Showing posts with label The_New_York_Times. Show all posts
Showing posts with label The_New_York_Times. Show all posts

12 February 2016

Clinton campaign 'covers' NH defeat

The Blog


Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign planted an "inside sources" article at Politico supposedly anticipating the Clinton campaign's defeat in New Hampshire.


This is the suspicion of Thomas Knapp writing at his KN@PPSTER blog. Knapp notes how Hillary Clinton "responded" so promptly to so-called "rumors", saying "I'm very confident in the people that I have. I'm very committed to them; they're committed to doing the best we can."

Knapp wrote, "The Clinton campaign planted the Politico story, then offered the "response" so that no matter how things come out in New Hampshire tonight, their bases are covered. They've got preemptive explanations for whatever they decide to do." In sum, therefore, the Clinton campaign quickly planted articles and responses to make the impact of their defeat seem less severe in the public eye. Whether Clinton is going to lose the larger battle against opposing Democratic candidate Bernie Sanders is not clear.


The post at the blog quotes The New York Times where it is stated that in New Hampshire at least, Bernie Sanders was destined to be the victor "by a lopsided margin" due to being considered "honest and trustworthy" in contrast with the lying Clinton. This trend favoring the election of honest political leadership, after years of cynical lies and manipulation by warmongering state figures towards the public in the US, is comparable with the rise of Jeremy Corbyn to lead the Labour Party in the UK.

Thomas Knapp is the Director of the Garrison Center and a member of the digitized Mont Order society, who developed a code of values in late 2015 that briefly sums up the collective philosophy of its membership.


The clubof.info Blog

Read More »

2 February 2016

Obama's "dark money" executive order

The Blog


Today, this blog takes a break from its normal severe criticism of the Obama administration.


For anyone on the side of transparency like our blog, Obama's possible "No Secret Money Executive Order", as Demand Progress termed it after studying a New York Times article on the subject, is an absolute must-support.

If applied (and it is likely that Obama will allow it to stumble in Congress where it will be blocked by the very same vultures it was designed to expose) the executive order will force large corporate contractors hired by the Federal government to publish a list of their campaign gifts. As Demand Progress activists wrote, "This executive order would force them to choose: Disclose your donations, or give up those sweet federal contracts."

Absurd reasoning has already been offered against transparency in other aspects of government policy in the past, and the GOP clearly still excels in such nonsense, but here is a new gem to be recorded by us. From the NYT article:
"The real goal of the disclosure proponents is to harass, intimidate and silence those with whom they disagree,” said Blair Latoff Holmes, a spokeswoman for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. “We continue to believe that one’s political activities should play no role in whether or not you get or keep a federal contract, and we encourage the administration to leave this bad idea right where it is."
What do you think? Do you agree with Demand Progress that making corporations publish the truth about their campaign donations is the right thing to do, or with the Chamber of Commerce that it is a type of harassment and intimidation against lovely liars if the public knows who is paying them?


The clubof.info Blog

Read More »

24 November 2015

Mass surveillance unjustified: NYT

The Blog


In an unusual step by a publication close to the US government and part of mainstream media, the New York Times editorial board has slammed mass surveillance in an article.


The article in question mentioned that CIA director John Brennan was trying to blame Edward Snowden and the youth of America, who idolize the whistleblower, for jeopardizing the country's security. In remarks, the CIA man tried to put some of blame for the outrageous terror attacks in Paris, which killed 129 civilians, on Snowden and others who condemn espionage.

Brennan even called the attacks in Paris a “wake-up call.” However, Brennan is a known liar, as the NYT article points out:

  • "Last year, he bluntly denied that the C.I.A. had illegally hacked into the computers of Senate staff members conducting an investigation into the agency’s detention and torture programs when, in fact, it did.
  • "In 2011, when he was President Obama’s top counterterrorism adviser, he claimed that American drone strikes had not killed any civilians, despite clear evidence that they had.
  • "And his boss, James Clapper Jr., the director of national intelligence, has admitted lying to the Senate on the N.S.A.’s bulk collection of data."

The article further states that mass surveillance would not have prevented the Paris attacks, as it was already being used on the attackers but there are simply too many extremists being monitored for the government to know who to arrest and when. As stated in the article, "the problem in this case was not a lack of data, but a failure to act on information authorities already had."

If this is so, then mass surveillance is useless, apparently impressive at a technical level, but in reality impractical in ensuring any security whatsoever for the state or the people. It does no good to have all the information in the universe if you don't know what to do with it. It must be remembered that millions of dollars continue to be poured into these programs, which do nothing to make anyone safe. Not a single terrorist attack has been stopped by intercepting phone calls or emails.

Commenting on the controversy, internet freedoms lobby group Fight for the Future praised the NYT article and asked Americans to forward it to their representatives in Congress. They also added that the technology actually used by terrorists to coordinate the attacks in Paris consisted of non-encrypted SMS messages, meaning that encryption is simply not needed in terror attacks.

The only possible goal of the government's plan for backdoors into encryption is actually to harass political opposition (which Britain's GCHQ admitted in a leaked slideshow), since militant groups and terrorists have shown no reliance on encryption anyway.


In its concluding paragraphs, the NYT article encouraged readers to ignore the lies of the CIA head John Brennan and the FBI's James Comey, who try to muddle Americans' minds by making them believe Snowden has put them at risk from terror when he has merely told the truth. If anything, the ones who are putting Americans in danger are rogue intelligence agencies.

Comey's idea that Apple and Google should ensure all software is sabotaged to be easier to decode and spy on was criticized by Fight for the Future, who said this will actually make people more vulnerable to terrorists. The NYT board concurs with this analysis, having stated, "requiring that companies build such back doors into their devices and software could make those systems much more vulnerable to hacking by criminals and spies".


The clubof.info Blog


Enter your email address:


Delivered by FeedBurner
Read More »

25 September 2015

Big government vs big tech?

The Blog


Responding to Robert B. Reich's New York Times article "Big Tech Has Become Way Too Powerful", an antistatist writer blamed big government for the very problems Reich was suggesting the government should solve.


Writing at the Center for a Stateless Society (C4SS) Joel Schlosberg rejected Reich's claim that the government must intervene in free markets in order to maintain them. Reich claimed that "There can’t be a market without government", which Schlosberg considers ignorant of abundant examples ranging from international trade (considering there is no world-government) to trade among individuals in the anarchic spaces of the Internet.

Also rejected by Schlosberg was the need for intellectual property as the pillar upholding innovation - by creating artificial scarcity in order to guarantee the existence of high-tech markets. Schlosberg instead advocated an alternative economy, saying "A full-fledged mutualistic economy of the digital age would instead be like the bazaars of eBay and Etsy, but for everything.".

Schlosberg concluded by pointing out that Reich contradicts himself in the New York Times op-ed, at first rejecting the way corporations aggressively use intellectual property to shut down competition (and thus innovation), and then parroting the fallacy that intellectual property is the fuel of innovation. Intellectual property, like national security and protectionism, is one of several legal constructions used by political and corporate oligarchs to slow innovation and inhibit the spread of new technologies.


The Blog


Enter your email address:


Delivered by FeedBurner
Read More »

Featured

Frivolous Litigation Watch: Alaska Already Solved This “Problem”

In a rather strange lawsuit — United States v. State of Alaska, filed on October 23 — the US Department of Justice asked a court to block th...

Follow Me on Twitter