Data, Democrats and the Dark Side

by William Skink

The last Saturday before Christmas; a time for holiday parties, shopping and football. Oh, and a little movie franchise called Star Wars released one of the most eagerly anticipated movies since the last new Star Wars movie came out.

If one were to desire to insulate a political candidate from the scrutiny of viewers, then last Saturday was the perfect day to schedule a debate…and that’s what happened.

It’s obvious that the DNC would prefer a coronation instead of an election. The timing and frequency of the debates is just one area that has been intentionally dampened by the DNC. The recent data breach provided an opportunity for the DNC to deviate from their own rules to punish the Sanders campaign:

The DNC appears to have been in such a rush to shut down Bernie Sanders’ campaign, that they violated a few of their own laws according to a lawsuit filed by the campaign against the DNC.

The shutdown came about because of a DNC software security error that allowed one campaign to view another campaign’s proprietary voter data. This is an error that had been reported to the DNC for months by the Sanders campaign but continued to occur. A few Sanders staffers allegedly accessed private data from the Hillary Clinton campaign during a period where the error had been occurring again, and when this was found the DNC immediately locked the Sanders campaign out of their data.

Democracy has been involved in a long vanishing act for awhile now, along with our constitutional rights, but Democrats have been too involved with maintaining their power to notice this disturbing disappearance.

The holiday season has provided cover for another legislative move to erode constitutional safeguards regarding citizen privacy. The title of this article says it all: Worst Anti-Privacy Bill Since the PATRIOT act, Passes Hidden in a Budge Bill and Media is Silent. That’s right, in this anti-Democratic sequel to last years Cyber Wars, where CISA was stopped from becoming law, Darth Obama has already signed this latest iteration of CISA into law with nary a peep from Democrats:

On Friday, Congress passed a $1.15 trillion omnibus spending package to continue funding the federal government, which included an already defeated, and extremely controversial cyber security bill, that was inserted into the spending package as a means of assuring it’s passage.

In spite of this massive revelation and horrific blow to privacy, the mainstream media remains mum. While many outlets are covering the passage of the spending bill, they are completely omitting anything about CISA.

The New York Times, for example, broke the story Friday morning about congress passing the omnibus measure. However, they conveniently left out any mention of CISA.

Aside from the tech sites who know about the dangers of this measure, the entire realm of mainstream media is choosing to remain silent.

The Cyber Information Sharing Act (CISA), quietly pushed back in 2014 before being shut down by civil rights and privacy advocates, was added into the Omnibus Appropriations Bill by House Speaker Paul Ryan as a means circumventing rampant opposition to the anti-privacy legislation.

The CISA legislation, which Rep. Justin Amash called “the worst anti-privacy legislation since the USA PATRIOT Act,” has now been passed by Congress and will be signed into law by President Obama as part of the government spending package.

The Empire is relentless, Congress is worthless and our two corporate parties go skipping hand in hand when pleasing their corporate Sith lords.

Happy Holidays!

Advertisements

About William Skink

I'm a poet and political cynic living and writing in Montana. You can contact me here: willskink at yahoo dot com
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

46 Responses to Data, Democrats and the Dark Side

  1. Big Swede says:

    2500 pages introduced a day before the vote means absolutely no body read the bill.

    Like

    • The congress stopped functioning as a deliberative body sometime around Watergate and the Church hearings. They operate now much like the British parliament, passing what they are told to pass, allowing the public to imagine they are functional.

      All part of living in a fake republic.

      Like

    • not even the Republicans read the bill? oh my, how terrible.

      Like

      • Big Swede says:

        “You have to pass the bill to see what’s in it”-Nancy Pelosi (ACA).

        Like

      • Big Swede says:

        Rand Paul didn’t have to read to vote no.

        “It was over a trillion dollars, it was all lumped together, 2,242 pages, nobody read it, so frankly my biggest complaint is that I have no idea what kind of things they stuck in the bill,” Paul told host John Catsimatidis on “The Cats Roundtable” on New York’s AM-970.
        “I voted against it because I won’t vote for these enormous bills that no one has a chance to read,” he added.
        “We were given it yesterday or the day before the bill came forward, and so this is not a way to run government. It’s a part of the reason why government is broke.”-Paul.

        Like

  2. JC says:

    Here’s a good editorial cartoon that seems apropos today:

    Like

    • Big Swede says:

      Congress @ 38% un-favorability is now more unpopular than two Sith Lords and Jar-Jar Binks.

      Like

      • petetalbot says:

        I like Jar Jar Binks, Swede.

        Like

      • Big Swede says:

        Jar-Jar Binks? I suppose you also thought Alderaan shot first.

        Like

      • Just wondering, Pee, if you have any thoughts on the content of this post. I have noticed over time that deeply brainwashed people are capable of really not seeing and hearing things that are contrary to their indoctrination.

        Oh yeah, and Merry Christmas!

        Like

        • Big Swede says:

          Merry Christmas to you, Mark.

          Like

        • Since oyu don’t read, Swede, you have no idea how I think about Chomsky. (Hint: Sometimes, and I am not, repeat, not kidding about this, sometimes things are not what they appear it be on the surface. I am not, repeat, not kidding about that.)

          Like

        • petetalbot says:

          M.T.: “Just wondering, Pee, if you have any thoughts on the content of this post.” First, I’m no fan of the DNC. That being said, this line jumped out at me: “(CISA) was added into the Omnibus Appropriations Bill by (Republican) House Speaker Paul Ryan as a means circumventing rampant opposition to the anti-privacy legislation.” There was a lot of other crap inserted in the omnibus spending bill: oil exports, tax breaks for the rich, guns … something for everyone to hate.

          https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2015/12/16/heres-what-made-it-into-congresss-big-tax-and-spending-bills/

          BTW, is “Pee” a typo, a Freudian slip or fourth grade humor?

          Like

        • Typo. My humor is evolved, now in seventh grade.

          Like

        • By the way, Pete, I don’t suppose it does any good, but the fact that we call our people in Congress Republicans or Democrats is a window dressing. So your response above contains three huge and important fallacies, one that the work of congress is done by the people we elect, and two that outlets like the Washington Post report to us about their activities, and three that the parties represent opposing factions, some of which favor public good. As long as you are bound to sources like WaPo and invested in party politics, you’ll be kept in the dark about how our country really functions. But I can’t disabuse you of your party and this “trusted sources” nonsense, so you’re basically unreachable. American politics will always be a Blue Bayou to you.

          And again, Merry Christmas!

          Like

        • petetalbot says:

          What a refreshing take on American politics! Have you ever thought that there may be some gray areas:
          That occasionally the work of Congress does get done by the people we elect;
          That occasionally the Washington Post accurately reports on its activities;
          That there may be a difference, albeit not huge, between the two parties.
          And Merry Christmas back at you.

          Like

        • So much to learn, so little time, Pete. Being fooled is your choice, and does eliminate the need to use your own brain, rather than relying on trusted sources. [sigh] … but as Mark Twain said, it is far easier to fool people than to convince them they are being fooled.

          Belief and authority figures offer security in an insecure world.

          Like

        • petetalbot says:

          No gray areas, huh? Everything black-and-white. Life must be very simple for someone as cocksure as yourself. I happen to believe things are a bit more nuanced. Some might call it critical thinking.

          Like

        • I love it! Don says that too – he says he’s a critical thinker too! Critical thinking means the ability to read things that you don’t agree with, stop trusting trusted sources, ignoring labels and judging substance, basing opinions on evidence, or simply not knowing things that cannot be known. I have never met a party regular that was also a critical thinker. Never. When Tester took over for Burns, you began, unknowingly, to support the Burns agenda. For instance.

          Oh yeah, Merry Christmas.

          Like

        • petetalbot says:

          Notes on critical thinking from a guy who thinks most famous people are really body doubles, some strange force blew up the twin towers, the moon walk was faked, the Montana Wilderness Association is a CIA front, and all mass shootings and terrorist attacks are “false flags” (also, probably CIA backed). Now that’s precious.

          Like

        • You didn’t actually read the piece on MWA, right. I know that about you. It is about industry front groups, and has some history in it too of how CIA in the early fifties forward funneled money to its front groups, using dummy foundations who then forwarded the money to real foundations who then funded the false front group. The title, of course, was tongue-in-cheek, but MWA is an industry front group, which was why Tester used them. You do understand the concept of a false front, right? I mean, you do understand that this is how politic works? Right? (Note to self: Pete flat-lines, does not get nuance.)

          The evidence around the twin towers is based on scientific analysis and evidence. I would happily forward that evidence to you. It required sifting through a 500 page textbook – it took weeks. How much easier it is just to have your authority figures tell you what to think! That is, after all, the basis of your beliefs.

          I have seen enough of false flag events that I wait now to see evidence they are real before jumping to conclusions. Usually they fall apart under scrutiny, a quality you lack the ability to produce. So don’t get on me when all you do is repeat what you hear, believe what you see, and never question authority, you critical thinker you.

          Man, what passes for critical thinking, intelligence, in this day and age. I could be smart too, like you, if I would just stop questioning authority figures.

          Like

        • petetalbot says:

          “The evidence around the twin towers is based on scientific analysis and evidence,” says Mark. God, you crack me up. Some nutcase writes a book and it’s gospel to you. As far as Montana Wilderness Association — I have some issues with that organization — but a CIA front (which you hint at near the end of your post)? Mark goes on: “I have seen enough of false flag events that I wait now to see evidence they are real before jumping to conclusions. Usually they fall apart under scrutiny … ” Ahhh the Mark T. scrutiny, Sherlock Holmes got nothin’ on him.

          BTW, have you been eating a lot of rye products? Perhaps laden with ergot?

          Like

        • Pete, in my judgment you are a moral coward. You know very little, hardly read at all, and hide behind authority figures for your beliefs. You use ridicule as a mask.

          But I stand to be corrected. You have to bring it. You are not allowed to sit there and pretend to know things you don’t know. You have to take me by the horns. I offer you my forum, or perhaps you can open yours, and we will debate. I will not belittle you. I will simply bring my evidence.

          Do you have it in you? Do ya?

          Like

        • Craig Moore says:

          It’s Christmas Eve Mark. I hope you are visited by 3 ghosts tonight. Your soul is in need of seriou reclamation.

          Like

        • I may be the only living breathing human in the room, Craig. I read what you write. I don’t think you are terribly perceptive, like Pete.

          Like

        • Craig Moore says:

          Mark, may God bless you with an open mind and a warm heart. Watch Bill Murray’s Scrooged. Merry Christmas.

          Like

        • Pop culture references are not lost on me. Not sure why you think they set you apart.

          Like

  3. larry kurtz says:

    Howz the circle jerk going over here, doods?

    Like

  4. Eric says:

    Your Jedi mind trick won’t work on me Skink ….

    Like

  5. JC says:

    Hey Pete, while there’s a lot of room for debate in Mark’s list, while MWA might not think it is a CIA from, the connections between Pew Chartitable Trusts, Sun Oil/Sunoco (where the Pew Trusts got much of their endowment), and the CIA & right-wing causes is voluminous.

    We already know that Pew refers to MWA as it’s “contractors” (we prefer to refer to them as its “hit men”), and Pew and its other funded faux green groups (like the Campaign for Americas Wilderness) work to disempower grassroots organizations, and work towards roadless lands being “released” from protection.

    The history of the entanglement between energy & mineral development companies, the CIA and foreign policy is well documented. One just needs to look at the work that MWA and other groups like it are doing to release lands from wilderness protection to know that the fascistic connection between corporations and foreign/domestic policy is rife with graft.

    The last point of Mark’s about false flags was driven home to me today in another article (“False Flag Terror. A Historical Overview”), outlining 56 documented uses of false flag events or policies with multiple events in the last 85 years (including U.S. events). While not all tragedies are false flags, they are an acknowledged form of foreign/domestic policy.

    Merry Christmas!

    Like

    • It is Pete, JC. You’d better cite an authority figure he uses as a trusted source.

      Like

    • petetalbot says:

      Merry Christmas, too, and while I believe that MWA may be compromised, the source you use for false flags — Globalresearch — is not credible. As one critic of the site once said: “Globalresearch contributors are happy to source information from anyone who seems vaguely aligned with their ideology, even if said contributors are full of horseshit.”

      Like

      • Again with trusted sources! At what point do you use your own brain? How are you harmed by assembling information from varying sources, piercing it together, and then using typing critical resources to make sense of it? This nonsense, that a source has to be given to you as authoritative before you look at it is another way of saying “I let others do my thinking.”

        I could easily do a very, very long list of lies perpetuated by the Washington Post, who to this day are yet to admit that Tonkin was false flag.

        I still challenge you to a debate, coward.

        Like

        • petetalbot says:

          Why would I waste any more time on you, Mark? Here’s you being rational, “Pete, in my judgment you are a moral coward. You know very little, hardly read at all, and hide behind authority figures for your beliefs.” Followed by, “I will not belittle you.” How does one interact with that kind of passive/aggressive logic?

          And I’ve seen your fringe sources, Mark. Hardly worth rebuttal. But I suppose if you repeat the same conspiratorial memes enough times, they become believable (to you, anyway).

          Not to mention the arrogance: “I have evidence for everything, and more than that, I have read volumes and volumes … ” There’s no point in debating you. You’re a legend in your own mind.

          Like

        • Pete, you are afraid of me, and you know it. Like Don, all you know to do when you come in contact with me is to hurl insults, and since I am better at that than either of you, you resort to the coward’s hideout, banning. You insult me, I insult you back, you retreat, take cover, start pretending you read and think, and cower away. So I offered to debate you in an insult-free environment – you stop doing it, I stop doing it. I bring my evidence, you bring your beliefs.

          I cannot help that I have spent the last 27 years reading and thinking. would you rather I pretend otherwise? Would that make you feel better? (People are always surprised when I can see through them, when I don’t buy into their false fronts. Kailey tried to convince me he was a philosopher and mathematician. Poof he went! Yours is easy: little read, nothing questioned, imagines intelligences comes from group approval, never ventures out or takes a risk, never looks at anything unless he know in advance he will not be challenged. See what I mean? Piece of cake. I read you through and through. No go back to your hiding place.)

          Like

        • petetalbot says:

          Do you actually look at what you write, Mark? It reads like a sixth grader on the school playground: “you are afraid of me, and you know it … No(w) go back to your hiding place … coward … moral coward … coward.” I take it back, more like a third grader. You’re a sick fuck and it would be a terrible waste to spend any more time on you. The end.

          Like

        • You are a moral coward, Pete. I spotted this about you right away, your statement to me that you refused to come around 4&20 because of me. That is an expression of fear. I didn’t make that up, and you did not have to offer it up as evidence.

          Why afraid? I am not a physical threat to anyone, of course. But I do have a nose for a phony, and you and Don are that – with him, I am not even certain he writes his own blog posts, and with you, they are tired and trite and predictable. But you want to imagine that there is something going on with that stuff that just isn’t there, and I am the one who points out that the writing is trite, empty, and usually wrong.

          But everyone likes to imagine they are smart, and everyone fears looking in the mirror, and it is that fear of looking in the mirror, you and your 100 IQ, that exposes you as a coward. You know, deep down, that you’re not well-read, not thoughtful, not even interesting. But safely hidden away at a place where you can ban your critics, you get to pretend.

          So now I’m a ‘sick fuck.” Not hardly, Pete. I just see through you, and that is enough to drive you back to your hideout. Coward.

          Like

      • Matthew Koehler says:

        I’m not smart enough to understanding some of these larger potential connections, but I do that Montana Attorney General Tim Fox and the Montana Wilderness Association have filed ‘friend of the court’ briefs in support of nearly 14 square miles of logging on the Kootenai National Forest.

        Of the public lands logging about 5 square miles is via clear cutting, including the clear cutting of 2 square miles of mature boreal forests, which currently is critical habitat for lynx (which are protected under the Endangered Species Act).

        Ironically the Montana Wilderness Association is being represented in their ‘friend of the court’ brief by the American Forest Resource Council.

        Who is the American Forest Resource Council? Well, they are based in Oregon and they
        actually sued to stop implementation of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule.

        In fact, the American Forest Resource Council is not only representing the Montana Wilderness Association, but according to a recent article in the Kalispell paper, the timber industry lawyers are footing the bill for the entire thing!

        In total, just this one public lands timber sale would result in enough trees cut down (much of via clearcuts and much of it within critical wildlife habitat) to fill 7,800 logging trucks.

        I’d rather focus on the plethora of real-world, simple examples of how the Montana Wilderness Association has compromised themselves beyond belief (and likely outside the reach and understanding of most of their members, which as Mark pointed out donations from members actually make up only 7% of their annual revenue)…rather than some of these further flung notions espoused here.

        And seriously, can some of you please elevate the level of discourse here? I learn a lot from all your comments and posts but tune out all the ‘moral coward’ this, and that, etc.

        Like

      • JC says:

        Pete… really??? You’re going to use an anonymous quote at RationalWiki to “debunk” GlobalResearch? Sad, so sad… so do you not think that any of the false flag events documented in the article link I posted happened?

        As to debunking RationalWiki, I’ll refer to an anonymous quote from Uncyclopedia, which in my mind is probably at least as reputable as RationalWiki:

        “RationalWiki receives very little criticism as not many people can actually be bothered to read it, never mind evaluate it. What criticism there is, evolves internally from the superior admins at the top of the food chain who frown upon the poo-splattered articles that are made by some of the not-quite-yet-evolved-into-human monkeys at the bottom of the food chain. These internal disputes get out of hand sometimes and admins use the threat of the plot line from the Planet of the Apes as an excuse to shut down the website for a week.”

        Like

  6. Enough of this, by the way. Pete, I will debate you on any issue. You don’t scare me and I have not banned you at my website. I will present my beliefs and evidence in an unemotional manner. I don’t just jump to conclusions. I have evidence for everything, and more than that, I have read volumes and volumes, made mistakes, taken wrong turns, but have a semblance of what I think is something close to truth.

    I challenge you to a debate, your place or mine, your choice of topic. I won’t insult you or belittle you, but do ask for the favor in return.

    Like

  7. Big Swede says:

    Here’s to hoping all men to be brothers.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s