Regarding Snowden and the security leak....a proud Marylander:
Why would Snowden fly from Hawaii to Hong Kong on his way to sanctuary? Could it be that he did not want to fly over US territory and knew people through business in Hong Kong? Seems more likely then thinking he worked for the Chinese intelligence for example. Snowden will prove to be yet another American who sees authoritarianism killing freedom and made a decision of conscience that he knew would be costly. Did you hear him say he feared for his family? Sound like something you hear from dissidents in Iran and China.....YOU BETCHA!!!! SAME THING.
Polls show almost 70% of citizens do not trust or want this surveillance. Polls also show 17% trusting Congress and 80% wanting an end to corporate rule. Yet, US policy from Congress to Obama pushes forward with what no one wants. Ergo.....authoritarianism. Third Way corporate democrats are leading the way towards all of these policies that are killing democracy and Maryland democrats are all Third Way corporate. THEY NEED TO GO! Something worth noting is that a NPR/APM person thought how could an uneducated worker with no prospects give up a $200,000 a year salary? You see, when you turn criminal and corrupt you must buy loyalty as with foreign dictators. We see this locally when city administrators and private 'consultants' are paid well above staff.....they are buying loyalty as they do city workers wrong.
The MEME of the day on Facebook goes like this:
'Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both-----Benjamin Franklin
I think it is important to understand that you cannot have 100 percent security and then have 100 percent privacy and zero inconvenience. We're going to have to make some choices as a society-----Barack Obama
Now, looking at my opening I see that we have made choices as a society and we have shouted, polled, petitioned our voices loud and clear------WE DO NOT WANT GLOBAL CORPORATIONS AS THEY WILL ONLY DOMINATE SOCIETY, REMAIN UNACCOUNTABLE AND PREDATORY, AND CREATE ILL-WILL AROUND THE WORLD AS POLICY BECOMES ALL ABOUT MARKET-SHARE. ENFORCING RULE OF LAW AND BRINGING BACK THE STOLEN LOOT WILL DOWNSIZE THEM.....THERE, SOCIETY HAS SPOKEN OBAMA. What could be more clear than that President Obama and Third Way corporate democrats? Indeed, it is global policy that is creating these attacks, creating the instability around the world that is reversing decades of advancement for the poor and women. Sadly, people in leadership have no moral compass.....they are the ones incredulous that someone would risk a $200,000 job for goodness sake. So the media we get from our leaders becomes nothing more than the propaganda machines of China and Korea. I am thankful that MSNBC and other Third Way corporate media are falling in listeners....we know the left are not sheep as are the right....we know bad policy when we see it.
One policy made clear is that a private contractor...in this case Booz and Co....is placed in charge of NSA data. Here we have an International Business Management/Consultant Firm with access to information on all Americans and national security but the American people cannot know this. THIS SHOWS HOW YOUR THIRD WAY CORPORATE DEMOCRAT HAS HANDED OUR GOVERNMENT TO CORPORATE CONTROL....PERIOD.
Below you see this company is master at winning at all cost....marginalizing people as citizens pushing them to become 'fit for purpose'....that's robot talk for cog in a wheel. You see as well their commitment to making our health care system a global market-driven profit machine! JUST WHAT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WANT OF THEIR HEALTH CARE.
SHAKE THE BUGS FROM THE RUG! VOTE THESE POLS OUT AND RUN AND VOTE FOR LABOR AND JUSTICE NEXT ELECTIONS!
THIS IS WHO IS MAKING THE DECISIONS WHAT IS IMPORTANT DATA FOR COLLECTION AND WHO SEES IT!
Greater China
Greater China Partners Sarah Butler Sarah Butler is Managing Director of Booz & Company, Greater China and leads our Health and Financial Services China, (Shanghai, Beijing, Hong Kong, and Taipei). He has more than 20 years of management consulting and senior corporate management experience
BOOZ AND CO:
The 2012 Chief Executive Study
This is the thirteenth year that Booz & Company has examined CEO successions and success among the world’s top 2,500 public companies. This year we focused particularly on the professional and educational backgrounds of new CEOs and on how CEOs should lead through disruption.
In 2012, 15.0 percent of CEOs left office, up from 14.2 percent in 2011. This is the second-highest rate of CEO successions in the history of our study. And the new leaders who came into the office were, for the most part, familiar faces.
Every company will face fundamental disruption sooner or later. Our feature article in strategy+business explains how chief executives must engage personally at every stage of planning and response to make sure their company does better than others.
The 2013 State of the European Union Survey
Business leaders are more pessimistic and more urgently demanding change—but, despite this, remain optimistic about the EU’s long-term prospects. This is a core message of the survey produced by Booz & Company, INSEAD, and the European Executive Council.
Capabilities-Driven Strategy
The power of coherence: A company's right to win in any market depends not just on external market positioning, and not just on internal capabilities—but on a coherent strategy that aligns them at every level. Our research has revealed three interlocking elements that make up a capabilities-driven strategy.
Fit for Growth*
In an uneven business climate, companies need to transform how they operate, while creating the capacity to invest in growth. That starts by articulating a clear and compelling cost agenda, continues with the building of lean processes, systems, operations, and organization, and culminates in the institutionalization of capabilities that keep companies fit.
Digitization
Thanks to digitization, companies across industries are racing to migrate "analog" approaches to customers, products, services, and operating models to an always-on, real-time, and information rich marketplace. In doing so, these companies secure not only continued relevance, but also superior returns.
Consumerization
Booz & Company strongly believes that consumerism is a revolutionary force that will fundamentally alter the status quo in the health industry. We work with our clients—payors, hospitals and health systems, and life sciences companies—as they seek to understand all the implications of this new world and become leaders in the consumerization of healthcare.
The Global Innovation 1000 Study
In addition to our annual analysis of R&D spending trends, the 2012 Global Innovation 1000 study focuses on the “fuzzy front end” of the innovation process: the tools, mechanisms and networks companies use to generate ideas and effectively convert them into potential future products and services.
The New Functional Agenda
Rising demands on corporate functions provide functional leaders and staff with a golden opportunity. Instead of striving to be "best in class" in everything they do, they can become "fit for purpose" by focusing on activities that are strategically important to the enterprise and that help drive its distinctive value proposition.
2013 Industry Perspectives
Find out how companies can plan for and address the trends specific to their industry and adapt to broader changes, such as the post-presidential-election business climate, the impact of new technologies, and the emphasis on structural and investment innovations that will drive profitability and growth.
______________________________________________
Today we are hearing that a majority of people are OK with government spying says Pew Research and Washington Post.....but I have not trusted polls since this overt corporate takeover of government and media. Here is a poll from 2006 when it showed almost 70% of people did not want the government spying!
PLEASE QUESTION THE DATA YOU ARE GIVEN....REMEMBER, NPR JUST TOLD US SOCIAL SECURITY WILL ONLY LAST UNTIL 2020s WHEN JUST A FEW YEARS AGO, BEFORE BEING TAKEN CORPORATE SOCIAL SECURITY WAS FINE UNTIL 2070s......they are lying to us!
NSA Domestic Spying Polls--It's What You Ask
By Lee RussMonday, January 16, 2006 at 05:20 PM Watching the Watchers
Semantics, semantics, semantics. Not a day goes by without another headline about what "the people" think of the NSA domestic spying issue. And you'd go nuts if you put all the headlines on a table and tried to reconcile their very different conclusions.
Which prompted me to collect several recent polls and try to make sense out of them.
It's all semantics. With a touch of opinions based on nothing. But mostly semantics.
Poll Number 1, Zogby poll: headlined "Majority supports impeaching Bush for wiretapping" Certainly to my taste and liking.
What they asked :
"If President Bush wiretapped American citizens without the approval of a judge, do you agree or disagree that Congress should consider holding him accountable through impeachment."
What the prople said:
Agree Disagree No Op/No
Answer
ALL 52 43 6
Dems 76
Indep 50
Repub 29
Analysis:
Well, at least the question was objectively worded to focus on wiretapping of American citizens, without some confusing and misleading crap about those citizens being "suspected of involvement with terrorism." On the other hand, it asks if Congress "should consider" impeachment--they want the thing investigated--so the results can't support the headline conclusion that the majority are actually in favor of impeachment.
Poll Number 2, CNN/USA Today/Gallup:
What they asked on Jan 6-8, 2006:
a. "As you may know, the Bush Administration has been wiretapping telephone conversations between U.S. citizens living in the United States and suspected terrorists living in other countries without getting a court order allowing it to do so. How closely have you been following the news about this: very closely, somewhat closely, not too closely, or not at all?"
What the people said:
Very Somewhat Not Too Closely Not at All
29 46 16 9
b. "Do you think the Bush Administration was right or wrong in wiretapping these conversations without obtaining a court order?"
What the people said:
Right Wrong Unsure
50 46 4
Analysis:
Just how bad are these questions? Well:
a. It isn't necessarily JUST "telephone conversations between U.S. citizens living in the United States and suspected terrorists living in other countries"; that's what the admin claims, but without objective oversight, no one KNOWS. There's pretty good evidence that they are tapping EVERYTHING available to them, storing it, and using computer programs to analyze things later.
b. "Without getting a court order" sounds like you're asking if they should have gotten a court order BEFORE the wiretapping; as we all know, the law allows them to get warrants AFTER the wiretap, as long as it's within 72 hours. Did the people answering the question understand that they haven't bothered to get RETROACTIVE warrants?
c. 96% of the respondents had an opinion on the right/wrong question, but 25% of the respondents had not been following the issue very closely, or at all. So, of the 96% with a right/wrong opinion, at least 21% were answering without any real understanding of the issue.
Poll Number 3, ABC News/Washington Post:
What they asked on Jan. 5-8, 2006:
a. "According to recent news reports, the National Security Agency has been investigating people suspected of involvement with terrorism by secretly listening in on telephone calls and reading e-mails between some people in the United States and other countries, without first getting court approval to do so. How closely have you been following this story: very closely, somewhat closely, not too closely or not closely at all?"
What the people said:
Very Somewhat Not Too Closely Not Closely At All
20 46 21 13
b. "Would you consider this wiretapping of telephone calls and e-mails without court approval as an acceptable or unacceptable way for the federal government to investigate terrorism?"
What the people said:
Acceptable Unacceptable Unsure
51 47 2
Analysis:
This is even worse than number 2, as it explicitly restricts itself to "without FIRST getting court approval." And the discrepancy is even greater between those who have been following it very/somewhat closely, and those who have opinions on its rightness/wrongness--98% have a right/wrong opinion, but only 66% followed it very or somewhat closely.
Poll Number 4, CBS News:
This was more extensive on the spying issue:
What they asked on Jan 5-8, 2006:
a. "During wartime, some presidents have either received or assumed special war powers, which give the president more authority to act independently when he feels it is necessary. In the current campaign against terrorism, is it a good idea or a bad idea for the president to have the authority to make changes in the rights usually guaranteed by the Constitution?"
What the people said:
Good Idea Bad Idea Unsure
36 57 7
b. "In order to reduce the threat of terrorism, would you be willing or not willing to allow government agencies to monitor the telephone calls and e-mails of ordinary Americans on a regular basis?"
What the people said:
Willing Not Willing Unsure
28 68 4
c. "In order to reduce the threat of terrorism, would you be willing or not willing to allow government agencies to monitor the telephone calls and e-mails of Americans that the government is suspicious of?"
What the people said:
Willing Not Willing Unsure
69 26 5
d. "Do you think that in order to fight terrorism, the federal government should have more authority to use wiretaps, or would this violate Americans' constitutional rights?"
.
What the people said:
Have More Violate Rights Unsure
40 53 7
e. "In general, how much confidence do you have that government agencies are able to correctly tell whose phone calls and e-mails should be monitored and whose should not? Do you have a great deal of confidence, a fair amount, not very much, or none at all?"
.
What the people said:
Great Fair Not Much None At All Unsure
10 45 30 13 2
Analysis
This is really interesting and revealing. The majority think it's a bad idea for the president to have the power to change the protections under the constitution (a), and a better than two-thirds majority think it's a bad idea to spy on "ordinary Americans" (b), and a similarly large majority think it's okay to spy on "Americans that the government is suspicious of."
If you stopped there, you could say that "the people" don't like expanding presidential power, and really don't like spying on ordinary folks, but they seem to think that, hey, if the government is suspicious of you, you must not be ordinary. But then ther's question e, which indicates that a full 43% of the people don't have much confidence in the government's suspicions. Net result? You've got me. Schizophrenia?
Poll Number 5, Pew Research Center for the People & the Press:
What they asked on Jan. 4-8, 2006:
a. "Would you favor or oppose allowing the U.S. government to monitor your personal telephone calls and e-mails to curb terrorism"
What the people said:
Favor Oppose Unsure
24 73 3
b. "Would you favor or oppose allowing the U.S. government to monitor your credit card purchases to curb terrorism"
What the people said:
Favor Oppose Unsure
29 68 3
c. "Do you think it is generally right or generally wrong for the government to monitor telephone and e-mail communications of Americans suspected of having terrorist ties without first obtaining permission from the courts?"
What the people said:
Right Wrong Unsure
48 47 5
Analysis:
Questions a and b here get right to the heart of it. We're not talking about the abstract, we're not talking about some people who've already been tainted by suspicion, we're talking about YOU. YOUR phone. YOUR e-mail. And what a shock--big majorities, at least two-thirds, say, hey, no spying on me, man. The minute you muddle it up in question c with the idea that the government is only spying on those about whom they have "suspicions," voila--split opinion again.
Poll Number 6, Associated Press/Ipsos:
What they asked on Jan. 3-5, 2006:
"Should the Bush Administration be required to get a warrant from a judge before monitoring phone and Internet communications between American citizens in the United States and suspected terrorists, or should the government be allowed to monitor such communications without a warrant?"
What the people said:
Get Warrant OK Without Warrant Unsure
56 42 2
Analysis:
Well, in this one we're talking about nice, innocent U.S. citizens, with the only suspicious people being the terrorists, so people are more likely to want a warrant (after all THEY'RE U.S. citizens), but this also specifies that the warrant be obtained BEFORE monitoring. I'm a little surprised, and pleased, that 56% of the people think a warrant is required under this wording.
Conclusion:
In evaluating any of these polls, you need to pay attention to, at a minimum:
--whether the hypothetical people being spied on are described as "you," innocent citizens, or people under suspicion
--whether the question specifies a warrant before spying, entertains the option of getting one after the spying, or doesn't address that issue
--whether the people have been following the issue they are now voicing an opinion on (especially a gap between the number of people who say they're following it and the number of people who express a definite opinion)
--how the nature of the spying is described--is it called a change in the law, or is that left for the respondents to decide for themselves?
_________________________
Russ Feingold Calls NSA Report "Deeply Troubling" By Emma Roller SLATE
|
Posted Thursday, June 6, 2013, at 3:02 PM
19 20 Former Sen. Russ Feingold speaks at a rally in Milwaukee on Oct. 23, 2010.
Photo by Mira Oberman/AFP/Getty Images
It shouldn't be too surprising that Russ Feingold, the former senator from the great state of Wisconsin and the only senator to vote against the Patriot Act, is not a fan of the NSA's phone snooping. He called the NSA report "deeply troubling" in a statement:
In 2001, I first voted against the PATRIOT Act because much of it was simply an FBI wish list that included provisions allowing our government to go on fishing expeditions that collect information on virtually anyone.
Today's report indicates that the government could be using FISA in an indiscriminate way that does not balance our legitimate concerns of national security with the necessity to preserve our fundamental civil rights. This is deeply troubling. I hope today's news will renew a serious conversation about how to protect the country while ensuring that the rights of law-abiding Americans are not violated. Some important context, however, is his frenemy-like relationship with President Obama. Feingold co-chaired Obama's re-election campaign, but their views diverged on the 2005 reauthorization of the Patriot Act. Obama gave a now-telling response showing where his views diverge from Feingold at a town hall in 2008 when an attendee asked him to explain why he voted to reauthorize the Patriot Act.
Obama's response:
The first Patriot Act, I wasn't there so I did not vote for that. The second one, I actually worked with Russ Feingold, who is one of the people who opposed it, to try to amend it to deal with some of its excesses. There were some provisions in the Patriot Act that actually did address changes that needed to take place, and let me give you a specific example. Prior to the Patriot Act, you could not wiretap a phone that wasn't land-based. Now think about it: Nobody uses a land-based phone anymore. Certainly people who might be engaging in terrorism aren't going to be using an old dial-up phone, right? So it made sense then to change that law. And there were some other provisions that made sense. ...
The biggest problems that we're facing right now have to do with George Bush trying to bring more and more power into the executive branch and not go through Congress at all, and that's what I intend to reverse when I'm president of the United States of America.
Feingold in 2016?
By Jennifer Rubin, Published: June 10, 2013 at 2:45 pmE-mail the writer
Hillary Clinton is mired in her own scandal and will, with the left, bear the taint of President Obama’s Bush-like national security surveillance. VP Joe Biden is a punch line. It would seem the Dems will need a generational break from Obama and the actual liberal they’ve been pining for. (Much as they’d like to gussy Hillary up, she dragged her feet on gay marriage, voted for the Iraq War and counseled Obama to use force in Libya.)
So what about former Wisconsin Sen. Russ Feingold? He would seem to be the perfect antidote to what ails Dems and an alternative to other candidates sure to sell them out once again.
Here are 10 reasons Democrats should want him to run:
1. He is an actual maverick, bucking his party (from the left) on financial regulation and civil liberties.
Former senator Russ Feingold (D-Wis.). (Joe Koshollek/AP)
2. He has shown actual bipartisanship in crafting McCain-Feingold and trying to control money in politics. He voted with Republicans in favor of some pro-gun measures and against Tim Geithner for Treasury Secretary.
3. He is a true liberal, in the tradition of prairie progressives. He has favored environmental protection, a single-payer health-care plan and gay marriage. He carries no taint of scandal and no attachment to big money politics.
4. He voted against the Patriot Act, precisely the courage the Dems wanted and the fidelity to civil liberties they expected of Obama.
5. He can make deals with liberals and libertarians on everything from immigration to national security to gay rights to government pork.
6. He should quickly develop a cult on the left considering his opposition to NSA snooping.
7. He is perfectly positioned to win in a neighboring state Iowa. If he does, Hillary will be dealt a blow just as she was against Obama.
8. Running a Clinton creates the same problem for Dems as running Jeb Bush does for Republicans. Really, isn’t it about time the progressive party, you know, progresses?
9. If Dems are pining for a woman, Feingold can put Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) on the ticket. (There is next to no chance the Republicans will run a woman in 2014, so they can rest assured they won’t be out-maneuvered on that front. And he would be the first Jewish president.)
10. He’s a rather likeable, telegenic fellow who bears no resemblance to the scowling, hard-edged Hillary Clinton or the bombastic Biden. Born in 1953, and looking younger than his age, he also provides a bigger draw for youth voters. (He is six years younger than Hillary and nine years younger than Biden.)
RSS Feed
