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.

Video Games Biggest Spoilers

By Ben Reeves on November 24, 2015 at 06:30 PM

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.

5 Shot Near Black Lives Matter Encampment

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/jamar-clark-protests-5-shot-near-black-lives-matter-encampment-n468656

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?

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:

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.

Bill Curry was White House counselor to President Clinton and a two-time Democratic nominee for governor of Connecticut. He is at work on a book on President Obama and the politics of populism.

Voting Against Their Interests: Wealth Inequality

This is part of a series of articles about how Republicans convince its base to vote against their own interests. Today, we examine how some of the wealthiest Americans have taken over the Republican Party, thereby causing them to mislead most Republicans and some Independents into voting against their own interests.

By Terry Frye

  

Inequality of wealth is the greatest economic and social problem that our country now faces. The statistics state the case in a shocking manner. The wealthiest 1 percent in the United States owns more wealth than the bottom 90 percent ^[1] and 95 percent of economic gains go to wealthiest 1 percent of Americans. ^[2]   

 

In 2011, the 400 wealthiest Americans had more wealth than 50 percent of all Americans combined. ^[3] The amount of money in bonuses on Wall Street last year is twice the amount all minimum-wage workers earned in the country combined. ^[4]  The wealthiest 85 people on the planet have more money that the poorest 3.5 billion people combined. ^[5] Unbelievably, only 4 of the 150 countries have a worse inequality of wealth problem than does the U.S. ^[6]

The poorest Americans do come out ahead in one statistic: the bottom 90 percent of America owns 73 percent of the debt in the US. ^[7]

This situation has not always been so dire. From 1947 to 1973, all along the economic spectrum, Americans had become a little better off with each passing year while productivity had risen by 97 percent and median wages had risen by 95 percent. ^[8] Paradoxically, from 1973 to 2011, working class productivity grew 80 percent, while median hourly compensation, after inflation, grew by just 6.4 percent. Since 2000, productivity has risen 23 percent, while real hourly pay has essentially flat-lined. ^[9]

During the past 40 years, low-wage jobs have disproportionately increased, while employment has become less secure and benefits have been cut. ^[10]

Polling shows that Democrats view wealth inequality quite differently than most Republicans. A Pew Research Center survey in March 2015 concluded that 55 percent of GOP members believe the economic system is fair to most people, but 75 percent of Democrats and 63 percent of Independents believe it strongly favors the wealthy. 

The GOP attitude was reflected in a comment by Mitt Romney during the 2012 Presidential race, who said “[t]here are 47 percent of the people…who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims. …These are people who pay no income tax….and so my job is not to worry about those people. I’ll never convince them that they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives.”

Presidential candidate Jeb Bush recently made headlines for claiming that working class “people need to work longer hours.” His brother, President Bush, expedited the growing wealth inequality with the “Bush tax cuts” which disproportionately benefit the wealthy. 

The results of this should have been predictable. The top 1 percent of the population enjoyed 65 percent of income growth between 2002 and 2007. ^[11] In 2000, 11.3 percent of the population was in poverty. By 2009, that percentage had increased to 14.3 percent. Job growth under Bush was the weakest in any business cycle since the 1950s and was only one-third of the rate seen between 1989 and 2000 (the Clinton years). In 2001, the surplus in the federal budget was $127 billion. The 2010 budget had a budget deficit of $1.3 trillion. The long-term national debt more than doubled while Bush was in office. ^[12] This is further evidence that “trickle-down economics” is a myth.

What should our attitude as Christians be on this issue? There was also wealth inequality in Jesus’ day. In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus exhorted his hearers to sell their earthly goods and give to the poor, and so provide themselves with “a treasure in heaven that will never fail, where no thief comes near and no moth destroys” (Luke 12.33). In Luke 12:34, Jesus added “[f]or where your treasure is, there will your heart be also”.

Jesus stated in the Parable of the Rich Fool (Luke 12: 13-21) that he who lays up treasure for himself is not rich toward God. The person whose identity is tied up with his or her possessions, status, and/or achievement and is driven by acquiring them, can so easily end up unaware of the plight of his neighbor.^[13]

Pope Francis has often shown a great sensitivity to the plight of poor people who are victimized by the wealthy. He spoke recently in South Korea of those of “…us who live in societies where, alongside immense wealth, dire poverty is silently growing; where the cry of the poor is seldom heeded and where Christ continues to call out to us, asking us to love and serve him by tending to our brothers and sisters in need.”

In the golden rule, Jesus taught us that ^“whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them….” ^[14] I believe the golden rule is the central theme of the Democratic Party, and yet another reason why when Christians vote Republican, they vote against their own financial interests and the teachings of Christ. 

Terry Frye is an attorney, an elected constitutional officer, a minister, a writer, a longtime community organizer and a political activist who has lived his entire life in rural Southern Appalachia. 

Footnotes:

[1] Rugaber, Christopher S.; Boak, Josh (January 27, 2014). “Wealth gap: A guide to what it is, why it matters”. AP News. 

[2] Svaldi, Aldo (January 11, 2014), “Robert Reich: Income inequality the defining issue for U.S.”, The Denver Post, retrieved January 26, 2014.

[3] Wealth, Income, and Power by G. William Domhoff of the UC-Santa Barbara Sociology Department. 

[4] A Mind Boggling Statistic About Wall Street Bonuses, CBS Money Watch, March 17, 2014.

[5] 85 Richest Now Have As Much Money as Poorest 3.5 Billion, USA Today, 9:27 a.m. EST November 7, 2014.

[6] Weissmann, Jordan (March 11, 2013). “Yes, U.S. Wealth Inequality Is Terrible by Global Standards”. The Atlantic. 

[7] 35 Mind Blowing Facts about Inequality, AlterNet, July 13, 2015.

[8] New York Times Sunday Review, Our Economic Pickle, January 12, 2013.

[9] Id.

[10] The American Prospect; The Forty Year Slump, by Harold Meyerson, November 12, 2013.

[11] Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Economic Policy Institute

[12] Id.

[13] The Parables of Jesus: A Commentary, by Arland J. Hultgren, pg. 109.

[14] Matthew 7:12

Piece Of Shit Texas Legislator Tony Dale Is A Piece Of Shit

Posted by Rude One

Of all the goddamned stupid things that Republicans have been saying in the wake of the Paris terrorist attacks, none can even come close to what GOP state legislator from Texas House District 136, Tony Dale, said. That's this motherfucker right here, looking like Glenn Beck's vestigial twin:

In a letter to Senator John Cornyn asking him to stop the United States from taking in more Syrian refugees, Dale writes, a bit illiterately (the errors in here are all Dale), "While the Paris attackers used suicide vests and grenades it is clear that firearms also killed a large number of innocent victims. Can you imagine a scenario were a refugees is admitted to the United States, is provided federal cash payments and other assistance, obtains a drivers license and purchases a weapon and executes an attack?”

You got that? Dumbass piece of shit Dale, whose district is just north of the rational island of Austin, is worried that it's too fuckin' easy to buy a gun in Texas. And you know what fuckin' dumbass piece of shit Texas legislator voted in favor of every bill to loosen gun regulations? Well, the smilin' sumbitch up there, that's who.

Now, you can say that this is just a minor player who said something idiotic and hypocritical and utterly devoid of a connection with his own fucking actions and beliefs. You could ask him, "Wouldn't your precious good guys with guns stop the bad guy Syrian with a gun?" You might even try to reason and say, "Hey, how about universal background checks?" But Dale is a kind of bellwether for the cockknobs of the right who would utter shit like that and pretend it makes perfect sense.

It's why Chris Christie can, in the span of a couple of months, go from mourning a dead refugee child to saying that not even toddler orphans from Syria should be allowed on the supple shores of America. It's why Ted Cruz can utter, with all seriousness, that religious freedom is precious but we should only allow in Christian refugees and by the way, he loves Jesus, who would come down from the cross just to beat the shit out of Cruz.

Tony Dale is a fucking pimple on humanity. But he's a mere blackhead compared to the throbbing pustules who lead the GOP.

Now, more than ever, America needs an intelligent President — not a lying carnival barker

By Robert Reich

A caricature of Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump (DonkeyHotey/Flickr)

The next president of the United States will confront a virulent jihadist threat, mounting effects of climate change, and an economy becoming ever more unequal.

We’re going to need an especially wise and able leader.

Yet our process for choosing that person is a circus, and several leading candidates are clowns.

How have we come to this?

First, anyone with enough ego and money can now run for president.

This wasn’t always the case. Political parties used to sift through possible candidates and winnow the field.

Now the parties play almost no role. Anyone with some very wealthy friends can set up a Super PAC.
According to a recent New York Times investigation, half the money to finance the 2016 election so far has come from just 158 families.

Or if you’re a billionaire, you can finance your own campaign.

And if you’re sufficiently outlandish, outrageous, and outspoken, a lot of your publicity will be free.

Since he announced his candidacy last June, Trump hasn’t spent any money at all on television advertising.

Second, candidates can now get away with saying just about anything about their qualifications or personal history, even if it’s a boldface lie.

This wasn’t always the case, either. The media used to scrutinize what candidates told the public about themselves.

A media expose could bring a candidacy to a sudden halt (as it did in 1988 for Gary Hart, who had urged reporters to follow him if they didn’t believe his claims of monogamy).

But when today’s media expose a candidates lies, there seems to be no consequence. Carson’s poll numbers didn’t budge after revelations he had made up his admission to West Point.

The media also used to evaluate candidates’ policy proposals, and those evaluations influenced voters.

Now the media’s judgments are largely shrugged off. Trump says he’d “bomb the shit” out of ISIS, round up all undocumented immigrants in the United States and send them home, and erect a wall along the entire U.S.-Mexican border.

Editors and columnists find these proposals ludicrous but that doesn’t seem to matter.

Fiorina says she’ll stop Planned Parenthood from “harvesting” the brains of fully formed fetuses. She insists she saw an undercover video of the organization about to do so.

The media haven’t found any such video but no one seems to care.

Third and finally, candidates can now use hatred and bigotry to gain support.

Years ago respected opinion leaders stood up to this sort of demagoguery and brought down the bigots.

In the 1950's, the eminent commentator Edward R. Murrow revealed Wisconsin Senator Joe McCarthy to be a dangerous incendiary, thereby helping put an end to McCarthy’s communist witch hunts.

In the 1960's, religious leaders and university presidents condemned Alabama Governor George C. Wallace and other segregationist zealots – thereby moving the rest of America toward integration, civil rights, and voting rights.

But when today’s presidential candidates say Muslim refugees shouldn’t be allowed into America, no Muslim should ever be president, and undocumented workers from Mexico are murderers, they get away with it.

Paradoxically, at a time when the stakes are especially high for who becomes the next president, we have a free-for-all politics in which anyone can become a candidate, put together as much funding as they need, claim anything about themselves no matter how truthful, advance any proposal no matter how absurd, and get away with bigotry without being held accountable.

Why? Americans have stopped trusting the mediating institutions that used to filter and scrutinize potential leaders on behalf of the rest of us.

Political parties are now widely disdained.

Many Americans now consider the “mainstream media” biased.

And no opinion leader any longer commands enough broad-based respect to influence a majority of
the public.

A growing number of Americans have become convinced the entire system is rigged – including the major parties, the media, and anyone honored by the establishment.

So now it’s just the candidates and the public, without anything in between.

Which means electoral success depends mainly on showmanship and self-promotion.

Telling the truth and advancing sound policies are less important than trending on social media.

Being reasonable is less useful than gaining attention.

Offering rational argument is less advantageous than racking up ratings.

Such circus politics may be fun to watch, but it’s profoundly dangerous for America and the world.

We might, after all, elect one of the clowns.

This article was originally published at RobertReich.org

Secret Fallout 4 Treasure Room Contains One Of Every Item (PC)

A secret room in Fallout 4 that has every item, weapon and armor set including bobbleheads & holotapes in the game. Get to the room by using the console command coc qasmoke.

Sizzling hot takes

5 Reasons To Be Glad You Watched The CBS Democratic Debate

By Jason Easley

Hillary Clinton got pressed on Wall Street, CBS asked a loaded question, and 3 other reasons to be glad that you watched the CBS Democratic debate.

1). CBS Asks A Loaded Question About Obama And ISIS –
The Democratic candidates were asked if the Obama administration will be remembered for not being on top of ISIS. Clinton said that the bulk of the fight did not belong to the United States. O’Malley tried to play catch up in the polls by disagreeing with Clinton. Bernie Sanders tied the founding of ISIS with the war in Iraq. Sanders said that he didn’t think any reasonable person would disagree that the invasion of Iraq led to ISIS.

The question by Face The Nation John Dickerson was short-sighted and wrong. One can’t understand how ISIS came to be without considering the role of the decision by the Bush administration to invade Iraq. Trying to blame Obama for ISIS would be like blaming FDR for the Great Depression.

The idea that Obama is to blame for ISIS was flat out wrong and more superficial media nonsense.

Clinton talked about the broader underlying historical factors that led to the extremism. Sanders called for the Muslim countries to lead the effort against ISIS. Clinton disagreed and said that was unfair to countries like Jordan, who have made a great effort. Clinton agreed with Sanders that many of the countries have to make up their minds on their role in the fight against ISIS.

2). The Amount Of Debate Time Given To The Question Of ISIS and Extremism Benefited Clinton –

Nearly 30 minutes of the debate was dedicated to a discussion of ISIS and radical Islam. This discussion benefitted Hillary Clinton because, as former Sec. of State, she was the most knowledgeable on foreign policy issues. Bernie Sanders is very well informed and has a solid worldview, but Clinton was at another level. As a former governor, Martin O’Malley was doomed in this discussion.

The events in Paris effectively put this debate right into Hillary Clinton’s wheelhouse. Clinton took apart Marco Rubio’s claim that the United States is at war with radical Islam. Sanders brought up a great point that much of the military spending is being wasted and not being properly used to target the terrorist threat.

3). O’Malley and Clinton Hit Republican Immigrant Bashers With The Facts –

After calling Donald Trump an immigrant bashing carnival barker, Martin O’Malley said that net immigration from Mexico has reached zero. Hillary Clinton backed him up and said that it is a fact. Clinton then laid out her vision for immigration reform. According Pew Research, Clinton and O’Malley were correct, “In 2012, 5.9 million unauthorized immigrants from Mexico lived in the U.S., down about 1 million from 2007. Despite the drop, Mexicans still make up a slight majority (52% in 2012) of unauthorized immigrants. At the same time, unauthorized immigration overall has leveled off in recent years. As a result, net migration from Mexico likely reached zero in 2010, and since then more Mexicans have left the U.S. than have arrived.”

4). Sanders Tells Clinton That Her Answer On Regulating Wall Street Is Not Good Enough –
Hillary Clinton said that her record shows that she will battle Wall Street, and pointed out that two billionaires are running a super PAC against her. Sanders replied by going to town on Clinton’s record, and he brought up the common sense point that all of those campaign contributors expect something.

Clinton fired back and said that Sanders had impugned her integrity. Clinton said that she was proud that she helped Wall Street after 9/11. She said that her proposal is tougher than Sanders’ plan to restore Glass-Steagall because she goes after all of Wall Street. Sanders played his trump card and said that it isn’t enough for Democrats to say that they will repeal Citizens United. He said that Democrats must lead by example.

O’Malley got his chance to talk and called Clinton’s proposal to regulate Wall Street “weak tea.”

O’Malley killed his momentum though by agreeing with Sanders that Glass-Steagall must be restored. Clinton said that Wall Street needs to play by the rules, and Sanders replied that the Wall Street business model is fraud.

The Democratic candidates finally disagreed on something. The result was an enlightening discussion on how Wall Street should be reined in.

5). Distinctions Are Drawn When The Candidates Are Asked About The Crisis That Shaped Them
For Hillary Clinton, it was advising Obama on whether or not to go after Bin Laden. Martin O’Malley didn’t have a crisis. Sanders talked about his time as Chairman of the Senate Veterans Committee. Sanders said he was determined to make VA care the best in the world. He discussed his role in shaping one of the most important pieces of bipartisan legislation for vets.

The crisis question was really an experience question. Clinton and Sanders were light years ahead of O’Malley on experience. If Democrats are looking for an experienced leader, the choice is between Clinton and Sanders, with Clinton being ahead of the senator from Vermont in the kind of experiences that look good for a potential president.

Nina Turner changes her mind on Hillary Clinton, endorses Bernie Sanders for President

Former State Sen. Nina Turner arrives at her 2013 campaign kickoff for Ohio secretary of state. Turner announced Thursday that she is backing Bernie Sanders for president. (Chuck Crow, Plain Dealer Publishing Co.)

By Henry J. Gomez, cleveland.com
on November 12, 2015 at 5:03 PM, updated November 12, 2015 at 9:36 PM

CLEVELAND, Ohio – Nina Turner, the former state senator from Cleveland and a top Ohio Democratic Party official, is ditching Hillary Clinton in favor of Bernie Sanders.

Turner and Sanders' presidential campaign confirmed the endorsement Thursday.

"I'm very attracted by his message and his style -- and that he has held pretty much strong on his beliefs and the world is catching up with him," Turner said.

Turner added that Sanders' positions on voting rights and wage issues have stood out to her. While she is expected to be active in his campaign, a Sanders spokeswoman said whatever role Turner has will not be paid.

Turner spoke to cleveland.com by telephone before flying to Iowa, where she will attend Saturday's Democratic debate featuring Clinton, Sanders and Martin O'Malley.

She also will introduce Sanders at his Monday rally at Cleveland State University's Wolstein Center.

The Vermont senator, who describes himself as a democratic socialist, has emerged as Clinton's strongest Democratic primary rival.

"We are extremely, extremely humbled by the support of Sen. Nina Turner," Sanders campaign manager Jeff Weaver said. "She is nationally known as a voice for voting rights, for workers' rights and for marginalized people. The support of someone with that record of standing up for middle-income and working people is tremendously important."

The move comes as a surprise -- and a blow for Clinton. Turner had been among her most enthusiastic cheerleaders in the Buckeye State and nationally. She was involved early with the Ready for Hillary super political action committee that promoted Clinton as a presidential candidate before the former U.S. secretary of state launched her campaign.

Turner spoke last fall in New York and earlier this year at a Cleveland fundraiser for the now-defunct organization. In June, she spoke at a grassroots-organizing event for the Clinton campaign in Cleveland. She also had served on the board of Correct the Record, another pro-Clinton super PAC but recently severed ties.

And Clinton's husband, former President Bill Clinton, sent a letter on Turner's behalf last year that sought donations for her ultimately unsuccessful run for Ohio secretary of state.

Turner said Thursday that, despite her efforts on Clinton's behalf, she had not formally endorsed the former U.S. secretary of state. Clinton, she said did not lose her support so much as Sanders earned it with his attention to issues dear to her. She stressed that her decision had nothing to do with controversy over Clinton's private email server.

"Yes, I was out there, 'ready' [for Clinton], because I wanted to make sure Democrats were ready," Turner said. "I thought it was important to show that Democrats were ready to go right back at it for 2015 and 2016. This has nothing to do with the secretary."

Turner, who is frequently mentioned as a future candidate for mayor of Cleveland, said she will take a leave of absence from her role as the Ohio Democratic Party's engagement chair as she helps Sanders with his bid for the nomination. She said her endorsement, which party insiders had been buzzing about for days once they heard it was possible, has resulted in some pushback from Clinton loyalists in Ohio.

"I was approached by a Clinton supporter who said that I am doing a disservice to the country," Turner said. "It was very insulting."

Clinton doesn't lack for prominent Ohio supporters. U.S. Sen. Sherrod Brown announced his backing two weeks ago. U.S. Rep. Marcia Fudge of Warrensville Heights endorsed her in July. Reps. Tim Ryan of the Youngstown area and Joyce Beatty of Columbus also are on board. And former Gov. Ted Strickland, a U.S. Senate candidate, is a longtime Clinton ally in the Buckeye State.

The Ohio Democratic Party, meanwhile, is emphasizing its neutrality.

"The Ohio Democratic Party has not endorsed in the 2016 presidential primary -- we welcome, support and work with all Democratic candidates as they compete for the nomination and come to Ohio to talk with voters," state party spokeswoman Kirstin Alvanitakis said Thursday.

"Given this stance, Sen. Turner will take a leave of absence from her leadership role as chair of Party Engagement while serving as a national surrogate for the Sanders campaign. Her tireless work for the party has been so important in engaging Ohio voters, and while we will certainly miss her passion and fearlessness, we wish her nothing but the best in her new role and look forward to her return following the conclusion of the primary."

Postal Workers Snub Clinton, Back Sanders

Sanders wins backing of American Postal Workers Union, his largest labor endorsement.

By KEN THOMAS, Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) — Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders secured the endorsement of the 200,000-member American Postal Workers Union on Thursday, marking the largest labor union to back his Democratic presidential campaign.

The union's decision gives Sanders a boost heading into the second Democratic debate in Iowa on Saturday and comes as the Vermont senator has sought to halt a string of labor endorsements to Democratic front-runner Hillary Rodham Clinton.

The postal workers' union said Sanders has a long history of supporting its workers and pointed to his efforts to keep open post offices and mail-sorting plants in rural communities, oppose slower delivery standards and fight attempts to privatize the mail service.

"Sen. Bernie Sanders stands above all others as a true champion of postal workers and other workers throughout the country," APWU President Mark Dimondstein said in a statement. "He doesn't just talk the talk. He walks the walk."

Clinton has locked down several key components of organized labor, including the National Education Association and the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees.

Sanders has assiduously courted rank-and-filed union members but battled against perceptions he wouldn't be as electable as Clinton and strong enough to take on the eventual Republican nominee.


Until now, Sanders had received one national labor endorsement, which came from the 185,000-member National Nurses Union.

Postal worker union officials said Sanders showed a deep understanding of their issues and said they were particularly swayed by his address to 2,000 activists in Las Vegas in October. From his Senate perch, Sanders has also blocked two nominees to the postal Board of Governors who are opposed by postal unions.

The union said Sanders' support was overwhelming among its executive board, which also heard from a labor liaison from Clinton's campaign.
___
On Twitter, follow Ken Thomas: https://twitter.com/KThomasDC

How Facebook Is Stealing Billions Of Views

Facebook just announced 8 billion video views per day. This number is made out of lies, cheating and worst of all: theft. All of this is wildly known but the media giant Facebook is pretending everything is fine, while damaging independent creators in the process. How does this work?



Hank Greens Article:
https://medium.com/@hankgreen/theft-l...

Video by Smartereveryday:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L6A1L...

Video about Youtube content ID by YMS:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nuTHh...

Other sources used in this video:

http://www.theverge.com/2015/3/31/831...

http://mashable.com/2015/07/08/facebo...

http://broadmark.de/allgemein/faceboo...

http://mashable.com/2015/09/01/facebo...

http://de.slideshare.net/socialogilvy...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dLqCz...

http://www.slate.com/articles/technol...

http://mic.com/articles/123368/facebo...

http://media.fb.com/2015/08/27/an-upd...

Get the music of the video here:

https://soundcloud.com/epicmountain/f...

https://epicmountainmusic.bandcamp.co...

http://epic-mountain.com

https://www.reddit.com/r/kurzgesagt
https://www.facebook.com/Kurzgesagt
https://twitter.com/Kurz_Gesagt

How Facebook is Stealing Billions of Views

Help us caption & translate this video!

http://amara.org/v/HWix/

Police Tracking of 'Pre-crime' Activities - Robocop on Steroids? - Scary Stuff Coming

By tomm2thumbs

From a bit earlier in the year - figured it was worth a post.

Discussions of technology being marketed to seek out apparent 'pre-crime' activity, including drones, facial recognition, motion-tracking and other 1984 style police techniques.

Given that much of this is publicly sold and available to companies, you can imagine the behind-the-scenes military technology that is even more powerful than what you see here...no doubt already under widespread use.

5 Reasons To Be Glad That You Didn't Watch The Fox Business Republican Debate

By Jason Easley

Republicans offered no new policy ideas while resurrecting some old lies about immigration and The Affordable Health Care Act. Here are five reasons to be glad that you didn’t watch the Fox News Republican presidential debate.

1). All Republicans Oppose Raising The Minimum Wage

The first question was about the fast food worker strike and raising the minimum wage. Not surprisingly, Trump said paying workers more money wouldn’t help them. Ben Carson said that the American people need to be “educated about the minimum wage,” and Marco Rubio told viewers that tax reform a.k.a. tax cuts for the wealthy would be better than increasing the minimum wage.
Republicans are setting themselves up for a major defeat as an October poll of low-wage workers found that 75% supported raising the minimum wage to $15/hour and the ability to join a union. The debate demonstrated that Republicans are on the wrong side of the minimum wage issue.

2). Carly Fiorina Falls On Her Face When Asked Why Democrats Are Better At Creating Jobs
 

Carly Fiorina was asked how she would counter the argument that Democratic presidents are better at creating jobs than Republican presidents. Fiorina responded with a long-winded dance about what she would do as president to grow the economy, but nowhere in her answer was an explanation how she would counter the fact that the economy does better under Democratic presidents.

Fiorina’s inability to answer the question illustrated a fundamental problem for Republicans. Whoever the Republican nominee is will not be able to argue that they can create more jobs after President Obama brought the country back from George W. Bush’s Great Recession. Republicans can’t argue the issues, which is why they have to deflect and distract anytime they are confronted with the facts on their economic failures.

3). Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, and Carly Fiorina Uncork 3 Huge Republican Lies 

Two Republican candidates showed that their party has learned nothing from their party’s 2008 and 2012 presidential election losses by bringing back two tired old lies that have failed Republicans in elections past. Marco Rubio claimed that The Affordable Health Care Act is killing jobs, and Ted Cruz claimed that immigration is hurting jobs and the economy. Fiorina claimed that The Affordable Health Care Act is crushing small businesses.

A study by The Urban Institute found that The Affordable Health Care Act doesn’t kill jobs, “We find that the ACA had virtually no adverse effect on labor force participation, employment, or usual hours worked per week through 2014. This conclusion is true for ACA policies overall and for the Medicaid expansions, in particular, and it applies to the full sample of nonelderly persons and to the subgroup of nonelderly persons with a high school education or less who are more likely to be affected by the ACA.”

The bad news for Carly Fiorina is that only 3% of small businesses were impacted by the ACA.
Ted Cruz was not telling the truth. As reported in 2014, “According to the Pew Research Hispanic Trends Project, there were 8.4 million unauthorized immigrants employed in the U.S.; representing 5.2 percent of the U.S. labor force (an increase from 3.8 percent in 2000). Their importance was highlighted in a report by Texas Comptroller Susan Combs that stated, “Without the undocumented population, Texas’ workforce would decrease by 6.3 percent” and Texas’ gross state product would decrease by 2.1 percent. Furthermore, certain segments of the U.S. economy, like agriculture, are entirely dependent upon illegal immigrants.”

4). Jeb Bush Blames Obama For His Brother’s Failure In The Middle East 

Bush blamed Obama for a “failure of leadership” in Iraq. It was amazing to hear a Bush argue for more war in the Middle East as if he had no idea that the Iraq war remains a foreign policy blunder that is thought of badly by a majority of the American people. The Bush tactic of blaming Obama for his brother’s failures, while arguing that the country should return to his brother’s policies is exactly why his campaign is failing. Bush tried to pull a page from the Romney playbook by sounding like he is the most electable. Bush tried to get fired up about foreign policy and take on Trump, but he got tongue-tied and lost his momentum.

Jeb Bush’s plan is to claim that he can beat Hillary Clinton while blaming President Obama for his brother’s foreign policy failures.

5). In Mixed Up Republican World, Regulating The Big Banks Causes Financial Collapse

The Republican presidential candidates agreed that not regulating the banks would prevent another financial collapse. Carly Fiorina called Dodd-Frank socialism and claimed the CFPB is digging through individual Americans financial records to detect fraud. In crazy Republican land, the way to prevent financial collapses is to get government out of the way and not regulate the banks.
Republicans again demonstrated that they have learned nothing from their previous failures by doubling down on another failed policy.

The debate itself was a colossal bore. The top eight contenders for the Republican nomination managed to avoid proposing any new policies while doubling down on their previous failures. No one should be surprised if the ratings for the Republican debates continue to slide. The energy and charisma of Trump have vanished, and all that is left is a bunch of Republicans with no new ideas trying to sell America on a return to failure.

GOP Dream Debate