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]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)