By Brian Hanley
Bernie Sanders is officially catching fire. After delivering two
strong debate performances, the 74 year old Senator dominated nearly
every online poll that asked viewers to choose a winner of the second
Democratic contest. He now holds a commanding lead over Hillary Clinton
in the key state of New Hampshire and continues to gain momentum in
Iowa. Most recently, Sanders won the readers' poll for TIME Person of
the Year by a landslide and scored major endorsements by UFC fighter
Ronda Rousey and rapper-activist Killer Mike. This week, Sanders is on
target to shatter his most monumental record to date: hitting two
million individual, small-dollar contributions, more than any other
presidential candidate in US history.
However, you wouldn't know
that Sanders is making history if you turned on the television. Despite
the Senator's latest accomplishments, he still struggles to garner any
meaningful attention from the mainstream media. ABC World News Tonight,
for example, has allocated a mere 20 seconds to covering the Sanders
campaign, while spending over 80 minutes talking about Donald Trump.
Similarly, CBS set aside just six minutes to covering Sanders and NBC Nightly News spent less than three.
As
Trump storms his way through the primaries, Sanders, by contrast,
tiptoes. Though the Senator continues to attract massive crowds across
the country, he does so quietly, without substantial coverage from the
major networks. The question is, can any candidate, even one as popular
as Sanders, prevail with such limited press? Or will the corporate
media's obsession with Donald Trump overshadow and ultimately undermine
one of the greatest political stories of our time?
Wednesday, December 16, 2015
Tuesday, December 15, 2015
Alabama Mayor, City Councilman Beat The Shit Out Of Each Other
The mayor of Birmingham, Alabama got into a fight with a city councilman on Tuesday that sent both men to the hospital.
According to the Associated Press, local media covering a city council meeting reported hearing shouts from another room. Both Mayor William Bell and Councilman Marcus Lundy were in the room, allegedly fighting one another in a vicious physical confrontation.
Birmingham police and paramedics were called in to assess the situation. Meanwhile, Bell and Lundy’s people began blaming one another for the fight.
Councilman Marcus Lundy reportedly attacked mayor william bell at council. Paramedics are here.— John Archibald (@JohnArchibald) December 15, 2015
Witnesses say Bell and Lundy went into a back room during council meeting and "Lundy kicked his ass"— John Archibald (@JohnArchibald) December 15, 2015
Mayoral spokesperson April Odom suggested that Lundy was angry with Bell since he had to return a city vehicle he’d been using. (Local law prohibits councilmen and women from having municipal vehicles.) During a subsequent press conference overseen by the city council, Council President Johnathan Austin insisted Bell was to blame since he was apparently trying to get Lundy fired for undisclosed reasons.Witness said "Lundy attacked him from behind."— John Archibald (@JohnArchibald) December 15, 2015
However, police could not corroborate Austin’s statement as witnesses wouldn’t give statements.Austin says mayor assaulted Lundy.— John Archibald (@JohnArchibald) December 15, 2015
Bell and Lundy’s representatives cited their party’s injuries as evidence of being attacked. As a result, charges and arrest warrants were threatened against both men. When asked for comment on this, however, Birmingham Police Chief A. C. Roper declined to comment.Police: Lundy's assistants, the only witnesses, refuse to give statements to police.— John Archibald (@JohnArchibald) December 15, 2015
Both men were taken to a nearby hospital for further evaluation.
[h/t Associated Press]
[Image via Facebook]
— —
>> Follow Andrew Husband (@AndrewHusband) on Twitter
How To Watch The GOP Debate
By Taegan Goddard
New York Times: “CNN is hosting the festivities, starting with the so-called undercard debate for candidates with the lowest poll numbers. Television coverage begins at 6 p.m. Eastern, and the face-off is expected to end by 8:10 p.m. The main debate will begin around 9 p.m. and finish at 11 p.m. The debates will air on CNN, CNN International and CNN en Español.”
The debate will air on CNN and stream for free online.
New York Times: “CNN is hosting the festivities, starting with the so-called undercard debate for candidates with the lowest poll numbers. Television coverage begins at 6 p.m. Eastern, and the face-off is expected to end by 8:10 p.m. The main debate will begin around 9 p.m. and finish at 11 p.m. The debates will air on CNN, CNN International and CNN en Español.”
The debate will air on CNN and stream for free online.
Thursday, December 3, 2015
An Open Letter To The Black Pastors Who Met With Donald Trump
What were you thinking?
Republican candidate Donald Trump (fourth from left) arrives to speak
to the press with the Rev. Darrell Scott (center), senior pastor of the
New Spirit Revival Center in Cleveland Heights, Ohio, after meeting
with African-American pastors at Trump Tower in New York City Nov. 30,
2015.
TIMOTHY A. CLARY/AFP/Getty Images
Dear Pastors,
My least favorite thing about nonspoken forms of communication is the
room for misunderstanding that comes from not being able to detect the
tone of a person. Please allow me to minimize the possibility of a
misinterpretation by first outlining exactly how I feel.
I am angry, disappointed, slightly confused and fully embarrassed.
But this isn’t the type of hurt or anger one can achieve without having some sort of personal connection to the “offender.” This is more that type of hurt and anger that I always assumed served as the catalyst for Michael Eric Dyson’s essay about Cornel West. It’s the level of anger that comes when a person you hold (or previously held) in high regard does or says something so offensive that you feel compelled to respond. Only a person with whom you currently have an emotional connection can evoke that level of emotion from you. Who else would have that sort of power?
I have spent a significant portion of my life with you. By “you,” I am referring to black pastors in African-American churches. While I may not have attended any of your specific churches, as a black Christian I regularly attend African-American services and have developed a respect, love and appreciation for the office of pastor. So by default, this respect was extended to you as well—that was, until I watched the media coverage after the meeting with Donald Trump.
A public endorsement of a man who is blatantly racist and willfully ignorant and has a political agenda that does not seem to include the very people who selected you as their pastor? None of this makes any sense. It is perfectly clear why Trump would consider it beneficial to blast this meeting that would include, as he stated, “endorsements from 100 black pastors.” Yet it is unclear why you would allow him to use you in this ridiculous ploy. To be frank, pastors, it makes me question your motives. In fact, it’s making many people question your motives and speculate about exactly how many building funds were paid off in exchange for your Uncle Ruckus “Mr. Trump sho is a good man” verdict.
I could hardly stand to watch the coverage, and I certainly don’t have the stomach to continue to follow it. I’m not sure how the members of your congregations feel, but I, personally, am embarrassed. And to be clear, the notion of wanting some form of political influence that might benefit the black community isn’t lost on me. I understand that.
What I don’t understand is how any form of endorsement of Trump would help ensure this. Again, I suspect that this is also clear to you, too, which reiterates my original point of questioning your motives. In the interests of still honoring the office of pastor, I won’t go any further with that statement.
But still, the fact that there was a large gathering of black pastors who came together and agreed that Trump is “misrepresented by the liberal media”
is stunning. Getting any large group of heterogeneous people to
coordinate their schedules and operate in agreement is no small task and
requires effort. Yet you were able to pull this off.
This is probably the part I find most disappointing as a
social-justice advocate. Getting many influential community leaders
together and organizing around a substantial cause has historically
yielded positive change in our community. It is what helped birth such
profound changes in the fight for civil rights, and it is the very thing
that could help continue the progress of the Black Lives Matter
movement. Pastors, could this same level of organization and agreement
not have been more impactful if redirected to actually address how
victims of police violence are always misrepresented by the conservative
media? Or perhaps to even display a similar level of intolerance for
injustice that the very Jesus you teach about often demonstrated?
I ask these questions without honestly expecting a response; I don’t have the machine of the Trump campaign and the power that provides. I am asking in hopes that it may plant a seed that will produce a shift in your thinking that will be reflected in your future actions. Maybe—and this is a big maybe—I will see all of you surround the families of those who were victims of police violence, and champion for them the way you did for Trump. But again, those families also lack the machine of the Trump campaign behind them.
As I close, I sincerely hope that the rationale for such an emotional response, and the intent of this letter, were fully conveyed. More important, I hope that the suggestions noted above will be considered. And if my prayers are answered, maybe some of them will be applied.
Finally, pastors, please remember that I did not write this from a position of an authority figure seeking to condemn you. I wrote this as a person with a genuine emotional connection to the black church and a keen understanding of the power it has within the community—a community that is often neglected by the candidate you publicly support. This community deserves better that that, and you deserve more than to be reduced to a silly political ploy. If nothing else, I hope that this letter reminds you of what I never forgot—which is how instrumental your leadership has been when it wasn’t for sale, and used only to advance our people, not a political agenda.
Shanita Hubbard is a mom, writer, social-justice advocate and Nas stan, and lover of a great twist-out and good books. Follow her on Twitter.
Like The Root on Facebook. Follow us on Twitter.
Sanders Handily Trounces All Top Republicans—Yeah, Including Trump
By Janet Allon
Clinton still has a sizable lead over Bernie, though.
Nothing seems to touch Donald Trump, it seems, whose lead in the Republican race for president has stayed solid and even grown as Ben Carson fades. Nothing except possibly the "Bern" man.
According to a new Quinnipiac poll released Wednesday, both Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton handily beat any top Republican candidates. Here are Sanders' latest numbers:
While Trump's lead on the Republican side has solidified eleven months before the election, making it seem increasingly possible that he will be the nominee, his rivals have fallen away. According to the poll:
But the blowhard real estate mogul? He's doing just fine, high negatives not withstanding. "It doesn't seem to matter what he says or who he offends, whether the facts are contested or the 'political correctness' is challenged," said Tim Malloy, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Poll.
"Donald Trump seems to be wearing Kevlar,"
Clinton still has a sizable lead over Bernie, though.
- Topping Trump 49 - 41 percent;
- Getting 44 percent to Rubio's 43 percent;
- Beating Cruz 49 - 39 percent;
- Leading Carson 47 - 41 percent.
- 47 - 41 percent over Trump, compared to 46 - 43 percent November 4;
- Clinton at 45 percent to Rubio's 44 percent, compared to a 46 - 41 percent Rubio lead last month;
- Clinton tops Cruz 47 - 42 percent, compared to Cruz at 46 percent to Clinton's 43 percent last month;
- Clinton at 46 percent to Carson's 43 percent compared to Carson's 50 - 40 percent lead last month.
While Trump's lead on the Republican side has solidified eleven months before the election, making it seem increasingly possible that he will be the nominee, his rivals have fallen away. According to the poll:
Trump gets 27 percent of Republican voters today, with 17 percent for Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida, 16 percent each for Carson and Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas and 5 percent for former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush. No other candidate tops 3 percent, with 8 percent undecided.
Last month, Trump had 24 percent, with 23 percent for Carson.So, the (crazy) doctor is definitely not in anymore.
But the blowhard real estate mogul? He's doing just fine, high negatives not withstanding. "It doesn't seem to matter what he says or who he offends, whether the facts are contested or the 'political correctness' is challenged," said Tim Malloy, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Poll.
"Donald Trump seems to be wearing Kevlar,"
Wednesday, December 2, 2015
Donald Trump is a bigot and a racist
U.S. Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump. (Jay Laprete/Reuters)
But there is a greater imperative not to be silent in the face of demagoguery. Trump in this campaign has gone after African Americans, immigrants, Latinos, Asians, women, Muslims and now the disabled. His pattern brings to mind the famous words of Martin Neimoller, the pastor and concentration camp survivor (“First they came for the socialists…”) that Ohio Gov. John Kasich adroitly used in a video last week attacking Trump’s hateful broadsides.
It might be possible to explain away any one of Trump’s outrages as a mistake or a misunderstanding.
It has been more than a quarter century since Trump took out ads in New York newspapers calling for the death penalty for “criminals of every age” after five black and Latino teens were implicated in the Central Park jogger case. The young men, convicted and imprisoned, were later cleared by DNA evidence and the confession of a serial rapist – and Trump called their wrongful-conviction settlement a “disgrace.”
Since then, Trump led the “birther” movement challenging President Obama’s standing as a natural-born American; used various vulgar expressions to refer to women; spoke of Mexico sending rapists and other criminals across the border; called for rounding up and deporting 11 million illegal immigrants; had high-profile spats with prominent Latino journalists and news outlets; mocked Asian accents; let stand a charge made in his presence that Obama is a Muslim and that Muslims are a “problem” in America; embraced the notion of forcing Muslims to register in a database; falsely claimed thousands of Muslims celebrated the 9/11 attacks in New Jersey; tweeted bogus statistics asserting that most killings of whites are done by blacks; approved of the roughing up of a black demonstrator at one of his events; and publicly mocked the movements of New York Times (and former Washington Post) journalist Serge Kovaleski, who has a chronic condition limiting mobility.
He hasn’t gone after Jews recently, but his backers have, and Trump was uncharacteristically silent when prominent booster Ann Coulter, responding to Republican candidates’ support for Israel in a debate, tweeted: “How many fucking Jews do these people think there are in the United States?”
Though
all Trump supporters surely aren’t racists or bigots, even a cursory
examination of social media reveals that many are. Those supporting
Trump tend to be white, less-educated and middle-aged and older – those
who are anxious and angry because they are losing ground as the American
economy changes. An analysis of the latest Washington Post-ABC News poll
by my colleague Scott Clement found that Trump, who has the support of
14 percent of registered voters overall, does particularly well among
white men who aren’t college-educated (24 percent) and white,
non-evangelical Protestants (27 percent), but gets only 3 percent of
non-whites and 5 percent of those under 30 years old.
This doesn’t mean Republicans or conservatives generally are bigoted. I wouldn’t label any other candidate in the GOP field that way (though Carson’s remarks disqualifying Muslims from the presidency crossed the line) and Trump, though leading in the polls, lacks the support of most.
Thirty-two percent of Republicans supported Trump in the latest Post poll, which means 86 percent of the overall American electorate hasn’t embraced him.
Trump’s rivals for the nomination are slowly and haltingly finding the courage to call the man what he is. Chris Christie on Monday criticized Trump’s treatment of Kovaleski. John Kasich, after last week’s Neimoller video, issued an ad Monday showing Trump’s mockery of Kovaleski’s disability and saying Trump isn’t “worthy” of the presidency.
Some Trump defenders claim the candidate isn’t racist but simply “careless and undisciplined,” as John Hinderaker of the conservative website PowerLine put it. When I called in last week to a radio show Hinderaker hosted, he defended the treatment of the black man at Trump’s rally (“he was obviously being disruptive and he was a big burly guy”), Trump’s tweet falsely blaming African Americans for most killings of white people (“he just fell for some bad data”) and Trump’s embrace of a Muslim database (“that was brought up by a reporter”).
I argued that the large number of instances over an extended period add up to a pattern of bigotry.
“We’d be at it a long time if we go back through history,” the host said.
Exactly. Shouldn’t Republicans take that time before they nominate a racist?
Twitter: @Milbank
Read more from Dana Milbank’s archive, follow him on Twitter or subscribe to his updates on Facebook.
Tuesday, December 1, 2015
5 vitamins and minerals that are actually worth your money
Science tells us that taking most vitamins is worthless - but here's a few that buck the trend
By Joseph Stromberg
(Credit: R_Szatkowski via Shutterstock)Recently, a number of studies published in the Annals of Internal Medicine underscored a fact that scientists have become increasingly sure of: The vast majority of vitamins and mineral supplements are simply not worth taking. “Enough is enough: stop wasting money on vitamin and mineral supplements,” declared an editorial that was published in the issue.
This goes for a tremendous range of supplements that you might imagine to be beneficial. Multivitamins don’t reduce the chance of cancer or cardiovascular disease. Controlled, randomized studies—where one group of people take supplements and another takes placebos, and the groups are compared—have produced little evidence that antioxidants protect against cancer. Study after study has shown that vitamin C does nothing to prevent common cold, a misbelief that dates to a theoretical suggestion made by a scientist in the 1970’s.
Of course, our bodies do need these vitamins to live—it’s just that the diet of most people who live in developed countries in the 21st century already includes them in abundance. In many cases, taking high amounts of them in a refined form (especially vitamins A, C and E and beta carotene) can actually be harmful, increasing the risk of cancer and other diseases by excessively inflating the concentration of antioxidants in the body.
Nevertheless, there are a handful of vitamins and supplements that, studies suggest, are actually worth taking for people with specific conditions. Information is Beautiful, a data visualization website, has a thought-provoking interactive that shows supplements charted by the strength of evidence that indicates they’re beneficial. Here’s our rundown of some of the most promising.
Vitamin D
Of all the “classic” vitamins—the vital organic compounds discovered between 1913 and 1941 and termed vitamin A, B, C, etc.—vitamin D is by far the most beneficial to take in supplement form.
A 2008 meta-analysis (a review of a number of studies conducted on the same topic) of 17 randomized controlled trials concluded that it decreased overall mortality in adults. A 2013 meta-analysis of 42 randomized controlled trials came to the same conclusion. In other words, by randomly deciding which participants took the supplement and which didn’t and tightly controlling other variables (thereby reducing the effect of confounding factors), the researchers found that adults who took vitamin D supplements daily lived longer than those who didn’t.
Other research has found that in kids, taking vitamin D supplements can reduce the chance of catching the flu, and that in older adults, it can improve bone health and reduce the incidence of fractures.
Of course, even though they’re widely recognized as the best way to test a treatment’s effectiveness, randomized controlled trials have limitations. In this case, the biggest one is that these studies can’t tell us much about the mechanism by which vitamin D seems to reduce mortality or provide other health benefits. Still, given the demonstrated benefits and the fact that it hasn’t been shown to cause any harm, vitamin D might be worth taking as a supplement on a consistent basis.
Probiotics
A mounting pile of research is showing how crucial the trillions of bacterial cells that live inside us are in regulating hour health, and how harmful it can be to suddenly wipe them out with an antibiotic. Thus, it shouldn’t come as a huge surprise that if you do go through a course of antibiotics, taking a probiotic (either a supplement or a food naturally rich in bacteria, such as yogurt) to replace the bacteria colonies in your gut is a good idea.
Monday, November 30, 2015
Donald Chump Cancels Press Conference After Black Pastors Clarify Meeting Isn't Endorsement
By Ken Meyer
While Donald Trump will indeed be meeting with a coalition of
black pastors tomorrow, it seems that a press conference that was supposed to
occur afterwards has been thrown out after many of those invited said the
discussion would not equate to an endorsement.
CBS noted that Trump’s campaign said multiple times last week that he would be hosting 100 African American Evangelical pastors and religious leaders at Trump Tower; the press event afterwards was reportedly billed as an endorsement. However, new reports indicate that the campaign has scrapped the event after several of these invited leaders said that don’t support Trump as much as he may believe.
“On Monday, Mr. Trump will host an informational meet and greet with many members of the Coalition of African American Ministers,” said spokeswoman Hope Hicks in a statement today.
“This is not a press event, but a private meeting, after which, a number of attendees are expected to endorse Mr. Trump’s campaign for President. This is closed to press and therefore no media credentials will be provided.”
Los Angeles Bishop Clarence McClendon, who wrote on Facebook that he declined his invitation, and that the meeting was initially presented before him as a discussion, not an endorsement. “I am not officially endorsing ANY candidate and when I do you will NOT need to hear it from pulpitting courtjesters who suffer from intellectual and spiritual myopia,” McClendon wrote.
McClendon’s opinion seems to be shared by Bishops Paul S. Morton of the Full Gospel Baptist Church Fellowship, and “Preachers of Detroit” figure Corletta Vaughn. Vaughn said online that Trump “is an insult and embarrassment. But he represents the country we have become,” and Morton posted this message to his followers on Twitter:
[h/t Daily Beast]
[image via screengrab]
CBS noted that Trump’s campaign said multiple times last week that he would be hosting 100 African American Evangelical pastors and religious leaders at Trump Tower; the press event afterwards was reportedly billed as an endorsement. However, new reports indicate that the campaign has scrapped the event after several of these invited leaders said that don’t support Trump as much as he may believe.
“On Monday, Mr. Trump will host an informational meet and greet with many members of the Coalition of African American Ministers,” said spokeswoman Hope Hicks in a statement today.
“This is not a press event, but a private meeting, after which, a number of attendees are expected to endorse Mr. Trump’s campaign for President. This is closed to press and therefore no media credentials will be provided.”
Los Angeles Bishop Clarence McClendon, who wrote on Facebook that he declined his invitation, and that the meeting was initially presented before him as a discussion, not an endorsement. “I am not officially endorsing ANY candidate and when I do you will NOT need to hear it from pulpitting courtjesters who suffer from intellectual and spiritual myopia,” McClendon wrote.
McClendon’s opinion seems to be shared by Bishops Paul S. Morton of the Full Gospel Baptist Church Fellowship, and “Preachers of Detroit” figure Corletta Vaughn. Vaughn said online that Trump “is an insult and embarrassment. But he represents the country we have become,” and Morton posted this message to his followers on Twitter:
I was asked 2 meet with Mr Trump too but I refused because
until he learns how to respect people you can’t represent me thru my
endorsement
— Bishop Paul S Morton (@BishopPMorton) November 27,
2015
Pastor Darrell Scott, who appeared in support of Trump at a
rally, organized the meeting and has confirmed that he personally plans to
endorse the mogul. “Some of these pastors have never even met Trump yet,” Scott
said. “They told me, ‘I don’t know if I’m ready to endorse yet. I want to see
him and I want hear his heart.’” Indeed, other pastors who will be attending
have reportedly said they were not prepared to endorse anyone yet.[h/t Daily Beast]
[image via screengrab]
Why The End Of Federal Pot Prohibition Could Be Only 5 Years Away
By Phillip Smith
Rob Kampia thinks so, and he's a very well-placed observer. As head of the Marijuana Policy Project, Kampia has his finger on the pulse of pot politics as well as anyone, and he made a pretty startling prediction at the International Drug Reform Conference in suburban Washington last weekend.
At a panel on "Marijuana Reform in Congress," Kampia suggested that a handful of state-level marijuana legalization victories next year is going to set in motion a congressional debate on legalization that could see an end to federal marijuana prohibition before the end of the decade.
Legalization campaigns are already well-advanced in Arizona, California, Maine, Massachusetts, and Nevada, and while getting on the ballot is no guarantee of victory next November, polling so far suggests that most of them will win. And next year could also be the year the first state, and even perhaps a second, legalizes it through the legislative process.
"If you look at what's about to happen," Kampia said, "Vermont is most likely to legalize through the legislature, and Rhode Island has a good shot, but those are the only two states in play."
But then there are the initiative states.
"It could be that four or five initiative states legalize it, and then all of this is facing Congress in 2017," Kampia continued. "Then there will be a vigorous debate on legalization, and then, I predict, Congress could pass the states' rights bill in 2019."
Kampia is talking about something along the lines of this year's Respect State Marijuana Laws Act of 2015 (HR 1940), sponsored by Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA), which would amend the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) so that it would not apply to persons in compliance with marijuana laws in their state.
Passage of such a bill would not make marijuana legal everywhere—that would be up to the individual states—but would end the federal government's role in enforcing marijuana prohibition.
Kampia even suggested that Congress might get around to passing a bill to end federal pot prohibition before it gets around to passing a bill allowing states to enact medical marijuana laws without federal interference. That means legislation similar to this year's Compassionate Access, Research Expansion, and Respect States (CARERS) Act of 2015 (S 683), sponsored by Sens. Cory Booker (D-NJ), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) and Rand Paul (R-KY) could languish while Congress leapfrogs its way to embracing legalization (or at least getting out of its way).
"All the attention will be on legalization," Kampia said, "and there's not a lot of tax revenue for the federal government with just medical marijuana, but if you're talking about the whole ball of wax, with substantial tax revenues, Congress might be inclined to go for the whole enchilada."
The MPP leader wasn't the only one in the room sounding upbeat that day. Drug Policy Alliance national affairs director Bill Piper said that when it comes to marijuana legalization, the train has already left the station.
"I'm very optimistic," Piper said. "The toothpaste is out of the tube. Even Chris Christie can't stop marijuana legalization. Once these initiatives pass in 2016, there's no way back."
The conventional wisdom among drug reformers used to be that we might see federal pot prohibition crumble by the middle of the next decade. But given the lack of disaster and the bonanza of tax revenue in legalization states so far, and the likelihood that a handful more will legalize it next year, that timetable is accelerating.
The Bush presidency was my fault: I am so sorry my work stopped the Florida recount
Fifteen years ago, a Florida judge cited my stats theory and the recount ended. The Iraq War still torments me
Broward
County canvassing board member Judge Robert Rosenberg examines a
disputed absentee ballot Saturday, Nov. 25, 2000; George W. Bush. (Credit: AP/Wilfredo Lee/Pablo Martinez Monsivais)
Excerpted from "A Numerate Life: A Mathematician Explores the Vagaries of Life, His Own and Probably Yours"
An example of an extremely significant, decidedly unintended result of a relatively tiny event can be nightmarish. This one is, at least for me. It concerns the role I played in getting George W. Bush elected president in 2000. That I was the butterfly whose fluttering cascaded into Bush’s election still pains me. I had written an op-ed for the New York Times titled “We’re Measuring Bacteria with a Yardstick” in which I argued that the vote in Florida had been so close that the gross apparatus of the state’s electoral system was incapable of discerning the difference between the candidates’ vote totals. Given the problems with the hanging chads, the misleading ballots (in retrospect, aptly termed “butterfly ballots”), the missing and military ballots, a variety of other serious flaws and the six million votes cast, there really was no objective reality of the matter.
Later when the Florida Supreme Court weighed in, Chief Justice Charles T. Wells cited me in his dissent from the majority decision of the rest of his court to allow for a manual recount of the under-vote in Florida. Summarizing the legal maneuverings, I simply note that in part because of Wells’s dissent the ongoing recount was discontinued, the case went to the U.S. Supreme Court, and George Bush was elected president.
Specifically, Judge Wells wrote, “I agree with a quote by John Allen Paulos, a professor of mathematics at Temple University, when he wrote that, ‘the margin of error in this election is far greater than the margin of victory, no matter who wins.’ Further judicial process will not change this self-evident fact and will only result in confusion and disorder.” (Incidentally, the CNN senior political analyst at the time, Jeff Greenfield, cited the quote in his book on the 2000 presidential election, “Oh, Waiter! One Order of Crow!,” and wrote, “The single wisest word about Florida was delivered not by a pundit but by mathematician John Allen Paulos.” I doubt, however, that Greenfield thought it was reason to stop the recount.)
Saturday, November 28, 2015
Stop stores and airports from tracking your movements
By Kim Komando
Did you know that for several months Wal-Mart tested a facial recognition system that can pick an individual out of a crowd and track them automatically through a store? It's true. Wal-Mart was mainly using the system to spot known shoplifters, but I'm sure you can think of more worrying purposes.
Facial recognition is one of many technologies that brick-and-mortar retailers are testing to get real-time data on their customers. Online stores can see exactly what products and ads a user looks at, but offline retailers traditionally only know what people buy. They want to change that so they can maximize their marketing and profits.
How retailers track you
While facial recognition is still in limited use, many retailers, and other locations with a lot of traffic like airports, are using Mobile Location Analytics to track your exact location. For example, authorities at an airport know how much time you spent in a shop, moving through security or at the baggage claim. A store knows when you move from one department to another, or even linger in a certain aisle. How do they do this?
MLA uses the Wi-Fi and Bluetooth in your smartphone or tablet. Every mobile gadget has a unique 12-digit hardware identifier called a MAC address that it broadcasts via Wi-Fi and Bluetooth. As your gadget comes in range of the various Wi-Fi routers and Bluetooth hubs scattered around a store or airport, the MLA system picks up your MAC address.
Companies collect this information over time and use it to track traffic flow, line wait times, popular products or aisles, tweak employee work schedule and more. But could they use the information to do something more?
The good news is that on its own, your gadget's MAC address tells the store nothing about you. Your name, email and phone number aren't transmitted. At most, it might be able to figure out what manufacturer made your phone.
Most of the companies that handle this tracking have also signed agreements that they won't try to tie your MAC address to any other information they might have about you. Of course, those agreements are voluntary and there are ways a company could identify you.
How a company could learn your identity
One way is by using in-store beacons. These beacons use Wi-Fi, Bluetooth or Near-Field Communication to connect with your phone and send you deals on products you're walking past. To receive these deals, however, you have to be running the store's app, or have signed up to receive them. So, there's no real privacy concern.
However, imagine if a store were to combine your MAC address location with a beacon pushing a deal to your phone. You likely signed up to receive the deals with your name and email address. It's a simple matter to link that information up with the company's records of your purchase history from your credit card or loyalty card. The store could have a full profile on you in seconds.
Then there's facial recognition, as we talked about earlier. If a company knows your gadget's location, it's a simple matter to point a camera at you. Granted, most facial recognition systems require a photo on file to make a match. However, if a company has your name and email address, it's a short leap to get your profile picture from Facebook and spot you as you walk into the store. Of course, that's unlikely for the foreseeable future because of the backlash it would cause.
However, it doesn't have to be the store that's tracking you. If law enforcement was doing an investigation and got your gadget, they could technically subpoena records from MLA companies for the gadget's MAC address and learn about your movements. Or if the MAC address records were lost in a data breach, I'm sure hackers could find some use for them.
How to stop the tracking
The Future of Privacy Forum has set up a site called Smart Store Privacy. If you go there, you can put in your Wi-Fi and Bluetooth MAC addresses and it will tell participating tracking companies (there are 12 signed on at the moment) not to track those addresses. You don't have to give any other information.
Finding your Wi-Fi and Bluetooth MAC addresses is a little tricky depending on your gadget. Here are some general instructions.
APPLE
For Apple gadgets, go to Settings>General>About and look under Wi-Fi Address and Bluetooth. You're looking for a 12-digit number like 91:17:7B:82:C2:A5 or 91-17-7B-82-C2-A5. It should be clearly labeled. If you don't see an address, you should turn on Wi-Fi and Bluetooth and then check again.
Note: If you're using an Apple gadget running iOS 8 or higher, it changes its MAC address every time it connects to a Wi-Fi or Bluetooth hotspot. So, a store won't be able to track you because it will look like a new gadget every time.
ANDROID
For Android gadgets, every phone manufacturer has things set up a little differently. First, make sure Wi-Fi and Bluetooth are turned on. Then go to Settings>About Phone, or Settings>About Tablet. It might be under Hardware Information or Status. If you can't find it, check your gadget's manual for the precise location.
WINDOWS PHONE
For Wi-Fi, go to Start>Settings>Connections>Wireless LAN>Advanced. Look in the MAC field. Wi-Fi needs to be on for this to work.
For Bluetooth, go to
Start>Settings>Connections>Bluetooth>Accessibility and look under Address. Bluetooth needs to be on for the address to show up.
BLACKBERRY
For Wi-Fi, go to Setup>Options>Device>Device and Status Information, and look under the WLAN MAC heading.
On Blackberry gadgets running OS 5 or earlier, go to Options>Status and look under WLAN MAC.
For getting the Bluetooth address, go to Connections>Bluetooth>Properties to find the MAC address.
Of course, there are tracking companies out there not signed up with Smart Store Privacy. To totally avoid tracking, you'll have to turn off your Wi-Fi and Bluetooth before entering a store. That keeps your MAC address from broadcasting.
Don't forget that stores are also tracking you online. Learn how advertisers track where you go online and how to put a stop to it. They're also tracking where you browse on your smartphone or tablet. Find out how to keep that from happening.
On the Kim Komando Show, the nation's largest weekend radio talk show, Kim takes calls and dispenses advice on today's digital lifestyle, from smartphones and tablets to online privacy and data hacks. For her daily tips, free newsletters and more, visit her website at Komando.com. Kim also posts breaking tech news 24/7 at News.Komando.com.
Did you know that for several months Wal-Mart tested a facial recognition system that can pick an individual out of a crowd and track them automatically through a store? It's true. Wal-Mart was mainly using the system to spot known shoplifters, but I'm sure you can think of more worrying purposes.
Facial recognition is one of many technologies that brick-and-mortar retailers are testing to get real-time data on their customers. Online stores can see exactly what products and ads a user looks at, but offline retailers traditionally only know what people buy. They want to change that so they can maximize their marketing and profits.
How retailers track you
While facial recognition is still in limited use, many retailers, and other locations with a lot of traffic like airports, are using Mobile Location Analytics to track your exact location. For example, authorities at an airport know how much time you spent in a shop, moving through security or at the baggage claim. A store knows when you move from one department to another, or even linger in a certain aisle. How do they do this?
MLA uses the Wi-Fi and Bluetooth in your smartphone or tablet. Every mobile gadget has a unique 12-digit hardware identifier called a MAC address that it broadcasts via Wi-Fi and Bluetooth. As your gadget comes in range of the various Wi-Fi routers and Bluetooth hubs scattered around a store or airport, the MLA system picks up your MAC address.
Companies collect this information over time and use it to track traffic flow, line wait times, popular products or aisles, tweak employee work schedule and more. But could they use the information to do something more?
The good news is that on its own, your gadget's MAC address tells the store nothing about you. Your name, email and phone number aren't transmitted. At most, it might be able to figure out what manufacturer made your phone.
Most of the companies that handle this tracking have also signed agreements that they won't try to tie your MAC address to any other information they might have about you. Of course, those agreements are voluntary and there are ways a company could identify you.
How a company could learn your identity
One way is by using in-store beacons. These beacons use Wi-Fi, Bluetooth or Near-Field Communication to connect with your phone and send you deals on products you're walking past. To receive these deals, however, you have to be running the store's app, or have signed up to receive them. So, there's no real privacy concern.
However, imagine if a store were to combine your MAC address location with a beacon pushing a deal to your phone. You likely signed up to receive the deals with your name and email address. It's a simple matter to link that information up with the company's records of your purchase history from your credit card or loyalty card. The store could have a full profile on you in seconds.
Then there's facial recognition, as we talked about earlier. If a company knows your gadget's location, it's a simple matter to point a camera at you. Granted, most facial recognition systems require a photo on file to make a match. However, if a company has your name and email address, it's a short leap to get your profile picture from Facebook and spot you as you walk into the store. Of course, that's unlikely for the foreseeable future because of the backlash it would cause.
However, it doesn't have to be the store that's tracking you. If law enforcement was doing an investigation and got your gadget, they could technically subpoena records from MLA companies for the gadget's MAC address and learn about your movements. Or if the MAC address records were lost in a data breach, I'm sure hackers could find some use for them.
How to stop the tracking
The Future of Privacy Forum has set up a site called Smart Store Privacy. If you go there, you can put in your Wi-Fi and Bluetooth MAC addresses and it will tell participating tracking companies (there are 12 signed on at the moment) not to track those addresses. You don't have to give any other information.
Finding your Wi-Fi and Bluetooth MAC addresses is a little tricky depending on your gadget. Here are some general instructions.
APPLE
For Apple gadgets, go to Settings>General>About and look under Wi-Fi Address and Bluetooth. You're looking for a 12-digit number like 91:17:7B:82:C2:A5 or 91-17-7B-82-C2-A5. It should be clearly labeled. If you don't see an address, you should turn on Wi-Fi and Bluetooth and then check again.
Note: If you're using an Apple gadget running iOS 8 or higher, it changes its MAC address every time it connects to a Wi-Fi or Bluetooth hotspot. So, a store won't be able to track you because it will look like a new gadget every time.
ANDROID
For Android gadgets, every phone manufacturer has things set up a little differently. First, make sure Wi-Fi and Bluetooth are turned on. Then go to Settings>About Phone, or Settings>About Tablet. It might be under Hardware Information or Status. If you can't find it, check your gadget's manual for the precise location.
WINDOWS PHONE
For Wi-Fi, go to Start>Settings>Connections>Wireless LAN>Advanced. Look in the MAC field. Wi-Fi needs to be on for this to work.
For Bluetooth, go to
Start>Settings>Connections>Bluetooth>Accessibility and look under Address. Bluetooth needs to be on for the address to show up.
BLACKBERRY
For Wi-Fi, go to Setup>Options>Device>Device and Status Information, and look under the WLAN MAC heading.
On Blackberry gadgets running OS 5 or earlier, go to Options>Status and look under WLAN MAC.
For getting the Bluetooth address, go to Connections>Bluetooth>Properties to find the MAC address.
Of course, there are tracking companies out there not signed up with Smart Store Privacy. To totally avoid tracking, you'll have to turn off your Wi-Fi and Bluetooth before entering a store. That keeps your MAC address from broadcasting.
Don't forget that stores are also tracking you online. Learn how advertisers track where you go online and how to put a stop to it. They're also tracking where you browse on your smartphone or tablet. Find out how to keep that from happening.
On the Kim Komando Show, the nation's largest weekend radio talk show, Kim takes calls and dispenses advice on today's digital lifestyle, from smartphones and tablets to online privacy and data hacks. For her daily tips, free newsletters and more, visit her website at Komando.com. Kim also posts breaking tech news 24/7 at News.Komando.com.
Wednesday, November 25, 2015
Video Games Biggest Spoilers
This article contains a giant list of video game spoilers for games such as BioShock, Final Fantasy X, and Red Dead Redemption. You’ve been warned.
Games are full of great plot twists, but knowing these plot twists before you play the game can sometimes ruin your enjoyment of the experience. That said, here are some of the biggest jaw dropping moments in video games. Highlight the text to see the spoilers proceed with caution!!!
Massive Spoilers Beyond This Point!!!
Assassin’s Creed: Brotherhood – At the end of the game, you become possessed by a member of the First Civilization named Juno and kill Lucy Stillman, the woman who has been helping you hunt the Templars since the beginning of the series.
Batman: Arkham City – Joker dies, and the heathy version of him that has been running around the city is actually Clayface.
Batman: Arkham Knight – Joker plays a major role in the game. Batman has been infected with Joker’s high-end virus, and it is consuming his mind. Throughout the game you constantly have visions where the Joker talks to you. Also, Arkham Knight is Batman’s old sidekick Jason Todd, the second Robin who Batman thought died at the hands of Joker.
BioShock – Atlas is Fontaine, and you are the illegitimate son of Andrew Ryan and Jasmine Jolene. You spend most of the game hearing the phrase, “Would you kindly,” but this is a physiological programing. You were given phony memories so you could do Fontaine’s bidding.
BioShock Infinite – You are the prophet Comstock, the ruler of Columbia, and Elizabeth is your daughter. You travel through time where she kills you to prevent you from becoming Comstock. Things are confusing.
Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare – After successfully completing a mission, a nuclear weapon is detonated in the capital city of the Middle Eastern nation. After getting caught in the blast, you stumble out of a helicopter and eventually collapse and dies.
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 – After going undercover and integrating yourself into a terrorist cell, you are selected to participate in an assault on Zakhaev International Airport where you assist in the massacre of hundreds of civilians – an event that sparks World War III.
F.E.A.R. – Alma, the creepy little girl with terrifying psychic powers who has tormented you the whole game, is your mom.
Final Fantasy VI – Halfway through the game, the emperor’s mage Kefka actually destroys the world and you fail to stop him.
Final Fantasy VII – The main villain, Sephiroth, kills your love interest, Aeris.
Final Fantasy X – Sin is a giant beast that terrorizes the world. It is also your father. And you and Auron have actually been dead most of the game.
Heavy Rain – One of the four playable protagonists, Detective Scott Shelby, is the Origami serial killer you’ve been hunting and the man who kidnapped Ethan’s son.
Infamous – Early on, you learn that the gangs of Empire City are being controlled by a man named Kessler. However, Kessler is a future version of yourself who has traveled back in time and orchestrated the events that lead to you getting superpowers.
Jak 3 – You spend most of the series hearing about the advanced race known as the precursors, but at the end of the game they are revealed to be ottsels – the same weasely creatures that your friend Daxter turned into in the first game.
Metal Gear Solid 2 – Solid Snake, the series most recognizable protagonist is only playable for the first few hours of the game. You spend the rest of the game playing as a whiny character named Raiden.
Metroid – The badass bounty hunter you have been playing as the whole game takes off her armor and reveals that she is actually a woman.
Red Dead Redemption – Edger Ross is using you to kill your old gang members. When your work is done, Ross kills you too. The game then jumps forward a little more than a decade and you take control of your son, who enacts revenge for his father’s murder.
Resident Evil – Your superior officer, Wesker, is revealed to be an Umbrella double agent.
Silent Hill 2 – You came to the town of Silent Hill after getting a letter from your dead wife, but you were the one who actually killed her nearly a year ago. You’ve journeyed to Silent Hill to torture yourself.
Spec Ops: The Line – Many of the events of the game are a fabrication of your mind, designed to cope with the traumatic event where you killed 47 civilians using the chemical weapon white phosphorus.
Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic – You are Darth Revan, a maniacal Sith Lord who was betrayed by his apprentice, healed by the Jedi Council, and then mindwiped.
Your Life – You will die alone.
Looking for more things you can spoil for yourself? Check out our recurring Spoiled feature where we talk about the endings of some of the biggest games.
Email the author Ben Reeves, or follow on Twitter, Google+, Facebook, and Game Informer.
Tuesday, November 24, 2015
The movie that no one will see for 100 years
By Jason Kottke
Director Robert Rodriguez and writer/actor John Malkovich have collaborated with the help of Louis XIII Cognac to make a movie that no one will see for 100 years. Literally. Here, listen to them describe how they did it and why.
Perhaps inspired by the long time scale filmmaking of Richard Linklater's Boyhood, John Malkovich and Robert Rodriguez have teamed up to make a movie that won't be released until 2115. Why? As a promotion for luxury brand Louis XIII Cognac, which is also aged 100 years. According to io9, Louis XIII is sending out 1000 tickets to people whose descendants will be able to see a screening of the film 100 years from now.
I wonder how serious they are about this? To what extent have they futureproofed their media? The io9 piece says the movie is "preserved on film stock"...is that and an old movie projector sufficient? Have they consulted with MoMA or Danny Hillis?
Director Robert Rodriguez and writer/actor John Malkovich have collaborated with the help of Louis XIII Cognac to make a movie that no one will see for 100 years. Literally. Here, listen to them describe how they did it and why.
Perhaps inspired by the long time scale filmmaking of Richard Linklater's Boyhood, John Malkovich and Robert Rodriguez have teamed up to make a movie that won't be released until 2115. Why? As a promotion for luxury brand Louis XIII Cognac, which is also aged 100 years. According to io9, Louis XIII is sending out 1000 tickets to people whose descendants will be able to see a screening of the film 100 years from now.
I wonder how serious they are about this? To what extent have they futureproofed their media? The io9 piece says the movie is "preserved on film stock"...is that and an old movie projector sufficient? Have they consulted with MoMA or Danny Hillis?
Monday, November 23, 2015
Trump, Cruz and GOP Know-Nothings Only Win When Democrats Cower Or Provide An Echo
Here's how to fight war-mongers, bigots and the rest of the right with toughness, smarts and actual reality.
By Bill Curry
Paris changed American politics, though no one can say how much, or for how long. Republicans hope to turn the 2016 election into a referendum on “national security.” House Republicans got the ball rolling with a bill to effectively bar all Syrian refugees from entering the United States. As a public safety measure, it’s an odd first step, given how few Syrian refugees we resettle and the microscopic threat they pose to our security. But no one familiar with the facts thinks Republicans act out of concern for our safety.
In five years of civil war, 200,000 Syrians have died and 9.5 million have fled their homes. Germany has taken in 38,500 of them. The United States: 1,854. Half are children. Most of the rest are women or elderly. Two percent are single men of combat age, the demographic from which most terrorists hail. (The 9/11 hijackers’ average age was 24. The elder Boston marathon bomber was 26.) Vetting a refugee takes up to two years and produces a fat dossier, which is why so few terrorists try to get in that way. We say the world looks to us for leadership, but every other nation that might join a coalition against ISIS is doing more than we are to meet this crisis. They no longer want our “leadership” — just our soldiers, our arms and our money.
Since the attack, feckless Republicans have hatched one hare brained scheme after another: closing borders to Muslims (Ted Cruz); opening them, but only to Christians (Jeb Bush); closing down mosques and even requiring Muslims to register with the federal government (walking, talking ISIS recruitment poster Donald Trump). And yet they’re winning the debate. All evidence says the GOP bill won’t make us safer, that even debating it makes us appear foolish and weak. But if it dies in the Senate it will be by parliamentary maneuver, not popular mandate.
A year ago most Americans supported the Iran nuclear pact and opposed sending troops back to Iraq. Today they oppose the pact and narrowly support sending the troops. In a September Pew poll, a bare majority backed Obama’s plan to take in more refugees. In a Friday Bloomberg poll, 64 percent opposed it. Trump’s approval ratings rose this week. Obama’s fell.
Democrats say this is a natural reaction to a severe trauma. They argue that the fever’s confined to the Republican wards; when we recover our senses, we’ll want a tested leader at the helm, or at least an adult. In other words, it will all work itself out. Perhaps. Meanwhile, Trump’s numbers are rising in general election as well as primary polls. The public reversed itself on the Iran pact and Iraq troops long before Paris. It can’t all be a passing mood.
Democrats have been losing the national security debate for years. Most aren’t any good at it. Some don’t even try. Few have the courage or conviction to challenge failed doctrines. So they crouch in the cellar praying the storm will soon pass. If this one doesn’t, its blood-dimmed tide may sweep a Republican into the White House and the country into a limitless, trackless war. To keep that from happening Democrats must find the courage and skill to lay out a clear, credible alternative to the reflexive militarism of the past. As things stand, they aren’t even close.
The first obstacle they must overcome is their fear of national security issues. Republicans use real wars to fight culture wars (See Karl Rove and Iraq) and never fight fair. (See Karl Rove and Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.) Show maturity or restraint and they paint you as weak. It’s a hustle, but frightened voters make easy marks. Democrats are the real prey, so when talk turns to national security they talk as tough as they can and move quickly on to other topics.
Democratic consultants tell their clients to stay off their opponents’ turf which is one reason why at the Iowa debate, Bernie Sanders allotted just two sentences of his opening statement to Paris. But national security shouldn’t be Republican turf, and wouldn’t be if Democrats challenged them on it relentlessly, with facts and fearless logic. Their consultants say that in an age of “messaging” no one has to explain anything, but in reality the reduction of defense issues to mere themes and tropes is what enables Republicans to use them as political cudgels.
Democrats no longer know how to make a case let alone on issues as complex and tender as these. They once exposed illegal military and intelligence operations. No more. Republicans have issued seven reports on Benghazi; Democrats not one on the lies that lured us into Iraq. The Center for Public Integrity found 260 false statements made by Bush in the ramp up to war. He told Congress “our intelligence sources” told him Saddam tried to buy aluminum tubes “suitable for nuclear weapons production.” Our intelligence sources said no such thing and our nuclear weapons experts said the opposite. His claim was thus a lie. Pardon him if you like, but establish the record, and with it the principle that henceforth, lies of such magnitude and consequence will be deemed impeachable offenses.
After 9/11 Democrats should have played every point. When Bush said “they hate us for our freedom” Democrats should have said, “No, they hate us because we arm rulers they are at war with’.”When he said “we fight them there so we don’t have to fight them here” they should have said, “No, they’re here because we’re there, propping up petrol states with guns and bribes.: When he said “the world’s a better place without Saddam in it,” they should have said “not for the hundred-thousand Iraqi dead or hundreds of thousands of Iraqi Christians who fled their homes; not for our killed or wounded soldiers or their loved ones. Nor is America better off as a bankrupt, nor is the Middle East better off in a permanent state of bloody chaos.”
Bush was wrong about everything. When experts told him the key to defeating Al Qaeda was law enforcement not military power, he presumed to ridicule their “pre-9/11 thinking.” Iraq laid bare the vulnerability of our military to the asymmetrical tactics of jihad, but 13 years later Democrats have yet to make a solid case for junking what we no longer need. The reorganizations of intelligence and homeland security were bipartisan boondoggles. The tragic mistake was of course the invasion of Iraq. It’s worth recalling that a majority of Democrats voted against it, but also that most did so quietly.
Democrats have shown themselves little better at defending their own policies. Obama’s handling of foreign policy and defense topics is far too casual, as when he drew a “red line” over Assad’s chemical weapons, called ISIS a “JV team” after it took Fallujah and assured the nation multiple times in the fall of 2012 that Al Qaeda was “on the run.” If you want to be the adult in the room you can never indulge in juvenile tough talk. If you want to call out those who play politics with foreign policy, you can’t play politics with it either, not even in the waning days of a close election. If you want us to trust in your protection, you can never be heard to underestimate our enemy.
When an aide used the phrase “leading from behind” to describe the U.S. role in toppling Muammar Gaddafi, Obama should have said that after Iraq any U.S.-led invasion would be bad for everyone. When he first took flak for avoiding the root word ‘Islam’ when discussing terrorists, he should have said that by widening the war George W. Bush made himself Osama Bin Laden’s tool — and that he was determined not to repeat the mistake. When they went after his claim that ISIS had been “contained,” he should have elaborated. ISIS has recently shrunk a bit, but ISIS is more than the land it controls and jihad is more than ISIS. It’s why neither can be snuffed out on a battlefield. It was a perfect teaching moment, if he only remembered that in answering his critics he spoke not just to them but to all of us.
*
Republicans want the election to be about external threats. Democrats want it to be about domestic reforms. Bernie Sanders’ fast pivot in Iowa reflected their faith that the way to keep the Republicans from hijacking the agenda is to “stay on message.” They could lay waste the feeble Republican case, but they so fear being painted as sissies they back off even when logic and the facts are all on their side. They trust in their consultants’ magic, but it isn’t strong enough. To get the focus back where they want it, they must engage and defeat the Republicans on the issue of the hour.
On Thursday Hillary Clinton tried to do just that, traveling to Manhattan’s Upper East Side to share her thoughts on ISIS with the Council on Foreign Relations. Clinton is plenty fearless and knows as well as anyone how to make a case. The problem lies in the case she makes, and this is the Democrats’ biggest problem: their frontrunner is an avatar of a spent foreign policy establishment.
In her speech Clinton called for a U.S. enforced no fly zone in Syria. In so doing she bid adieu to Obama, Sanders and Martin O’Malley and joined every major Republican candidate but Rand Paul and Trump (he’s thinking it over). She also adopted a favorite Republican ploy by not saying what she’d do if Russia continued bombing. Sadly, none of the assembled sages thought to put the question to her.
Clinton said her strategy has three main elements: defeat ISIS in Syria and Iraq; “disrupt and dismantle” its global infrastructure and “harden our defenses” against “external and homegrown threats.” In another departure from Obama she said “Our goal is not to deter or contain ISIS, but to defeat and destroy ISIS.” On the less abstract question of whether to send in ground troops she left the impression she stood with Obama, but a closer reading of the text left a different impression:
Not unlike a certain leading Republican, Clinton lists goals with barely a nod as to how to reach them: moving Putin off Assad, getting the Iraq government to deal in the Sunnis and Kurds; getting the Saudis to focus on ISIS; getting the Saudis to stop funding terrorists; a second ‘Sunni Awakening’; an “intelligence surge,” a political resolution of Syria’s civil war and, quaintly, an end to partisan sniping here at home. It’s a rickety structure; the moral equivalent of Rube Goldberg. To reach any of its goals you must reach all or at least most of them. Clinton cites every kind of “smart power” but her constant theme is military mobilization on a scale big enough to “smash the would-be caliphate.” She leaves no doubt as to who’d be in charge: “This is a world-wide fight and America must lead it.”
Near the end of her speech Clinton mumbles some words about opportunity and “working to curb corruption” but the “three main elements” of her plan amount to little more than an endless war on symptoms, fought with soldiers, police officers, drones and electronic surveillance on a scale heretofore unseen. Not once does she note that all these strategies have already failed; this despite 12 years in which she bore daily witness to their failure as senator and secretary of state.
We know now our safety lies not in military intervention but in the rule of law. We know our unilateralism must give way to multilateral conflict resolution. (Seldom in the last ten days have we read or heard the words ‘United Nations’) We know our crusades spread more corruption than democracy. We know globalization lifts millions out of absolute poverty but not into the middle class. We know what we have done to secure and protect our interests and we know the time has come to undo much of what we have done. We begin by telling those who don’t yet know.
Between now and Iowa the Democratic National Committee has allowed just two debates. It isn’t enough for Democrats to just say no to Republican xenophobia. They must show the American people they have a better way to make us safe and heal the world.
Hillary Clinton won’t, so Bernie Sanders must. It isn’t his métier, but it as much a part of what ails America as any issue we face and by now it must be clear: to get to the hope we have to get through the fear.
By Bill Curry
Paris changed American politics, though no one can say how much, or for how long. Republicans hope to turn the 2016 election into a referendum on “national security.” House Republicans got the ball rolling with a bill to effectively bar all Syrian refugees from entering the United States. As a public safety measure, it’s an odd first step, given how few Syrian refugees we resettle and the microscopic threat they pose to our security. But no one familiar with the facts thinks Republicans act out of concern for our safety.
In five years of civil war, 200,000 Syrians have died and 9.5 million have fled their homes. Germany has taken in 38,500 of them. The United States: 1,854. Half are children. Most of the rest are women or elderly. Two percent are single men of combat age, the demographic from which most terrorists hail. (The 9/11 hijackers’ average age was 24. The elder Boston marathon bomber was 26.) Vetting a refugee takes up to two years and produces a fat dossier, which is why so few terrorists try to get in that way. We say the world looks to us for leadership, but every other nation that might join a coalition against ISIS is doing more than we are to meet this crisis. They no longer want our “leadership” — just our soldiers, our arms and our money.
Since the attack, feckless Republicans have hatched one hare brained scheme after another: closing borders to Muslims (Ted Cruz); opening them, but only to Christians (Jeb Bush); closing down mosques and even requiring Muslims to register with the federal government (walking, talking ISIS recruitment poster Donald Trump). And yet they’re winning the debate. All evidence says the GOP bill won’t make us safer, that even debating it makes us appear foolish and weak. But if it dies in the Senate it will be by parliamentary maneuver, not popular mandate.
A year ago most Americans supported the Iran nuclear pact and opposed sending troops back to Iraq. Today they oppose the pact and narrowly support sending the troops. In a September Pew poll, a bare majority backed Obama’s plan to take in more refugees. In a Friday Bloomberg poll, 64 percent opposed it. Trump’s approval ratings rose this week. Obama’s fell.
Democrats say this is a natural reaction to a severe trauma. They argue that the fever’s confined to the Republican wards; when we recover our senses, we’ll want a tested leader at the helm, or at least an adult. In other words, it will all work itself out. Perhaps. Meanwhile, Trump’s numbers are rising in general election as well as primary polls. The public reversed itself on the Iran pact and Iraq troops long before Paris. It can’t all be a passing mood.
Democrats have been losing the national security debate for years. Most aren’t any good at it. Some don’t even try. Few have the courage or conviction to challenge failed doctrines. So they crouch in the cellar praying the storm will soon pass. If this one doesn’t, its blood-dimmed tide may sweep a Republican into the White House and the country into a limitless, trackless war. To keep that from happening Democrats must find the courage and skill to lay out a clear, credible alternative to the reflexive militarism of the past. As things stand, they aren’t even close.
The first obstacle they must overcome is their fear of national security issues. Republicans use real wars to fight culture wars (See Karl Rove and Iraq) and never fight fair. (See Karl Rove and Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.) Show maturity or restraint and they paint you as weak. It’s a hustle, but frightened voters make easy marks. Democrats are the real prey, so when talk turns to national security they talk as tough as they can and move quickly on to other topics.
Democratic consultants tell their clients to stay off their opponents’ turf which is one reason why at the Iowa debate, Bernie Sanders allotted just two sentences of his opening statement to Paris. But national security shouldn’t be Republican turf, and wouldn’t be if Democrats challenged them on it relentlessly, with facts and fearless logic. Their consultants say that in an age of “messaging” no one has to explain anything, but in reality the reduction of defense issues to mere themes and tropes is what enables Republicans to use them as political cudgels.
Democrats no longer know how to make a case let alone on issues as complex and tender as these. They once exposed illegal military and intelligence operations. No more. Republicans have issued seven reports on Benghazi; Democrats not one on the lies that lured us into Iraq. The Center for Public Integrity found 260 false statements made by Bush in the ramp up to war. He told Congress “our intelligence sources” told him Saddam tried to buy aluminum tubes “suitable for nuclear weapons production.” Our intelligence sources said no such thing and our nuclear weapons experts said the opposite. His claim was thus a lie. Pardon him if you like, but establish the record, and with it the principle that henceforth, lies of such magnitude and consequence will be deemed impeachable offenses.
After 9/11 Democrats should have played every point. When Bush said “they hate us for our freedom” Democrats should have said, “No, they hate us because we arm rulers they are at war with’.”When he said “we fight them there so we don’t have to fight them here” they should have said, “No, they’re here because we’re there, propping up petrol states with guns and bribes.: When he said “the world’s a better place without Saddam in it,” they should have said “not for the hundred-thousand Iraqi dead or hundreds of thousands of Iraqi Christians who fled their homes; not for our killed or wounded soldiers or their loved ones. Nor is America better off as a bankrupt, nor is the Middle East better off in a permanent state of bloody chaos.”
Bush was wrong about everything. When experts told him the key to defeating Al Qaeda was law enforcement not military power, he presumed to ridicule their “pre-9/11 thinking.” Iraq laid bare the vulnerability of our military to the asymmetrical tactics of jihad, but 13 years later Democrats have yet to make a solid case for junking what we no longer need. The reorganizations of intelligence and homeland security were bipartisan boondoggles. The tragic mistake was of course the invasion of Iraq. It’s worth recalling that a majority of Democrats voted against it, but also that most did so quietly.
Democrats have shown themselves little better at defending their own policies. Obama’s handling of foreign policy and defense topics is far too casual, as when he drew a “red line” over Assad’s chemical weapons, called ISIS a “JV team” after it took Fallujah and assured the nation multiple times in the fall of 2012 that Al Qaeda was “on the run.” If you want to be the adult in the room you can never indulge in juvenile tough talk. If you want to call out those who play politics with foreign policy, you can’t play politics with it either, not even in the waning days of a close election. If you want us to trust in your protection, you can never be heard to underestimate our enemy.
When an aide used the phrase “leading from behind” to describe the U.S. role in toppling Muammar Gaddafi, Obama should have said that after Iraq any U.S.-led invasion would be bad for everyone. When he first took flak for avoiding the root word ‘Islam’ when discussing terrorists, he should have said that by widening the war George W. Bush made himself Osama Bin Laden’s tool — and that he was determined not to repeat the mistake. When they went after his claim that ISIS had been “contained,” he should have elaborated. ISIS has recently shrunk a bit, but ISIS is more than the land it controls and jihad is more than ISIS. It’s why neither can be snuffed out on a battlefield. It was a perfect teaching moment, if he only remembered that in answering his critics he spoke not just to them but to all of us.
*
Republicans want the election to be about external threats. Democrats want it to be about domestic reforms. Bernie Sanders’ fast pivot in Iowa reflected their faith that the way to keep the Republicans from hijacking the agenda is to “stay on message.” They could lay waste the feeble Republican case, but they so fear being painted as sissies they back off even when logic and the facts are all on their side. They trust in their consultants’ magic, but it isn’t strong enough. To get the focus back where they want it, they must engage and defeat the Republicans on the issue of the hour.
On Thursday Hillary Clinton tried to do just that, traveling to Manhattan’s Upper East Side to share her thoughts on ISIS with the Council on Foreign Relations. Clinton is plenty fearless and knows as well as anyone how to make a case. The problem lies in the case she makes, and this is the Democrats’ biggest problem: their frontrunner is an avatar of a spent foreign policy establishment.
In her speech Clinton called for a U.S. enforced no fly zone in Syria. In so doing she bid adieu to Obama, Sanders and Martin O’Malley and joined every major Republican candidate but Rand Paul and Trump (he’s thinking it over). She also adopted a favorite Republican ploy by not saying what she’d do if Russia continued bombing. Sadly, none of the assembled sages thought to put the question to her.
Clinton said her strategy has three main elements: defeat ISIS in Syria and Iraq; “disrupt and dismantle” its global infrastructure and “harden our defenses” against “external and homegrown threats.” In another departure from Obama she said “Our goal is not to deter or contain ISIS, but to defeat and destroy ISIS.” On the less abstract question of whether to send in ground troops she left the impression she stood with Obama, but a closer reading of the text left a different impression:
Like President Obama I do not believe we should again have 100,000 American troops in the Middle East. That is just not the smart move to make here.Wait, 100,000? A whole field army is 80,000. President Obama opposes sending any. Clinton also said “we may have to give our troops greater freedom of movement, including… embedding in local units” If she thinks that means something other than combat, it doesn’t.
Not unlike a certain leading Republican, Clinton lists goals with barely a nod as to how to reach them: moving Putin off Assad, getting the Iraq government to deal in the Sunnis and Kurds; getting the Saudis to focus on ISIS; getting the Saudis to stop funding terrorists; a second ‘Sunni Awakening’; an “intelligence surge,” a political resolution of Syria’s civil war and, quaintly, an end to partisan sniping here at home. It’s a rickety structure; the moral equivalent of Rube Goldberg. To reach any of its goals you must reach all or at least most of them. Clinton cites every kind of “smart power” but her constant theme is military mobilization on a scale big enough to “smash the would-be caliphate.” She leaves no doubt as to who’d be in charge: “This is a world-wide fight and America must lead it.”
Near the end of her speech Clinton mumbles some words about opportunity and “working to curb corruption” but the “three main elements” of her plan amount to little more than an endless war on symptoms, fought with soldiers, police officers, drones and electronic surveillance on a scale heretofore unseen. Not once does she note that all these strategies have already failed; this despite 12 years in which she bore daily witness to their failure as senator and secretary of state.
We know now our safety lies not in military intervention but in the rule of law. We know our unilateralism must give way to multilateral conflict resolution. (Seldom in the last ten days have we read or heard the words ‘United Nations’) We know our crusades spread more corruption than democracy. We know globalization lifts millions out of absolute poverty but not into the middle class. We know what we have done to secure and protect our interests and we know the time has come to undo much of what we have done. We begin by telling those who don’t yet know.
Between now and Iowa the Democratic National Committee has allowed just two debates. It isn’t enough for Democrats to just say no to Republican xenophobia. They must show the American people they have a better way to make us safe and heal the world.
Hillary Clinton won’t, so Bernie Sanders must. It isn’t his métier, but it as much a part of what ails America as any issue we face and by now it must be clear: to get to the hope we have to get through the fear.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)