appears that Metsa and Stauber are showing such zealotry, and Stauber in doing so stands against all repeatedly voiced Republican "states rights" positioning in the past. "States rights" is either a true belief or a convenience, but not interchangeable one to the other as the wind blows.
FURTHER: In light of the fact that impacts of bad decisions would be local to the state [and possibly bordering Canadian locales] the conservative position would be to not do the mining unless both the state opinion and the federal opinion were together favorable. Environmental harms can be irreversible, and to lessen chances of error, both levels of government should be required to give a stamp of approval before any breaking of ground could happen. Ontario and Canada, to the extent their environment is at risk, should also be heard from, even with the mining in question being wholly within U.S. bounds. AND - know that as the opinion here, not attributed here to Phifer or anyone else.
FURTHER: Same Timberjay item quoted earlier; closing paragraphs:
And before you suggest that opposition to sulfide mining near the BW is confined to DFLers, the survey found that 69 percent of independents and even a plurality of 45 percent of Republicans oppose it as well. From a political standpoint, these numbers are toxic.
These results also suggest that the public isn’t buying the constant refrain that we hear from supporters of sulfide mining— namely that opponents reject all forms of mining, even taconite.
Polls released within the last year show continued strong support in Minnesota for the taconite industry— and that’s true across the political spectrum. What this shows is that as people learn more about the issue, they are recognizing the higher level of risk posed by sulfide mining, and its potential to impact prized Minnesota resources, like clean water in the North Country.
Claims that opposition to sulfide mining represents an attack on the Iron Range’s way of life are simply hyperbolic. The Iron Range’s way of life centers on taconite mining, and support for that industry remains strong in Minnesota.
As for copper-nickel mining, it appears Minnesotans are increasingly skeptical.
That thing about "an attack on the Iron Range's way of life"? It would only be a true attack if that way of life were to lie about what's at risk. Doing a risk/benefit analysis, for the public aside from mining firm intended profits, the expectation here is a handful of short-term jobs against a poisoning of lands and waters of an unprecedented scale and duration. At a guess. Possibly as some suggest irreparable harm if the ore is not simply left where it is, undisturbed. Short term and long term are separate things. Just as sulfide mining risks are wholly separate from existing taconite mining costs and benefits.
Thursday, March 29, 2018
BOLTON - New York Times said it, not me, "‘Kiss Up, Kick Down’: Those Recalling Bolton’s U.N. Confirmation Process Say He Hasn’t Changed."
By KATIE ROGERS and ELIZABETH WILLIAMSON -- MARCH 29, 2018
... his mouth is much bigger than his brain.
A Trump appointee. Go figure.
Back then -
A grudge holding backstabber. Not a Trump nominee. Not where responsible people would have a say in sidetracking bad decision making. An appointee, a high level one, but where no power among the sane of review and restraint exists. It is as if Trump misses having Bannon around and sought a surrogate.
Of interest Bolton has a Wikipedia page, stating (with footnote links included, footnotes omitted):
Go to the Wikipedia page for footnote content and earlier career detail. And, unfortunately, the dumb mustache did not stop the latest Trump brain fart. It would not surprise to see Mercer money and Trump favor connected by reporting, something that may already be happening. [see following post, updating]
WASHINGTON — The last time — perhaps the only time — John R. Bolton inspired bipartisan agreement, it was over the shared conclusion that he was perhaps the least diplomatic personality a president could have ever picked to be an American diplomat.
That was in 2005, when Mr. Bolton was last considered for a government job. Accounts of his red-faced tirades against intelligence analysts whose findings he disagreed with so concerned members of the Senate that they refused to approve his nomination as President George W. Bush’s ambassador to the United Nations.
He wound up getting the job anyway through a recess appointment [...]
Thirteen years later, another president has given Mr. Bolton the far more consequential job of national security adviser. But because that post does not require Senate confirmation, the five months in 2005 that the Senate took to decide whether Mr. Bolton should go to the United Nations remain the only extensive examination of his record and his temperament.
Those who opposed him then, like Carl W. Ford Jr., along with many who supported him, say Mr. Bolton has not changed.
Continue reading the main story
In an appearance before a Senate committee vetting Mr. Bolton’s nomination in 2005, Mr. Ford, a former assistant secretary of state for intelligence and research in the Bush administration, summed up Mr. Bolton, then an under secretary of state for arms control and international security, as a “kiss-up, kick-down sort of guy.”
“I believed then, as I believe now, he lacks any of the qualities to be a senior government official,” Mr. Ford said last week. “It has been my experience that his mouth is much bigger than his brain.”
... his mouth is much bigger than his brain.
A Trump appointee. Go figure.
Back then -
Testifying before the committee, Mr. Bolton presented himself as a reformer who would go to the United Nations and help “build institutions that serve as the cornerstone of freedom in nascent democracies,” curb the proliferation of nuclear weapons and support a global war on terror promised by the Bush administration.
He also sought to explain his comment — famous even by then — that if the top 10 stories of the 38-story United Nations Secretariat building were lopped off, “it wouldn’t make a bit of difference” by asserting that it “was a way of saying there’s not a bureaucracy in the world that can’t be made leaner and more efficient.”
Mr. Bolton’s public statements, it turned out, were the least of his problems.
Over seven hours on that first day, Democrats explored allegations by intelligence officials that Mr. Bolton had gone after two analysts who disagreed with his views on Cuba’s biological weapons capability.
Mr. Bolton was preparing for a speech in which he would accuse a range of nations, including Libya, Iran, Iraq, North Korea and Syria, of possessing chemical and biological weapons when he sought clearance from the intelligence officials for an assertion he wanted to make that Cuba was developing a biological weapons program, a claim that was not, in fact, fully supported by American intelligence.
Christian Westermann, a State Department intelligence analyst specializing in biological and chemical weapons, and an unnamed national intelligence official responsible for Latin America disagreed with the claims about Cuba that Mr. Bolton sought to make.
Senator Christopher J. Dodd, Democrat of Connecticut, told the committee that “trying to remove someone as an analyst from their job because you disagree with what they’re saying, I think, is dreadfully wrong.”
Mr. Bolton responded that he had targeted the two officers for reassignment, not for firing, because “If I may say so, their conduct was unprofessional and broke my confidence and trust.”
[...] It also emerged that Mr. Bolton had prevented Ms. Rice and her predecessor, Colin Powell, from seeing some State Department findings crucial to drafting policy on Iran, and had kept Ms. Rice out of the loop as he worked to replace Mohamed ElBaradei, the director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, seen by Mr. Bolton and his administration faction as too soft on Iran.
A grudge holding backstabber. Not a Trump nominee. Not where responsible people would have a say in sidetracking bad decision making. An appointee, a high level one, but where no power among the sane of review and restraint exists. It is as if Trump misses having Bannon around and sought a surrogate.
Of interest Bolton has a Wikipedia page, stating (with footnote links included, footnotes omitted):
2016
Bolton considered running in the 2016 U.S. presidential election. In an interview with National Review, Robert Costa wrote the following, quoting Bolton:
He wants to be president of the United States, or, at the very least, a provocative contender for the Republican nomination in 2016. 'My hypothesis is that voters are practical and they care more about national security than the media seems to believe; I think, right now, especially after two terms of President Obama, they want a president who has the know-how to lead during a crisis, a president who can defend our national interests,' he says.[173]
After expressing interest in running for President, Bolton ultimately ruled himself out on May 14, 2015, in a video message posted from Twitter.[174]
On Wednesday, September 30, 2015, Freedom Capital Investment Management appointed Bolton as a senior advisor to oversee the firm on international security, financial and political risks.[175]
John Bolton Super PAC
In 2013, Bolton set up the John Bolton Super PAC. It raised $11.3 million for Republican candidates in the 2014 and 2016 elections and spent $5.6 million, paying Cambridge Analytica at least $650,000 for voter data analysis and digital video ad targeting in support of the campaigns of Senators Thom Tillis (R-N.C.), Tom Cotton (R-Ark.), Richard Burr (R-N.C.), and Scott Brown (R-M.A.).[176][177] In September 2016, Bolton announced that his SuperPAC would spend $1 million on (R-N.C.) Senator Richard Burr's reelection effort by targeting ads at "social media users and Dish Network and Direct TV subscribers".[178]
The Center for Public Integrity analysed the John Bolton Super PAC's campaign finance filings and found that they paid Cambridge Analytica more than $1.1 million since 2014 for "research" and "survey research".[179] According to Federal Election Commission filings, Cambridge Analytica was paid more than $811,000 by them in the 2016 presidential election;[180] in the same election cycle, the Super PAC spent around $2.5 million in support of Republican U.S. Senate candidates.[179]
Bolton reportedly stated that he aims to raise and spend $25 million for up to 90 Republican candidates in the 2018 midterm elections.[181] In January 2018, Bolton announced a $1 million advertising campaign in support of Kevin Nicholson's bid for the Republican nomimation [sic] to run against incumbent Democratic Senator Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin.[181][182] The Super PAC ran an ad campaign in the Green Bay area in January 2018; on March 19, 2018, the Super PAC announced a two-week $278,000 television and radio ad campaign in the Milwaukee area.[183]
Major donors to the John Bolton Super PAC reportedly are Robert Mercer, who gave $4 million from 2012 to 2016; Home Depot co-founder Bernard Marcus, and Los Angeles real estate developer Geoffrey Palmer.[176]
Trump administration position
In an interview with conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt during the 2016 U.S. Presidential campaign, Republican nominee Donald Trump named Bolton as a possible choice for Secretary of State. Appearing on Fox News' Fox and Friends on December 1, 2016, Bolton admitted he was being considered as a Secretary of State candidate for the incoming Trump administration.[184][185] Several Trump associates claim Bolton was not chosen, in part, due to Trump's disdain for Bolton's signature mustache.[186]
Go to the Wikipedia page for footnote content and earlier career detail. And, unfortunately, the dumb mustache did not stop the latest Trump brain fart. It would not surprise to see Mercer money and Trump favor connected by reporting, something that may already be happening. [see following post, updating]
Google's Blogger, the service this blog uses for posting, provides some stats to review, about which past posting from time to time here at Crabgrass exists, and this is another item of such a kind. [UPDATED]
Two images, without attention to or knowledge of the period of past time reported:
The immediate question: So what?
Two observations, there is an arguably disproportionate non U.S.A. readership, and a disproportionate interest in one post:
In receiving an unsolicited email from "Democrats.com [info@votedem.org] Unsubscribe," why did my bullshit meter unpin from zero and move quite far upscale? A/k/a astroturf is NOT grassroots.
So what is a sentiment leading to what if, in the sense that anonymously registered websites soliciting release of personal information can be suspect for any reason, and then if one or several are petition participation solicitations or other political divination, then is some unknown person, group, nation, whatever collecting information of malcontentment over the status quo, within the population of the U.S. of A?
Manafort ran afoul of being an unregistered agent of a foreign state, and three-letter agencies, FBI, NSA, and CIA included, seem from time to time to attain media attention for accumulating information about the population of the nation in which they are located. They, no surprise, might want lists evidencing malcontentment, since the so-called deep state is tweeted about (by some) as if being a status quo called (by some) the swamp, a swamp said (by some) to need draining.
Only Google knows the IP of each and every computer hitting the blog, some possibly bounced about via TOR, and Google might also want to know about malcontentment, in order to sell that knowledge to advertisers hoping to reach malcontents with targeted goods or services to offer for purchase.
The right not only to speak freely, but to do so anonymously is a Constitutional First Amendment right, but one that can be a thicket. A briar patch, perhaps, per the Wind in the Willows children's book.
So, what if the Russians, or some arm of the Russian deep state is operating on U.S. bandwidth to be fronting sign-a-petition sites to identify malcontents - or worse, far, far, far worse, what if it were being done by Cambridge Analytica?
Where is Alex Jones when you want him to sniff out and publish a post about some form of a conspiracy theory about this or that arguable coincidence? Alex, yo --- the psyops are messing with my blogging, and I'm just sitting here having morning coffee and posting. Why, Alex, are the psyops so occupied when there's real mischief afoot; Pence going on his "America First" dog-and-pony Air Force Two employed propaganda tour around the major cities of the nation to sell "for you regular folks" bullshit about the tax Christmas gift given the rich and powerful, for example. Mess with that, you psyop employees, wherever you be, whoever is cutting the paychecks.
[links in original] Readers - Have a nice day. You and others read this blog, so take comfort in numbers.
Ah - make that, small numbers?
Not what you'd call a movement. Just a handful of malcontents . . .
Tune time.
______________UPDATE_____________
A link, linking over to here.
FURTHER: Local coverage, same story. No link over as with The Intercept. A mention.
FURTHER: Paranoia accompanying anonymity. With others openly tub-thumping a policy in lockstep with the interests of mining money, a sane choice suggestion for Minnesota's CD8 can be somebody's "Alex Jones where are you." That interests me. Readers, I have no idea where Alex Jones is. I don't follow him. What interests me is media mention disappearing for him and Rush, following the cut-over from Obama to Trump/Pence. Rush, did he die? What? CNN is not saying.
FURTHER: More on Cambridge Analytica in the news, posted items first, then suggested links for reader follow-up:
Then there is this Guardian item, quoted previously.
Other items in reporting, each worth a look: here, here, here, Guardian again here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, MoJo at length here - this show the money chart, and here. Guardian, related, here.
Websearch suggestions: here, here, here, here, here, and my favorite, here.
 |
| click each image to enlarge and read |
The immediate question: So what?
Two observations, there is an arguably disproportionate non U.S.A. readership, and a disproportionate interest in one post:
In receiving an unsolicited email from "Democrats.com [info@votedem.org] Unsubscribe," why did my bullshit meter unpin from zero and move quite far upscale? A/k/a astroturf is NOT grassroots.
So what is a sentiment leading to what if, in the sense that anonymously registered websites soliciting release of personal information can be suspect for any reason, and then if one or several are petition participation solicitations or other political divination, then is some unknown person, group, nation, whatever collecting information of malcontentment over the status quo, within the population of the U.S. of A?
Manafort ran afoul of being an unregistered agent of a foreign state, and three-letter agencies, FBI, NSA, and CIA included, seem from time to time to attain media attention for accumulating information about the population of the nation in which they are located. They, no surprise, might want lists evidencing malcontentment, since the so-called deep state is tweeted about (by some) as if being a status quo called (by some) the swamp, a swamp said (by some) to need draining.
Only Google knows the IP of each and every computer hitting the blog, some possibly bounced about via TOR, and Google might also want to know about malcontentment, in order to sell that knowledge to advertisers hoping to reach malcontents with targeted goods or services to offer for purchase.
The right not only to speak freely, but to do so anonymously is a Constitutional First Amendment right, but one that can be a thicket. A briar patch, perhaps, per the Wind in the Willows children's book.
So, what if the Russians, or some arm of the Russian deep state is operating on U.S. bandwidth to be fronting sign-a-petition sites to identify malcontents - or worse, far, far, far worse, what if it were being done by Cambridge Analytica?
Where is Alex Jones when you want him to sniff out and publish a post about some form of a conspiracy theory about this or that arguable coincidence? Alex, yo --- the psyops are messing with my blogging, and I'm just sitting here having morning coffee and posting. Why, Alex, are the psyops so occupied when there's real mischief afoot; Pence going on his "America First" dog-and-pony Air Force Two employed propaganda tour around the major cities of the nation to sell "for you regular folks" bullshit about the tax Christmas gift given the rich and powerful, for example. Mess with that, you psyop employees, wherever you be, whoever is cutting the paychecks.
An endorsement from an official at the 15 UK Psychological Operations Group dated January 2012 concluded that they would “have no hesitation in inviting SCL to tender for further contracts of this nature”.
The document also noted that SCL was a company that was permitted to have “routine access to secret information” and delivered a training programme that included a “classified case study from current operations in Helmand” in Afghanistan.
The official British note of approval was one of over 100 pages of documents handed over to the digital, media, culture and sport select committee by Cambridge Analytica whistleblower Christopher Wylie earlier this week, following an oral hearing that lasted nearly four hours.
Another of the documents released by the MPs is a confidential legal memo dated July 2014, which says it was sent to Steve Bannon, the former Trump adviser and Breitbart CEO, and Rebekah Mercer, the daughter of Trump backer and hedge fund billionaire Robert Mercer. It was also sent to Alexander Nix, the CEO of Cambridge Analytica.
The author’s name and firm is redacted, but the memo discusses how far Cambridge Analytica and its executives could participate in US elections, given that donations and contributions by foreign nationals are banned.
Cambridge Analytica hit the headlines after it was revealed that data had been harvested for it from 50m Facebook profiles without the users’ permission.
The document notes that the company, formed in June 2014, could participate as a vendor of technology as long as Nix, a Briton, was “recused from the substantive management of any such clients involved in US elections”.
At the parliamentary hearing on Tuesday, Wylie noted that Vote Leave had spent £2.7m with a digital marketing firm called AggregateIQ, and said it had previously undisclosed links to Cambridge Analytica/SCL.
[links in original] Readers - Have a nice day. You and others read this blog, so take comfort in numbers.
Ah - make that, small numbers?
Not what you'd call a movement. Just a handful of malcontents . . .
Tune time.
______________UPDATE_____________
A link, linking over to here.
FURTHER: Local coverage, same story. No link over as with The Intercept. A mention.
FURTHER: Paranoia accompanying anonymity. With others openly tub-thumping a policy in lockstep with the interests of mining money, a sane choice suggestion for Minnesota's CD8 can be somebody's "Alex Jones where are you." That interests me. Readers, I have no idea where Alex Jones is. I don't follow him. What interests me is media mention disappearing for him and Rush, following the cut-over from Obama to Trump/Pence. Rush, did he die? What? CNN is not saying.
FURTHER: More on Cambridge Analytica in the news, posted items first, then suggested links for reader follow-up:
 |
| this link, linking here |
 |
| this link |
Then there is this Guardian item, quoted previously.
Other items in reporting, each worth a look: here, here, here, Guardian again here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, MoJo at length here - this show the money chart, and here. Guardian, related, here.
Websearch suggestions: here, here, here, here, here, and my favorite, here.
Minnesota's Liberian Population and DED: Emmer and Jason Lewis are dispicable in not signing on with colleagues. Paulsen is on the correct side, having a major share of the Minnesota Liberians in his Congressional District. Whatever his motives, Paulsen gets this one correct. And we should assume the best of motives drives his position.
Context: Strib, "Trump administration announces end of deportation reprieve for Liberians in Minnesota, elsewhere -- Large West Africa population in metro is concerned after Trump halts program. By Mila Koumpilova, Star Tribune, March 28, 2018."
[link in original, italics emphasis added]
Okay, Paulsen, start that education process on woodenheads Emmer and Lewis. They are the two absent in that "eight of the ten" sentence put in italics in that Strib quote.
Paulsen of course is a Republican member of Congress as is Emmer and Lewis who on this issue, unlike Paulsen, fawn and bow to the Trump deportation mandate. In contrast to that pair, Paulsen has independently posted:
[italics added, bolding in original omitted] An earlier Crabgrass notice was posted in parallel to the earlier Strib coverage linked to in the Strib quote which opened this post. Content from that earlier Crabgrass post need not be repeated here. Briefly: If you would be disinclined on a 24/7 regular basis to help grandma in the nursing home from bed to the toilet when she is alert but physically incapable of such transit without help, and then perhaps have to handle and dispose of soiled Depends, then do not disrespect Liberian workers who accept exactly such nursing home necessary support work, as well as providing in other instances accredited nurses at elderly housing specializing in elderly healthcare delivery. Absent the Liberian healthcare labor force, there would be a troubling shortage of elderly needs being met.
BOTTOM LINE: In my heart, given the Liberian presence in elderly care, I'd rather see Emmer and Jason Lewis deported.
But can we find cause for any such remedy, besides their hatred for immigrants exceeding giving a damn about elderly care needs and how such needs in practice actually are met? Such a position is cause to vote them out, certainly that, but the threat of deportation in a moral justice sense is something each should somehow feel, on a personal level where humane thought is present among all the other Congressional Delegation who signed onto wanting relief for the Liberian community.
Emmer and Lewis please sign on with colleagues to help resolve the Liberian dilemma, or at least neutrally stand out that way. Never mind the lack of real and meaningful town hall presence in district being another cause for disdain toward the pair; marching in lockstep with Trump/Pence immigrant hate should have its practical as well as moral limits, even for these gentlemen whose lack of care for in district voter contact runs in parallel with their lack of care for the plight of their State's Liberian population.
Emmer has, in district, the fairly new, roomy and well laid-out VOA facility, The Homestead at Anoka, which the truant rep. should take time to visit and talk with senior staff about the Liberian place in existing senior care, and how already costly access to care might be heightened without willing Liberian workers to "participate in America" and hold needed, helpful jobs many would decline to do.
His heart might, were he to do so, become less hardened.
The Twin Cities Liberian community’s push to salvage a deportation reprieve program for Liberia natives came up short as the Trump administration announced Tuesday it will end the program in 12 months.
Deferred Enforced Departure, DED, has offered work permits and deportation protections since 2007, when it replaced a similar temporary reprieve program put in place during Liberia’s brutal civil war in the 1990s. The administration for the first time reported Tuesday that about 840 people nationally now have work permits through the program; that suggested the cancellation’s impact might be more limited than feared by local Liberian leaders, some of whom disputed the estimate.
Liberians in the metro, which hosts one of the largest West African enclaves in North America, mounted an active lobbying push to save the program, slated to expire at the end of next March. They argued its cancellation would deal a blow not only to numerous longtime residents but also to local nursing homes and other care facilities, where many Liberians work. Eight of the 10 members of Minnesota’s congressional delegation signed a letter to President Donald Trump urging him to extend the program.
But in a Tuesday memorandum, Trump said it was time to wrap up DED after a yearlong “orderly transition” period during which recipients can explore alternative routes to stay or prepare to leave by March 31, 2019.
[...] Minnesota lawmakers issued statements pledging to work on passing the Liberian Refugee Immigration Fairness Act in the U.S. House and Senate — legislation that would open a path to citizenship for DED recipients and others.
Rep. Keith Ellison, who has reintroduced that legislation since 2011, criticized the decision, calling DED recipients “long-standing contributors to our country.” Sen. Amy Klobuchar noted another option would be to get the administration to reverse its decision.
“The additional year gives me and my colleagues on both sides of the aisle more time to work toward a permanent solution,” Rep. Erik Paulsen said, “and it give us more time to raise awareness and educate others about what our Liberian community means to Minnesota.”
[link in original, italics emphasis added]
Okay, Paulsen, start that education process on woodenheads Emmer and Lewis. They are the two absent in that "eight of the ten" sentence put in italics in that Strib quote.
Paulsen of course is a Republican member of Congress as is Emmer and Lewis who on this issue, unlike Paulsen, fawn and bow to the Trump deportation mandate. In contrast to that pair, Paulsen has independently posted:
03/14/18
Washington, D.C.– Congressman Erik Paulsen (MN-03) today joined Senator Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) and other members of the Minnesota delegation to urge the President to extend Deferred Enforced Departure (DED) protections for Liberians, currently scheduled to expire at the end of March.
“Our state of Minnesota has one of the largest Liberian populations in the country. Many of them have been in our state for decades, and they are an important part of our communities, where they serve as business owners, teachers, and health care workers. It is for this reason that we ask you to extend the DED protections for Liberians now in effect before they expire at the end of this month,”the lawmakers wrote.
The lawmakers’ letter was also signed by Senator Tina Smith (D-Minn.) and Congressmen Keith Ellison (MN-05), Tim Walz (MN-01), Rick Nolan (MN-08), Betty McCollum (MN-04), and Collin Peterson (MN-07). The full text of the letter is below.
Congressman Paulsen also met today with leaders of Minnesota’s Liberian community at his Washington, D.C. office to reiterate his support for Minnesota’s Liberian population. A brief video of the meeting can be viewed here.
[...] “The lives and wellbeing of the Liberians living in our own community are at stake, and this is too important to let politics get in the way,”Congressman Paulsen said. “I’m grateful to the representatives of our Liberian community for coming to Washington to make their case directly to my fellow lawmakers and I will continue working across the aisle in urging the Administration to take action.”
Paulsen is also a co-sponsor of the bipartisan Liberian Refugee Immigration Fairness Act of 2018, which enables Liberians who have been living here temporarily to apply for permanent residency.
Here is the full text of the lawmakers’ letter:
Dear President Trump:
We write to ask that you extend Deferred Enforcement Departure (DED) status for Liberians, which is now scheduled to expire on March 31, 2018.
Liberians have had protected status in the United States since President George H.W. Bush first approved Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for Liberia in response to its civil war in 1991. That status was extended under presidents from both parties until it expired in 2007, at which time President George W. Bush granted DED protections to Liberians. Since 2007, DED has been extended six times, allowing recipients to remain in the United States legally and receive work authorization.
Our state of Minnesota has one of the largest Liberian populations in the country. Many of them have been in our state for decades, and they are an important part of our communities, where they serve as business owners, teachers, and health care workers. It is for this reason that we ask you to extend the DED protections for Liberians now in effect before they expire at the end of this month.
Thank you for your prompt consideration of this important issue.
[italics added, bolding in original omitted] An earlier Crabgrass notice was posted in parallel to the earlier Strib coverage linked to in the Strib quote which opened this post. Content from that earlier Crabgrass post need not be repeated here. Briefly: If you would be disinclined on a 24/7 regular basis to help grandma in the nursing home from bed to the toilet when she is alert but physically incapable of such transit without help, and then perhaps have to handle and dispose of soiled Depends, then do not disrespect Liberian workers who accept exactly such nursing home necessary support work, as well as providing in other instances accredited nurses at elderly housing specializing in elderly healthcare delivery. Absent the Liberian healthcare labor force, there would be a troubling shortage of elderly needs being met.
BOTTOM LINE: In my heart, given the Liberian presence in elderly care, I'd rather see Emmer and Jason Lewis deported.
But can we find cause for any such remedy, besides their hatred for immigrants exceeding giving a damn about elderly care needs and how such needs in practice actually are met? Such a position is cause to vote them out, certainly that, but the threat of deportation in a moral justice sense is something each should somehow feel, on a personal level where humane thought is present among all the other Congressional Delegation who signed onto wanting relief for the Liberian community.
Emmer and Lewis please sign on with colleagues to help resolve the Liberian dilemma, or at least neutrally stand out that way. Never mind the lack of real and meaningful town hall presence in district being another cause for disdain toward the pair; marching in lockstep with Trump/Pence immigrant hate should have its practical as well as moral limits, even for these gentlemen whose lack of care for in district voter contact runs in parallel with their lack of care for the plight of their State's Liberian population.
Emmer has, in district, the fairly new, roomy and well laid-out VOA facility, The Homestead at Anoka, which the truant rep. should take time to visit and talk with senior staff about the Liberian place in existing senior care, and how already costly access to care might be heightened without willing Liberian workers to "participate in America" and hold needed, helpful jobs many would decline to do.
His heart might, were he to do so, become less hardened.
Wednesday, March 28, 2018
Ms. Clifford's contract with Essential Consultants, LLC, regarding third party non-signing individual, David Dennison, and Declaratory Judgment litigation concerning the same. And more, another complaint. A nagging situation.
Doug Matconis is a Scribd user, not merely a reader, but an uploader. Not knowing the man, a Google was used, this result. A Facebooker and twit [user of Twitter]. Readers can follow those links. He posts at Outside the Beltway, which some DC denizens regard as the equivalent of OZ. And vice versa. And up to 2011 he blogged, Below the Beltway. If you enlarge the screencapture below you can see his more recent Scribd uploading is of court papers, various litigation, readers may or may not see a common thread.
In any event Matconis posted for the benefit of a grateful public, on Scribd, the complaint and attachment of the plaintiff's complaint, Superior Court of the State of California, No. BC696568, the Clifford complaint (with attachments). A comporable posting of such a document, in pdf format, was put online by MSNBC. The Scribd item when viewed, per sidebar info: "1.1 K views;" two thumbs up, no thumbs down.
Readers can track either source if wanting to while reading serious online analysis, here and here. No commentary or quotes, readers are urged to follow their will to know and see; or to dismiss some things as beneath reader dignity.
Neither serious attempt at critique gets to the question of whether the media properly use the term "affair" for what seems from coverage to be more of a single tryst, with follow up correspondence and another in-person contact, no sex the second time. At least that is reporting, and "affair" seems too encompassing a term for that pattern.
The claim that DD never signed paperwork, e.g., N.Y. Times here, ignores the Sect. 8.9 counterpart term, if DD separately signed, apart from the one public domain document. But then there is the problem of whether notice of such signing in counterpart was ever tendered to PP. And with Trump denying anything at all happened, DD signing in counterpart showing up at some point would cause attention and raise questions.
Counterpart availability it is a technical observation, with no practical help.
The apparent documentary obsession with "Property" having to all be handed over by the $130,000 recipient seems out of place in a situation where "nothing happened," so the justification by lawyer Cohen for such repeated "Property" wording is due, but so far not forthcoming.
Lawyer Cohen saying he paid out of pocket generated an interesting consequence; a claim of wilful violation of federal election law via an unreported "in kind" contribution to a campaign in excess of a spending cap. By attorney Cohen.
Why an LLC, and what business plan or prior or subsequent activity of the LLC happened, those facts attorney Cohen or someone should know, and those are arguably outside of attorney-client privilege as questions of factual things that happened or not, independent of any privileged communication between attorney and client. Other hush-money contracting, the fact of it happening or not via that or another LLC might, as in this one instance alleged by Cohen to have happened without any Trump conversation with Cohen about a six figure payment. Why pay if there's no substance to claims, that might be privileged if discussed between Trump and Cohen, but whether or not there was discussion, apart from things said, is fair game to ask.
Unusual observations not seen mentioned online elsewhere are twofold. First, p.3, Sect. 3.3 "DD shall have the right to register sole copyright in and to any of the Property with the US Copyright Office." WTF?
Second, PP and DD are each identified at the beginning of the document as individuals in the item with PP at times referenced by the pronoun "she" and with pseudonyms indicative of gender. At one part a definition is inserted for a "PP Group," separate from the individual PP. That is at p.6, Sect. 4.3.4.
In view of the totality of circumstances being reported about the situation, it is curious to see p.6, Sect. 4.3(b) the wording, "[...] and/or it is believed that any of PP, whether directly or indirectly, intends the release, use, display, [...] of any of the Property, then DD and his counsel shall be entitled to, at DD's sole discretion, (i) contact the respective member of PP, including with legal demands and related statements [...] and/or (ii) advance a civil action against the respective member of PP, [...]."
Well, that is not "PP Group" but PP, the individual, and there is no contract mention of any respective member of DD while it appears all dispute hinges on a question of whether respective members of the two individuals were brought together in a first instance. In a civil action or otherwise with rancor, and moreover, the exact wording, in the larger context, "contact the respective member of PP," can bring an image to one's mind if one has that kind of mind. Were I writing it, "affiliated person," or such wording besides "member" would have suggested itself as less provocative a word choice; together with being careful about PP and "PP Group," differentiation.
And adding ambiguity, the right mentioned is one "of DD and his counsel to contact the respective member of PP" - that is what the document says. Odd.
That's all I have to add, so let the press press on.
____________UPDATE_____________
WaPo flavors the dish. The dish itself is too salty.
To believe: Things were so hushed Trump heard not a whisper; Cohen being out $130,000 and still "Trump's lawyer." Clients who, ostensibly, hang the lawyer out for six figures usually get dropped from a client list. But for some, chrisma must reduce a seasoned contract negotiator to apprentice-like acceptance. Else, how wouuld you explain it?
A thousand words.
 |
| click the image to enlarge and read |
In any event Matconis posted for the benefit of a grateful public, on Scribd, the complaint and attachment of the plaintiff's complaint, Superior Court of the State of California, No. BC696568, the Clifford complaint (with attachments). A comporable posting of such a document, in pdf format, was put online by MSNBC. The Scribd item when viewed, per sidebar info: "1.1 K views;" two thumbs up, no thumbs down.
Readers can track either source if wanting to while reading serious online analysis, here and here. No commentary or quotes, readers are urged to follow their will to know and see; or to dismiss some things as beneath reader dignity.
Neither serious attempt at critique gets to the question of whether the media properly use the term "affair" for what seems from coverage to be more of a single tryst, with follow up correspondence and another in-person contact, no sex the second time. At least that is reporting, and "affair" seems too encompassing a term for that pattern.
The claim that DD never signed paperwork, e.g., N.Y. Times here, ignores the Sect. 8.9 counterpart term, if DD separately signed, apart from the one public domain document. But then there is the problem of whether notice of such signing in counterpart was ever tendered to PP. And with Trump denying anything at all happened, DD signing in counterpart showing up at some point would cause attention and raise questions.
Counterpart availability it is a technical observation, with no practical help.
The apparent documentary obsession with "Property" having to all be handed over by the $130,000 recipient seems out of place in a situation where "nothing happened," so the justification by lawyer Cohen for such repeated "Property" wording is due, but so far not forthcoming.
Lawyer Cohen saying he paid out of pocket generated an interesting consequence; a claim of wilful violation of federal election law via an unreported "in kind" contribution to a campaign in excess of a spending cap. By attorney Cohen.
Why an LLC, and what business plan or prior or subsequent activity of the LLC happened, those facts attorney Cohen or someone should know, and those are arguably outside of attorney-client privilege as questions of factual things that happened or not, independent of any privileged communication between attorney and client. Other hush-money contracting, the fact of it happening or not via that or another LLC might, as in this one instance alleged by Cohen to have happened without any Trump conversation with Cohen about a six figure payment. Why pay if there's no substance to claims, that might be privileged if discussed between Trump and Cohen, but whether or not there was discussion, apart from things said, is fair game to ask.
Unusual observations not seen mentioned online elsewhere are twofold. First, p.3, Sect. 3.3 "DD shall have the right to register sole copyright in and to any of the Property with the US Copyright Office." WTF?
Second, PP and DD are each identified at the beginning of the document as individuals in the item with PP at times referenced by the pronoun "she" and with pseudonyms indicative of gender. At one part a definition is inserted for a "PP Group," separate from the individual PP. That is at p.6, Sect. 4.3.4.
In view of the totality of circumstances being reported about the situation, it is curious to see p.6, Sect. 4.3(b) the wording, "[...] and/or it is believed that any of PP, whether directly or indirectly, intends the release, use, display, [...] of any of the Property, then DD and his counsel shall be entitled to, at DD's sole discretion, (i) contact the respective member of PP, including with legal demands and related statements [...] and/or (ii) advance a civil action against the respective member of PP, [...]."
Well, that is not "PP Group" but PP, the individual, and there is no contract mention of any respective member of DD while it appears all dispute hinges on a question of whether respective members of the two individuals were brought together in a first instance. In a civil action or otherwise with rancor, and moreover, the exact wording, in the larger context, "contact the respective member of PP," can bring an image to one's mind if one has that kind of mind. Were I writing it, "affiliated person," or such wording besides "member" would have suggested itself as less provocative a word choice; together with being careful about PP and "PP Group," differentiation.
And adding ambiguity, the right mentioned is one "of DD and his counsel to contact the respective member of PP" - that is what the document says. Odd.
That's all I have to add, so let the press press on.
____________UPDATE_____________
WaPo flavors the dish. The dish itself is too salty.
To believe: Things were so hushed Trump heard not a whisper; Cohen being out $130,000 and still "Trump's lawyer." Clients who, ostensibly, hang the lawyer out for six figures usually get dropped from a client list. But for some, chrisma must reduce a seasoned contract negotiator to apprentice-like acceptance. Else, how wouuld you explain it?
A thousand words.
Tuesday, March 27, 2018
Creatures who gravitate to the deep beltway state do not belong in Congress. They should not lobby either. They should become jobless and homeless. This means you Paulsen. You Lewis. Strib: subheadline,"In Minnesota, neither Paulsen nor neighboring Republican Rep. Jason Lewis have attended a town hall gathering in more than a year — or in Paulsen's case, years. "
Vote'em out, CD2 and CD3 folks. It would do yourselves a favor, with more responsive progressive people standing ready; DFL, of course.
Strib, local content, here. Not a wire service carry. In part:
How is that for a thank-you-and-vote-me-again-you-mean-so-much? Like a middle finger salute, or not? Voters, please disinfect both Congressional seats. Vote in new faces, new ideas, and let that pair figure whehter they've each a fully vested federal pension, or not.
Robocalls are for robots. Are you one? Or a human expecting interaction and respect?
UPDATE: To a major extent, Lewis skates. Paulsen gets the brunt of "coverage," while there is little cause to excuse Lewis, or to presume his robocalls somehow are purer. Voters - disinfect both seats. Put in new faces and let that pair robo on down the road. The term "public servant" has not lost its meaning, it only is ignored by those having more chutzpah than good sense.
___________RAW UPDATE___________
What is raw, the town hall snub, years of town hall no shows; callous robo-humbug treatment to district voters; but in town in tow to the Pence of The United States for a smiling dog and pony extravaganza.
If registered in advance you have the opportunity to attend the convention center for a propaganda fest; spiel delivered with schmaltz, the same Tax Cut to Put America First propaganda spieled nationwide, on tour like a rock band, but of course not entailing any two-way interaction whatsoever --- except for the big wallet old suburban white guys showing up for the day-earlier fundraiser.
Strib-
[emphasis added]
Get that. Go figure.
Just think, at that dog-and-pony convention-center touring show they might even shoot "Great Again" caps from an air cannon; or a few "America First" tee shirts that way, with a vending stand in the lobby for those not getting one of the seven sealed and air cannon delivered crowd giveaways.
Reasonably priced at the vending stand, say perhaps nineteen-fifty for the tee shirt; twenty-seven bucks for the cap, and to take a selfie - you and your Rep, two hundred bucks, with Pence, five hundred.
They are Republicans. Business before pleasure. Before the pleasure of voter interaction at a festive town hall show-up, at a venue absent vending booths and canned spiel, town hall questions taken. Business keeps them in DC, unfortunately, except for a little dog/pony shakedown stuff - fund raising in the 'burbs - with the Veep, lead singer. But town halls? Too busy.
And the day after the tour hit and lit up the convention center, Your Rep, just like Pence, he's gone.
There you are, left with your tie-dyed Tax Cut to Put America First Tour tee shirt, a memory, your ticket stub. You can frame it.
FURTHER: Thinking about this post, earlier, two links were there which as best as I know do not apply. One more than the other should not have been posted, both have been removed. They were to songs I enjoy, but the lyrics of one suggested language exceeding disagreement with their tax policy and actions, who it was passed to benefit, and the criticism remains over how they robo-townhall because it is not the work of going into the district to face people and questions. It is staying insular while only really talking to other beltway types, staff and officials, and getting too narrow and wrong a feedback. Then, they come like rock stars for a one day thing, which is propaganda, and move back. It is not dishonest, but disdainful. That said, the music links arguably went beyond that complaint.
So, in killing the links the last update has been edited at a place or two, but still calling the pattern raw, that stays.
FURTHER: It is touring just as Dead and Company do touring and as Grateful Dead did before them. The tour organizer controls entry to the venue and you cannot get in without them, and look at the evidence - the tout of the tour:
They even call it a tour. One day and done. Barnum and Bailey stayed longer. The top screenshot item, at the website but not on the screencapture, the arrow is a link, calling it a tour; and linking in turn to "the Vice President's full remarks." If you reckon the Minnesota full remarks will differ much from the Georgia full remarks, you just might be guessing wrongly. The rock bands seldom except by error alter the lyrics of the song, while touring.
Well, I had a bit of a problem with that Georgia one, but say scroll down a bit further to the "Hawkeye State" tout, and watch a video. Or as much of it as you can stomach.
Ditto, MoTown. But there they post to YouTube. Ohio goes to a BOX load, "Granite State" goes like Georgia.
You'd think that with all that fueling and flying of Air Force Two, the cost of that, renting the venues, that they'd webmaster better, but, they are Republicans so cut them some eptitude slack.
Finally, given it's the Vice President, the Secret Service as the back-up band, this will not work at the Convention Center.
No miracle. Different fan base. Deader heads. Saying that, I would not say deplorables (aside from the speakers).
Strib, local content, here. Not a wire service carry. In part:
WASHINGTON – It’s been years since U.S. Rep. Erik Paulsen held a town hall meeting, in a hall, in a town in his district. Instead, every few weeks or months, he phones home.
[...] Anyone with questions for their congressman, he said, could hit *3 and hold, please.
Using numbers provided by an outside contractor, Paulsen’s office dials as many as 50,000 households in his district at a time. Anyone who picks up the phone is given an invitation, a conference call code and a toll-free number to call within the next hour. The calls cycle among communities in the Third District, an affluent suburban crescent wrapped around the western Twin Cities metro. [...]
Many members of Congress have grown wary of town halls, where they risk on-camera confrontations with angry constituents, [...]
Their Minnesota GOP colleague, Rep. Tom Emmer, held a high-profile town hall in Stearns County in February 2017 but has held nothing like it since, though Emmer did frequently hold town halls around his district in 2015 and 2016.
Democratic members of Congress from Minnesota have held such gatherings more frequently since the beginning of 2017, though some adopt different formats. Some, like Reps. Rick Nolan and Keith Ellison, have convened issue-specific forums. [...]
Last year, the Washington Post estimated that just 40 percent of congressional Democrats and 18 percent of Republicans held town halls during the long August recess, and those who did sometimes encountered atmospheres more like protest rallies than community forums.
But Paulsen’s refusal to hold a traditional town hall has been a source of intense frustration for some critics in his district, one of just a few Republican-held congressional districts in the nation that Hillary Clinton carried. Protesters have picketed on bridges with lighted “Town Hall Now” signs and staged a town hall of their own with hundreds of people in the audience but no congressman at the podium. The group Indivisible MN03 collects, transcribes and posts Paulsen “robocalls” on YouTube.
“The calls come entirely by surprise,” said Bunday, a longtime Republican who voted for Paulsen in every election until 2016, when he broke from the party over Donald Trump. “We’d really like to have a meeting with Rep. Paulsen — we’re talking an in-person town hall. An actual town hall.”
Mia Olson of Bloomington picked up the ringing phone by chance — nothing on the caller ID, she said, indicated that it was an incoming call from a congressional office. She dialed in to the call, punched in the code she’d been given and hit *3 to ask her question. At the end of the call, Paulsen told those still waiting to stay on the line. They would be sent to a voice mailbox, he said, and either he or a staffer would get back to them.
“I waited on the line for 45 minutes and was disconnected,” she said. “I would like him to look me in the eyes and answer the question.”
How is that for a thank-you-and-vote-me-again-you-mean-so-much? Like a middle finger salute, or not? Voters, please disinfect both Congressional seats. Vote in new faces, new ideas, and let that pair figure whehter they've each a fully vested federal pension, or not.
Robocalls are for robots. Are you one? Or a human expecting interaction and respect?
UPDATE: To a major extent, Lewis skates. Paulsen gets the brunt of "coverage," while there is little cause to excuse Lewis, or to presume his robocalls somehow are purer. Voters - disinfect both seats. Put in new faces and let that pair robo on down the road. The term "public servant" has not lost its meaning, it only is ignored by those having more chutzpah than good sense.
___________RAW UPDATE___________
What is raw, the town hall snub, years of town hall no shows; callous robo-humbug treatment to district voters; but in town in tow to the Pence of The United States for a smiling dog and pony extravaganza.
If registered in advance you have the opportunity to attend the convention center for a propaganda fest; spiel delivered with schmaltz, the same Tax Cut to Put America First propaganda spieled nationwide, on tour like a rock band, but of course not entailing any two-way interaction whatsoever --- except for the big wallet old suburban white guys showing up for the day-earlier fundraiser.
Strib-
Vice President Mike Pence is spending a night in Minnesota where he will raise money for Republicans ahead of a Wednesday morning rally in Minneapolis aimed at spreading the GOP’s campaign message.
“On our way to talk about the Trump tax cuts: The American economy is booming under @POTUS Trump — and we’re just getting started,” Pence said on Twitter en route from North Dakota, where he appeared on Tuesday.
Pence was scheduled to arrive around 5:30 p.m. on Tuesday and travel to a fundraiser in Golden Valley, which was not open to the press.
Pence will deliver remarks Wednesday morning at an event called “Tax Cuts to Put America First,” at the Minneapolis Convention Center at 9:30. Republican U.S. Reps. Erik Paulsen, Tom Emmer and Jason Lewis were scheduled to participate.
[...] They are also likely to enjoy a campaign cash advantage that Pence will add to during his time here.
[emphasis added]
Get that. Go figure.
Just think, at that dog-and-pony convention-center touring show they might even shoot "Great Again" caps from an air cannon; or a few "America First" tee shirts that way, with a vending stand in the lobby for those not getting one of the seven sealed and air cannon delivered crowd giveaways.
Reasonably priced at the vending stand, say perhaps nineteen-fifty for the tee shirt; twenty-seven bucks for the cap, and to take a selfie - you and your Rep, two hundred bucks, with Pence, five hundred.
They are Republicans. Business before pleasure. Before the pleasure of voter interaction at a festive town hall show-up, at a venue absent vending booths and canned spiel, town hall questions taken. Business keeps them in DC, unfortunately, except for a little dog/pony shakedown stuff - fund raising in the 'burbs - with the Veep, lead singer. But town halls? Too busy.
And the day after the tour hit and lit up the convention center, Your Rep, just like Pence, he's gone.
There you are, left with your tie-dyed Tax Cut to Put America First Tour tee shirt, a memory, your ticket stub. You can frame it.
FURTHER: Thinking about this post, earlier, two links were there which as best as I know do not apply. One more than the other should not have been posted, both have been removed. They were to songs I enjoy, but the lyrics of one suggested language exceeding disagreement with their tax policy and actions, who it was passed to benefit, and the criticism remains over how they robo-townhall because it is not the work of going into the district to face people and questions. It is staying insular while only really talking to other beltway types, staff and officials, and getting too narrow and wrong a feedback. Then, they come like rock stars for a one day thing, which is propaganda, and move back. It is not dishonest, but disdainful. That said, the music links arguably went beyond that complaint.
So, in killing the links the last update has been edited at a place or two, but still calling the pattern raw, that stays.
FURTHER: It is touring just as Dead and Company do touring and as Grateful Dead did before them. The tour organizer controls entry to the venue and you cannot get in without them, and look at the evidence - the tout of the tour:
They even call it a tour. One day and done. Barnum and Bailey stayed longer. The top screenshot item, at the website but not on the screencapture, the arrow is a link, calling it a tour; and linking in turn to "the Vice President's full remarks." If you reckon the Minnesota full remarks will differ much from the Georgia full remarks, you just might be guessing wrongly. The rock bands seldom except by error alter the lyrics of the song, while touring.
Well, I had a bit of a problem with that Georgia one, but say scroll down a bit further to the "Hawkeye State" tout, and watch a video. Or as much of it as you can stomach.
Ditto, MoTown. But there they post to YouTube. Ohio goes to a BOX load, "Granite State" goes like Georgia.
You'd think that with all that fueling and flying of Air Force Two, the cost of that, renting the venues, that they'd webmaster better, but, they are Republicans so cut them some eptitude slack.
Finally, given it's the Vice President, the Secret Service as the back-up band, this will not work at the Convention Center.
No miracle. Different fan base. Deader heads. Saying that, I would not say deplorables (aside from the speakers).
Saturday, March 24, 2018
In receiving an unsolicited email from "Democrats.com [info@votedem.org] Unsubscribe," why did my bullshit meter unpin from zero and move quite far upscale? A/k/a astroturf is NOT grassroots.
Note the two designations: Democrats.com and votedem.org. Strange to me, if not to you.
Right-click the "Unsubscribe" "link" on the opening line, no option to open it in another tab. Curious. As with other suspect stuff, next curiosity-inspired step: right click the email, view source. Intentional gobbledygook, not ordered readable code. More - much more movement of the bullshit meter into the red zone.
At the start of the unsolicited email,"If you are having trouble viewing this message or would like to share it on a social network, you can view the message online." The italicized part was a link:
votedem.org/mail/util.cfm?gpiv=2100147632.2883448.157&gen=1
Similarly at the email end, a "If you are having trouble, click here." That includes the same link with the same tracking information:
votedem.org/mail/util.cfm?gpiv=2100147632.2883448.157&gen=1
So now it again is the pairing, "Democrats.com" and "votedem.org," so wtf is getting my email from somebody's list, somewhere?
Privacy matters.
Next, do a whois:
So, hiding identity. Bullshit meter full pinned, red zone. Who are these people? That question is worth a whois of the other name, expectation fully met:
NEXT STEP:
The email has a link, "please join our Facebook community," linking:
http://votedem.org/mail/util.cfm?mailaction=clickthru&gpiv=2100147632.2883448.157&gen=1&mailing_linkid=1304
NOTE: THE SAME TRACKING CODE SUFFIX; SUPPLEMENTED.
Typing only "votedem.org" into the websearch URL browser box, rotors to:
http://democrats.com/pledge-2018/ -- again the paired link, and an info solicitation.
NEXT STEP:
With script blocking on, look at: https://www.democrats.com/ --- not by that above link with the tracking code, but by typing the clean "democrats.com" into the browser's URL box.
There is a lead item, with a "read more" link, the item titled:
"Elizabeth Warren’s Health Care Fix - March 23 - By Krista Carothers."
There is a footer:
[links as in original] Dead links, key founders, wtf again. Sloppy. Two faceless beltway consultants, still there? Moved on?
And that "Democratic Party" link, guess, it is: http://democrats.org/
Hey, something there looks familiar.
Doing a whois:
Real whois info, Organization: DNC (hello, Tom Perez), but not hiding behind an anonymity provider/registrar. For one of the Democratic Party's actual websites.
Now back to that "Elizabeth Warren" item, written by a Krista Carothers, whoever she is, no bio link info provided; http://democrats.com/elizabeth-warrens-health-care-fix/
It is clear the item touts patching Obamacare and not moving directly and immediately to single payer:
[link in original]
Fuck 'em. Apologists for that bogus "improve Romneycare/Obamacare" approach, the Pelosi position, incrementalism that keeps limping on with the insurance privateers fat and happy through endless delay in "upgrading, redux." Those appeasers can go suck eggs.
If you follow that House bill link in the quote it leads to a *.pdf document with URL:
https://democrats-energycommerce.house.gov/[...] indicating the bill text is on a legit government site, Democrats side. Then at least scan read the thing -
The text says nothing whatsoever about single payer, not anywhere in the damned thing.
These are appeasers and will, if you get "subscribed," solicit your money away from true supporters of single payer; whereas if you find a candidate you like who is for single payer, and contribute to that candidacy directly, you are bypassing the insurance company appeasers and doing good.
Pay attention to who really has your back and to who's helping the insurance privateers pile up money on a continuing strung-out never-ending basis, coming at you from your back.
And if you got a similar or the same email, mark it as spam. DO NOT check the gmail option mark it as spam and unsubscribe, as I incorrectly did. If you do that the spam email is deleted, so you no longer have the evidence it was sent you. I screwed up. Deleted my proof, where the belief was that the gmail check boxes would not do so. If you have the thing in your inbox, please forward it to me via the email address given in the sidebar, for archive purposes.
___________UPDATE__________
Bob Fertik is affiliated with Credo Action; the petition house, see, e.g. here:
A whois for credoaction.com:
That street address, phone, and email credodomains.credomobile.com relate to a web access bay area services provider; see critique, here.
In fairness to Fertik, that latter cited critique's author, Spandan Chakrabarti, also posted pro-Clinton, and pro-Howard Dean stuff while also being anti-Bernie and anti-Jill Stein; e.g., here, here, and a hitpiece, here. What we know apart from direct personal contacts in our lives is what we read; and the effort to link Bernie to Manafort via the person, Tad Devine, seems unique to the writing of that one Clinton-Dean advocate:
[links omitted - go to the original for that]. However, policies Bernie and Stein advocated, judged as articulated by them and as supported by the nurses among others, are patently fair and proper, and stand on their own as aims worth having. The critical author, Chakrabarti, offers no defense of money changers, insurance companies and hospital and HMO administrators, standing between people and doctors.
The thought that Bernie's motivation is never above challenge, that's fine, but the evidence known publicly seems scant. Read the stuff, noting the scant mention of Tad Devine in linked "evidence" offered by this Spandan Chakrabarti person, and decide. What would be helpful is a date on this item, (likely 2009 from sidebar dates), stating a less than favorable picture of beltway consultant greed vs loyalties (Tad Devine mentioned):
If there is money on the table the pattern is they take it, and if the Russians put money on the table, who is to say what is a best guess?
One thing worth noting, the site at which Spandan Chakrabarti posts is, itself, registered via a leading anonymity provider - per a whois:
BOTTOM LINE: If the Mueller investigators were to look at Tad Devine, fine, if not, fine too. But back to the start of this post; I got an email from some beltway insider's tied-in operation, working whatever levers showed up on inquiry, and his consultancy business plan and prospects are unknown to me. But the investigation of who emails me political stuff might interest readers and was posted. Why I should place one iota of trust in Bob Fertik is not apparent to me. His operation's Warren related "news" furthering the effort to push "improving" Obamacare over single payer now seems in bed with bad policy to me, and how exactly he got my email is unclear.
The message, again, find individual candidates you believe legit and well motivated, with a chance to win, and contribute directly, not via DNC, DCCC, Emily's List, nor Credo this, nor Credo that. It's smarter doing that. But your money, spend it as you want.
Right-click the "Unsubscribe" "link" on the opening line, no option to open it in another tab. Curious. As with other suspect stuff, next curiosity-inspired step: right click the email, view source. Intentional gobbledygook, not ordered readable code. More - much more movement of the bullshit meter into the red zone.
At the start of the unsolicited email,"If you are having trouble viewing this message or would like to share it on a social network, you can view the message online." The italicized part was a link:
votedem.org/mail/util.cfm?gpiv=2100147632.2883448.157&gen=1
Similarly at the email end, a "If you are having trouble, click here." That includes the same link with the same tracking information:
votedem.org/mail/util.cfm?gpiv=2100147632.2883448.157&gen=1
So now it again is the pairing, "Democrats.com" and "votedem.org," so wtf is getting my email from somebody's list, somewhere?
Privacy matters.
Next, do a whois:
Showing results for: VOTEDEM.ORG
Original Query: votedem.org
Contact Information
Registrant Contact
Name: PERFECT PRIVACY, LLC
Organization:
Mailing Address: 12808 Gran Bay Parkway West, Jacksonville FL 32258 US
Phone: +1.5707088780
Ext:
Fax:
Fax Ext:
Email:yx3h29zh3zv@nameprivacy.com
Admin Contact
Name: PERFECT PRIVACY, LLC
Organization:
Mailing Address: 12808 Gran Bay Parkway West, Jacksonville FL 32258 US
Phone: +1.5707088780
Ext:
Fax:
Fax Ext:
Email:yx3h29zh3zv@nameprivacy.com
Tech Contact
Name: PERFECT PRIVACY, LLC
Organization:
Mailing Address: ATTN:, Herndon VA 20171-430 US
Phone: +1.5707088782
Ext:
Fax: +1.8886429675
Fax Ext:
Email:b645f3g64n7@nameprivacy.com
Registrar
WHOIS Server: whois.web.com
URL: www.namesecure.com
Registrar: NameSecure L.L.C.
IANA ID: 30
Abuse Contact Email:abuse@web.com
Abuse Contact Phone: +1.8003337680
[...]
Raw WHOIS Record
Domain Name: VOTEDEM.ORG
Registry Domain ID: D160085439-LROR
Registrar WHOIS Server: whois.web.com
Registrar URL: www.namesecure.com
Updated Date: 2018-03-08T20:04:38Z
Creation Date: 2010-09-07T14:23:35Z
Registry Expiry Date: 2018-09-07T14:23:35Z
Registrar Registration Expiration Date:
Registrar: NameSecure L.L.C.
Registrar IANA ID: 30
Registrar Abuse Contact Email: abuse@web.com
Registrar Abuse Contact Phone: +1.8003337680
So, hiding identity. Bullshit meter full pinned, red zone. Who are these people? That question is worth a whois of the other name, expectation fully met:
Showing results for: DEMOCRATS.COM
Original Query: democrats.com
Contact Information
Registrant Contact
Name: PERFECT PRIVACY, LLC
Organization:
Mailing Address: 12808 Gran Bay Parkway West, Jacksonville FL 32258 US
Phone: +1.5707088780
Ext:
Fax:
Fax Ext:
Email:ps9268yr6ju@networksolutionsprivateregistration.com
Admin Contact
Name: PERFECT PRIVACY, LLC
Organization:
Mailing Address: 12808 Gran Bay Parkway West, Jacksonville FL 32258 US
Phone: +1.5707088780
Ext:
Fax:
Fax Ext:
Email:ps9268yr6ju@networksolutionsprivateregistration.com
Tech Contact
Name: PERFECT PRIVACY, LLC
Organization:
Mailing Address: 12808 Gran Bay Parkway West, Jacksonville FL 32258 US
Phone: +1.5707088780
Ext:
Fax:
Fax Ext:
Email:e994y4t7862@networksolutionsprivateregistration.com
NEXT STEP:
The email has a link, "please join our Facebook community," linking:
http://votedem.org/mail/util.cfm?mailaction=clickthru&gpiv=2100147632.2883448.157&gen=1&mailing_linkid=1304
NOTE: THE SAME TRACKING CODE SUFFIX; SUPPLEMENTED.
Typing only "votedem.org" into the websearch URL browser box, rotors to:
http://democrats.com/pledge-2018/ -- again the paired link, and an info solicitation.
NEXT STEP:
With script blocking on, look at: https://www.democrats.com/ --- not by that above link with the tracking code, but by typing the clean "democrats.com" into the browser's URL box.
There is a lead item, with a "read more" link, the item titled:
"Elizabeth Warren’s Health Care Fix - March 23 - By Krista Carothers."
There is a footer:
About Democrats.com
Democrats.com is the oldest and largest online community of Democratic Party and progressive activists, with over 2 million subscribers.
We are funded entirely by progressive partners like CREDO Mobile, the only progressive phone company. We proudly support the Democratic Party and its candidates, but they do not control us in any way. (1)
Democrats.com was launched at the 2000 Democratic convention in Los Angeles by two veteran Democratic consultants Bob Fertik and David Lytel. Our vision was to create the leading news and community Web site for the progressive base of the Democratic Party, in order to lead the fight against the radical right and the Republican Party led by George Bush and Dick Cheney. We called ourselves the “Aggressive Progressives.”
[links as in original] Dead links, key founders, wtf again. Sloppy. Two faceless beltway consultants, still there? Moved on?
And that "Democratic Party" link, guess, it is: http://democrats.org/
Hey, something there looks familiar.
Doing a whois:
Showing results for: DEMOCRATS.ORG
Original Query: democrats.org
Contact Information
Registrant Contact
Name: Democratic Committee
Organization: Democratic National Committee
Mailing Address: 430 South Capitol Street, S.E., Washington DC 20003 US
Phone: +1.2028638000
Ext:
Fax: +1.2024885017
Fax Ext:
Email:webmaster@DEMOCRATS.ORG
Admin Contact
Name: DNC Hostmaster
Organization: Democratic National Committee
Mailing Address: 430 S. Capitol St. SE, Washington DC 20003 US
Phone: +1.2028638000
Ext:
Fax: +1.2024885017
Fax Ext:
Email:hostmaster@democrats.org
Tech Contact
Name: DNC Hostmaster
Organization: Democratic National Committee
Mailing Address: 430 S. Capitol St. SE, Washington DC 20003 US
Phone: +1.2028638000
Ext:
Fax: +1.2024885017
Fax Ext:
Email:hostmaster@democrats.org
Real whois info, Organization: DNC (hello, Tom Perez), but not hiding behind an anonymity provider/registrar. For one of the Democratic Party's actual websites.
Now back to that "Elizabeth Warren" item, written by a Krista Carothers, whoever she is, no bio link info provided; http://democrats.com/elizabeth-warrens-health-care-fix/
It is clear the item touts patching Obamacare and not moving directly and immediately to single payer:
This week, Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren returned focus to the issue that continues to differentiate the parties in the minds of voters by introducing a new bill to update and protect the Affordable Care Act (ACA).
[...] A similar bill was introduced in the House a couple of weeks ago by Democrats Frank Pallone (NJ-6), Bobby Scott (VA-3), and Richard Neal (MA-1), called the Undo Sabotage and Expand Affordability of Health Insurance Act of 2018. That version would expand eligibility for premium tax credits to consumers who earn above the current cutoff of 400 percent of the federal poverty level, and it would increase the size of the tax credits.
Although the bills have almost no chance of passing the Republican-controlled Congress this year, they do give Democrats running in 2018 races some solid, realistic health care proposals to latch onto that don’t require them to commit to the politically risky idea of moving to single-payer coverage just yet. American voters definitely seem ready to shore up the current system, and liberal Democrats appear to think that once consumers get a taste of an even better health insurance marketplace they’ll want to make the move to single-payer.
[link in original]
Fuck 'em. Apologists for that bogus "improve Romneycare/Obamacare" approach, the Pelosi position, incrementalism that keeps limping on with the insurance privateers fat and happy through endless delay in "upgrading, redux." Those appeasers can go suck eggs.
If you follow that House bill link in the quote it leads to a *.pdf document with URL:
https://democrats-energycommerce.house.gov/[...] indicating the bill text is on a legit government site, Democrats side. Then at least scan read the thing -
The text says nothing whatsoever about single payer, not anywhere in the damned thing.
These are appeasers and will, if you get "subscribed," solicit your money away from true supporters of single payer; whereas if you find a candidate you like who is for single payer, and contribute to that candidacy directly, you are bypassing the insurance company appeasers and doing good.
Pay attention to who really has your back and to who's helping the insurance privateers pile up money on a continuing strung-out never-ending basis, coming at you from your back.
And if you got a similar or the same email, mark it as spam. DO NOT check the gmail option mark it as spam and unsubscribe, as I incorrectly did. If you do that the spam email is deleted, so you no longer have the evidence it was sent you. I screwed up. Deleted my proof, where the belief was that the gmail check boxes would not do so. If you have the thing in your inbox, please forward it to me via the email address given in the sidebar, for archive purposes.
___________UPDATE__________
Bob Fertik is affiliated with Credo Action; the petition house, see, e.g. here:
One group, Credo Action, said Monday that it had garnered more than 160,000 signatures since Thursday night opposing the plans of Mr. Schumer, one of the most influential Jewish lawmakers in Congress.
“Tell Sen. Schumer: Don’t lead Senate Democrats into war with Iran,” spokesman Bob Fertik urged activists in an email.
A whois for credoaction.com:
Showing results for: CREDOACTION.COM
Original Query: credoaction.com
Contact Information
Registrant Contact
Name: WORKING ASSETS
Organization: WORKING ASSETS
Mailing Address: 101 MARKET ST STE 700 STE 700, SAN FRANCISCO CA 94105-1530 US
Phone: +1.4153692000
Ext:
Fax: +1.4153711047
Fax Ext:
Email:credodomains@credomobile.com
Admin Contact
Name: Team, IT Operations
Organization: Working Assets
Mailing Address: 101 MARKET ST STE 700 STE 700, San Francisco CA 94105-1530 US
Phone: +1.4153692000
Ext:
Fax:
Fax Ext:
Email:credodomains@credomobile.com
Tech Contact
Name: Team, IT Operations
Organization: Working Assets
Mailing Address: 101 MARKET ST STE 700 STE 700, San Francisco CA 94105-1530 US
Phone: +1.4153692000
Ext:
Fax:
Fax Ext:
Email:credodomains@credomobile.com
Registrar
WHOIS Server: whois.networksolutions.com
URL: http://networksolutions.com
Registrar: NETWORK SOLUTIONS, LLC.
IANA ID: 2
Abuse Contact Email:abuse@web.com
Abuse Contact Phone: +1.8003337680
Status
Domain Status:clientTransferProhibited https://icann.org/epp#clientTransferProhibited
Important Dates
Updated Date: 2017-12-30
Created Date: 2007-09-07
Registrar Expiration Date: 2018-09-07
Name Servers
ALEC.NS.CLOUDFLARE.COM
ZOE.NS.CLOUDFLARE.COM
That street address, phone, and email credodomains.credomobile.com relate to a web access bay area services provider; see critique, here.
In fairness to Fertik, that latter cited critique's author, Spandan Chakrabarti, also posted pro-Clinton, and pro-Howard Dean stuff while also being anti-Bernie and anti-Jill Stein; e.g., here, here, and a hitpiece, here. What we know apart from direct personal contacts in our lives is what we read; and the effort to link Bernie to Manafort via the person, Tad Devine, seems unique to the writing of that one Clinton-Dean advocate:
Already, we know that Jill Stein was present and accounted for at the same table as Michael Flynn and Vladimir Putin in an event honoring Russian propaganda network RT. We also know that RT lavished praise on and served as essentially a campaign mouthpiece for Jill Stein, and to a lesser degree, for Bernie Sanders in their zeal to take down Hillary Clinton. As if the dots weren't already connecting themselves, in the middle of that very campaign - about seven months after the propaganda dinner - Stein openly offered to step aside if Sanders would agree to take the top spot on the Green Party ticket.
Last month, the Senate Judiciary Committee became interested in communications between Stein and Donald Trump Jr., the Trump spawn who met with a Russian lawyer salivating over promised Russian dirt on Hillary Clinton. If the Senate Judiciary Committee is looking into this, chances are Mueller is a few steps ahead already.
Bernie Sanders is hardly even one step removed from Stein, given the aforementioned political love affair and Trump's own crocodile tears for Bernie during the campaign. Bernie bears his own gifts for Putin, though, being one of a lone pair of Senators to have voted against sanctions on Russia. Sanders also hired as his chief strategist during the campaign Tad Devine, a close associate of Paul Manafort's. Among Manafort's numerous connections to the Kremlin is his work for corrupt and pro-Russian Ukrainian politician Victor Yanukovych in the immediate aftermath of Barack Obama's election to the US presidency. None other than one Tad Devine was Manafort's close confidant in that effort. Evidently the two pro-Kremlin American political consultants grew so close that Devine made direct contacts with Manafort during the 2016 campaign in an attempt to set up a Trump-Sanders debate. Yanukovych is currently exiled in Russia and wanted in Ukraine for high treason.
It is entirely possible that both Stein and Sanders received positive Russian press and in one way or another worked to benefit completely coincidentally. [...]
[links omitted - go to the original for that]. However, policies Bernie and Stein advocated, judged as articulated by them and as supported by the nurses among others, are patently fair and proper, and stand on their own as aims worth having. The critical author, Chakrabarti, offers no defense of money changers, insurance companies and hospital and HMO administrators, standing between people and doctors.
The thought that Bernie's motivation is never above challenge, that's fine, but the evidence known publicly seems scant. Read the stuff, noting the scant mention of Tad Devine in linked "evidence" offered by this Spandan Chakrabarti person, and decide. What would be helpful is a date on this item, (likely 2009 from sidebar dates), stating a less than favorable picture of beltway consultant greed vs loyalties (Tad Devine mentioned):
In Kiev and Kharkiv and other cities in Ukraine, American political consultants who worked against one another in Iowa and New Hampshire and then in the general election are facing off again in a somewhat surreal Eastern European replay of the 2008 campaign.
The firm headed by Hillary Clinton’s former chief strategist, Mark Penn, is helping run incumbent President Victor Yushchenko’s campaign. Meanwhile Paul Manafort, whose firm worked on Republican John McCain’s losing effort, and Tad Devine, a top strategist on the Democratic presidential campaigns of Al Gore in 2000 and John Kerry in 2004, are consulting for Victor Yanukovych, the pro-Russian frontrunner in the polls.
For Penn, Manafort and Devine, foreign elections have been a lucrative source of business for years. But for the Chicago-based media consulting firm AKPD, the contract to help guide Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko’s campaign is part of a new, growth area of business that presented itself after the firm helped Barack Obama win the White House last fall.
Also assisting Tymoshenko is John Anzalone, a pollster who worked on the Obama campaign. And Obama's lead pollster in the campaign, Joel Benenson, also worked briefly in Ukraine this year, helping supporters of a rival presidential candidate, former Parliament speaker Arseniy Yatsenyuk, who courted comparisons with Obama (and whose billboards bear a faint resemblance to the iconic posters of Obama by Shepard Fairey).
The Ukraine race is hardly the only international opportunity available for consultants who had a hand in the Obama campaign. Since Obama's historic election in November, AKPD and Benenson Strategy Group alone have advised candidates or parties in Argentina, Bulgaria, Romania, Israel and Britain and have turned down offers to work in many more countries around the globe.
The attraction is easy to understand. Foreign campaigns typically pay more than domestic ones do, and they are lower risks for consultants coming off the image-enhancing boost of a presidential campaign, according to James Carville, the former Clinton strategist and talking head, who has worked for candidates in more than 20 countries, including Afghanistan (where he worked this year on Ashraf Ghani’s second-tier presidential campaign along with Devine’s firm).
“If you help elect a president and then you get involved in a governor’s race and you lose, it’s going to be a little bit damaging to your reputation,” he said. “But if you go to Peru and you run a presidential race and you lose, no one knows or cares. So why go to New Jersey and lose for 100 grand when you [can] go to Peru and lose for a million?”
If there is money on the table the pattern is they take it, and if the Russians put money on the table, who is to say what is a best guess?
One thing worth noting, the site at which Spandan Chakrabarti posts is, itself, registered via a leading anonymity provider - per a whois:
Showing results for: THEPEOPLESVIEW.NET
Original Query: thepeoplesview.net
Contact Information
Registrant Contact
Name: Registration Private
Organization: Domains By Proxy, LLC
Mailing Address: DomainsByProxy.com, Scottsdale Arizona 85260 US
Phone: +1.4806242599
Ext:
Fax: +1.4806242598
Fax Ext:
Email:THEPEOPLESVIEW.NET@domainsbyproxy.com
Admin Contact
Name: Registration Private
Organization: Domains By Proxy, LLC
Mailing Address: DomainsByProxy.com, Scottsdale Arizona 85260 US
Phone: +1.4806242599
Ext:
Fax: +1.4806242598
Fax Ext:
Email:THEPEOPLESVIEW.NET@domainsbyproxy.com
Tech Contact
Name: Registration Private
Organization: Domains By Proxy, LLC
Mailing Address: DomainsByProxy.com, Scottsdale Arizona 85260 US
Phone: +1.4806242599
Ext:
Fax: +1.4806242598
Fax Ext:
Email:THEPEOPLESVIEW.NET@domainsbyproxy.com
BOTTOM LINE: If the Mueller investigators were to look at Tad Devine, fine, if not, fine too. But back to the start of this post; I got an email from some beltway insider's tied-in operation, working whatever levers showed up on inquiry, and his consultancy business plan and prospects are unknown to me. But the investigation of who emails me political stuff might interest readers and was posted. Why I should place one iota of trust in Bob Fertik is not apparent to me. His operation's Warren related "news" furthering the effort to push "improving" Obamacare over single payer now seems in bed with bad policy to me, and how exactly he got my email is unclear.
The message, again, find individual candidates you believe legit and well motivated, with a chance to win, and contribute directly, not via DNC, DCCC, Emily's List, nor Credo this, nor Credo that. It's smarter doing that. But your money, spend it as you want.
"But no one on the left with money seems to want to do anything except make contributions to Democratic candidates that go into worthless TV ads that only make Democratic consultants rich."
The headline is a paragraph from a HuffPo post. Read it. There are points that merit debate, but not in this post. And as reading will show, the man's "left" is not the progressive end of the spectrum. That said, think of the one Angie Craig 2016 30 sec candidate focus ad (on YouTube; "Start") mentioned previously, and think of the Hillary convention balloon drop, clearly something coordinated by well compensated consultants. Possibly the same ones who did the Craig item. More likely; Podesta delegated some of the balloon drop responsibility, the number of balloons, etc., but timing of the drop and the false-smile staging and open-mouthed awe at a balloon drop which the candidate was made to practice time and again before the drop so as to look coached but absolutely insincere, that probably was straight Podesta wisdom, for the ages. She gave some kind of speech, memorable to some possibly, stronger together being perhaps a theme, at least getting a mention, those exact words.
Craig's 2016'er, the slow motion walk, the frozen mechanical smile, that galling background music, 30 sec of pure hell. Not that the Republicans did better, not so, check it out.
As if done by two teams from different corners of the same DC flak shop.
A learning curve; enough of one? You decide. Same fucking bothersome background cocktail lounge piano player's tune and mood! Same damned staged talking rate vs how the candidate voiced herself in candidate forum sessions between her and Jeff Erdmann -- Without a lounge piano player!
Angie - THINK. At least the no makeup and face-the-camera casually dressed and explain policy thinking worked; but who scripted things differently than at the forum? Ditch the piano, talk normally instead of "voicing," and show passion for what you are saying.
Then -- Write it yourself and say it your way.
Last thought: on the Republican side, that dreadful thing, at least they did not insert a Nancy Pelosi image. Or did they and I missed it? The point is that Democrats need not put themselves forward as being or appearing to be as shallow and idea deprived as Republicans. After all, they are not.
Somebody should pass a law: No background music of any kind in any political ad, be it positive or negative in theme. Words alone must carry it. Make it: One small step for a candidate; one giant step for the voting public.
(Not that "Stronger Together" will be a chosen tune again.)
______________UPDATE______________
The longer newer Craig item is by far superior over the earlier shorter production. That has to be clearly noted. But lounge piano music remains an issue? Tom Waits. Accompanying image arrangement done by a DC consultancy shop. Any questions?
________FURTHER UPDATE_________
Watching the 2+ minute newer Craig production - The closing two sentences. "Let's build a Minnesota for all of us. TOGETHER, I know we can." Why not, "Let's build a Minnesota for all of us. We can." Just saying that an emphasis on "Together," with a pause, it is reminiscent of failed wording. Also, start with what you'd do, then how the background shaped the understanding. The message is what you intend if elected, what you'd do to improve things, not how you became who you are. Personalizing the understanding should follow saying what the understanding is.
Craig's 2016'er, the slow motion walk, the frozen mechanical smile, that galling background music, 30 sec of pure hell. Not that the Republicans did better, not so, check it out.
As if done by two teams from different corners of the same DC flak shop.
A learning curve; enough of one? You decide. Same fucking bothersome background cocktail lounge piano player's tune and mood! Same damned staged talking rate vs how the candidate voiced herself in candidate forum sessions between her and Jeff Erdmann -- Without a lounge piano player!
Angie - THINK. At least the no makeup and face-the-camera casually dressed and explain policy thinking worked; but who scripted things differently than at the forum? Ditch the piano, talk normally instead of "voicing," and show passion for what you are saying.
Then -- Write it yourself and say it your way.
Last thought: on the Republican side, that dreadful thing, at least they did not insert a Nancy Pelosi image. Or did they and I missed it? The point is that Democrats need not put themselves forward as being or appearing to be as shallow and idea deprived as Republicans. After all, they are not.
Somebody should pass a law: No background music of any kind in any political ad, be it positive or negative in theme. Words alone must carry it. Make it: One small step for a candidate; one giant step for the voting public.
(Not that "Stronger Together" will be a chosen tune again.)
______________UPDATE______________
The longer newer Craig item is by far superior over the earlier shorter production. That has to be clearly noted. But lounge piano music remains an issue? Tom Waits. Accompanying image arrangement done by a DC consultancy shop. Any questions?
________FURTHER UPDATE_________
Watching the 2+ minute newer Craig production - The closing two sentences. "Let's build a Minnesota for all of us. TOGETHER, I know we can." Why not, "Let's build a Minnesota for all of us. We can." Just saying that an emphasis on "Together," with a pause, it is reminiscent of failed wording. Also, start with what you'd do, then how the background shaped the understanding. The message is what you intend if elected, what you'd do to improve things, not how you became who you are. Personalizing the understanding should follow saying what the understanding is.
Friday, March 23, 2018
Is a slum lord lying and harassing tenants news? Real or fake? Yes and no.
Generic slum lord stuff, not news; Jarad Kurshner doing it, news to shame by example.
However, slum lords know no shame. Jarad being just one of the gang.
The bottom line is if wanting to pose as beautiful people, Ivanka and Jarad have behavioral issues. Sleaze.
However, slum lords know no shame. Jarad being just one of the gang.
The bottom line is if wanting to pose as beautiful people, Ivanka and Jarad have behavioral issues. Sleaze.