WebProNews

Tag: obama administration

  • Leelah Alcorn Leads Fight Against Conversion Therapy from the Grave

    When Leelah Alcorn stepped in front of a semi and ended her life, she was desperate. Since then, thousands of supporters have refused to let her memory be lost.

    Leelah Alcorn left a suicide note that told how she was not allowed to see a therapist that would help her the way she wanted.

    “My mom started taking me to a therapist, but would only take me to christian therapists, (who were all very biased) so I never actually got the therapy I needed to cure me of my depression. I only got more christians telling me that I was selfish and wrong and that I should look to God for help.”

    Some have pointed out that this was a process known as “conversion therapy,” where a therapist tries to convince a patient that they are not gay or transgender.

    But others object that Leelah Alcorn did not specifically address conversion therapy. But her other posts did.

    “I wanted to see a gender therapist but they wouldn’t let me, they thought it would corrupt my mind. The would only let me see biased Christian therapists, who instead of listening to my feelings would try to change me into a straight male who loved God, and I would cry after every session because I felt like it was hopeless and there was no way I would ever become a girl.”

    After Leelah’s death, petitions were started requesting President Obama to introduce legislation banning conversion therapy for minors. Recently The White House responded.

    “We share your concern about its potentially devastating effects on the lives of transgender as well as gay, lesbian, bisexual, and queer youth.”

    The overwhelming scientific evidence demonstrates that conversion therapy, especially when it is practiced on young people, is neither medically nor ethically appropriate and can cause substantial harm.

    “As part of our dedication to protecting America’s youth, this Administration supports efforts to ban the use of conversion therapy for minors.”

  • Leelah Alcorn Gets Attention of White House in Conversion Therapy Fight

    When Leelah Alcorn wrote her suicide note, she may have never imagined that her desperate situation would catch the attention of the President of the United States. But it has.

    “On Sunday, December 27, 2014, Leelah Alcorn a 17 year old transgender youth wrote a suicide note, posted it on Tumblr and then walked in front of a semi-truck tragically ending her life. Leelah explained how her parents had forced her to attend conversion therapy, pulled her out of school and isolated her in an attempt to change her gender identity.”

    Those words begin a petition on the official White House website that asks President Obama to remember Leelah Alcorn by helping push legislation against “conversion therapy.”

    “‘Conversion therapies’ have been documented to cause great harms and in this case, Leelah’s death. Therapists that engage in the attempt to brainwash or reverse any child’s gender identity or sexual orientation are seriously unethical and legislation is needed to end such practices that are resulting in LGBTQ+ deaths. We respectfully seek your help to ban the practice known as ‘conversion therapy’ and name the bill in honor of Leelah Alcorn.”

    That petition received 121,000 supporters. The White House has responded.

    “We share your concern about its potentially devastating effects on the lives of transgender as well as gay, lesbian, bisexual, and queer youth.”

    With those words, White House Senior Advisor Melanie Jarrett engaged the Obama Administration in a fight that is not likely to end soon, nor be simple.

    “The overwhelming scientific evidence demonstrates that conversion therapy, especially when it is practiced on young people, is neither medically nor ethically appropriate and can cause substantial harm.

    “As part of our dedication to protecting America’s youth, this Administration supports efforts to ban the use of conversion therapy for minors.”

    Leelah Alcorn’s own words in her Reddit posts tell the tale of just this very kind of “therapy”.

    “I wanted to see a gender therapist but they wouldn’t let me, they thought it would corrupt my mind. The would only let me see biased Christian therapists, who instead of listening to my feelings would try to change me into a straight male who loved God, and I would cry after every session because I felt like it was hopeless and there was no way I would ever become a girl.”

    Now that the Obama Administration has responded to the outcry in the wake of Leelah Alcorn’s death, perhaps the fight to end “conversion therapy” is on.

  • Jay Carney Battles With Reporter On Benghazi Emails

    Jay Carney tried to hold his ground for eight full minutes after being confronted by ABC News’ Jonathan Karl on the implications of newly released emails. These emails containined specific instruction on how to handle the Benghazi attack report. He insinuated that the strategy of such emails and story-weaving was to protect Obama, as the country was only weeks away from election day.

    The emails, which were released only after the government was petitioned under the Freedom of Information Act, contain most notably instruction from deputy national security adviser for strategic communications Ben Rhodes to then-U.N. ambassador Susan Rise.

    The emails urge her to emphasize the now infamous offensive Muhammed video as the source of the demonstrations, not “a failure of policy,” in a series of impending Sunday show appearances after the attack. The exact words were “underscore these protests are rooted in an Internet video, and not a broader failure of policy.”

    Carney said on Wednesday during his sparring round with Karl that the emails reflected the truth even though it later came out that the attacks on the Embassy at Benghazi, Libya that killed four people were orchestrated and planned by al-Qaeda to happen on the anniversary of September 11th in 2012. He also claimed that guidance in the emails was directed more to the widespread demonstrations that were taking place at the time, not so much on the attacks at Benghazi.

    There is also the fact that the email from Ben Rhodes to Susan Rice was suspiciously withheld from the emails that were released in May 2013 that showed the correspondence amongst the Obama administration about talking points after the attack. Also, in the previously released documents, there is an email from State Department spokesperson Victoria Nuland which was sent to Rhodes and others expressing worry that her agency appeared to be taking the blame for failing to listen to and consider CIA warnings of a possible attack on the anniversary of September 11th.

    Will the truth ever be clear and those responsible held accountable on this matter? I guess time only will tell.

    Image Via YouTube

  • Graduate Student Loans Regulations Proposed by Obama

    The Obama administration took new steps on Friday and proposed “gainful employment” regulations to hold for-profit colleges and other career training programs accountable for producing graduates who can earn enough money to pay back student loans.

    The regulations are intended to protect students from amassing large amounts of student loan debt that they will not be able to pay off after graduation.

    “Career-training programs offer millions of Americans an opportunity they desperately need to further their education and reach the middle class,” Education Secretary Arne Duncan told reporters in a conference Thursday, a day before the official announcement of the “gainful employment” program.

    “Today, too many of these programs fail to provide students with the training that they need at taxpayers’ expense and the cost to these students’ futures,” added Duncan.

    “Most will pass. Many programs, particularly those at for-profits, will not,” explained Duncan.

    Roughly 8,000 academic programs would be required to comply with the standards, federal officials said at the conference Thursday.

    There are two metrics education programs must pass in order to be considered compliant with the “gainful employment” program. Education programs would fail the debt-to-earnings standard if graduates who qualified for federal aid spend more than 12 percent of their annual earnings on student debt, or more than 30 percent of their discretionary earnings for any two out of three years.

    The other metric is that programs must have a student loan cohort default rate of 30 percent or less for three consecutive years.

    The program would penalize for-profit institutions of higher education that do not comply with the regulations by denying them access to federal student aid programs.

    The new rules of the “gainful employment” program are subject to change following a 60-day public commentary period.

    After the public comment period, the U.S. Education Department has approximately two months to further amend the rules, reported Inside Higher Ed.

    The department would then send any revisions to the White House Office of Management and Budget for review. For the regulations to take effect by July of next year, the feds must publish their final version by Oct. 30.

    If passed, institutions would be subject to regulations under gainful employment in 2016, Duncan said.

     

    Image via Wikimedia Commons

  • More Federal Privileges Extended to Same-Sex Couples

    For those couples that are of the same sex, it appears as if things are only going to get better for your partnerships and lives. Not only are more states opening their doors to acceptance of same-sex marriage, now the Federal Government is extending privileges to those who were married in the eyes of the law, but barely acknowledged.

    The Justice Department will instruct all of its employees all across the country this coming Monday, in a groundbreaking event, to extend legal equality to same-sex married partners, giving them protection under the same laws as non-same-sex married partners in every program it administers, from courthouse proceedings to prison visits to the compensation of surviving spouses of public safety officers.

    Disclosed in this new policy, the department will spell out the rights of same-sex couples, which includes the right to decline to testify against a spouse, even in states that do not recognize their marriage.

    Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. prepared documents that would eliminate the legal distinction of same-sex and opposite-sex married couples, according to a prominent gay rights group.

    “In every courthouse, in every proceeding and in every place where a member of the Department of Justice stands on behalf of the United States, they will strive to ensure that same-sex marriages receive the same privileges, protections and rights as opposite-sex marriages,” Mr. Holder’s prepared remarks said, according to the excerpts circulated by the Justice Department.

    These changes were imminent after the Supreme Court, last year, declared that it was unconstitutional to refuse federal benefits to same-sex married couples, which Mr. Holder strongly supported.

    The Obama administration has rewritten the federal rules for same-sex couples to allow them to file taxes as married couples, to receive Medicare and other benefits usually reserved for opposite-sex married couples. Mr. Holder has been behind these efforts and a face in the public, supporting gay rights.

    “These issues are very much at the center of this administration’s civil rights legacy,” said Ian S. Thompson, who works on gay and lesbian issues for the American Civil Liberties Union in Washington.

    And in a statement by Human Rights Campaign President Chad Griffin, who couldn’t be more pleased:

    “This landmark announcement will change the lives of countless committed gay and lesbian couples for the better. While the immediate effect of these policy decisions is that all married gay couples will be treated equally under the law, the long-term effects are more profound. Today, our nation moves closer toward its ideals of equality and fairness for all.”

    This new policy comes just three years after the Justice Department said it would not defend cases involving the Defense of Marriage Act any longer, with the Supreme Court ruling, things have certainly changed.

    Image via NDN

  • FISA Court Approves Changes To The NSA

    Since June of last year, the Obama administration has been on damage control in regards to the leaks from former NSA contractor Edward Snowden. In various speeches since then, the president has defended the surveillance programs while also promising to reform some of its most controversial elements. Of course, any reform has to be approved by the FISA court and it finally did just that.

    The Hill reports that the FISA court has recently approved President Obama’s two reforms to how the NSA accesses the massive trove of Americans’ cellphone data. The first would require the NSA to seek a court order before looking into its database of phone records. The second would limit the number of phone numbers the NSA could look at when chasing a target. Currently, the agency is allowed to look at numbers that are three steps away from the target, but it’s now been changed to two.

    While reform is certainly welcome, many feel that President Obama’s suggestions don’t go far enough in addressing the issue at hand. Many still feel that the NSA’s collection of Americans’ phone records goes too far. Even if the agency has to obtain a court order to access the database, civil liberty proponents will argue that it’s not enough. Obama’s Civil Liberties board agrees and has argued that it should be shut down.

    While a shut down of the program is unlikely, the FISA court is at least trying to be a little more proactive than the government when it comes to transparency. The court told the government to work on declassifying both its reform request and the court’s response. We’ll see a heavily redacted version of it by February 17.

    So, what’s next for the NSA? In his speech, Obama ordered Attorney General Eric Holder to work with National Intelligence Director James Clapper in devising a way to take the NSA’s database out of its hands. The most popular option seems to be giving the database to a private third party, but many feel that this approach would just lead to Americans’ metadata being stolen by hackers considering the poor security employed by private entities in the U.S.

    Image via Wikimedia Commons

  • Civil Liberties Board Says NSA Spying Is Illegal

    Last week, President Obama announced a number of reforms to how the NSA conducts its business. Chief among those reforms was changing how the agency collects bulk cellphone metadata. Some felt that the program should be ended immediately though, and the President’s own civil liberties board couldn’t agree more.

    The Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board published a 238-page document today detailing their opinion on the NSA’s collection of bulk telephone metadata. In stark contrast to just about everybody else in the executive branch, the board concluded in a 3-2 decision that it is illegal and should be ended immediately.

    So, how did the Board come about to this conclusion? In the executive summary of the document, the board points out that Section 215 of the Patriot Act only allows “the FBI to acquire records that a business has in its possession as part of an FBI investigation, when those records are relevant to the investigation.” The current interpretation of Section 215 that allows the NSA to collect the phone records of every America “bears almost no resemblance to that description,” according to the board.

    The Board then breaks down how the NSA’s actions goes beyond what Section 215 allows in four parts:

    First, the telephone records acquired under the program have no connection to any specific FBI investigation at the time of their collection. Second, because the records are collected in bulk – potentially encompassing all telephone calling records across the nation – they cannot be regarded as “relevant” to any FBI investigation as required by the statute without redefining the world relevant in a manner that is circular, unlimited in scope, and out of step with the case law from analogous legal contexts involving the production of records. Third, the program operates by putting telephone companies under an obligation to furnish new calling records on a daily basis as they are generated (instead of turning over records already in their possession) – an approach lacking foundation in the statute and one that is inconsistent with FISA as a whole. Fourth, the statute permits only the FBI to obtain items for use in its investigation; it does not authorize the NSA to collect anything.

    If that wasn’t enough, the Board also says that Section 215 violates the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, or ECPA.

    “In addition, we conclude that the program violates the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. That statute prohibits telephone companies from sharing consumer records with the government except in response to specific enumerated circumstances, which do not include Section 215 orders.”

    Oh, but the trashing of Section 215 doesn’t stop there. A bit further into the summary, the Board says that the common defense of the bulk metadata collection program (i.e. it stops terrorism) doesn’t hold up in the face of reality:

    “…we conclude that the Section 215 program has shown minimal value in safeguarding the nation from terrorism. Based on information provided to the Board, including classified briefings and documentation, we have not identified a single instance involving a threat to the United States in which the program made a concrete difference in the outcome of a counterterrorism investigation. Moreover, we are aware of no instance in which the program directly contributed to the discovery of a previously unknown terrorist plot or the disruption of a terrorist attack. And we believe that in only one instance over the past seven years has the program arguably contributed to the identification of an unknown terrorism suspect. Even in that case, the suspect was not involved in planning a terrorist attack and there is reason to believe that the FBI may have discovered him without the contribution of the NSA’s program.”

    Despite saying that it has never directly contributed to the foiling of a terrorist plot, the Board plays devil’s advocate for a bit by saying that the bulk metadata collection program may help investigators in two ways. The first is that the program may offer “additional leads regarding the contacts of terrorism suspects already known to investigators. The second “can help investigators confirm suspicions about the target of an inquiry.” Despite this, the Board feels that the bulk metadata collection program “largely duplicates the FBI’s own information gathering efforts.” In other words, it’s redundant and contributes nothing of value.

    As for the privacy of Americans, the Board finds that the collection of metadata “has a significant and detrimental effect on individual privacy.” It fears that this could lead to “mission creep” or the use of personal information to “harass, blackmail, or intimidate” individuals or groups.

    In a similar vein, the Board feels that the bulk metadata collection program will have a “chilling effect on the free exercise of speech and association.” In other words, the program “hinders the ability of advocacy organizations to communicate confidentiality with members, donors, legislators, whistleblowers, members of the public, and others.”

    Moving onto the FISA court, the Board concludes that all hearings are stacked in the government favor due to non-governmental parties not being allowed to testify before said court. That’s why the Board suggests three specific reforms to the FISA court that would allow the public to challenge the government on surveillance matters:

  • Creation of a panel of private attorneys, Special Advocates, who can be brought into cases involving novel and significant issues by FISA court judges.
  • Development of a process facilitating appellate review of such decisions.
  • Providing increased opportunity for the FISC to receive technical assistance and legal input from outside parties.

    • Finally, the Board takes on the issue of transparency. As you would expect, it acknowledges the government’s position that there should be a line between secrecy and transparency. The board diverges, however, in its opinion that the government is doing a pretty bad job of keeping its electorate informed. Its main argument is that it’s possible to allow public debate on classified programs while still keeping them classified. In other words, the government should at least acknowledge the existence of its surveillance programs and collect feedback from the public.

    So, where do we go from here? Well, the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board doesn’t really hold any power. They report directly to the President and are a part of the executive branch, but their opinion is just one of many. The President already laid out his opinion on the matter last week by stating that the bulk data collection should continue.

    Despite its lack of power, the Board’s recommendations will add some much needed ammunition to the arguments of those who are opposed to the NSA. Sen. Patrick Leahy and others have argued for the past few months that the bulk data collection program needs to end and this report will only bolster those arguments.

    Real reform may not come for a while, but the Board’s recommendations is the first step in a road that may very well lead to an America that’s not constantly surveilled by the very people sworn to protect its citizens.

    Image via PCLOB.gov

  • Obama Administration Still Supports Net Neutrality

    Obama Administration Still Supports Net Neutrality

    Open Internet advocates all over the nation today were saddened to learn that D.C. District Court of Appeals sided with Verizon in its fight with the FCC over the Commission’s net neutrality rules. While the FCC can still appeal to the Supreme Court, many are concerned that the Commission won’t even bother. The Obama administration is now strongly hinting that won’t be the case.

    The White House issued a statement today in regards to the appeals court ruling that struck down the net neutrality rules. While the administration would not comment on an appeal, it said that the President “remains committed to an open Internet.”

    Here’s the full statement:

    “President Obama remains committed to an open internet, where consumers are free to choose the websites they want to visit and the online services they want to use, and where online innovators are allowed to compete on a level playing field based on the quality of their products. As we continue to review the ruling, we remain committed to working with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), Congress, and the private sector to preserve a free and open Internet.”

    Interestingly enough, the Obama administration may have found itself an ally in the most unlikely of companies – Time Warner Cable. It’s kind of ironic that the second most hated ISP in America is fully supportive of an open Internet, or at leas that’s what the company claims in a statement released today:

    “Since pioneering the development of high-speed broadband service in the late 1990s, Time Warner Cable has been committed to providing its customers the best service possible, including unfettered access to the web content and services of their choice. This commitment, which long precedes the FCC rules, will not be affected by today’s court decision.”

    While that may be true, a little bit of wordplay could lead us to a future where Time Warner Cable institutes something like AT&T’s sponsored data. It technically doesn’t run afoul of the FCC’s original net neutrality rules and it would allow them to claim to still support an open Internet. Unfortunately, it would also allow TWC or any other ISP to institute data caps while letting content providers pay to deliver data to consumers without contributing to the cap.

    In short, the open Internet might not be threatened by a lack of net neutrality rules. It’s just going to be exploited until there’s nothing left.

    [h/t: The Hill]
    Image via The White House/flickr

  • Wind Farms Granted Permits to Kill Bald Eagles

    The Obama administration is under heat again, but this time the pressure is unrelated to the Affordable Care Act. On Friday, it was revealed that wind power companies will be able to accidentally injure and kill bald and golden eagles for 30 years without fear of penalty or recourse. Wind farms with large rotating turbines have inadvertently killed the national bird. Prior regulations required companies to account for the number of bald eagles killed by the turbines if the amount was higher than estimated. Reporting has now been deemed voluntary as a result of these recent changes. Under these new regulation guidelines, permits may be considered for review every five years.

    According to Interior Secretary Sally Jewell, “Renewable energy development is vitally important to our nation’s future, but it has to be done the right way. The changes in this permitting program will help the renewable energy industry and others develop projects that can operate in the longer term, while ensuring bald and golden eagles continue to thrive for generations.”

    While efforts for energy sustainability to create a “green” environment are typically met with enthusiasm, many have expressed an opposing opinion due to the viewed attack on the bald eagle, which is thought to be a symbol of the country’s strength.

    David Yarnold, who is the president of the National Audubon Society, released a statement against the recent sanction. “Instead of balancing the need for conservation and renewable energy, Interior wrote the wind industry a blank check. It’s outrageous that the government is sanctioning the killing of America’s symbol, the bald eagle.”

    Michael Hutchins of the American Bird Conservancy spoke about the concern for managing resources with long-term considerations. “The Obama administration has called for 20% of our energy to be generated by renewables by 2030. That’s approximately 12 times the amount of power generated. If it’s not done right, what kind of an impact is that going to have on birds and bats?”

    “You have to provide more certainty for the eagles and make sure they’re protected,” said John Kostyack of the National Wildlife Federation.

    The director of siting policy at the American Wind Energy Association John Anderson said, “This is not a program to kill eagles. This permit program is about conservation.”

    Though there are no present fears considering endangerment for the bald eagles, many are fascinated by watching the birds and want to ensure the population continues to thrive.

    [Image Via Wikimedia Commons and Courtesy of Magnus Manske]

  • Obama Urges Airlines To Obey China’s Rules

    The New York Times reports that the Obama administration has asked that American commercial airlines obey the wishes of China and submit notification of flights into their airspace in advance. The move comes as the United States finds itself drawn into the midst of mounting tension between Japan and China over the control of uninhabited islands in the East Sea.

    China had scrambled jets after planes from Japan and the United States entered the disputed flight zone. This lead to concern over crowded airspace causing collisions. Allowing airlines to announce their presence ahead of time would go towards solving that problem.


    Less easy to solve is the standoff between China and Japan, the latter of whom is a direct ally with United States. The US shares a mutual defense treaty which covers the islands in question. What this means is that should matters escalate, the Obama Administration is treaty-bound to act on behalf of Japan.

    On the one side is China, under President Xi Jinping. Jinping’s declaration of an “air defense identification zone” has rubbed not only Japan the wrong way, as the zone stretches into South Korean waters. The act is feared by some to be a step in the direction of inevitable military actions should the aggressive nature of China spiral out of control. This could not only impact relations within the region, but also have a negative impact on a global economy still climbing out of a devastating recession.

    On the other side is Prime Minister Shinzo Abe of Japan, whose new nationalism stance some compare to the imperialist beliefs of Japan during WWII. It may be old wounds on both sides driving the exercise in blatant territorial posturing. After all, the modern trade relationship between China and Japan resulted in hundreds of billions of dollars in revenue last year. It is literally more beneficial to be friends than foes.

    As the Obama administration and the world continues to monitor the situation, only time will tell whether this is just the latest in mental war games played between the two powerful nations or the beginning of something far worse.

    Image: Wikimedia Commons

  • White House Suggests More NSA Reforms In Wake Of Recent Leaks

    Last week, The Guardian reported that the NSA was eavesdropping on 35 world leaders, including US allies. As you can imagine, this didn’t sit well with those being spied on, while reports emerged that the spying programs were stopped after the president learned of their existence. Now the Obama administration says it may apply additional measures to reign in the NSA.

    RT reports that White House press secretary Jay Carney announced that the Obama administration will be taking an even harder look at NSA surveillance programs after it was revealed that the agency was spying on world leaders:

    “There are a number of efforts underway that are designed to increase transparency, to work with Congress to look at reform to the Patriot Act [and] to look at ways we can increase oversight and increase constraint on the authorities provided by these programs.”

    Despite saying that the White House would “work with Congress to look at reform to the Patriot Act,” Carney continued to emphasize that all the powers given to the NSA under the FISA court’s interpretation of Section 215 of the Patriot Act are entirely legal. If anything, the Obama administration will likely look to the reform bills being pushed by Senate Intelligence Committee Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein and House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Rogers. Both call for increased transparency, but not much else. In fact, both join the administration in saying that the bulk collection of Americans’ phone records is legal.

    To fight against such ineffective reform, Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy and original Patriot Act author Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner will introduce the USA Freedom Act in both the Senate and House. The bill not only ends the bulk collection of Americans’ phone records under Section 215, but it also reforms the FISA court to allow a public advocate to argue against government interests. The bill will allow private companies to publish the number of data requests they receive as well.

    Of course, the White House could very well be serious about implementing serious reform. Carney said that the administration is continuing its review of these programs, and that it will “look at how we can better balance our security needs and the security needs of our allies against the real privacy concerns that we all share.”

    We can only dream, right?

    [Image: White House/flickr]

  • Social Security Increase Lowest in Decades as Inflation Ravages US Dollar

    Millions of Social Security recipients and disabled veterans will receive the smallest benefits increase since 1975, when automatic increases were adopted to offer a shield against price inflation, according to an analysis by The Associated Press.

    The benefits will increase by roughly 1.5 percent, against price inflation of almost 10%, when measured using more forthright methods employed by the Federal Government itself, until 1980.

    However, consumer prices, when measured according to dubious modern methods might enable Federal Government to justify the meager raises next year.

    The precise extent of the cost-of-living-adjustment (COLA) will be determined using inflation data released by the US Labor Department. In the midst of all the uncertainty surrounding the government shutdown, both parties and White House are quarreling over entitlements and debt, while almost 58 million Social Security recipients have been left in limbo.

    With real inflation almost crossing the 10% threshold, prices are doubling every 7 years, and disabled veterans, children, women and seniors are staring at grinding poverty. If government raises these benefits by 1.5%, the typical monthly payment would rise by $17, equivalent to two Chinese take-out dinners, on an average monthly check (or direct deposit) of $1,162.

    The COLA increases since 1975 have averaged 4.1% per annum, but never managed to keep up with real inflation. Millions of seniors on fixed incomes are feeling robbed and helpless in the face of Federal Reserve’s power to inflate ad infinitum. Among those hardest hit are 3 million disabled veterans and at least 8 million poor dependent on Supplemental Security Income.

    “I’m not one of those folks that’s going to fall into poverty, but it is going to make a difference in my standard of living as time goes by…I live in a small apartment and I have an old car, and it’s going to break down. And no doubt when it does, I’ll have to fix it or get a new one,” said David Waugh, a retiree from Maryland.

    In the aftermath of 2008 financial crisis, there was no COLA in 2010 and 2011, since the government deemed price inflation to be too low.

    Remarkably, despite the misery wrought on the seniors, AARP estimates the COLA to be between 1.5-1.7%, in agreement with government claims.

    Efforts to privatize Social Security have been drummed out of all public debate, despite the phenomenal success of the Galveston Plan, named after Galveston County of Texas. The Galveston Plan was enacted after county employees withdrew from Federal Social Security system, and invested their retirement funds into private accounts managed by the conservative First Financial Benefits, the company that manages the accounts. http://youtu.be/hnfiYh8Xv_Y?t=6m56s

    Despite the central role of inflation in determining the purchasing power of dollar, it has never attracted the vigorous national (and international) debate it deserves. And that is the slow motion tragedy unfolding in America, with every passing day.

    [image from wikipedia]

  • Obama’s New Dog Is Cute, But Apparently Evil

    The Obama family has added a new lovably adorable ball of fur to the White House; her name is Sunny, and she is a female Portuguese Water Dog. She is quite similar to the first Presidential pet, Bo, in color, breed, and maximum preciousness. Portugese Water Dogs have hypo-allergenic coats that come in handy for the Obama family, considering that daughter Malia is allergic to dog fur. The new addition to the presidential family is said to be about a year old, “energetic and affectionate,” and that her name was chosen to reflect her “cheerful” nature. All in all, the dog is super cute and couldn’t possibly be the cause for any kind of debate ever. Except that this is the internet, and that last bit is most certainly untrue.

    (image)
    (Pictured above: Evil incarnate!)

    Since the Obama family announced their newest member in a press release on Monday, the internet (and, of course, the odd conservative and cranky activist) have used the ensuing 24 hours to come up with some pretty cringe-worthy, but none the less entertaining conspiracy theories concerning the new pup. Among the more interesting accusations are that “Sunny” isn’t the dog’s name at all. The dog is actually “Sunni.” You know, like the Islamic religious sect. Because Obama is a muslim, remember? Get it? (Yeah. Neither do I.)

    Other complaints have come from the dog’s pure-bred status and the fact that she was, more likely than not, not rescued from a pound. Wayne Pacelle, the president of the Humane Society of The Unites States, slyly pointed out that the Obama family had not been entirely clear on where they had acquired Sunny, with others going on to imply that the thousands of shelter dogs around the country might have a bone to pick with Sunny’s pure-bred status. (Pacelle, after making his snide complaints, went on to thank the Obama family for their generous donation to the Humane Society and the president’s effort to pass legislation meant to fight cruelty in puppy mills.) PETA, of course, chimed in on the debate by saying that, “The Obama family… failed to listen to the plea of “adopt, don’t buy” that greeted the arrival of the First Dog, Bo, and acquired Sunny, the Second Dog, from a breeder, which is the animal-protection world equivalent of kicking a hobo.” Classy as always, PETA.

    Perhaps the most entertaining issue surrounding the pup is that she is nothing more than a fluffy, adorable distraction, meant to take the heat off of the Obama administration as they push their agenda of evil, evil Health care reform, the ever-dreaded, oh-so-infamous “Obamacare” monster. Because, you know, the Obama administration forces the media to cover such irreverent topics as the new White House pet and celebrity gossip and news of the royal baby rather than the hard-hitting things that actually matter. Yes, that’s completely accurate.

    The chaos surrounding the new pup’s arrival is, ultimately, ridiculous, but worth a laugh or two. This article from Salon perhaps best sums up the arguments surrounding Sunny; the dog isn’t to blame for America’s problems. The dog is not to blame for Obama’s mistakes. The dog, in fact, has nothing to do with either of these things. The dog is, simply put, a dog; a cute, new pet, and not much else. Perhaps it might be best to not make mountains out of mole hills in this instance.

  • Commerce Department Recommends Congress Bring Back A Part Of SOPA

    Commerce Department Recommends Congress Bring Back A Part Of SOPA

    I think we can all agree that SOPA was no good. The legislation would have done extensive damage to the Internet and free speech all in the name of stopping piracy. One of the more troubling parts of the legislation would have criminalized “unauthorized streaming.” It’s a good thing SOPA was killed off, right?

    SOPA may be dead, but the Department of Commerce’s Internet Policy Task Force recently released a report that recommends Congress bring back the part of SOPA that would have made “unauthorized streaming” a felony. Their reasoning is that streaming is just as important as physical media is to content creators so the unauthorized reproduction of the former should be met with the same punishments as the latter. In short, the Commerce Department is saying that streaming an episode of Game of Thrones outside of HBO Go is the same thing as selling a bootleg DVD of Game of Thrones.

    You can probably already see why this is a bad idea. Previous bills and provisions that concern online streaming have been so ambiguously worded that they could conceivably be used to punish people who upload YouTube videos of themselves singing over their favorite songs. In fact, one bill – the Commercial Felony Streaming Act – from Sen. Amy Klobuchar met with stiff resistance from none other than Justin Bieber. He famously said that Klobuchar “needs to be locked up” after being told about the bill.

    Now, it should be said that it’s hard to imagine any piece of legislation being used to go after regular people uploading videos of themselves jamming out to their favorite songs on YouTube. What does raise concern are the people who upload clips from movies and television shows. YouTube already has a competent ContentID matching program in place to remove these unauthorized streams from the service. It’s ridiculous to think that some people in Washingon and Hollywood think this isn’t enough, and are demanding that these people be thrown behind bars.

    What makes this all especially troubling is that the Obama administration, of which the Commerce department is a part of, has effectively flip-flopped on its stance regarding SOPA. In last year’s Annual Report on Intellectual Property Enforcement, the administration said that it stood against any legislation that “reduces freedom of expression, increases cybersecurity risk (including authority to tamper with the DNS system), or undermines the dynamic, innovative global Internet.” I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but cracking down on streaming, even if it’s unauthorized, would undermine the “dynamic, innovative global Internet” by making people scared to invest in or use streaming services for fear of being locked up.

    Maybe Congress and Hollywood should start seeing the real reason behind unauthorized streaming – a lack of official monetized services. Sure, we have Hulu, Netflix, HBO Go and others, but some of them (i.e. HBO Go) make it incredibly hard to appreciate their efforts since it requires a cable subscription. Consumers need a simple, catch-all service that delivers everything they want. It’s worked wonders for the music industry, and now Hollywood has to follow suit.

    Besides, how else is Bieber going to watch his favorite UFC fights?

    [h/t: Washington Post]

  • Obamacare: Smokers To Get Reprieve Under Glitch

    An error in the computer system may be of temporary relief to smokers who would ordinarily have to pay high premiums under Obamacare, the administration says.

    According to the Obamacare plan, insurance companies will be allowed to charge smokers up to 50% more on premiums than non-smokers. But a technical problem has arisen that will change that.

    According to the Health and Human Services Department, “Because of a system limitation … the system currently cannot process a premium for a 65-year-old smoker that is … more than three times the premium of a 21-year-old smoker,” the industry guidance said. If an insurer tries to charge more, “the submission of the (insurer) will be rejected by the system.”

    Though the error may prove helpful to some now, many are frustrated with yet another setback in the plan, which has already seen several postponements.

    “This was an administration that was telling us everything was under control,” health care industry consultant Robert Laszewski told CBS News. “Everything was going to be fine. Suddenly this kind of stuff is cropping up every few days.”

    The glitch could take up to a year to repair; before, insurance companies were going to be able to charge lower penalties for younger smokers and go higher with the age groups, but now the options are less than desirable for everyone. The administration is suggesting a full, fixed penalty for every smoker no matter what their age, but that would mean a higher cost for those at the younger end of the spectrum and no change for older smokers.

  • Some Obama Administration Officials Have Secret Email Addresses [Report]

    President Obama’s appointees to various government agencies use a secret email unknown to anyone outside of government, according to a report released today.

    The AP reports that some of Obama’s appointees, including Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius, were given a secret email address. The news agency discovered the existence of these secret emails after a thorough review that created more questions than answers.

    So, why do some government workers use a secret email address? The report says that this secret email address is used to prevent these government workers from being inundated with spam and other unwanted messages. Having two separate email addresses – one to interact with the public and one to interact with government employees – is a fine idea. The problem arises when the press seeks to have these emails turned over as part of Freedom of Information requests, or even when people within the agency try to access these emails.

    It was found that these secret email addresses impede internal or external investigations. For example, what if a department was conducting an internal investigation into an alleged wrongdoing? It would be difficult for the investigators to access these secret email addresses as they are kept hidden even from them.

    During its investigation, the AP said that it found two government agencies using secret email addresses – Department of Health and Human Services, and the Labor Department. It was also revealed last year that the EPA used secret email addresses to not only communicate within its own ranks, but with outside forces as well. Using these email addresses allowed the agency to exploit a loophole in disclosure rules.

    Now the investigation has turned towards compelling a number of other government agencies to disclose employee email addresses as part of a Freedom of Information Act request. Will these agencies turn over all email addresses, or just those that are publicly listed? Will these agencies even admit to using secret email addresses? Only time will tell for now.

    The existence of secret email addresses calls the transparency of government into question. It will be hard to trust any responses to FoI requests now that we know that these secret email addresses exist. Government is meant to be transparent, and it’s hard to argue that many of these secret email addresses pose a security risk if made public.

    In short, it seems like the same double standard we’ve seen from government time and time again. Confidentiality means nothing when it comes to press sources and records, but it means everything when it comes to innocuous email addresses.

  • Drone Strikes Killed 4 Americans in Last 4 Years

    As drones have become more advanced, the American public has become more aware of the devices. The unmanned flying machines could soon be used by private companies (to deliver pizza, for example) and are already heavily used by the military and some U.S. police forces. With the proliferation of this new technology has come a new public scrutiny.

    Today, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder confirmed that at least four U.S. citizens have been killed in military drone strikes since 2009. According to an Associated Press report, the admission was made in a letter Holder sent to Patrick Leahy, the chairman of the senate judiciary committee.

    The strikes occurred in Pakistan and Yemen. One of the drone strikes was targeted to kill Anwar al-Awlaki, an American and Yemeni imam who is alleged to have been a recruiter for al-Qaeda. The three other U.S. citizens killed in drone strikes were not specifically targeted. Al-Awlaki’s son, Abdulrahman, was also killed in the attack, which occurred in Yemen in 2011. An American named Samir Khan was also killed in the drone strike that killed al-Awlaki. Another American named Jude kenan Mohammed was reportedly killed in a drone strike in Pakistan.

  • Obama Approval Rating Still Solid, Despite Critics

    Last week was, perhaps, the toughest week the Obama administration has yet faced. While congressional Republicans were still trying to turn the Benghazi attacks into a full-fledged scandal, two clearly real scandals have appeared seemingly out of nowhere in the past two weeks. One involves the IRS targeting the large influx of tax-exempt Tea Party-related groups for extra scrutiny. The other scandal involves the U.S. Justice Department seizure of Associated Press journalists’ telephone records in secret subpoenas.

    It seems, however, that none of the negative press has affected President Obama’s approval ratings. According to a CNN/ORC poll released this weekend, the President still enjoys a 53% approval rating.

    This is despite the fact that those polled knew about the recent scandals and even considered them important. 71% of those polled considered the IRS’s actions unacceptable, while 52% thought the Justice Department’s phone record seizures were unacceptable. Over 60% of these same respondents believe that President Obama’s statements about the IRS scandal have been at least mostly true.

    Presidential spokespersons have been aggressively combating efforts to link Obama directly to the IRS scandal. White House adviser Dan Pfeiffer this Sunday hit the talk show circuit, stating that the President did not know of the policy before it hit the media.

    The President himself did not address the topics this weekend. Instead, the President used his weekly address to speak about building up the middle class in the U.S.:

  • White House Finally Responds To CISPA Petition, Says Cybersecurity Legislation Must Respect Privacy

    CISPA is all but dead once again, and the Senate is moving ahead with its own cybersecurity legislation. That doesn’t mean the fight is over though. In fact, the Senate might just propose a bill that’s worse, but the White House says that it won’t let that happen.

    In an official response to the “Stop CISPA” petition on the We The People Web site, the White House says that any new cybersecurity legislation “must not violate Americans’ right to privacy.” The administration says that’s the reason why it issued a veto threat against CISPA earlier this month. That veto threat may led to CISPA’s death, but the White House says it’s still open to working with everybody to pass cybersecurity legislation.

    To that end, the White House says that cybersecurity legislation is a must to counter the “constant threat of cyber crime, espionage, and attacks.” The administration, unlike the House, does admit there are already tools in place, however, to facilitate cooperation between the government and private companies to share threat information. It just feels that the current tools in place aren’t enough:

    But you might ask, “Isn’t this collaboration already happening?” The simple answer is yes, but inefficiently. When it comes to information sharing, we need clearer rules to promote collaboration and protect privacy. Right now, each company has to work out an individual arrangement with the government and other companies on what information to share about cyberthreats. This ambiguity can lead to harmful delays.

    There is broad consensus on the need for more threat-related information sharing — including among the leading privacy advocates we regularly engage on the issue. The essential question on which people across the spectrum disagree isn’t if we can share cybersecurity information and preserve the principles of privacy and liberty that make the United States a free and open society — but how.

    The White House has admirable goals, but we’ve heard all of this before from the House. We were promised that CISPA would respect privacy and civil liberties, but that obviously wasn’t the case in the end.

    To allieve the concerns of citizens, the White House says that it will only support cybersecurity legislation that adheres to these three principles:

    It’s important that any information shared under a new cybersecurity law must be limited to what’s relevant and necessary for cybersecurity purposes. That also means minimizing information that can be used to identify specific individuals. For example, if a utility company is looking for government assistance to respond to a cyber attack, it is unlikely that it needs to share the personal information of its customers, like contact information or energy-use history, with the government.

    Cybersecurity legislation needs to preserve the traditional roles for civilian and intelligence agencies that we all understand. Specifically, if legislation authorizes new information sharing between the private sector and the government, then that new information should enter the government through a civilian department rather than an intelligence agency. That doesn’t mean breaking the existing mechanisms that already work. For example, victims of cyber crime ought to continue to report those violations to federal law enforcement agencies and public-private information-sharing relationships that already exist should be preserved.

    Any new legislation ought to provide legal clarity for companies that follow the rules and appropriately share data with the government. But it should not provide broad immunity for businesses and organizations that act in ways likely to cause damage to third parties or result in the unwarranted disclosure of personal information.

    In short, the above takes care of pretty much every complaint privacy advocates had with the original CISPA. The White House says it will continue to apply the above principles in its on-going discussions with those in the Senate currently crafting cybersecurity legislation.

    CISPA may be dead, but the issue of cybersecurity is far from over. We’ll continue to follow the Senate’s efforts as it works on its own cybersecurity legislation.

  • Will Small Businesses Suffer If Forced To Collect Online Sales Tax?

    One of the most controversial pieces of legislation currently making its way through the Senate is the Marketplace Fairness Act. In essence, it would allow states to collect taxes from online purchases even if the online store doesn’t have a physical presence in the state. Brick-and-mortar stores claim the bill levels the playing field with online retailers while opponents say it would put undue regulations on online businesses while making the tax code even more cumbersome. Guess which side the White House agrees with.

    The Hill reports that the White House has formally announced its support for the Marketplace Fairness Act. The newfound endorsement was a key factor in the Senate voting in favor of the bill during a procedural vote on Monday evening.

    Do you support an online sales tax? Do you think small online businesses have anything to fear? Let us know in the comments.

    The idea of an online sales tax is nothing new. Retail stores, represented by the National Retail Federation, have been pushing for an online sales tax bill for years after the Supreme Court ruled in Quill Corp v. North Dakota that a state could not levy sales tax against a company if it had no physical presence in the state. Numerous online retailers use this to get around sales tax, and retail stores say this gives them an unfair advantage.

    The White House completely agrees. In a statement to the press on Monday, White House press secretary Jay Carney said the bill would level the playing field for brick-and-mortar stores and online retailers:

    “This administration has carefully considered the legislation, and our team has met with a broad array of people on the issue. And we have heard overwhelmingly from governors, mayors and the business community on the need for federal legislation to level the playing field for our businesses and address sales tax fairness.”

    The Nation Retail Federation isn’t the only group pushing for the Senate to pass the Marketplace Fairness Act. Governors around the country, including Chris Christie of New Jersey and Rick Snyder of Michigan, have voiced their support for the bill. States are hurting for revenue, and they feel that a national mandate on sales tax will bring billions of revenue back to the states. Carney echoed the governors by saying that the potential tax revenue would help states fund “K-12 education, police and fire protection, access to affordable health care, and funding for roads and bridges.”

    Even if the bill is able to pass the Senate during a final vote later this week, it faces plenty of opposition. The Republican-controlled House is just one of the many challenges the Marketplace Fairness Act faces as it progresses through the legislature. Obviously online businesses are coming out against it. Ebay has been especially hostile towards the legislation, and has even started recruiting its sellers to protest the bill.

    The common complaint from Ebay and other businesses opposed is that the bill would put undue burdens on online retailers. The current tax system has created a symbiotic relationship between online companies and the states. The states attract online companies to set up a physical presence in a state through a number of perks while the company brings tax revenue and jobs to the state in question. A universal online sales tax destroys that relationship by making online companies collect sales taxes for states that they receive no benefit from.

    The current legislation offers sales exemptions to online businesses that make less than $1 million annually. Ebay is currently lobbying Senators to add an amendment that would up this exemption to $10 million.

    One company that’s already benefiting from that symbiotic relationship has come out strongly in favor of the bill though. Amazon, which has a number of distribution centers across the country, says that it favors the bill because it creates a unified national framework for tax collection.

    Despite the Senate’s overwhelming support of the bill, TechDirt points out that Sen. Ron Wyden has come out strongly against it saying that it negatively impacts innovation.

    Another group standing in the bill’s way is Wall Street as it argues that the legislation, as it stands, could negatively affect financial transactions. One group in particular, the Financial Services Roundtable, says that a sales tax on financial transactions would hurt just about everyone:

    “A transaction tax on financial services products will hurt retail investors, retired Americans, and small businesses, effectively making it more expensive for them to invest and plan for the long-term. Without hearings, these implications and others will not be properly addressed.”

    Do you agree with those in favor of the bill? Or the opposition? Let us know in the comments.

    It should be noted that the Marketplace Fairness Act isn’t a done deal in the Senate. Monday’s vote was only procedural. Now the Senate will get to work on adding amendments to the bill with a final vote scheduled for Thursday or Friday.

    Unless something disastrous happens, the bill will probably pass the Senate without much of a fight. A glowing endorsement from the White House has made sure of that.

    During the debate in the Senate and the House, you’re likely to see the following argument – Do we even need an online sales tax bill? Is there any real reason to throw a bone to the retail businesses that implement stupid strategies like a $5 window shopping fee.

    One compelling argument is that retail stores should find ways to better compete with online businesses. The retail store still has a few advantages over online businesses, but are they really capitalizing on those advantages?

    At this point, it’s too early to tell exactly what kind of damage, if any, the Marketplace Fairness Act would cause. It could possibly do nothing, but some are right to fear that it would legitimately hurt the operations of online retailers.

    Do you think that retail stores need a level playing field? Will the Marketplace Fairness Act negatively affect small online businesses? Let us know in the comments.

  • White House Threatens To Veto CISPA, Recommends Fixes To Bill’s Language

    White House Threatens To Veto CISPA, Recommends Fixes To Bill’s Language

    Last week, the White House said that CISPA still had some problems that weren’t addressed by the amendments added during its markup period. Unfortunately, the administration didn’t issue a veto threat at that time, but now it has.

    In a statement released by the White House today, the Obama administration laid out its beef with CISPA. The first issue it has with the legislation is that it still doesn’t do enough to protect private information:

    The Administration, however, remains concerned that the bill does not require private entities to take reasonable steps to remove irrelevant personal information when sending cybersecurity data to the government or other private sector entities. Citizens have a right to know that corporations will be held accountable – and not granted immunity – for failing to safeguard personal information adequately. The Administration is committed to working with all stakeholders to find a workable solution to this challenge. Moreover, the Administration is confident that such measures can be crafted in a way that is not overly onerous or cost prohibitive on the businesses sending the information.

    Now this is huge. The administration is saying that companies should not be granted immunity if it uses your private information in an inappropriate fashion. Corporate immunity is one of the cornerstones of CISPA and one of the main reasons the tech industry is so in love with it. If the immunity provision is removed, the backing of the tech industry will vanish along with it.

    The other issue is that it doesn’t like how CISPA allows companies to share private information with any agency of its choosing, including the NSA. The White Houses says that all private information should enter government through a civilian agency:

    The Administration supports the longstanding tradition to treat the Internet and cyberspace as civilian spheres, while recognizing that the Nation’s cybersecurity requires shared responsibility from individual users, private sector network owners and operators, and the appropriate collaboration of civilian, law enforcement, and national security entities in government. H.R. 624 appropriately seeks to make clear that existing public-private relationships – whether 2 voluntary, contractual, or regulatory – should be preserved and uninterrupted by this newly authorized information sharing. However, newly authorized information sharing for cybersecurity purposes from the private sector to the government should enter the government through a civilian agency, the Department of Homeland Security.

    So, what does the White House want to see out of CISPA or any other cybersecurity bill? Pretty much what CISPA is now, but with better privacy protections:

    The Administration believes that carefully updating laws to facilitate cybersecurity information sharing is one of several legislative changes essential to protect individuals’ privacy and improve the Nation’s cybersecurity. While there is bipartisan consensus on the need for such legislation, it should adhere to the following priorities: (1) carefully safeguard privacy and civil liberties; (2) preserve the long-standing, respective roles and missions of civilian and intelligence agencies; and (3) provide for appropriate sharing with targeted liability protections.

    If Congress can’t agree on a cybersecurity bill that meets the above criteria, the White House says that “senior advisors would recommend that [the president] veto the bill” if it were presented as it is now.

    The threat of a veto might help certain amendments to be added onto CISPA before it goes to the floor for a vote this week, but I wouldn’t hold my breath. The bill’s authors seem pretty adamant on passing CISPA as is, and it will most likely die another ignoble death in the Senate as its members push for their own cybersecurity bill.

    [h/t: TechDirt]