Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
markpkessinger
markpkessinger's Journal
markpkessinger's Journal
December 20, 2015
So, this index of turnout/enthusiasm/support, is a database field created by, and the property of, the Clinton campaign. If Uretsky's intent had been merely investigative, he could have included that field in a select query, with no particular selection criteria specified, in order to test whether proprietary fields were exposed. There would have been no need to place any particular selection criteria on that field in the query, much less to filter it in a way that would yield information that could be specifically useful to the Sanders campaign. As for not attempting to cover his tracks, I'm sure Uretsky was aware that it is EXTREMELY difficult to get around a database's audit logs (that is, it is extremely difficult if the designers of the database had even minimal competency), and thus knew better than to even try (as the attempt itself would have raised red flags). Instead, he figured that if the queries came to light, he could pass them off as having been investigative in nature. Uretsky knew the security vulnerability was there. I think he figured that since they had previously reported that vulnerability, and nothing had been done about it, he could get away with exploiting that vulnerability to the benefit of the Sanders campaign, and that if any question should arise, he could claim his intent was investigative, citing the fact that he didn't try to cover his tracks to support that claim.
In the end, it was a monumentally stupid move by a campaign staffer, and he deserved to be fired because of it. When it came to light, the Sanders campaign took immediate, appropriate and effective remedial action. And THAT fact -- i.e., that the Sanders campaign had already taken timely, appropriate and effective remedial action, is what made the DNC's attempt to 'punish' the Sanders campaign so outrageous. The DNC's and Wasserman Schultz's disingenuousness is revealed for exactly what it is by the fact that the DNC was notified of a major security flaw in October, and two months later, no corrective action had been taken. I work in legal IT for a major international law firm. In my world, if a flaw like that had come to light, the vendor relationship would be immediately terminated, because it demonstrates the vendor's rank incompetence in database design. So why had the DNC not compelled NGP VAN to fix the flaw? That's anybody's guess. Why did the DNC not terminate the vendor relationship with NGP Van? Gee, do you think it could possibly have something to do with the fact that Stu Trevelyan, the CEO of NGP VAN, was a '92 staffer in the Clinton-Gore campaign, and a White House staffer during the Clinton presidency?
Wasserman Shultz is correct that an "open door" does not provide cover for someone who exploits it in order to access something they would not otherwise have access to. But there's another part of that analogy that points a finger back at the management of the DNC under Wasserman Schultz. Think of a retail store whose manager one night forgot to lock the doors upon closing, and the store, as it happened, was robbed that night. The owner of the store will certainly want to press charges against the thieves; but that owner will also most certainly fire the person who left the door open in the first place!
Presented with evidence of wrongdoing by a few of its staffers, the Sanders campaign took immediate and effective remedial action. Notified of a major security vulnerability in the DNC's database, Debbie Wasserman Schultz sat with her thumbs up her ass for two months, and then had the gall to self-righteously expound about an "open door." What's her excujse?
Why I don't buy Uretsky's story, and why that doesn't get the DNC off the hook
I have worked in IT for decades, in areas ranging from database design and management to IT security. When I initially heard Josh Uretsky's story that the queries against the Clinton campaign's proprietary data were performed as part of an effort to investigate the extent of exposure of the proprietary data of the Sanders, it sounded like a perfectly reasonable and even likely explanation. Then I read the specifics of the queries that were run. From CNN's reporting:
The Sanders team, which consisted of four people, ran multiple searches in Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, South Carolina and about 10 March states, including Florida and Colorado. In Iowa and New Hampshire, the Clinton campaign has ranked voters on a scale of 1-100 for turnout, enthusiasm and support, the senior Democrats said. The Sanders campaign ran two searches: "Show me all the Clinton people rated higher than 60" and "Show me all the people rated less than 30." This would be a key way of knowing who Sanders should target in the final weeks before voting: Ignore those above 60, while focus on those below 30, because they are looking for a Clinton alternative and might be open to Sanders.
So, this index of turnout/enthusiasm/support, is a database field created by, and the property of, the Clinton campaign. If Uretsky's intent had been merely investigative, he could have included that field in a select query, with no particular selection criteria specified, in order to test whether proprietary fields were exposed. There would have been no need to place any particular selection criteria on that field in the query, much less to filter it in a way that would yield information that could be specifically useful to the Sanders campaign. As for not attempting to cover his tracks, I'm sure Uretsky was aware that it is EXTREMELY difficult to get around a database's audit logs (that is, it is extremely difficult if the designers of the database had even minimal competency), and thus knew better than to even try (as the attempt itself would have raised red flags). Instead, he figured that if the queries came to light, he could pass them off as having been investigative in nature. Uretsky knew the security vulnerability was there. I think he figured that since they had previously reported that vulnerability, and nothing had been done about it, he could get away with exploiting that vulnerability to the benefit of the Sanders campaign, and that if any question should arise, he could claim his intent was investigative, citing the fact that he didn't try to cover his tracks to support that claim.
In the end, it was a monumentally stupid move by a campaign staffer, and he deserved to be fired because of it. When it came to light, the Sanders campaign took immediate, appropriate and effective remedial action. And THAT fact -- i.e., that the Sanders campaign had already taken timely, appropriate and effective remedial action, is what made the DNC's attempt to 'punish' the Sanders campaign so outrageous. The DNC's and Wasserman Schultz's disingenuousness is revealed for exactly what it is by the fact that the DNC was notified of a major security flaw in October, and two months later, no corrective action had been taken. I work in legal IT for a major international law firm. In my world, if a flaw like that had come to light, the vendor relationship would be immediately terminated, because it demonstrates the vendor's rank incompetence in database design. So why had the DNC not compelled NGP VAN to fix the flaw? That's anybody's guess. Why did the DNC not terminate the vendor relationship with NGP Van? Gee, do you think it could possibly have something to do with the fact that Stu Trevelyan, the CEO of NGP VAN, was a '92 staffer in the Clinton-Gore campaign, and a White House staffer during the Clinton presidency?
Wasserman Shultz is correct that an "open door" does not provide cover for someone who exploits it in order to access something they would not otherwise have access to. But there's another part of that analogy that points a finger back at the management of the DNC under Wasserman Schultz. Think of a retail store whose manager one night forgot to lock the doors upon closing, and the store, as it happened, was robbed that night. The owner of the store will certainly want to press charges against the thieves; but that owner will also most certainly fire the person who left the door open in the first place!
Presented with evidence of wrongdoing by a few of its staffers, the Sanders campaign took immediate and effective remedial action. Notified of a major security vulnerability in the DNC's database, Debbie Wasserman Schultz sat with her thumbs up her ass for two months, and then had the gall to self-righteously expound about an "open door." What's her excujse?
December 15, 2015
Is anybody else here taking Toujeo?
My doctor switched me to it (from Lantus) two weeks ago. Instead of 28 units twice a day, I'm taking 50 units once a day. Since I started on it, I have had only one reading above 110 (and that was only 141). The rest of my readings have been between 88 and 110. I couldn't be more pleased!
December 11, 2015
Perspective (on San Bernardino, terror, and Trump)
(Posted this a little while ago to Facebook, after reading that fear of terrorism in the wake of the San Bernardino shootings is driving a rise in Trump's poll numbers.)Perspective --
* Two disturbed, white American high school students shoot up Columbine High School, killing 13 and wounding 20; and Americans wring their hands, ask, "What ever shall we do," and then go about their business as if nothing had happened.
* A white, middle-aged stock trader in Atlanta shoots up a couple of office buildings in Atlanta, killing 12 and injuring 13, and Americans wring their hands, say, "Isn't that horrible," and then go about their business as if nothing had happened. as if nothing
* .A white, middle-aged guy shoots up an Amish school in Nickel Mines, PA, and American wring their hands, commend the Amish for their remarkable capacity to forgive, and go about their business as if nothing had happened.
* A young, white guy shoots up a movie theater in Aurora, Colorado, killing 12 and injuring 70, and Americans wring their hands, ask, "Oh, what shall we do," and then go about their business as if nothing had happened.
* A young, disturbed white guy shoots up an elementary school in Newtown, CT, killing 26, including 20 children, and Americans wring their hands -- a little longer this time -- then go about their business as if it had never happened.
THEN . . .
* A Muslim American man and his Pakistani wife, self-radicalized in 2013 before ISIS was even a thing, and acting entirely on their own, go on a shooting spree in San Bernardino, CA, killing 14 and injuring 20, and "OH, MY GOD, IT'S THE END OF WESTERN CIVILIZATION AS WE KNOW IT!"
Seriously, people -- GET A GRIP!
* Two disturbed, white American high school students shoot up Columbine High School, killing 13 and wounding 20; and Americans wring their hands, ask, "What ever shall we do," and then go about their business as if nothing had happened.
* A white, middle-aged stock trader in Atlanta shoots up a couple of office buildings in Atlanta, killing 12 and injuring 13, and Americans wring their hands, say, "Isn't that horrible," and then go about their business as if nothing had happened. as if nothing
* .A white, middle-aged guy shoots up an Amish school in Nickel Mines, PA, and American wring their hands, commend the Amish for their remarkable capacity to forgive, and go about their business as if nothing had happened.
* A young, white guy shoots up a movie theater in Aurora, Colorado, killing 12 and injuring 70, and Americans wring their hands, ask, "Oh, what shall we do," and then go about their business as if nothing had happened.
* A young, disturbed white guy shoots up an elementary school in Newtown, CT, killing 26, including 20 children, and Americans wring their hands -- a little longer this time -- then go about their business as if it had never happened.
THEN . . .
* A Muslim American man and his Pakistani wife, self-radicalized in 2013 before ISIS was even a thing, and acting entirely on their own, go on a shooting spree in San Bernardino, CA, killing 14 and injuring 20, and "OH, MY GOD, IT'S THE END OF WESTERN CIVILIZATION AS WE KNOW IT!"
Seriously, people -- GET A GRIP!
November 19, 2015
The security illusion
Safety, security -- these are illusions. Always have been, and, short of each of us living in armored pods hermetically sealed off from our fellow human beings (including, I might add, from our own families, since most of us, statistically speaking, stand a far higher risk of being injured or killed at the hands of a family member than by terrorists), always will be. Neither the people of Paris, nor the rest of the world, are any less safe because of the Paris attacks than we were before. The only thing that has changed is that our precious illusion of safety has momentarily been shattered. The attacks amount to barely a microscopic upward blip in the statistical risk faced by anyone of bring injured or dying in a terrorist attack.
And frankly, the sheer hypocrisy surrounding the hysteria over Syrian refugees is astounding, particularly in a country where, with mind-numbing regularity, scores are killed in one mass shooting after another, and yet most of us are content to go about their lives as if nothing had happened every time. In case anybody has forgotten, neither you, nor your child nor any other loved one, will be any less dead having been killed by a crazed, young, white American male with a gun than having been killed by a terrorist. So, 'safety,' you say? I don't want to hear it!
November 15, 2015
Paris in Perspective
What happened in Paris is an unspeakable horror, but no less horrific is the daily terror we have been raining down from the sky upon people across the Middle East for many years now. Some defend our "collateral damage" by pointing out that we "don't intend to target innocents" with our drone strikes. But that is a pretty weak defense, given that we target individuals while they are present at social gatherings -- weddings, funerals, etc. -- where we full well know innocent people will die in the strike. And in any case, I suspect that distinction between 'intended' and 'unintended' comes as cold comfort to any surviving family members.
The expressions of solidarity with and support for the people of Paris are commendable. But even as we make those gestures, we should, lest we become rather too righteous in both our sadness and our anger, remember that our own perceptions of 'innocence' are often skewed, our compassion and empathy not as universal as we like to tell ourselves, our outrage and indignation selective, and often quite conveniently so. I mean, when was the last time people en masse changed their Facebook avatars to the flag of Yemen, or gave such an outpouring of support for the people of that country, after one of our drone strikes took out dozens of innocent Yemeni citizens? Indeed, when was the last time anybody even gave a moment's thought of doing so?
October 30, 2015
As Jeff47 explains above in message #7, the bolded text above, by definition, means that it must be someone who is at least 25 (okay, so 26 is off by one year). Remember, there was no presidential primary in 2012, because we ran an incumbent. That means every recipient had to have voted in either 2004 or 2008. If someone was 18 in 2008, they are 25 now, and will be 26 in 2016.
Fut here is what I found even more telling: the table indicating the distribution of respondents by age group (also from page 4 of the linked document):
But of course, we know that 7% of voters who are "18-34" is really 7"25-34," because of the requirement of having voted in one of the last two Democratic primaries (in either 2004 or 2008). Yet, according to the Pew Research Center, the 17-29 age group comprised 22% of the total Democratic turnout in 2008, and 17% in 2004. So how can a poll that so negatively weights its sampling of the younger vote group with a 15-percentage point lower representation than that group had in the last Democratic Primary possibly be considered to be a valid poll?
About that "41% Lead" in Iowa . . .
. . . In a thread in GDP, Jeff47 correctly pointed out that that Monmouth University poll was skewed because its qualifying criteria effectively excluded any voters under the age of 26. Another DUer asked for a citation. Here is the text of my post in response:
From page 4 of Monmouth University's release of the poll (on Monmouth's domain):
The Monmouth University Poll was sponsored and conducted by the Monmouth University Polling Institute from October 22 to 25, 2015 with a statewide random sample of 400 Iowa voters drawn from a list of registered Democratic voters who voted in at least one of the last two state primary elections and indicate they are likely to attend the Democratic presidential caucuses in February 2016. This includes 300 contacted by a live interviewer on a landline telephone and 100 contacted by a live interviewer on a cell phone, in English. . . .
As Jeff47 explains above in message #7, the bolded text above, by definition, means that it must be someone who is at least 25 (okay, so 26 is off by one year). Remember, there was no presidential primary in 2012, because we ran an incumbent. That means every recipient had to have voted in either 2004 or 2008. If someone was 18 in 2008, they are 25 now, and will be 26 in 2016.
Fut here is what I found even more telling: the table indicating the distribution of respondents by age group (also from page 4 of the linked document):
POLL DEMOGRAPHICS (weighted)
44% Male; 56% Female
96% White, non-Hispanic; 5% Other
7% 18-34
17% 35-49
37% 50-64
39% 65+
44% Male; 56% Female
96% White, non-Hispanic; 5% Other
7% 18-34
17% 35-49
37% 50-64
39% 65+
But of course, we know that 7% of voters who are "18-34" is really 7"25-34," because of the requirement of having voted in one of the last two Democratic primaries (in either 2004 or 2008). Yet, according to the Pew Research Center, the 17-29 age group comprised 22% of the total Democratic turnout in 2008, and 17% in 2004. So how can a poll that so negatively weights its sampling of the younger vote group with a 15-percentage point lower representation than that group had in the last Democratic Primary possibly be considered to be a valid poll?
October 28, 2015
Bernie did NOT categorically oppose gay marriage . . .
The Salon article that is being discussed alleging that he once opposed gay marriage, based on his interview with Rachel Maddow last week, fails to mention what he actually said about that in response to her question.
Bernie opposed a SPECIFIC marriage equality measure that was being proposed in Vermont, at a SPECIFIC time for a SPECIFIC reason, which he spelled out very clearly in that interview. He pointed out that when that measure was proposed, it had only been a few years since Vermont had passed its civil unions law -- which he had fully supported -- which had bitterly divided the state. Bernie said he felt it was too soon to push further on that front, and that the state needed to "let the dust settle."
I am a 54-year-old gay man who has supported the cause of marriage equality for the past 35 years, ever since I came out in 1980 at the age of 19. And had I been a Vermonter, I likely would have agreed with Bernie's calculus at that time. I've been around long enough to understand that great damage can be dealt to a cause -- even a righteous cause -- by pushing too hard at the wrong time.
This has to be one of the most outrageous lies perpetrated by the Clinton camp yet (besides Hillary's attempt to rewrite the history of DOMA's passage, that is). For me, it raises a question: has either Clinton ever taken a position, pro or con, on any issue, that has been based on anything other than political expediency for their own, personal political ambitions? Do either of them even know what a principled stand looks like?
October 27, 2015
Obama is about to throw Medicare and SSD recipients under the bus in pursuit of a budget deal
The deal would increase spending by $80 bill over two years, and would be offset by Social Security Disability and Medicare benefit cuts. A Democratic president, striking a deal on the backs of those who can least afford it. I have no words for this. (Well, actually I do, but nothing I'd care to repeat in polite company.)
From The New York Times:
[font size=5]Congress and White House Near Budget Deal[/font]
[font size=2]By DAVID M. HERSZENHORN | OCT. 26, 2015[/font]
WASHINGTON — Congressional leaders and the Obama administration are close to a crucial budget deal that would modestly increase domestic spending over the next two years, make cuts in social programs and raise the federal borrowing limit. The accord would avert a potentially cataclysmic default on the government’s debt and dispense with perhaps the most divisive issue in Washington just before Speaker John A. Boehner is expected to turn over his gavel to Representative Paul D. Ryan of Wisconsin.
While congressional aides cautioned that the deal was not yet clinched, officials briefed on the negotiations said the emerging accord would increase spending by $80 billion, not including emergency war funding, over two years above the previously agreed-upon budget caps.
Those increases would be offset by cuts in spending on Medicare and Social Security disability benefits, as well as savings or revenue from an array of other programs, including changes to the nation’s strategic petroleum reserves.
If the deal happens, it would represent a significant breakthrough after years of gridlock in Congress, especially on fiscal issues, as each side compromised on a core issue. It also would give Mr. Ryan a clean start as speaker and Republicans a reset on trying to convince voters that they can be an effective governing majority.
< . . . . >
[font size=2]By DAVID M. HERSZENHORN | OCT. 26, 2015[/font]
WASHINGTON — Congressional leaders and the Obama administration are close to a crucial budget deal that would modestly increase domestic spending over the next two years, make cuts in social programs and raise the federal borrowing limit. The accord would avert a potentially cataclysmic default on the government’s debt and dispense with perhaps the most divisive issue in Washington just before Speaker John A. Boehner is expected to turn over his gavel to Representative Paul D. Ryan of Wisconsin.
While congressional aides cautioned that the deal was not yet clinched, officials briefed on the negotiations said the emerging accord would increase spending by $80 billion, not including emergency war funding, over two years above the previously agreed-upon budget caps.
Those increases would be offset by cuts in spending on Medicare and Social Security disability benefits, as well as savings or revenue from an array of other programs, including changes to the nation’s strategic petroleum reserves.
If the deal happens, it would represent a significant breakthrough after years of gridlock in Congress, especially on fiscal issues, as each side compromised on a core issue. It also would give Mr. Ryan a clean start as speaker and Republicans a reset on trying to convince voters that they can be an effective governing majority.
< . . . . >
October 25, 2015
I just had a thought as to how we could prevent a repeat of the Congressional fiasco concerning Benghazi. There have already been seven investigations involving 10 congressional committees besides the current one. They were conducted by:
1. House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. (“Interim Report on the Accountability Review Board,” Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 9/16/13)
2. Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs. (“Flashing Red: A Special Report on the Terrorist Attack at Benghazi,” the Senate Committee On Homeland Security And Governmental Affairs 12/30/12)
3. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. (“Review of the Terrorist Attacks on U.S. Facilities in Benghazi, Libya, September 11-12, 2012,” Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, 1/15/14)
4. House Committee on Foreign Affairs. (“Benghazi: Where is the State Department Accountability?,” Majority Staff Report – House Foreign Affairs Committee, 2/7/14)
5. House Committee on the Judiciary. (Interim Progress Report on Benghazi Investigation, 4/23/13)
6. House Committee on Armed Services. (“Armed Services Committee slams White House on Benghazi,” USA Today, 2/11/14)
7. House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. (“Investigative Report on the Terrorist Attacks on U.S. Facilities in Benghazi, Libya, September 11-12, 2012,” House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, 11/21/14)
The current one, which Hillary Clinton just testified before, is the "House Select Committee on Benghazi."
There really should be a law (it may require a constitutional amendment) that says that whenever a House or Senate committee decides it needs to investigate something, there will be ONE investigation covering both House and Senate, which may be joined by any of the committees. (This is in recognition of the fact that various committees may have different areas of inquiry they wish to pursue.)
Here's how it would work:
This is just a basic outline, and there may well be things that would need to be tweaked, added or modified in some way. But a structure like this would, I believe, accomplish several things. For starters, it would:
* put an end to the wasteful, duplicative time, energy and money expended by having multiple investigation by subcommittees of the same entity investigating the same topic;
* prevent either party from undertaking multiple, duplicative and repetitive investigations for the purpose of smearing their political adversaries, and from launching one investigation after another in search of a result they were unable to achieve the first time around;
* Reduce the ability of members of Congress to launch a duplicative investigation solely because they are seeking an opportunity to grandstand before the public.
Any thoughts? Are there any glaring considerations I'm missing? Any problems or omissions in any of the above?
An idea for preventing future Benghazi-type nonsense in Congress
This is something that just sort of popped into my head this evening as I contemplated the absurdity of the SEVEN prior Congressional Benghazi investigations, besides the current one which Hillary Clinton testified before this past week. The Republican thinking seems to have been, "let's launch one investigation after another until we get the result we want." So I began to ask myself how we could allow for serious investigations if and when they are necessary, but at the same time limit the ability of members of either house of Congress and of either party from using Congress' investigative and oversight authority in service of such nakedly political ends as they have done with eight Benghazi investigations. Keep in mind I'm just throwing this out for discussion, and it is all very preliminary -- this is just what I jotted down off the top of my head over the last hour. Would love to hear any and all reactions j or thoughts anybody hear might have regarding what follows!I just had a thought as to how we could prevent a repeat of the Congressional fiasco concerning Benghazi. There have already been seven investigations involving 10 congressional committees besides the current one. They were conducted by:
1. House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. (“Interim Report on the Accountability Review Board,” Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 9/16/13)
2. Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs. (“Flashing Red: A Special Report on the Terrorist Attack at Benghazi,” the Senate Committee On Homeland Security And Governmental Affairs 12/30/12)
3. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. (“Review of the Terrorist Attacks on U.S. Facilities in Benghazi, Libya, September 11-12, 2012,” Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, 1/15/14)
4. House Committee on Foreign Affairs. (“Benghazi: Where is the State Department Accountability?,” Majority Staff Report – House Foreign Affairs Committee, 2/7/14)
5. House Committee on the Judiciary. (Interim Progress Report on Benghazi Investigation, 4/23/13)
6. House Committee on Armed Services. (“Armed Services Committee slams White House on Benghazi,” USA Today, 2/11/14)
7. House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. (“Investigative Report on the Terrorist Attacks on U.S. Facilities in Benghazi, Libya, September 11-12, 2012,” House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, 11/21/14)
The current one, which Hillary Clinton just testified before, is the "House Select Committee on Benghazi."
There really should be a law (it may require a constitutional amendment) that says that whenever a House or Senate committee decides it needs to investigate something, there will be ONE investigation covering both House and Senate, which may be joined by any of the committees. (This is in recognition of the fact that various committees may have different areas of inquiry they wish to pursue.)
Here's how it would work:
- first, all committee chairs and ranking minority members of each committee of both the House and Senate would sit on a Joint Investigations Management committee. The sole function of this committee would be administrative/managerial in determining how joint resources should be allocated among any ongoing and proposed investigations. Since it includes both the chair and the ranking minority member from each committee, it would always have equal representation of both parties;
- whenever a committee, or either house of Congress as a whole, determines that something should be investigated, the committee chair would formally notify the Joint Investigations Management Committee of the proposed investigation, its nature and its scope. At that point, the respective committee chairs and ranking members would have a set period of time (say, 30-60 days) during which they could discuss the proposed investigation with their own committees, and then notify the Management Committee of their respective committees' desire to either join the investigation or decline to participate;
- regardless of how many committees joined a specific investigation, any hearings or proceedings would be conducted by only ONE committee, which I will call the "Prime Investigative Committee on {insert subject of investigation}" (probably the committee that originally proposed the investigation or, alternatively, the Management Committee could assign the investigation to the committee they believed was most appropriate to the topic of the investigation. Note that the Prime Committee designation would be a rolling one for each investigation, so if the Benghazi investigation had been assigned to, say, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, for purposes of the Benghazi investigation, it would be known as the "Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, acting as Joint Congressional Prime Investigative Committee on Benghazi."
- questions for any witnesses from members of other participating committees (who are not part of the Prime Committee) would be directed to the witness first in writing, and any clarifying questions that needed to be asked would be assigned to a member of the Prime Committee to ask of the witness during live testimony.
- If a particular committee declines to join a proposed investigation, it would thenceforth be barred from proposing an investigation into the same issue UNLESS new evidence had come to light that had particular and significant implications for the area of oversight which which that committee is charged. The determination of whether any new evidence met the test of significant particular interest to a committee that had previously declined to join the investigation would be made by simple majority vote of the Management Committee.
- when the Prime Committee had concluded its investigation and issued its final report, its conclusions would be regarded as final, and would not be subject to further challenge, nor the underlying topic subject to further review, unless substantive new evidence emerged that had not been available to the Prime Committee. That determination would be made by a vote of two-thirds of the Management Committee in favor reopening the investigation.
This is just a basic outline, and there may well be things that would need to be tweaked, added or modified in some way. But a structure like this would, I believe, accomplish several things. For starters, it would:
* put an end to the wasteful, duplicative time, energy and money expended by having multiple investigation by subcommittees of the same entity investigating the same topic;
* prevent either party from undertaking multiple, duplicative and repetitive investigations for the purpose of smearing their political adversaries, and from launching one investigation after another in search of a result they were unable to achieve the first time around;
* Reduce the ability of members of Congress to launch a duplicative investigation solely because they are seeking an opportunity to grandstand before the public.
Any thoughts? Are there any glaring considerations I'm missing? Any problems or omissions in any of the above?
October 16, 2015
Hillary’s debate performance failed to allay any of my concerns about her candidacy
(Posted originally as a Facebook note.)[font size=6]Hillary’s debate performance failed to allay any of my concerns about her candidacy[/font]
[font size=2 color="gray"]Mark Kessinger · Friday, October 16, 2015[/font]
Mainstream media pundits are insistent that Hillary Clinton “won” the first 2016 Democratic presidential debate, despite dozens of informal polls of viewers that gave the night to Sanders. I will concede that most of these polls were unscientific, and thus cannot necessarily be considered to be reliable indicators of the public perception; but at the same time, when so many polls – informal though they may be – lean in one direction, it certainly gives one reason to question whether the pundits’ analyses are entirely accurate. So, in the end, I am left with only my own, subjective reactions to the candidates’ debate performances, combined with what I know of their individual histories, to form a basis for my own evaluation of the candidates.
As a progressive Democrat, I have had serious reservations about Hillary’s candidacy all along. I support Bernie Sanders for the nomination (even if he is thought by many to be a long shot). But I have said repeatedly, and I still say, that should Hillary win the nomination, I will vote for her in the general election. (But then, what else could I do? Any of the concerns I have concerning a Hillary Clinton presidency are only magnified – ten-fold – when it comes to any of the potential GOP nominees. In the end, elections come down to choices among a set of flawed choices, and I’m not an idiot.)
If the measure of debate performances is style and polish, then sure, Hillary won hands down. I have never doubted (nor, do I think, have many others) that Hillary is anything other than a consummate political pro: of course she is – to a fault. But my reservations about her as a presidential candidate have never been about any lack of polish or inability to present herself. Rather, my concerns have been issues of substance: that is to say, what are her actual views on issues, what drives those views, if certain presently held positions conflict with past ones, when and why did those views change, and where do her commitments lie, based not only on her present statements, but on her history. Specifically, I have been troubled by (1) her past eagerness to support military interventions (something I think this country has been overly willing to engage in), (2) her long-standing ties to big business and to Wall Street, and (3) her past close identification with the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC), s group founded in 1985 and dissolved in 2011 (many of its members are today knows as “Third Way” Democrats, that led the party to the right in the 1990s and early 2000s, away from its historical commitments to labor, to minorities and to the poor, and towards a more corporate- and Wall Street- friendly footing. It is the corporatist wing of the Democratic Party.
I went into the debate really hoping, given Hillary’s position as frontrunner and presumptive nominee, that I would hear something from her that would help to allay those concerns. Unfortunately, I heard no such thing. If anything, her responses during the debate only highlighted and underscored them.
At the outset of the debate, Anderson Cooper pressed her about the widely held perception that she changes her views according to whatever is politically expedient to her at any given moment, citing, as one example, her shift on the subject of gay marriage (in less than a year, she went from being opposed to gay marriage to supporting it, and has never offered any explanation of the rapid shift). Hillary didn’t address the example, but adamantly insisted that she has always been absolutely consistent in taking positions that were based on her “values.” Ironically, though, in defending her ‘consistent’ record, she cited an example of her own – the Trans Pacific Partnership trade agreement, or TPP – and in so doing, misrepresented her own past support of the agreement. In the debate, Hillary said:
The only problem with that is that, as Secretary of State, speaking at a Technet conference in Adelaide, Australia. she didn’t say she “hoped” the TPP “would become” the gold standard. In those remarks, she said:
Note the absence of any language about future hopes of what the TPP would become. Many of the most controversial aspects of the TPP were leaked in November of 2013. Now, is it possible that all of the controversial provisions were inserted between the time she left her job as Secretary of State on February 1, 2013, and the date on which Wikileaks obtained parts of a working draft of the document? Sure, it's possible. Almost anything is possible. But these are significant provisions we are talking about, so it’s not bloody likely! And note the vagary of her (now purported) objection: "it didn't meet my standards." What the hell does that mean? It tells us absolutely nothing about which provisions she opposes and why – and that is critically important information. Hillary’s response, which was no doubt a masterful example of political spin, nevertheless doesn’t exactly inspire confidence in her honesty.
Later in the debate, when asked whether she could support Sanders’ call to expand Social Security, Hillary responded:
Read that quote very carefully, and understand what she is implying. I believe it is a veiled reference to means-testing for Social Security – something the DLC/Third Way Democrats have long advocated. (I, and I think most Democrats, oppose means-testing for Social Security for the simple reason that once you means test it, you turn it into another entitlement program, subject to the whim or largesse of voters and/or their elected representatives.)
As for her tendency towards hawkishness, again, she said nothing that addressed my concerns. Indeed, she advocated for a much more muscular foreign policy than that of Obama. Great – still more military interventions to look forward to.
I was also very disturbed by the way Hillary casually mentioned – almost as if it were self-evident – that “the Iranians” were among the list of enemies she is most proud of having made. At a time when the war drums have been banging for a war with Iran , that is a very disturbing statement indeed.
There were a couple of other things Hillary said that raised red flags for me. Asked about Sanders’ call for expanding the social safety net for families along the lines of Scandinavian countries, Hillary responded.
The notion that capitalism can be reined in is one of the enduring illusions of our time. As economist Richard Wolff has pointed out, we might – might, not will – succeed in reining it in for a time, but under our present system of campaign financing, and so long as the Supreme Court’s Citizens United ruling stands, any success on that front will be temporary at best. But beyond that, it strikes me that the statement, “We are not Denmark, we are the United States of America,” displays an attitude that is all too common in this country, and which often prevents us from finding solutions to some of the problems we confront: the notion that we, in the U.S., have absolutely nothing to learn from the experience other nations. It’s an attitude that may play well among some voters, but which also lies very close to the core of our national dysfunction.
Finally, I was outraged and appalled by Hillary ‘s comments about Edward Snowden. The n9tion that he could have been granted whistleblower protections – protections which have been thoroughly elusive to other prominent whistleblowers – is a fiction.
Hillary is, to be sure, better by a long shot than any Republican alternative. But let’s be honest: that’s a really low bar. Surely we can, and I sincerely hope we will, do better.
[font size=2 color="gray"]Mark Kessinger · Friday, October 16, 2015[/font]
Mainstream media pundits are insistent that Hillary Clinton “won” the first 2016 Democratic presidential debate, despite dozens of informal polls of viewers that gave the night to Sanders. I will concede that most of these polls were unscientific, and thus cannot necessarily be considered to be reliable indicators of the public perception; but at the same time, when so many polls – informal though they may be – lean in one direction, it certainly gives one reason to question whether the pundits’ analyses are entirely accurate. So, in the end, I am left with only my own, subjective reactions to the candidates’ debate performances, combined with what I know of their individual histories, to form a basis for my own evaluation of the candidates.
As a progressive Democrat, I have had serious reservations about Hillary’s candidacy all along. I support Bernie Sanders for the nomination (even if he is thought by many to be a long shot). But I have said repeatedly, and I still say, that should Hillary win the nomination, I will vote for her in the general election. (But then, what else could I do? Any of the concerns I have concerning a Hillary Clinton presidency are only magnified – ten-fold – when it comes to any of the potential GOP nominees. In the end, elections come down to choices among a set of flawed choices, and I’m not an idiot.)
If the measure of debate performances is style and polish, then sure, Hillary won hands down. I have never doubted (nor, do I think, have many others) that Hillary is anything other than a consummate political pro: of course she is – to a fault. But my reservations about her as a presidential candidate have never been about any lack of polish or inability to present herself. Rather, my concerns have been issues of substance: that is to say, what are her actual views on issues, what drives those views, if certain presently held positions conflict with past ones, when and why did those views change, and where do her commitments lie, based not only on her present statements, but on her history. Specifically, I have been troubled by (1) her past eagerness to support military interventions (something I think this country has been overly willing to engage in), (2) her long-standing ties to big business and to Wall Street, and (3) her past close identification with the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC), s group founded in 1985 and dissolved in 2011 (many of its members are today knows as “Third Way” Democrats, that led the party to the right in the 1990s and early 2000s, away from its historical commitments to labor, to minorities and to the poor, and towards a more corporate- and Wall Street- friendly footing. It is the corporatist wing of the Democratic Party.
I went into the debate really hoping, given Hillary’s position as frontrunner and presumptive nominee, that I would hear something from her that would help to allay those concerns. Unfortunately, I heard no such thing. If anything, her responses during the debate only highlighted and underscored them.
At the outset of the debate, Anderson Cooper pressed her about the widely held perception that she changes her views according to whatever is politically expedient to her at any given moment, citing, as one example, her shift on the subject of gay marriage (in less than a year, she went from being opposed to gay marriage to supporting it, and has never offered any explanation of the rapid shift). Hillary didn’t address the example, but adamantly insisted that she has always been absolutely consistent in taking positions that were based on her “values.” Ironically, though, in defending her ‘consistent’ record, she cited an example of her own – the Trans Pacific Partnership trade agreement, or TPP – and in so doing, misrepresented her own past support of the agreement. In the debate, Hillary said:
“You know, take the trade deal. I did say, when I was secretary of state, three years ago, that I hoped it would be the gold standard. It was just finally negotiated last week, and in looking at it, it didn't meet my standards. My standards for more new, good jobs for Americans, for raising wages for Americans.”
The only problem with that is that, as Secretary of State, speaking at a Technet conference in Adelaide, Australia. she didn’t say she “hoped” the TPP “would become” the gold standard. In those remarks, she said:
“This TPP sets the gold standard in trade agreements to open free, transparent, fair trade, the kind of environment that has the rule of law and a level playing field.”
Note the absence of any language about future hopes of what the TPP would become. Many of the most controversial aspects of the TPP were leaked in November of 2013. Now, is it possible that all of the controversial provisions were inserted between the time she left her job as Secretary of State on February 1, 2013, and the date on which Wikileaks obtained parts of a working draft of the document? Sure, it's possible. Almost anything is possible. But these are significant provisions we are talking about, so it’s not bloody likely! And note the vagary of her (now purported) objection: "it didn't meet my standards." What the hell does that mean? It tells us absolutely nothing about which provisions she opposes and why – and that is critically important information. Hillary’s response, which was no doubt a masterful example of political spin, nevertheless doesn’t exactly inspire confidence in her honesty.
Later in the debate, when asked whether she could support Sanders’ call to expand Social Security, Hillary responded:
“I want to enhance the benefits for the poorest recipients of Social Security. We have a lot of women on Social Security, particularly widowed and single women who didn't make a lot of money during their careers, and they are impoverished, and they need more help from the Social Security system.”
And I will focus -- I will focus on helping those people who need it the most. And of course I'm going to defend Social Security. I'm going to look for ways to try to make sure it's solvent into the future.
Read that quote very carefully, and understand what she is implying. I believe it is a veiled reference to means-testing for Social Security – something the DLC/Third Way Democrats have long advocated. (I, and I think most Democrats, oppose means-testing for Social Security for the simple reason that once you means test it, you turn it into another entitlement program, subject to the whim or largesse of voters and/or their elected representatives.)
As for her tendency towards hawkishness, again, she said nothing that addressed my concerns. Indeed, she advocated for a much more muscular foreign policy than that of Obama. Great – still more military interventions to look forward to.
I was also very disturbed by the way Hillary casually mentioned – almost as if it were self-evident – that “the Iranians” were among the list of enemies she is most proud of having made. At a time when the war drums have been banging for a war with Iran , that is a very disturbing statement indeed.
There were a couple of other things Hillary said that raised red flags for me. Asked about Sanders’ call for expanding the social safety net for families along the lines of Scandinavian countries, Hillary responded.
”But we are not Denmark. I love Denmark. We are the United States of America. And it's our job to rein in the excesses of capitalism so that it doesn't run amok and doesn't cause the kind of inequities we're seeing in our economic system.”
The notion that capitalism can be reined in is one of the enduring illusions of our time. As economist Richard Wolff has pointed out, we might – might, not will – succeed in reining it in for a time, but under our present system of campaign financing, and so long as the Supreme Court’s Citizens United ruling stands, any success on that front will be temporary at best. But beyond that, it strikes me that the statement, “We are not Denmark, we are the United States of America,” displays an attitude that is all too common in this country, and which often prevents us from finding solutions to some of the problems we confront: the notion that we, in the U.S., have absolutely nothing to learn from the experience other nations. It’s an attitude that may play well among some voters, but which also lies very close to the core of our national dysfunction.
Finally, I was outraged and appalled by Hillary ‘s comments about Edward Snowden. The n9tion that he could have been granted whistleblower protections – protections which have been thoroughly elusive to other prominent whistleblowers – is a fiction.
Hillary is, to be sure, better by a long shot than any Republican alternative. But let’s be honest: that’s a really low bar. Surely we can, and I sincerely hope we will, do better.
Profile Information
Member since: Sat May 15, 2010, 04:48 PMNumber of posts: 8,392
