|
The Nation Article About the DNC Hack Is Too Incoherent to Even Debunk |
 |
|
Saturday, 12 August 2017 08:43 |
|
Feldman writes: "Yesterday, The Nation published an article by journalist Patrick Lawrence purporting to demonstrate that last summer's pivotal DNC hack was, in fact, an inside job."
Conclusive proof, or even strong evidence, that the DNC emails were leaked by an insider and not by Russian-sponsored hackers would indeed be a huge story. But the article offers neither conclusive proof nor strong evidence. (photo: Patrick Lux/Getty Images)
The Nation Article About the DNC Hack Is Too Incoherent to Even Debunk
By Brian Feldman, New York Magazine
12 August 17
 esterday, The Nation published an article by journalist Patrick Lawrence purporting to demonstrate that last summer’s pivotal DNC hack was, in fact, an inside job. Maybe unsurprisingly, it’s proven especially popular among people who hold it as an article of political faith that the Russian government and intelligence services played no role in the theft and publication of a cache of emails from DNC staffers:
Conclusive proof, or even strong evidence, that the DNC emails were leaked by an insider and not by Russian-sponsored hackers would indeed be a huge story — among other things, it would contradict the near-unanimous opinion of U.S. intelligence agencies, and raise some very serious questions about their objectivity and neutrality.
But this article is neither conclusive proof nor strong evidence. It’s the extremely long-winded product of a crank, and it’s been getting attention only because it appears in a respected left-wing publication like The Nation. Anyone hoping to read it for careful reporting and clear explanation is going to come away disappointed, however.
If you want to get to the actual claims being made, you’ll have to skip the first 1,000 or so words, which mostly consist of breathtakingly elaborate throat-clearing. (“[H]ouses built on sand and made of cards are bound to collapse, and there can be no surprise that the one resting atop the ‘hack theory,’ as we can call the prevailing wisdom on the DNC events, appears to be in the process of doing so.”) About halfway through, you get to the crux of the article: A report, made by an anonymous analyst calling himself “Forensicator,” on the “metadata” of “locked files” leaked by the hacker Guccifer 2.0.
This should, already, set off alarm bells: An anonymous analyst is claiming to have analyzed the “metadata” of “locked files” that only this analyst had access to? Still, if I’m understanding it correctly, Lawrence’s central argument (which, again, rests on the belief that Forensicator’s claims about “metadata” are meaningful and correct) is that the initial data transfer from the DNC occurred at speeds impossible via the internet. Instead, he and a few retired intel-community members and some pseudonymous bloggers believe the data was transferred to a USB stick, making the infiltration a leak from someone inside the DNC, not a hack.
The crux of the whole thing — the opening argument — rests on the fact that, according to “metadata,” the data was transferred at about 22 megabytes per second, which Lawrence and Forensicator claim is much too fast to have been undertaken over an internet connection. (Most connection speeds are measured at megabits per second, not megabytes; 22 megabytes per second is 176 megabits per second.) Most households don’t get internet speeds that high, but enterprise operations, like the DNC — or, uh, the FSB — would have access to a higher but certainly not unattainable speed like that.
If that’s your strongest evidence, your argument is already in trouble. But the real problem isn’t that there’s a bizarre claim about internet speed that doesn’t hold up to scrutiny. It’s that Lawrence is writing in techno-gibberish that falls apart under even the slightest scrutiny. You could try to go on, but to what end? As an example: Lawrence writes that “researchers penetrated what Folden calls Guccifer’s top layer of metadata and analyzed what was in the layers beneath.” What on earth is that supposed to mean? We don’t know what “metadata” we’re talking about, or why it comes in “layers,” and all I’m left with is the distinct impression that Lawrence doesn’t either. Even if you wanted to take this seriously enough to engage with, you can’t, because it only intermittently makes sense. There may be evidence out there, somewhere, that a vast conspiracy theory has taken place to cover up a leak and blame Russia. But it’s going to need to be at least comprehensible.
 |
|
The NFL Cowards Who Aren't Signing Colin Kaepernick |
|
|
Saturday, 12 August 2017 08:35 |
|
Feinstein writes: "Colin Kaepernick is, without question, the most polarizing figure in sports today. But Kaepernick, who quarterbacked the San Francisco 49ers to the Super Bowl in 2013, has never been arrested, has never been accused of hitting a woman."
Colin Kaepernick. (photo: Jake Roth/Reuters)
The NFL Cowards Who Aren't Signing Colin Kaepernick
By John Feinstein, The Washington Post
12 August 17
 olin Kaepernick is, without question, the most polarizing figure in sports today. But Kaepernick, who quarterbacked the San Francisco 49ers to the Super Bowl in 2013, has never been arrested, has never been accused of hitting a woman. He’s never been pulled over and charged with DUI or accused of cheating his sport by taking performance-enhancing drugs.
Athletes accused of committing these offenses are frequently welcomed back to their sports with open arms. In 2015, linebacker Greg Hardy, who had been found guilty of domestic abuse by a judge, was signed by the Dallas Cowboys after he avoided jail by asking for a jury trial and reportedly reaching a financial settlement with the victim, who then failed to show up to testify in court. The charges against Hardy, who has continued to maintain his innocence, were subsequently dismissed.
Cowboys owner Jerry Jones, who was inducted Saturday into the Pro Football Hall of Fame , not only signed Hardy but also at one point called him “one of the real leaders of this team.”
This is the same Jones who brought Josh Brent back after Brent had been found guilty of vehicular manslaughter after a teammate died in an accident when Brent was driving drunk.
Michael Floyd, a wide receiver for the Arizona Cardinals last season, served a brief jail sentence this year after being found guilty on a plea bargain of “extreme DUI.” His blood alcohol level when he was arrested was .217 — almost three times the legal limit in Arizona. It was Floyd’s second DUI conviction. He was signed this spring by the Minnesota Vikings.
Fans don’t seem to be bothered by athletes who commit crimes — even crimes of violence. When the Baltimore Ravens released Ray Rice after he was caught on camera in an elevator punching his then-fiancee, many fans wore “Free Ray Rice” T-shirts in his honor.
The list goes on.
But if you fail to stand for the national anthem and you say you are doing it to protest police brutality committed against African Americans, you are anathema to many people — notably the 32 NFL owners.
No one thinks that the white men who own NFL teams ever got together and said, “Don’t sign Kaepernick,” who became a free agent in March. Apparently, they didn’t need to.
John Mara, owner of the New York Giants, has been the most honest of the owners, saying that he received numerous letters from fans who vowed to cancel their season tickets if Kaepernick or any player who “disrespected” the flag played for his team. No doubt a handful of fans might cancel season tickets — and, in the case of the Giants, be instantly replaced by those on the waiting list.
At least Mara was being honest. Other owners and general managers have whispered (anonymously, of course) in the ears of more-than-willing-to-listen media members that Kaepernick’s just not good enough to be signed.
If Kaepernick were Tom Brady, Matt Ryan, Dak Prescott or any of the other star quarterbacks in the league, he’d have a job. But he’s a borderline starter right now. You can take on a polarizing issue, or you can be an ordinary player. You can’t do both. Kaepernick played reasonably well last year, starting 11 games for an awful team in San Francisco. He is certainly better than many, if not most, of the backup quarterbacks in the league.
Rice also went unsigned after his domestic abuse incident, but the consensus before the incident was that he had lost a step.
Kaepernick has gotten one serious look this offseason, from the Seattle Seahawks. After Seattle Coach Pete Carroll talked glowingly about Kaepernick, the team signed Austin Davis — who last took an NFL snap in 2015. When the Ravens needed a quarterback because of an injury to starter Joe Flacco, they signed David Olson — whose main claim to fame is leading the Wichita Force to a title in the Champions Indoor Football League. The Miami Dolphins signed the recently retired Jay Cutler when their starter, Ryan Tannehill, went down for the season.
That made sense. But their backup plan if Cutler hadn’t signed was reportedly to pursue Tim Tebow, who last played in the NFL in 2011, or Peyton Manning, who is 41 and retired two seasons ago.
Seriously?
Apparently, it doesn’t matter to the “love it or leave it” crowd that many military members have defended Kaepernick, saying things like “The reason we fought overseas was to protect his or anyone else’s right to protest.”
Kaepernick is actually an opportunity for the NFL. All it takes is one team to say publicly: We may disagree with his tactics, but he’s committed no crime and we will judge him on talent alone. The NFL — like most sports franchises — loves to prove its collective patriotism with salutes to the military — paid for, at times in the past, by the military. What’s more patriotic than freedom of speech?
Not signing Kaepernick because there might be backlash is the coward’s way out. The bravest person in this room is the man the cowards are running from.
|
|
|
It's Time to Restore and Strengthen the Voting Rights Act |
|
|
Saturday, 12 August 2017 08:31 |
|
Power-Drutis writes: "If judging only by the 99 new laws proposed in 2017 to restrict registration and voting access, one might assume that voter fraud is a widespread issue."
Voters at a polling precinct. (photo: Getty Images)
It's Time to Restore and Strengthen the Voting Rights Act
By Tamara Power-Drutis, YES! Magazine
12 August 17
On the 52nd anniversary of the Voting Rights Act, 31 states with histories of racial discrimination no longer have federal oversight of their voting process.
 f judging only by the 99 new laws proposed in 2017 to restrict registration and voting access, one might assume that voter fraud is a widespread issue.
Yet according to a study in May by the Brennan Center for Justice, of the 23.5 million votes cast in the 2016 general election, only an estimated 30 incidents across 42 jurisdictions were referred to by election officials as suspected noncitizen voting.
In a one-year period, America has had more proposed laws prohibiting voting than cases of actual voter fraud incidents. So what makes a statistically nonexistent issue warrant the current level of scrutiny or legislative action?
If the proposed cures appear worse than the problem they’re designed to solve, that’s because the problem isn’t voter fraud, but the growing number of women, people of color, young, and low-income voters filling out ballots.
Over half a century ago, President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Voting Rights Act into law in order to guarantee the elimination of racial discrimination in voting. It resulted in a sharp increase in African American voter registration and has been considered the most effective piece of civil rights legislation in history.
That is, until it was gutted by the Supreme Court in 2013 in Shelby County v. Holder. This decision removed the preclearance clause. Effectively, this meant jurisdictions with histories of passing discriminatory voting laws were no longer subject to federal oversight when passing voting laws that could impact minority voters.
Let me restate that: Regions with a history of racial discrimination no longer have federal oversight of their voting process.
The 2016 presidential election was the first in 50 years without the protection of the preclearance clause, and it was marked not by record-breaking turnout, but by first-time voter suppression laws in 15 states. The 52nd anniversary of the Voting Rights Act was this week, but the number of states with newly proposed voter restrictions is up to 31.
It’s time to get serious about restoring and strengthening the Voting Rights Act.
The rising American electorate
The Voter Participation Center reported that the fastest-growing demographics in the U.S. are unmarried women, people of color, and millennials. The center calls this group the Rising American Electorate (RAE) and notes that they make up the majority of voting-eligible Americans yet are statistically less likely to be registered to vote or engaged in the political process.
There’s a reason certain candidates don’t want that statistic to change: RAE members tend to prioritize support for working families, wage and gender equity, and a progressive economic agenda. In other words, where the RAE votes en masse, progressive candidates and issues are likely to win.
Seventeen states enforce restrictive voter ID laws that require voters to prove their legal names and addresses already, and in 2017 so far 99 bills have been proposed to restrict access to registration and voting. These increasingly rigid laws and ever-shifting rules are making it particularly difficult for people of color, women, and millennials to take part in our democracy.
Jen Tolentino, director of policy and civic tech at Rock the Vote, said that “these policies are designed to disproportionately impact people of color, with up to 25 percent of African American citizens lacking an ID, versus 8 percent of White citizens.”
Not exactly what President Johnson had in mind for the Voting Rights Act.
Young voters are particularly vulnerable, according to Tolentino, as they often move for education or work and lack government-issued IDs with a current address. “If they move to a state with a voter ID law and do not pay for an updated state ID,” says Tolentino, “they are prevented from exercising their right to vote in their community of residence.”
Tolentino explained that for transgender people, there are significant barriers and even potential humiliation at the polls if appearance and gender do not match the government-issued ID. Several states have passed voter ID laws making transgender people ineligible to update their government-issued ID until they have undergone gender reassignment surgery—which not all transgender people need or want—further compromising their rights to vote.
A recent study by Williams Institute scholar Jody Herman estimates that 30 percent of voter-eligible transgender individuals across eight voter ID states don’t have identification that aligns with their genders.
Voting while female
While the 19th Amendment states that “the right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex,” voter ID laws enacted by state and local governments disproportionately impact women, who consistently vote for Democratic candidates at higher rates than men.
Tolentino said that “across the populations most suppressed by voter ID laws—like people of color and low-income, elderly, students, and LGTBQ people—50 percent are women. In addition, 90 percent of married women—from any group—change their name and are also impacted. So across the board, women have a more difficult time casting a ballot under these laws.”
Women—particularly the 90 percent of whom change their names when they marry or divorce—may lack a state-issued photo ID matching their current legal names. An official copy of a marriage license must be obtained to get a photo ID, which can be cost-prohibitive for some low-income women at $75 to $175, depending upon the required documents and distance of travel.
In fact, only 66 percent of voting-age women are reported to have access to documents proving their citizenship that match their current legal names. Only 48 percent have birth certificates matching their current legal names.
“These discriminatory laws create barriers and confusion to purposefully silence entire populations,” Tolentino said.
Let the people vote
In honor of the anniversary of the Voting Rights Act, and believing that it’s time for a new kind of visual weapon against these attacks, artist Ashley Lukashevsky teamed up with Amplifier and Rock the Vote to bring voter suppression to light. Her three-part illustration series, featured throughout this story, is available as free high-res downloads on Amplifier’s website, as well as animated gifs.
“Voting is supposed to be the one foundational political act that all Americans have equal access to,” Lukashevsky said. “To take that away is deeply wrong and reveals so much about our broken political system.”
While restoring the full Voting Rights Act would be a significant step toward reducing discrimination in voting, on its own this step wouldn’t eliminate the issue. Many of the recent discriminatory laws passed would have been blocked by the act, but not all.
Now through Sept. 4, while the House and Senate are in recess, our representatives will be at home and available to meet with their local constituents. I encourage you to call your representative’s district office and schedule a time to talk with them about the Voting Rights Act.
It’s time not only to restore the full Voting Rights Act, but strengthen it to protect our right to vote.
|
|
After Referendumb, a Coup Attempt; Is Capitulation Next? |
|
|
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=27921"><span class="small">Mort Rosenblum, Reader Supported News</span></a>
|
|
Friday, 11 August 2017 14:03 |
|
Rosenblum writes: "Venezuelans are dying in the streets to preserve their democracy. All we Americans have to do is vote. If we're not up to that, history will see us as the people who capitulated, dumbly handing over our keys to a self-obsessed clown."
Donald Trump. (photo: Getty)
After Referendumb, a Coup Attempt; Is Capitulation Next?
By Mort Rosenblum, Reader Supported News
11 August 17
 hether Donald Trump is a bumbling selfish fool or an evil genius no longer matters. Only months into his presidency, with swaggering relish on a pause from golf, he has brought the world to nuclear High Noon.
Saddam Hussein hunkered in a spider hole or Muammar Qaddafi impaled on a broomstick ought to teach us something. Tyrants cannot let themselves back away from showdown, least of all Kim Jung-un. God help us all if he delivers a suicide note.
Most likely, China will defuse the crisis quietly. With sticks and carrots, it can induce Kim to deescalate in some face-saving manner. That requires Trump to shut the hell up and not let his CIA director threaten "regime change."
The last war North Korea started, with 1950s weaponry, killed 1.2 million people. Status quo boiled over because Trump taunted Kim in January, saying his missiles would not reach America. U.S. Pacific bases were then already in range.
Now, with Seoul just down the road from heavy artillery, Trump threatens "fire and fury such as the world has never seen." Even generous interpretation suggests he is ready for nuclear war to deflect prosecutors circling the White House.
Then there are his ham-handed moves on the Middle East backgammon board, his two-faced bluster about the destructive, needless Wall that Mexico won't actually pay for, and so much else in an overheated world that badly needs cooling down.
Meantime, schism in America is shaping an authoritarian state that cripples education, plunders natural resources, widens income gaps and reduces America to an isolated also-ran world power. We have few checks and no balance.
Should Trump exit the scene, we are left with Mike Pence, a narrowly focused fundamentalist who slavishly enables the disgraceful Washington tragicomedy. Mitch McConnell has no soul, and Paul Ryan has no spine.
Growing resistance and Trump's dropping popularity offer hope. But most Americans are so disheartened and confused that they simply tune out, focusing on their own workaday struggles. That is dangerous beyond description.
Now we hear federal agents stormed Paul Manafort's home at dawn, an extreme not reached during the tensest moments of Watergate. Investigators are probing Trump's all-in-the-family machinations. He still won't release his tax returns.
History shows a demagogue can destroy a democracy with a 30 percent hardcore base willfully blind to fact. Today, an autocrat can speak directly to followers, bypassing reporters while enabling police and the courts to muzzle dissent.
One dramatic event can tip the balance toward fearful capitulation. A month after Adolf Hitler was sworn in as Germany's elected chancellor in 1933, someone set fire to the Reichstag. We all know what happened next.
Trump's diehards won't change. We need persistent pressure on legislators and government agencies along with massive turnout for any election. This is not about party but rather candidates who care more about us than themselves.
The long-term goal is a Congress and state legislatures that can reform our dysfunctional systems: direct suffrage, shorter campaigns with strict controls on money spent; closer scrutiny of what candidates have done, not what they say.
But the immediate challenge is what Trump promised before doing the polar opposite: Drain the swamp.
Venezuelans are dying in the streets to preserve their democracy. All we Americans have to do is vote. If we're not up to that, history will see us as the people who capitulated, dumbly handing over our keys to a self-obsessed clown.
To do better at home, we need to understand the wider world. Here are some thoughts on how things fall apart from a reporter who first went abroad in 1964 to cover free democratic elections in a peaceful, prosperous Venezuela.
--Consider the term, enemy, and assess actual threat. Russia is a regional power that needs us more than we need it. As candidate Trump said, we should improve relations. But Putin saw him as malleable, what Lenin called a useful idiot.
Now we're enemies. Robert Mueller will shed light on why, if he survives.
--Nations have common interests, not friends. With skillful diplomacy, China and United States could work together on global crises and curb each other's appetites. Trump's flip-flop policy pushes Xi Jinping even harder to build up his arsenal, claim new territory and muscle us aside for strategic materials across the world. As China ascends, human rights diminish and despots dig in deeper.
--Americans who see their brokerage accounts rise need to watch a Roadrunner cartoon. When world realities catch up to Wall Street, Wile E. Coyote is likely to look down and drop like a rock. Economic blocs are moving away from a man whose idea of a "deal" is to threaten, walk away, and crawl back if necessary. That rug-dealer approach works in real estate but not in global trade.
--Bolting our doors and slashing foreign aid does not make us safer. Refugee totals, near 70 million, will soar with droughts and rising seas. We need limits. Yet Trump tried to renege on Barack Obama's promise to admit 1,250 refugees now in Australia, saying we weren't a "dumping ground." In the leaked transcript, he insulted Malcolm Turnbull and showed no human empathy, only concern for his image. "This shows me to be dope...I think it is ridiculous and Obama should never have signed it...It was a rotten deal."
America is hardly to blame for all the world's refugees, but it is the main culprit. Germany, with a fourth the population, which opposed the Iraq War that opened Pandora's box, shelters over a million. We've taken in only a token so far, and many Americans resent even those.
Trump's own words define him, and therefore us: heartless to others' suffering and ignorant of the inevitable result. Many more people now hate us. His priority is a diffuse "war on terror," yet he increases potential terrorists by geometric proportions.
Freedoms we have seen vanish across the world are now eroding at home. Black lives matter. Racism and police discrimination are critical issues. But, beyond the political connotations of the phase, all lives matter. Wrongful death is the extreme, yet there is so much else short of that.
Vignettes reveal a larger picture. I've written about Christopher Morris, the photographer who a federal agent slammed to the ground at a Trump rally. He has covered Washington for so long, with intimate White House access, that the Secret Service chief is a friend. Trump's people invited him to that rally as part of a Time magazine profile.
Recently, Chris gave me the details. A Secret Service agent pushed him when he tried to take a picture. That was breach of protocol by a rookie infused with rally fervor; agents don't touch. Chris said so, including a "fuck" in there somewhere. The man dropped him with a choke hold.
"I made a serious mistake when I got up," Chris said. "I touched his throat to show him what he had done." That amounted to assaulting a federal officer, a possible 16 years in prison. In the time of Trump, Chris decided not to file charges.
That is how it starts. Imagine when it is you against Them, with no cameras catching every detail or friends in high places. Trump was not yet president. Now he urges police to brutality, to treat suspects as guilty until proven innocent.
There is far more to say, and plenty of others have said it. It is time now to fit together the isolated outrages and idiocies into a clear picture of what we face, as individuals and as a nation.
Trump is not likely to win in 2020, but we said that in 2016. Before America went to the polls, I wrote that the election amounted to a referendumb that would define us. Later, I described a creeping coup d'etat, a bald assault on the Constitution.
Today, the more evidence reporters and analysts show us, the deeper those deplorables dig in. "Alternative-fact" outlets present lies as truth. Rich backers buy once-trusted news outlets and launch new ones. For starters, Google the new radio scourge, Sinclair Broadcasting, and find John Oliver's expose of its menace.
Now, urgently, we need to resist at every level, challenge every action not worthy of us, and correct our lapse of good sense. The alternative is cowardly, ignominious capitulation.
|
|
