RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Politics
Why Social Media Is Friend to Far-Right Politicians Around the World Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=49437"><span class="small">Casey Newton, The Verge</span></a>   
Wednesday, 31 October 2018 13:19

Newton writes: "It was an awful weekend of hate-fueled violence, ugly rhetoric, and worrisome retreats from our democratic ideals."

Protester in Brazil. (photo: Buda Mendes/Getty)
Protester in Brazil. (photo: Buda Mendes/Getty)


Why Social Media Is Friend to Far-Right Politicians Around the World

By Casey Newton, The Verge

31 October 18


The links between social media, domestic terrorism, and the retreat from democracy

t was an awful weekend of hate-fueled violence, ugly rhetoric, and worrisome retreats from our democratic ideals. Today I’m focused on two ways of framing what we’re seeing, from the United States to Brazil. While neither offers any comfort, they do give helpful names to phenomena I expect will be with us for a long while.

The first is stochastic terrorism: “The use of mass, public communication, usually against a particular individual or group, which incites or inspires acts of terrorism which are statistically probable but happen seemingly at random.” I encountered the idea in a Friday thread from data scientist Emily Gorcenski, who used it to tie together four recent attacks.

In her thread, Gorcenski argues that various right-wing conspiracy theories and frauds, amplified both through mainstream and social media, have resulted in a growing number of cases where men snap and commit violence. “Right-wing media is a gradient pushing rightwards, toward violence and oppression,” she wrote. “One of the symptoms of this is that you are basically guaranteed to generate random terrorists. Like popcorn kernels popping.”

On Saturday, another kernel popped. Robert A. Bowers, the suspect in a shooting at a synagogue that left 11 people dead, was steeped in online conspiracy culture. He posted frequently to Gab, a Twitter clone that emphasizes free speech and has become a favored social network among white nationalists. Julie Turkewitz and Kevin Roose described his hateful views in the New York Times:

After opening an account on it in January, he had shared a stream of anti-Jewish slurs and conspiracy theories. It was on Gab where he found a like-minded community, reposting messages from Nazi supporters.

“Jews are the children of Satan,” read Mr. Bowers’s biography.

Bowers is in custody — his life was saved by Jewish doctors and nurses — and presumably will never go free again. Gab’s life, however, may be imperiled. Two payment processors, PayPal and Stripe, de-platformed the site, as did its cloud host, Joyent. The site went down on Monday after its hosting provider GoDaddy, told it to find another one. Its founder posted defiant messages on Twitter and elsewhere promising it would survive.

Gab hosts a lot of deeply upsetting content, and to its supporters, that’s the point. Free speech is a right, their reasoning goes, and it ought to be exercised. Certainly it seems wrong to suggest that Gab or any other single platform “caused” Bowers to act. Hatred, after all, is an ecosystem. But his action came amid a concerted effort to focus attention on a caravan of migrants coming to the United States in seek of refugee.

Right-wing media, most notably Fox News, has advanced the idea that the caravan is linked to Jewish billionaire (and Holocaust survivor) George Soros. An actual Congressman, Florida Republican Matt Gaetz, suggested the caravan was funded by Soros. Bowers enthusiastically pushed these conspiracy theories on social media.

In his final post on Gab, Bowers wrote: “I can’t sit by and watch my people get slaughtered. Screw your optics. I’m going in.”

The individual act was random. But it had become statistically probable thanks to the rise of anti-immigrant rhetoric across all manner of media. And I fear we will see far more of it before the current fever breaks.

The second concept I’m thinking about today is democratic recession. The idea, which is roughly a decade old, is that democracy is in retreat around the globe. The Economist covered it in January:

The tenth edition of the Economist Intelligence Unit’s Democracy Index suggests that this unwelcome trend remains firmly in place. The index, which comprises 60 indicators across five broad categories—electoral process and pluralism, functioning of government, political participation, democratic political culture and civil liberties—concludes that less than 5% of the world’s population currently lives in a “full democracy”. Nearly a third live under authoritarian rule, with a large share of those in China. Overall, 89 of the 167 countries assessed in 2017 received lower scores than they had the year before.

In January, The Economist considered Brazil a “flawed democracy.” But after this weekend, the country may undergo a more precipitous decline in democratic freedoms. As expected, far-right candidate Jair Bolsonaro, who speaks approvingly of the country’s previous military dictatorship, handily won election over his leftist rival.

In the best piece I read today, BuzzFeed’s Ryan Broderick — who was in Brazil for the election — puts Bolsonaro’s election into the context of the internet and social platform. Broderick focuses on the symbiosis between internet media, which excels at promoting a sense of perpetual crisis and outrage, and far-right leaders who promise a return to normalcy.

Typically, large right-wing news channels or conservative tabloids will then take these stories going viral on Facebook and repackage them for older, mainstream audiences. Depending on your country’s media landscape, the far-right trolls and influencers may try to hijack this social-media-to-newspaper-to-television pipeline. Which then creates more content to screenshot, meme, and share. It’s a feedback loop.

Populist leaders and the legions of influencers riding their wave know they can create filter bubbles inside of platforms like Facebook or YouTube that promise a safer time, one that never existed in the first place, before the protests, the violence, the cascading crises, and endless news cycles. Donald Trump wants to Make American Great Again; Bolsonaro wants to bring back Brazil’s military dictatorship; Shinzo Abe wants to recapture Japan’s imperial past; Germany’s AFD performed the best with older East German voters longing for the days of authoritarianism. All of these leaders promise to close borders, to make things safe. Which will, of course, usually exacerbate the problems they’re promising to disappear. Another feedback loop.

A third feedback loop, of course, is between a social media ecosystem promoting a sense of perpetual crisis and outrage, and the random-but-statistically-probable production of domestic terrorists.

Perhaps the global rise of authoritarians and big tech platforms are merely correlated, and no causation can be proved. But I increasingly wonder whether we would benefit if tech companies assumed that some level of causation was real — and, assuming that it is, what they might do about it.

Democracy

On Social Media, No Answers for Hate

You don’t have to go to Gab to see hateful posts. Sheera Frenkel, Mike Isaac, and Kate Conger report on how the past week’s domestic terror attacks play out on once-happier places, most notably Instagram:

On Monday, a search on Instagram, the photo-sharing site owned by Facebook, produced a torrent of anti-Semitic images and videos uploaded in the wake of Saturday’s shooting at a Pittsburgh synagogue.

A search for the word “Jews” displayed 11,696 posts with the hashtag “#jewsdid911,” claiming that Jews had orchestrated the Sept. 11 terror attacks. Other hashtags on Instagram referenced Nazi ideology, including the number 88, an abbreviation used for the Nazi salute “Heil Hitler.”

Attacks on Jewish people rising on Instagram and Twitter, researchers say

Just before the synagogue attack took place on Saturday, David Ingram posted this story about an alarming rise in attacks on Jews on social platforms:

Samuel Woolley, a social media researcher who worked on the study, analyzed more than 7 million tweets from August and September and found an array of attacks, also often linked to Soros. About a third of the attacks on Jews came from automated accounts known as “bots,” he said.

“It’s really spiking during this election,” Woolley, director of the Digital Intelligence Laboratory, which studies the intersection of technology and society, said in a telephone interview. “We’re seeing what we think is an attempt to silence conversations in the Jewish community.”

Russian disinformation on Facebook targeted Ukraine well before the 2016 U.S. election

Dana Priest, James Jacoby and Anya Bourg report that Ukraine’s experience with information warfare offered an early — and unheeded — warning to Facebook:

To get Zuckerberg’s attention, the president posted a question for a town hall meeting at Facebook’s Silicon Valley headquarters. There, a moderator read it aloud.

“Mark, will you establish a Facebook office in Ukraine?” the moderator said, chuckling, according to a video of the assembly. The room of young employees rippled with laughter. But the government’s suggestion was serious: It believed that a Kiev office, staffed with people familiar with Ukraine’s political situation, could help solve Facebook’s high-level ignorance about Russian information warfare.

Europe’s parliament calls for full audit of Facebook in wake of breach scandal

Natasha Lomas reports on the EU’s latest move to put pressure on Facebook over data privacy:

MEPs are urging the company to allow European Union bodies to carry out a full audit to assess data protection and security of users’ personal data, following the scandal in which the data of 87 million Facebook users was improperly obtained and misused.

In the resolution, adopted today, they have also recommended Facebook make additional changes to combat election interference — asserting the company has not just breached the trust of European users “but indeed EU law”.

Facebook, Google May Face Billions in New Taxes Across Asia, Latin America

Inspired by the EU, more governments across the world are contemplating a tax based on the revenue of foreign technology companies like Facebook and Google rather than their profit.

Facebook’s political ad policy comes up against an anti-Ted Cruz meme page

Here’s another case of Facebook dark money, from Donie O’Sullivan. Who’s behind the Crush Cruz Facebook page?

The “Crush Cruz” page on Facebook first appeared on September 12th. Since then the person or people behind the page have spent almost $6,000 on dozens of Facebook ads, which doesn’t sound like much, but according to Facebook data reviewed by CNN Business, the page could have reached more than a million Texans. Facebook took away the page’s ability to run political ads in its current form after CNN Business inquired about it.

Inside the Government-Run War Room Fighting Indonesian Fake News

Facebook has an election war room. And now, so does Indonesia!

More than 187 million people are expected to cast their votes when the country goes to the polls on April 17. With six months of campaigning left, a deluge of political and social narratives — true and false — are being distributed to shape voters’ views.

In an attempt to stem that flow, Indonesia’s Ministry of Communications has established a ‘war room,’ where a surveillance team of 70 engineers monitor social media traffic and other online platforms 24 hours a day. When Bloomberg visited on Wednesday, more than a dozen engineers were keeping a close eye on posts about an incident in West Java on Oct. 22, in which a flag bearing an Islamic creed was burned, prompting outrage across the country.

Midterms 2018: Cybersecurity and Russian hacking remain a major concern

Benjamin Wofford investigates the security of the US election system and comes away extremely concerned:

The country’s election vulnerability falls into three broad camps: 1) the targeting of individual campaigns, which are susceptible to email theft and other meddling; 2) the hacking of our national discourse, or “information operations,” which are the propaganda efforts designed to sow discord; and perhaps most dangerously, 3) the technology itself that underlies the country’s election infrastructure.

In the past two years, federal and state officials have scrambled to harden a system that is almost perfectly vulnerable to the kinds of meddling and mischief on offer from Russian (or other) adversaries. One reason for this vulnerability: The basic configuration of American elections dates to 1890 — a chaotic ritual designed, literally, for another century.

How Silicon Valley is trying to help Democrats capture Congress in 2018

Tony Romm looks at the influx of Silicon Valley money into Democratic campaigns. (There’s also a perfunctory “this will lead to more claims of bias from Republicans” angle to this story that I find somewhat overstated and largely irrelevant, given that Republicans were saying this before 2018 and will continue saying it until the heat death of the universe.)

Many of these newly awakened tech workers are motivated by Trump’s controversial policies on issues including immigration, and they’re focused on closing what they perceive to be an innovation gap with the GOP, two years after Trump effectively tapped Facebook, Twitter and other data-heavy tools on his road to victory. One outgrowth of the Valley’s efforts, a service called MobilizeAmerica, has helped Baer find potential supporters in Florida’s 18th District, a chunk of the state about the size of Rhode Island. The tool helped the campaign knock on more than 2,000 doors during a campaign event held a month before Election Day, aides said.

“After the 2016 election, I think we saw a number of individuals in the tech space, in Silicon Valley and also around the country, frankly saying they wanted to use technology for good,” said Baer, who stands to become Florida’s first openly lesbian representative in Congress if she wins. “And because of that, we’ve seen a proliferation of new tools.”

Elsewhere

Cesar Sayoc’s Path on Social Media: From Food Photos to Partisan Fury

Kevin Roose wades through tweets and Facebook posts to chart the alleged mail bomber’s devolution into a fringe conspiracy theorist and terrorist. Something appeared to change for him in 2016.

But before Mr. Sayoc’s accounts were taken down, The New York Times archived their contents. And a closer study of his online activity reveals the evolution of a political identity built on a foundation of false news and misinformation, and steeped in the insular culture of the right-wing media. For years, these platforms captured Mr. Sayoc’s attention with a steady flow of outrage and hyperpartisan clickbait and gave him a public venue to declare his allegiance to Mr. Trump and his antipathy for the president’s enemies.

On social media, none of this behavior is particularly out of the ordinary. In fact, to many of his followers, Mr. Sayoc may have appeared to be just one of many partisan keyboard warriors working through their rage.

Instagram deletes Milo Yiannopoulos bomb post after struggling to enforce its own guidelines

It’s not at all clear to me why Instagram waited until after public outrage to remove a post that called it “sad” that the mail bombs sent to Democrats last week didn’t go off. But it did.

Twitter to remove ‘like’ tool in a bid to improve the quality of debate

Here’s a poorly sourced and likely false story about Twitter eliminating one of its core engagement mechanics — and “soon,” to boot! A normal company would deny this, but Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey has said the company is “rethinking everything,” which could presumably include a measure this drastic. Here’s a case where I find Twitter’s embrace of “transparency” awkward — its practical effect is to create more confusion and uncertainty, in ways that damage trust in the company. (Shannon Liao has more on why the like button is probably not going anywhere.)

Facebook is Full of Emotional-Support Groups

Here’s a good product criticism of Facebook Groups from Sarah Zhang. Facebook makes it weirdly hard to reach people even in small groups that have assembled for the express purpose of making it easy to get in touch:

Other moderators have noticed how Facebook’s algorithm shapes the discussion in groups. Posts in a group, not unlike the newsfeed, are sorted algorithmically by default. “If you click on the group, it tends to be the most popular content, but it’s not the most relevant,” says Dana Lewis, a member of several diabetes groups. For example, according to Lewis, the algorithm might keep showing a post whose question has been answered. And it might de-prioritize posts from new members that don’t get much engagement—ensuring they get even less engagement in a form of algorithmic ghosting. It’s not exactly a friendly welcome to a support group. “I don’t think Facebook has done a good enough job,” says Lewis. “They have a lot of room to improve.” A Facebook spokesperson noted that members can choose to see most-recent posts first, and admins see posts in their approval queue in reverse chronological order.

Snap CEO Named Chief Business Officer, Then Changed His Mind

An unbelievably bad look for Evan Spiegel at Snap, from Sarah Frier:

On a recent Friday, Kristen O’Hara got a major promotion: to become Snap Inc.’s chief business officer. Chief Executive Officer Evan Spiegel made it official by alerting her direct reports, according to people familiar with the matter.

Two days later, he changed his mind, rescinded the offer and hired Jeremi Gorman, who oversaw ad sales at Amazon.com Inc. The switch was jarring for Snap’s sales division, as O’Hara was well-liked, according to people familiar with the matter. Now she’s gone.

China’s LinkedIn Honey Traps

Jonas Parello-Plesner writes about the time that China used LinkedIn in an effort to recruit him as a spy:

Back in 2011-2012, I was asked to connect over LinkedIn by a handsome Chinese woman representing a recruitment company, DRHR, in China. I accepted. She had LinkedIn connections to well-seasoned China scholars, which lowered my alertness. Back then I had just started a book project on how Chinese companies risk manage in fragile environments around the globe, so I was interested in connecting with Chinese companies through DRHR. Initially not much came of the connection.

On a later trip to Beijing, she suggested an opportunity to meet. My LinkedIn contact never showed but claimed she had important business in Hangzhou. Instead, at the St. Regis, a five-star hotel where foreign delegations often congregate, I was greeted by three inconspicuous Chinese men. They vaguely presented themselves as representatives of a Chinese state-sponsored think tank, but never provided me with business cards. In China, this is as awkward and unusual as being naked in a meeting. I soon understood that they worked to recruit Westerners on behalf of the Chinese party-state.

A Dark Consensus About Screens and Kids Begins to Emerge in Silicon Valley

Nellie Bowles reports that parents who work the big tech platforms are more likely to restrict screen time for their children:

Ms. Stecher, 37, and her husband, [Facebook engineer] Rushabh Doshi, researched screen time and came to a simple conclusion: they wanted almost none of it in their house. Their daughters, ages 5 and 3, have no screen time “budget,” no regular hours they are allowed to be on screens. The only time a screen can be used is during the travel portion of a long car ride (the four-hour drive to Tahoe counts) or during a plane trip.

Launches

Pixelfed: a decentralized take on Instagram

Pixelfed is an open-source, federated platform: like Mastodon, but for pretty pictures. Fun idea — let me know if you try it.

Takes

Twitter Should Kill the Retweet

Taylor Lorenz says Twitter should get rid of retweets. (Counterpoint: I like retweets!)

The quest to accrue retweets regularly drives users to tweet outlandish comments, extremist opinions, fake news, or worse. Many users knowingly tweet false and damaging information and opinions in an effort to go viral via retweets. Entire Twitter accounts have been built on this strategy. If Twitter really wants to control the out-of-control rewards mechanisms it has created, the retweet button should be the first to go.

Retweets prey on users’ worst instincts. They delude Twitter users into thinking that they’re contributing to thoughtful discourse by endlessly amplifying other people’s points—the digital equivalent of shouting “yeah, what they said” in the midst of an argument. And because Twitter doesn’t allow for editing tweets, information that goes viral via retweets is also more likely to be false or exaggerated. According to MIT research published in the journal Science, Twitter users retweet fake news almost twice as much as real news. Other Twitter users, desperate for validation, endlessly retweet their own tweets, spamming followers with duplicate information.

Should cash-strapped Snapchat sell out? To Netflix?

Josh Constine tells Netflix to buy Snap:

That’s why I think Netflix could be a great acquirer for Snap. They’re both video entertainment companies at the vanguard of cultural relevance, yet have no overlap in products. Netflix already showed its appreciation for Snapchat’s innovation by adopting a Stories-like vertical video clip format for discovering and previewing what you could watch. The two could partner to promote Netflix Originals and subscriptions inside of Snapchat. Netflix could teach Snap how to win at exclusive content while gaining a place to distribute video that’s under 20 minutes long.

And finally ...

Twitter says that it ‘made a mistake’ for not removing tweets from Florida bomb suspect

The alleged Florida mail bomber had sent threatening tweets to a variety of people. Some of those people reported them as threats, and Twitter, as is its wont, told the harassment victims that they had not, in fact, been harassed. Then the man allegedly sent a bunch of mail bombs and Twitter decided that, actually, those tweets were threats after all.

Twitter’s defining characteristic as a company, to my mind, is a kind of generalized haplessness. Waiting until someone sends a bomb to admit that yeah, OK, that tweet was a threat represents a new low in negligence. It doesn’t seem like the company is treating this episode like a crisis.

It ought to.

Email This Page

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
FOCUS: Grassroots Resistance Must Destroy Trump's "RED WALL" of Fraud and Theft Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=6004"><span class="small">Harvey Wasserman, Reader Supported News</span></a>   
Wednesday, 31 October 2018 12:15

Wasserman writes: "To hold back a potential Democrat 'Blue Wave,' Trump has formed a RED WALL to disenfranchise millions of Americans while counting only those votes Trump wants."

Anti-Trump protesters in Miami. (photo: CNN)
Anti-Trump protesters in Miami. (photo: CNN)


Grassroots Resistance Must Destroy Trump's "RED WALL" of Fraud and Theft

By Harvey Wasserman, Reader Supported News

31 October 18

 

rump’s November 6 blitzkrieg depends on stripping our right to vote and flipping the vote count.

To hold back a potential Democrat “Blue Wave,” Trump has formed a RED WALL to disenfranchise millions of Americans while counting only those votes Trump wants.

As in 2000, 2004 and 2016, corporatist Democrats are doing little to counteract the GOP attack on our electoral system. But independent citizens’ groups like Progressive Democrats of America, the Lakota People’s Law Project, the Romero Institute, Freepress.org and others have brought a sense of desperate determination to protect the legitimacy of this election. Let’s take a look:

  • Nationwide, the infamous Crosscheck program is again having an impact. As reported by Greg Palast, Crosscheck was deployed in 2016 by Kansas’s white supremacist secretary of state, Kris Kobach (now running for governor), to disenfranchise more than a million voters in 29 states by claiming citizens in different states with similar names deserved to be stripped from the voter rolls. Palast and election protection analyst Steve Rosenfeld now report that the use of Crosscheck may be diminished this year, in large part due to citizen opposition. But many citizens purged in prior years may still have trouble voting.

  • In Kobach’s Kansas, election officials have kicked out of town the one voting station in largely Hispanic Dodge City. The community’s single polling station must accommodate some 12,000 voters in a state where the average precinct serves 1,200. The ballot boxes are now more than a mile from the nearest bus stop. Town officials have voted to extend the bus route, but the ACLU has sued to move the voting station back to town.

  • Georgia secretary of state Brian Kemp is holding hostage more than 50,000 voter registration forms in an election in which he is running for governor. An outspoken Trump supporter, Kemp is in a tight race with African-American Democrat Stacy Abrams. Kemp’s Jim Crow tactics could also impact the state’s 14 US House races.

  • Beyond the locked-up registration forms, Kemp has stripped some 550,000 citizens from the voter rolls for allegedly moving out of state. Palast’s research shows that more than 340,000 of those on the list haven’t moved at all, while thousands more moved within the state or even within their own counties. Abrams over the years has helped lead massive voter registration drives in Georgia. But Kemp’s registration stripping could force tens of thousands of Georgians to cast provisional ballots that are likely to never be counted.

  • Ohio’s Secretary of State Jon Husted has gotten US Supreme Court approval to strip more than a million citizens from voter rolls, mostly in heavily Democratic urban areas. Husted is running the election in which he is running for lieutenant governor. Progressive US senator Sherrod Brown is fighting to keep his seat. Likewise, a dead-heat governor’s race which will help determine how new Congressional and state legislative districts are set in 2020.

  • North Dakota is denying voting rights to thousands of Indigenous citizens whose absence could cost incumbent Democratic US senator Heidi Heitkamp her seat. Heitkamp was swamped with donations after she voted against the confirmation of Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh. But the court (by a 6-2 vote, without Kavanaugh) has upheld a new state law requiring voters to have a street address, even though thousands of indigenous people living on reservations have never had one. Tribal leaders and activists are fighting to re-register native citizens on reservations throughout the state.

  • In Texas, with early voting well underway, voters are reporting that when they choose an option to vote the straight Democratic ticket on electronic machines, their choice is apparently going to Republican senator Ted Cruz instead of the Democrat, Beto O’Rourke. This outcome mimics what happened in Ohio 2004, when Youngstown voters electronically selected John Kerry but the indicators for George W. Bush lit up. Early voting has also been marred by reports of “unprecedented” intimidation.

  • With at least seven key House seats being hotly contested, California has dropped a requirement that all ballots be audited. The state has charged that unaudited provisional and late-coming mail-in ballots could be flipped with no public transparency.

  • Heavily gerrymandered US House districts in North Carolina were overturned by the by the US Supreme Court ... but left intact for 2018 by a court system that ruled it would be too disruptive to fix them before the election, even though it has since ruled that North Dakota’s new street address requirement will stand despite its disruptive impact on indigenous voting there.

  • Arizona, North Carolina and Missouri, among others, have been assaulted by complex, confusing and highly disruptive GOP disenfranchisement campaigns.

  • Across the US, electronic voting machines that produce auditable electronic ballot images are having that feature turned off, making reliable audits virtually impossible due to the flipping of a simple switch. Election protection activist John Brakey is campaigning to have all such machines properly in use on election day.

  • Throughout the US, Trumpist officials are restricting voter access by demanding photo ID while eliminating early voting, stripping out precincts and issuing confusing voting requirements.

  • By contrast, according to Brakey, Maryland has shaped up as a model state for reliable voting and counting, with statewide use of electronic ballot images and more.

  • Voting rights activists continue to campaign for making election day a national holiday, universal automatic voter registration, hand-counted paper ballots and ballot images, extended voting opportunities, eliminating gerrymandering, and more.

As election day approaches, the darkness is palpable. The nation is clouded by the butchery of a Washington Post journalist, pipe bombs mailed by a Trump fanatic to a host of liberal mainstays, the imminent deployment of troops to our southern border, the lingering bitterness of the Kavanaugh hearings, the mass slaughter at a Pittsburgh synagogue. Throughout the nation, we can only fear what might come next.

Whether election rights activists can cut through to protect the voter rolls and guarantee a fair vote count may well determine whether those storm clouds can finally be dispersed.

Email This Page


Harvey Wasserman’s Green Power & Wellness Show is podcast at prn.fm. His California Solartopia Show is broadcast at KPFK-Pacifica 90.7FM Los Angeles. His upcoming Life & Death Spiral of US History: From Deganawidah to the Trumpocalypse to Rebirth will soon join Solartopia! Our Green-Powered Earth at www.solartopia.org.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
FOCUS: Top 5 Mistakes GOP's Wohl Made in Allegedly Framing Mueller for Sex Charges Print
Wednesday, 31 October 2018 11:02

Cole writes: "If Wohl is behind the attempted Surefire fraud on Mueller, perhaps his biggest and sixth mistake was simply being completely unprincipled."

Jacob Wohl is a pro-Trump conspiracy theorist who has been linked to the alleged sexual assault claims against special counsel Robert Mueller. (photo: YouTube)
Jacob Wohl is a pro-Trump conspiracy theorist who has been linked to the alleged sexual assault claims against special counsel Robert Mueller. (photo: YouTube)


Top 5 Mistakes GOP's Wohl Made in Allegedly Framing Mueller for Sex Charges

By Juan Cole, Informed Comment

31 October 18

 

ne. Republican activist Jacob Wohl allegedly set up a phony company called “Surefire Intelligence,” charged with paying supposed women victims of Special Counsel Robert Mueller to allege sexual abuse. Wohl used his own email address to set up the site, and give his mother’s telephone number as the contact. Anonymizing is difficult on the Web, but Wohl wasn’t even trying. And if you are going up against the former director of the FBI with a covert op, being this transparent is political suicide. Wohl was ill advised to be the one to announce the scame beforehand:

2. According to the New Yorker’s Jane Mayer, Wohl used his own photoshopped image for a profile photo. I’ll bet you he used his own computer to start the shell company so that his IP address was recorded, as well.

3. The Atlantic’s Natasha Bertrand acquired an email from woman identifying herself as Lorraine Parsons, “who told journalists that she had been offered roughly $20,000 by a man claiming to work for a firm called Surefire Intelligence— which had been hired by a GOP activist named Jack Burkman—’to make accusations of sexual misconduct and workplace harassment against Robert Mueller.'” This is a mistake on Wohl’s part inasmuch as he appears to have had “Simon Frick” share ‘way too much information with the alleged victim, who then was in a position to share it with the press.

4. Bertrand says that “Simon Frick” of Surefire, whose profile photo at Linkedin is stolen from actor Christopher Walz, next approached Jennifer Taub, a professor at Vermont Law School. But “Frick” didn’t do any homework and it turns out that Taub didn’t know Mueller, though she commented on him as a guest on CNN. Law professors are not usually targeted for scams, so this incident actually strengthens the case. But who offers law professors $20,000 to commit perjury?

5. The date on which “Surefire” alleged Mueller engaged in sexual abuse in his office, Aug. 2, 2010, Mueller went to Washington, D. C., for jury duty.

As an attempt to sully Mueller’s reputation, this sting operation was even less artful than Saudi Arabia’s attempted cover-up of the murder of dissident journalist Jamal Khashoggi!

Wohl, a big Trump fan, says he began as a teenage hedge fund manager, and called himself ‘Wohl of Wallstreet.’ But it turns out that he is under investigation for the way he ran his accounts, according to the Daily Beast. Kelly Weill at DB adds, “A series of Craigslist ads solicited models to flatter his potential clients and a set of salacious websites registered to his name promoted models called ‘Wohl Girls,’ one of whom alleged that Wohl posted her pictures without her permission.”

If Wohl is behind the attempted Surefire fraud on Mueller, perhaps his biggest and sixth mistake was simply being completely unprincipled.

Email This Page

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Hate Unbound Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=39255"><span class="small">Robert Reich, Robert Reich's Website</span></a>   
Wednesday, 31 October 2018 08:28

Reich writes: "Demagogues rarely commit violence directly. Instead, they use blame, ridicule, fear and hate – and then leave the violence to others. That way, they can always claim 'it wasn’t me. I don’t have blood on my hands.'"

Former Clinton Labor Secretary Robert Reich. (photo: Steve Russell/Toronto Star)
Former Clinton Labor Secretary Robert Reich. (photo: Steve Russell/Toronto Star)


Hate Unbound

By Robert Reich, Robert Reich's Website

31 October 18

 

emagogues rarely commit violence directly. Instead, they use blame, ridicule, fear and hate – and then leave the violence to others. That way, they can always claim “it wasn’t me. I don’t have blood on my hands.”

Of the tens of millions of Americans that the Trump-Fox News regime has made fearful, only a small percentage – say, a hundred thousand – have been moved to hate the objects of that fear.

And of those hundred thousand, only a relative handful – say, a few thousand – have been motivated to act on that hate, posting loathsome messages online, sending death threats, spray-painting swastikas.

And of that few thousand, a tiny subset, perhaps no more than a hundred or so, have been moved to violence.

But make no mistake: This lineage of cause and effect begins with Trump and his Fox News propaganda machine.

Politicians and media moguls have long understood that fear and hate sell better than hope and compassion, no matter how much we might wish it otherwise. But before Trump, no president had based his office on it. And before Fox News, no major media outlet had based its ratings on it.

Ronald Reagan stoked racism by bashing “welfare queens” and George W. Bush by airing campaign ads featuring “Willie Horton,” but fear and hate weren’t the centerpieces of either presidency.

The two political operatives behind these campaigns bear mention, though: Lee Atwater, who had also been chairman of the Republican National Committee and a senior partner at the political consulting firm of Black, Manafort, Stone and Kelly (yes, that Manafort and that Stone); and Roger Ailes, who went on to create and run Fox News.

Atwater and Ailes premised their careers on fear and hate. Ailes’s Fox News monetized fear and hate through phantom menaces like a “terror mosque” near Ground Zero, Barack Obama’s alleged connections to black nationalists and Muslims, and Sarah Palin’s fictitious “death panels.”

Trump took Atwater and Ailes to their logical extremes – building a political base by suggesting Obama wasn’t born in America; launching his presidential campaign by warning of “criminals” and “rapists” streaming across the Mexican border; and ending his campaign with an ad suggesting that prominent Jews — billionaire philanthropist George Soros, Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein and Fed Chair Janet L. Yellen — were in league with Hillary Clinton to control the world.

Since taking office, Trump has ramped up fear and hatred – towards immigrants, journalists, black athletes who won’t stand for the anthem, major media, and prominent Democrats.

In recent weeks he suggested that criminals and terrorists from the Middle East had joined a caravan of immigrants heading toward the border, and even floated a conspiracy theory that Soros helped fund the caravan.

Fox News has magnified the fear and hate exactly as its founder would have wanted. A guest on Lou Dobbs’ show claimed the caravan was being funded by the “Soros-occupied State Department.”

That same week, Soros was among the targets of pipe bombs sent to prominent Democrats and members of the media. A Florida man who identifies himself as a Trump supporter was arrested in connection with the attempted bombings.

Hours before a gunman entered a synagogue in Pittsburgh and killed eleven worshipers, he reportedly wrote that a Jewish organization for refugees “likes to bring invaders in that kill our people. I can’t sit by and watch my people get slaughtered. Screw your optics, I’m going in.”

Bombs mailed to political leaders. Threats against the media. A shooting in a place of worship. None were directly ordered by Trump or his propaganda affiliate. They didn’t have to be.

Trump’s demagoguery inspired it. Fox News magnified it.

The hatefulness is unconstrained. Having fired the few “adults” in his Cabinet, Trump is now loose in the White House, except for a few advisors who reportedly are trying to protect the nation from him.

House and Senate Republicans are not holding him back. To the contrary, they have morphed into his sycophants. An increasing number are sounding just like him.

Atwater and Ailes are gone from this world, but their descendants – Fox News’s Sean Hannity and Bill Shine, formerly Roger Ailes’s deputy – have direct pipelines to Trump (Shine is now formally installed in the West Wing).

The upcoming election is not really a choice between Republicans and Democrats. Those traditional labels have lost most of their meaning, if not much of their value.  

It is really a choice about the moral compass of America.

Email This Page

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
How Democrats Can Reverse Years of Voter Suppression Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=24351"><span class="small">Richard L. Hasen, Slate</span></a>   
Wednesday, 31 October 2018 08:28

Hasen writes: "Faced with the latest flurry of hardball Republican tactics on voting issues this election cycle, Democrats are grappling with the reality of an opposition that now seems determined to cement long-term minority rule."

Democratic odds will improve if it’s easier for eligible voters to vote. Above, Democratic gubernatorial candidate Andrew Gillum speaks at a rally on Sept. 24 in Miami. (photo: Joe Raedle/Getty Images)
Democratic odds will improve if it’s easier for eligible voters to vote. Above, Democratic gubernatorial candidate Andrew Gillum speaks at a rally on Sept. 24 in Miami. (photo: Joe Raedle/Getty Images)


How Democrats Can Reverse Years of Voter Suppression

By Richard L. Hasen, Slate

31 October 18


It doesn’t require packing the Supreme Court.

aced with the latest flurry of hardball Republican tactics on voting issues this election cycle, Democrats are grappling with the reality of an opposition that now seems determined to cement long-term minority rule. In order to combat this dynamic, progressives need a plan of their own for the next time they control both houses of Congress and the presidency. The single best step that Democrats could take under a future unified control would be to use the “nuclear option” to expand voting rights. This would let Democrats, by a simple majority vote, enact wide-ranging voting reform, from restoring a key part of the Voting Rights Act, to automatic voter registration, to statehood for D.C.

This progressive version of electoral hardball—which would merely mean killing the filibuster for voting rights legislation—is an appropriate response to the hardball tactics Republicans have used to manipulate the U.S. political system in recent years. Consider the most prominent example of recent Republican hardball: the Republican Senate in 2016 denying Obama-nominated Judge Merrick Garland a hearing for a Supreme Court spot after the death of Justice Antonin Scalia. In 2017, meanwhile, the Republican Senate invoked the so-called nuclear option, which lowered from 60 votes to a simple majority the number of senators necessary to confirm a Supreme Court nominee, leading to the confirmations of Justices Neil Gorsuch and, more recently, Brett Kavanaugh.

GOP hardball has by no means been restricted to the federal level. From Georgia to Kansas to North Carolina to North Dakota, Republican-dominated legislatures have used a variety of means to make it harder for likely Democratic voters to register and vote.

The Supreme Court has abetted all of these efforts, killing off a key provision of the Voting Rights Act, freeing the wealthy to spend unlimited sums of money to influence elections, and failing to rein in extreme partisan gerrymandering in states like North Carolina and Wisconsin.

There is thus a growing fear that all these moves, combined with the bias of the Senate toward small states, will lead to a period of sustained minority rule in the United States. In response, some have proposed radical changes, such as a plan to pack the Supreme Court with liberal justices if and when Democrats take control. Others fear that such tactics by Democrats could cause things to spiral out of control, further eroding democratic norms after a period in which President Donald Trump has attacked courts, the free press, and the integrity of the election system itself.

In his engaging new book, An Uncivil War, Washington Post columnist Greg Sargent grapples with the challenges to democratic norms and majority rule unleashed by Trump and the Republican Party. Sargent mines the political science and legal literature on norm devolution and constitutional hardball to urge Democrats to think carefully about the kind of change they might undertake should they retake the levers of power in 2021 or beyond. Drawing on the work of professors Joseph Fishkin and David Pozen, Sargent cogently argues that “Democrats will have to do whatever they can to, in effect, take the weaponry out of GOP hands (in effect, out of both parties’ hands) whenever possible.”

Sargent is on the right track, and the key is finding the right balance between restoring political equality and fomenting an all-out political war. Rather than begin with a radical step like court packing, Democrats could, by simple majority, vote to adopt a procedure whereby all future voting rights measures need only a simple majority to pass. Not only would killing of the filibuster here be the exact same move that Republicans did to allow for the majority votes on Kavanaugh and Gorsuch, Democrats could correctly claim that such a move will further the values of equality embedded in the 14th and 15th amendments of the Constitution.

Once Democrats go nuclear on voting rights, here are some pieces of legislation that could pass by majority vote:

  • Legislation restoring the preclearance provisions of the Voting Rights Act, which the Supreme Court killed in 2013’s Shelby County v. Holder, using a new coverage formula to satisfy the court’s standard in that case.

  • Legislation passed under Congress’s Article I powers to require states to establish independent redistricting commissions, using neutral standards, for the drawing of congressional district lines.

  • Legislation admitting Puerto Rico and D.C. as states in the union, creating four more Senate seats.

  • Legislation giving greater voting rights to American citizens living in U.S. territories.

  • Legislation establishing automatic voter registration for congressional elections, complete with a national registration system that would both ensure that eligible people are registered to vote and that ineligible people are kept off the rolls.

  • Legislation establishing generous public financing for elections (perhaps through the use of campaign finance vouchers), barring foreign interference in U.S. elections, requiring greater transparency in political giving, and limiting contributions to independent groups like super PACs.

To be sure, some of these measures might be challenged in court, and the conservative Supreme Court would have to decide how much political capital to spend if it wanted to strike them down along partisan lines (all with the threat of court packing in the background).

And some might worry that eliminating the filibuster for voting rights could come back to haunt Democrats, because Republicans could then pass laws by simple majority vote contracting voting rights should they take over the political branches again. They could no doubt try to package a strict voter ID law as preserving the voting rights of Americans by citing fraudulent claims of a “wave” of noncitizen voting.

The simple answer to this worry is that Republicans already could—and would—do this if they determined that it was in their political interests. We have seen that whatever norms have existed will not stand in the way of the preservation of their power. In any event, if Democrats are successful in using legislation to expand voting rights, Republicans are going to have a harder time running on a platform of shrinking that growing electorate.

The other risk of course is that Republicans respond by killing the filibuster for everything. This concern is legitimate, because killing the filibuster might let a majority of senators representing a minority of Americans enact more anti-democratic legislation. I expect, though, that Republicans would do that if they wanted, regardless of whether Democrats went nuclear on voting rights first. After all, both Democrats and Republicans went nuclear on judges, and it hasn’t yet caused the whole system to collapse.

Using the nuclear option to promote democracy makes sense. It’s not as far as some Democrats likely would want to go, but it would go a long way toward undoing some of the damage to our democracy over the past few decades, and particularly the past few years.

Going nuclear on voting rights won’t happen next week, even if Democrats take back the House and (less likely) the Senate. It requires a cooperative president. But it’s a heck of a platform for the 2020 election season, which starts next week.

Email This Page

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
<< Start < Prev 1091 1092 1093 1094 1095 1096 1097 1098 1099 1100 Next > End >>

Page 1091 of 3432

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN