|
Michael Moore for President |
 |
|
Sunday, 29 March 2015 13:21 |
|
Moore writes: "I'm not officially declaring my intention to run. I'm just saying, should I decide to throw my ball cap into the ring, this is what I would propose to do if elected."
Filmmaker and activist Michael Moore. (photo: Dog Eat Dog Films)
Michael Moore for President
By Michael Moore, Common Dreams
29 March 15
If nominated, I will run. If elected, I will serve.
 f my grandfather were alive today, he’d be about 150 years old. I know what you’re thinking: with my youthful looks, neither the math nor the biology of that sentence makes any sense. But it’s the truth, it’s not worth dissecting, so let’s move on.
The Nation, too, is 150 years old. As I am only two generations removed from the Civil War era, and thus able to provide some not-too-distant context, the editors have asked me to write a critique of the magazine on this occasion. I have thought about it and decided that I have no critique to offer. My simple advice: Nation, keep doing what you’re doing. Don’t change. Everything’s fine. Thank you for 150 years of telling the truth.
Instead of providing the requested critique, I would, if you don’t mind, like to offer something else. I’d like to announce, in the pages of this historic issue of this magnificent magazine, the formation of a committee that will study the possibility of an exploratory committee to assess the potential of a Michael Moore candidacy for the presidency of the United States in 2016. In other words, I’m not officially declaring my intention to run. I’m just saying, should I decide to throw my ball cap into the ring, this is what I would propose to do if elected:
1. ONE CHARGE CORD! I will sign an edict declaring that there will be only one charge cord for all brands of all electronic devices—phones, computers, tablets, music devices, cameras and everything else. Just like all electrical appliances and items have used the same two-prong cord that plugs into the same two-hole outlet for the past 100 years, so too shall there be only one charge cord that will plug into the same hole of every digital device from this day on. I think this plank alone can get me elected, but let me offer a few more promises.
2. I will sign legislation that will lower the voting age to 16. A teenager who can die for her/his country at 18 should have a say in just who it is that will be sending them off to war.
3. If there is a call for war, and if we are to invade another nation, I will declare as commander in chief that the first to be sent into combat must be the conscripted adult offspring of all members of Congress, the president and the president’s cabinet (and then, in order, the children of the CEOs of the Fortune 500, all military contractors and the top media executives). This should reduce the number of wars considerably.
4. I will make available free HBO for everyone.
5. I will forgive all student debt. We’ll go back to a system of work-study, grants, scholarships and minimal, interest-free loans. College in America, as in many other countries, should essentially be free.
6. I’ll reduce the Pentagon’s budget by 75 percent. That will pay for the above free college and most of my ideas that will follow. We will still have one of the biggest militaries in the world and the ability to blow it up many times over—just not as many times as before.
7. All Americans will get the same free health plans that members of Congress have access to.
8. That universal health plan will include free mental and free dental. If most Americans could get their teeth and head fixed when needed, the cost (and need) of seeing a medical doctor will decrease.
9. The wealthy will pay the same percentage in Social Security tax on their entire income as every middle-class person does. Right now, those who earn any income over $118,500 pay zero Social Security tax on whatever they make over that sum. Meanwhile, every working person who earns under $118,500 these days pays the full Social Security tax on their entire income. If the rich were forced to pay Social Security tax on all that they earn, there would be enough money in the Social Security trust fund to last us many more decades—perhaps close to the next century.
10. We will return to the income-tax rates that existed when that great Republican Gerald Ford was president. That’s all. No need to take it back to the Eisenhower days, when the wealthy paid more than 90 percent in income tax. Just take me to the last Republican before Reagan, when the elites paid around 70 percent. That, too, will help to fund everything here on my list.
11. Bullet trains. ’Nuff said.
12. A ban on high-fructose corn syrup. This cheap “poison” (lawyers made me insert the quote marks) is hard to find in the rest of the civilized world for a variety of reasons, which might be why nearly all of these countries have lower diabetes rates than the United States.
13. Anyone caught using their mobile device inside a movie theater will be subjected to enhanced “rectal rehydration” (thank you, CIA, for that suggestion!).
14. When in doubt, do what the Canadians do: a near-ban on handguns and semi-automatic weapons. An eight-week election season. A return to the paper ballot. No pharmaceutical ads on TV. Strict banking and financial regulations. A refusal to eliminate civil liberties after the terrorists attack. Trade with Cuba. And reduce the number of downs in football to three.
15. All schools will return to teaching civics class. (Most schools these days don’t.) If young people are going to vote at 16, they should know how it all works and what they can do to rock the vote—or the boat.
16. A moment of Zen: All students shall learn cursive writing. Don’t take away the one thing that we can all do that is unique to each of us. It’s our creative fingerprint. We are not machines. To write longhand allows our soul to find its way out and be seen as ours and only ours. The world is a cold and harsh enough place as it is. Why take this little personal human piece away from us? Who doesn’t like getting a handwritten note?
17. We will not back theocracies. You know who you are. Stop it, and stop your harmful, inhuman ways. And we can start with ourselves. After thirty-five years of having to follow laws instigated by the Christian right in this country, I’ve had it. To do my part, as president, I will gay-marry anyone who wants to get married.
18. All Americans shall have a mandatory four-week paid vacation. (Note to employers: I will send you the studies that show such laws increase productivity. People do better work when happy and rested.)
19. Prisons will not be owned or run by private corporations; they will be run by the public for its own safety. They will no longer be used as places of punishment but rather as training and rehab centers. They will not exist to incarcerate the races or ethnic groups who have no power. Nonviolent people will not be locked up. If they have stolen, they will make restitution. Yes, that means you, corporate criminals.
20. As Americans, we will seek to be kind—to each other, to the world, and to ourselves. As the president, I will be the first to set that example. I will place education and enlightenment at the top of every agenda, and the elimination of ignorance as my worthy goal. Ignorance leads to fear, fear leads to hate, and hate leads to violence. That has been the American equation for too long. The road to its end begins with my election.
Now let’s go watch some Canadian football on HBO.
 |
|
The FBI Used to Recommend Encryption. Now They Want to Ban It |
|
|
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=29990"><span class="small">Trevor Timm, Guardian UK</span></a>
|
|
Sunday, 29 March 2015 13:19 |
|
Timm writes: "The FBI wants to make us all less safe. At least that's the implication from FBI director Jim Comey's push to ban unbreakable encryption and deliberately weaken everyone's security."
FBI Director James Comey doesn't want you to encrypt your phone ... for your own safety, of course. (photo: Susan Walsh/AP)
The FBI Used to Recommend Encryption. Now They Want to Ban It
By Trevor Timm, Guardian UK
29 March 15
For years, the agency recommended phone encryption as a defense against criminals. Now, that information has been scrubbed from public view
 he FBI wants to make us all less safe. At least that’s the implication from FBI director Jim Comey’s push to ban unbreakable encryption and deliberately weaken everyone’s security. And it’s past time that the White House makes its position clear once and for all.
Comey was back before Congress this week - this time in front of the House Appropriations Committee - imploring Congressmen to pass a law that would force tech companies to create a backdoor in any phone or communications tool that uses encryption.
He also revealed the Obama administration may be crafting such a law right now. “One of the things that the administration is working on right now is what would a legislative response look like that would allow us … with court process to get access to that evidence”, he said.
The whole controversy stems from Apple’s decision to encrypt iPhones by default - so that only the user can unlock a phone with a pin or password and even Apple itself does not have the key. It was a huge step forward for security, and given that the US government considers cybersecurity attacks a more dire threat than terrorism, you’d think they’d be encouraging everyone to use more encryption. But Comey essentially argued to Congress that because encryption sometimes makes FBI investigations harder, it should be outlawed.
The idea that all of a sudden the FBI is “going dark” and won’t be able to investigate criminals anymore thanks to a tiny improvement of cell phone security is patently absurd. Even if the phone itself is protected by a passphrase that encrypts the device, the FBI can still go to telecom companies to get all the phone metadata they want. They can also still track anyone they choose by getting a cell phone’s location information 24 hours a day, and of course they can still wiretap the calls themselves. Let’s not forget that with a four digit passcode - like iPhones come with by default - can easily broken into by the FBI without anyone’s help anyways. So a vast majority of this debate is already moot.
Beyond a few vague hypotheticals, Comey wouldn’t give any specific examples at the hearing about where this has tripped up the FBI before, but the last time the FBI did, what they said was immediately debunked as nonsense.
If you want to understand why encryption is important for protecting your data, look no further than the FBI’s own website. Well, at least you could until last week. For years, the FBI recommended people enable encryption on their phone to protect themselves against criminals, but at some point prior to Comey’s testimony, the FBI scrubbed that information from public view. (On 27 March the FBI told the National Journal that the security tips were not intentionally deleted, but “were because of the agency’s ongoing website redesign.”)
In other words, as security expert Jonathan Zdziarski remarked, the FBI “has weakened their recommended standards [and] best practices to intentionally leave you vulnerable to security breaches.” Computer science professor Matt Blaze put it another way: “Basically, the FBI is saying that they think you’re more likely to commit a crime than need to protect yourself against crime.”
The only thing worse than Comey’s position was the know-nothing members of the Appropriations Committee, who at various times were fawning all over Comey’s proposal and displaying zero knowledge about basic technological precepts. The video of the back-and-forth is cringe worthy.
When I say “know-nothing,” I’m not being facetious or hyperbolic. Take Representative John Carter for example, who the other members of the Appropriations Committee affectionately call “Judge” and kept deferring to in the hearing for his supposed wisdom. He also happens to be chairman of the subcommittee on Homeland Security in charge of funding cybersecurity. Carter prefaced his comments about cybersecurity and encryption by literally saying “I don’t know anything about this stuff.”
Yes, you read that right. The man in charge of billions of dollars of cybersecurity funding openly admits he has no idea what he’s doing. You can imagine how much “wisdom” his three minute soliloquy on the dangers of encryption contained.
The White House, for its part, was allegedly supposed to release their official position on the issue already, given the controversy. A White House official recently said: “[Obama] actually said there is no scenario in which the US government does not support strong encryption”. But now Comey is saying they may be drafting a law that states the opposite.
So which is it, do they want to encourage people to protect their security and privacy with technology, or do they want to pass a law to make that illegal?
|
|
|
The Case for Negotiating With Iran |
|
|
Sunday, 29 March 2015 13:00 |
|
Coll writes: "According to the International Atomic Energy Agency, Iran still hasn't come clean about its long history of secret weapons work. Yet Republican fear-mongering is overblown."
Secretary of State John Kerry, left, and Chinese foreign minister Wang Yi, right, and others during talks on Iran's nuclear program. (photo: AP)
The Case for Negotiating With Iran
By Steve Coll, The New Yorker
29 March 15
n 1974, the Ford Administration conducted nuclear talks with Iran. Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi, heir to the Peacock Throne and an American ally, had asserted his country’s right to build nuclear power plants. Henry Kissinger and Brent Scowcroft sought a deal to reduce the risk that Iran could ever make an atomic bomb. They had to manage a restive Congress. A secret White House memo summarizing the problem noted that “special safeguards [that] might be satisfactory to Congress . . . are proving unacceptable to Iran.”
Ford’s talks failed, as did negotiations undertaken by the Carter Administration. In 1979, the Shah fell to the Iranian Revolution. Ayatollah Khomeini, believing that nuclear weapons were un-Islamic, initially put Iran’s program on ice. After Khomeini’s death, in 1989, his successors bargained, smuggled, and dissembled, and by 2009 they had installed enough equipment to make a bomb within a few years. This was President Obama’s inheritance. After six years of diplomacy, capped by energetic negotiations led by Secretary of State John Kerry—who seems on some days to be the only man in Washington enjoying his job—the Administration may at last have a deal in sight, judging from recent statements made by Kerry and by his Iranian counterparts.
The precise details of Obama’s offer are unknown. Broadly, Iran would freeze its program in such a way that, if it broke the agreement, it would need at least another year to make a bomb, and it would accept special inspections. In return, the U.S., the European Union, Russia, and China would agree to the lifting of economic sanctions. Republicans positioning themselves for 2016 have denounced any deal. Their opportunism, abetted by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s divisive address to Congress earlier this month, has made it hard for Obama to clarify his argument: the bargain may carry risks, but it is better than any practical alternative.
One risk of any deal is that Iran will cheat successfully, as it has before. Between 2004 and 2009, it built a huge centrifuge facility under a mountain south of Tehran before Western intelligence agencies found out about the deception. According to the International Atomic Energy Agency, Iran still hasn’t come clean about its long history of secret weapons work. Yet Republican fear-mongering is overblown. The technology for detecting secret nuclear activity through atmospheric and water sampling, among other methods, isn’t foolproof, but it is very good. Large-scale cheating of the sort necessary to finish a bomb, which would require enriching uranium isotopes, would carry a significant risk of detection. If caught, Iran would likely face harsher economic sanctions, if not war.
A greater dilemma is that, by easing economic sanctions, a deal might empower Iran at a time when collapsing oil prices could reduce its ability to fund violent militias around the Middle East. The latest chapter of the Sunni-Shiite conflict is descending into a Thirty Years’ War of grotesquery—mass abductions, sexual slavery, tweeted beheadings. There are few innocents under arms, but Iran’s aggression is catalytic.
The Revolutionary Guards have trained Hezbollah’s fighters in Lebanon and Syria and provided the group with hundreds of millions of dollars. There is evidence that officers from Iran’s Quds Force, the hardcore Special Forces of the Guards, are fighting alongside the barrel-bombing military of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. Iran’s proxy violence does not cut entirely against American interests. Some of its enemies are also American enemies: the Islamic State and Al Qaeda. But many more Iranian foes are American allies, including Israel. Last week, a fragmented Yemen saw its civil war deepen further as Saudi Arabian warplanes intervened to bomb Shiite rebels backed by Iran.
These days, however, Iran looks overextended. Sanctions have cut the country’s oil exports by half, and the economy is contracting. The apparent willingness of the radical wing of Tehran’s regime to consider the nuclear freeze offered by the Obama Administration—a deal similar to ones that have failed previously—might be explained by the need to replenish the Revolutionary Guards’ sectarian war chest.
How would lifting sanctions not simply revitalize Iran’s expansionism? If the Administration doesn’t have a plan, it should devise one. Last week, in Tikrit, Saddam Hussein’s home town, American warplanes, in tacit alliance with Iranian-backed Shiite militias, bombed Islamic State positions, only to have several of the militias withdraw in protest. Obama has committed the U.S. to what looks to be a long war in Iraq, with Iran’s help; an attack on the large city of Mosul is due soon. The Islamic State has thrived because it has captured the grievances and bitter desperation of Iraq’s Sunni minority. Attacking the Sunnis with Shiite fighters is like trying to put out a fire with gasoline. If Iran’s proxies in Iraq gain more access to guns and money because of a nuclear deal with the West, that may only make things worse.
The record of Washington’s interventions in the sectarian landscape of Iran and Iraq is so abysmal that the case for restraint should be obvious. The Reagan Administration carried out a morally debased effort to foster mutual destruction between the two countries during the war that they fought from 1980 to 1988. (At the war’s inconclusive end, as Saddam Hussein gassed Iranian positions, the head of the Revolutionary Guards wrote to Khomeini suggesting that, if Iran wanted to prevail, it needed nukes.) The Bush Administration invaded Iraq to topple Saddam, only to reignite sectarian fighting and, while disenfranchising Sunnis, open a pathway for Iranian aggression.
One aim of Kerry’s dealmaking in Switzerland is to help stabilize the region by reducing the chance that Iran’s bomb program could set off a local atomic arms race. That is an objective worthy of considerable risk-taking. But a deal might achieve more stability—and go down better in Congress—if it was accompanied by a broader political strategy designed to separate Shiite and Sunni fighters, promote autonomy and self-governance for Sunnis opposed to the Islamic State, reduce violence, and stop Iran from intervening in Syria, Yemen, Lebanon, Bahrain, and Gaza.
For four decades, American Presidents of both parties have recognized that it is unacceptable for Iran to acquire a nuclear bomb, and that the only rational way to prevent this is to negotiate. After six years in office, and after repeatedly following the advice of his generals, only to see their predictions fail, Obama is choosing the risks of nuclear diplomacy over yet more war. It is the best of bad options, but it could be better still.
|
|
FOCUS | Senator Professor Warren and the Bankers |
|
|
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=11104"><span class="small">Charles Pierce, Esquire</span></a>
|
|
Sunday, 29 March 2015 11:18 |
|
Pierce writes: "Any Democratic politician who thinks this is a bad situation - or, worse, will not stand by a Democratic colleague in this situation - is not worth the hankie to blow Joe Lieberman's nose."
Elizabeth Warren. (photo: AP)
Senator Professor Warren and the Bankers
By Charles Pierce, Esquire
29 March 15
In which the Senator Professor makes all the right people nervous.
 et us be quite definite about this. Any Democratic politician who thinks this is a bad situation -- or, worse, will not stand by a Democratic colleague in this situation -- is not worth the hankie to blow Joe Lieberman's nose.
Representatives from Citigroup, JPMorgan, Goldman Sachs and Bank of America, have met to discuss ways to urge Democrats, including Warren and Ohio Senator Sherrod Brown, to soften their party's tone toward Wall Street, sources familiar with the discussions said this week. Bank officials said the idea of withholding donations was not discussed at a meeting of the four banks in Washington but it has been raised in one-on-one conversations between representatives of some of them. However, there was no agreement on coordinating any action, and each bank is making its own decision, they said.
My god, what a prodigious bluff. Also, my god, what towering arrogance? These guys own half the world and have enough money to buy the other half, and they're threatening the party still most likely to control the White House because they don't like the Senator Professor's tone? Her tone? Sherrod Brown's tone? These are guys who should be worried about the tone of the guard who's calling them down to breakfast at Danbury and they're concerned about the tenderness of their Savile Row'd fee-fees? Honkies, please.
The tensions are a sign that the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis - the bank bailouts and the fights over financial reforms to rein in Wall Street - are still a factor in the 2016 elections. Citigroup has decided to withhold donations for now to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee over concerns that Senate Democrats could give Warren and lawmakers who share her views more power, sources inside the bank told Reuters.
Tensions? These are the guys who should have spent the last six years going door to door apologizing to every American for blowing up the world economy and then buying up the splinters. That is, they should have been going door-to-door to apologize to all those Americans who still have doors they can call their own.
Call this. Do it now. Tell them their money is no good here any more. Give these brigands the 86 the way any respectable saloonkeeper gives the heave to a chronic deadbeat who's run up an unpayable tab. Show the country in simple (and not necessarily civil) words what these people really are. Demonstrate, speech by speech, that they have no loyalty to the political entity that is the United States of America, that they are stateless gombeen bastards who would sell this country's democracy off like a subprime mortgage to put another ten bucks into their pockets. They are threatening the people whom they still should be thanking for saving them from themselves. And Senator Professor Warren is only their most conspicuous target. Don't kid yourselves, this is a message they're sending to every politician, up and down the line, national and local. Don't cross us. We own you. There is only one response for a democratic people to make to this ongoing gross obscenity.
Bring it, motherfkers. Bring your lunch. And your lawyers.
This is a fight the Democratic party must have, if it's going to be worth a damn as a political entity. If some Democratic politicians line up on the wrong side, and they go down, so be it. The rest of the country has sacrificed enough for the plague-ridden benefits of its investor class.
|
|
hen This American Life 
