I was sick for most of the past four days, including two days on which I barely crawled out of bed. I had a fever, my muscles ached, I had chest congestion and migraine headaches and I couldn’t think straight. I’m better now, but while I was at my sickest, I wondered how Ben survived Nazi concentration camps for six years, even through the sicknesses that people periodically experience, especially when they were in the process of being starved. Ben just happened to call me yesterday (on another matter), and I took the opportunity to ask him: What would happen at Buchenwald if a prisoner was so sick that he was unable to report for work duty on even one occasion.

Ben answered:

“The system was simple. If you didn’t report for work, several people would go inside the barracks to pick you up, and they would walk you over to the crematorium oven, which was burning 24 hours a day. Even if you were still alive, they would throw you into the oven. I saw this happen and I heard the screams.”

I still can’t conceive of how a young boy could have survived this horror, even as he aged into a teenager during his six years of captivity.  And I’m so very lucky to live in a situation where sickness is usually not life-threatening, either biologically or socially.

Related posts:

1. Attention Sickness
2. Killing antibiotics
3. Silly Walks Generator

Then, the night before the May Day Occupy protests, they allegedly put the plan into motion – and just as the would-be terrorists fiddled with the detonator they hoped would blow to smithereens a scenic bridge in Ohio’s Cuyahoga Valley National Park traversed by 13,610 vehicles every day, the FBI swooped in to arrest them. Right in the nick of time, just like in the movies. The authorities couldn’t have more effectively made the Occupy movement look like a danger to the republic if they had scripted it. Maybe that’s because, more or less, they did.

The guy who convinced the plotters to blow up a big bridge, led them to the arms merchant, and drove the team to the bomb site was an FBI informant. The merchant was an FBI agent. The bomb, of course, was a dud. And the arrest was part of a pattern of entrapment by federal law enforcement since September 11, 2001, not of terrorist suspects, but of young men federal agents have had to talk into embracing violence in the first place. . . . In all these law enforcement schemes the alleged terrorists masterminds end up seeming, when the full story comes out, unable to terrorize their way out of a paper bag without law enforcement tutelage

.

Complementing America’s elite entrapment teams are America spying teams. The following passage is from Rachel Maddow’s new book, Drift: the Unmooring of American Military Power:

The spy boom has been a beautiful windfall for architects, construction companies, IT specialists, and above all defense contractors, enriching thousands of private companies and dozens of local economies hugging the Capital Beltway. All those SCIFs and the rest of the government-contractor gravy train have made suburban Washington, DC, home to six of the ten wealthiest counties in America. Falls Church, Loudoun County, and Fairfax County in Virginia are one, two, and three. Goodbye, Nassau County, New York. Take that, Oyster Bay.

The crown jewel of this sprawling intelligopolis is Liberty Crossing, in the Virginia suburbs of Washington—an 850,000-square-foot (and growing) complex that houses the National Counterterrorism Center. The agency was created and funded in 2004 because, despite spending $30 billion on intelligence before 9/11, the various spy agencies in our country did not talk to one another. So the $30 billion annual intelligence budget was boosted by 250 percent, and with that increase we built ourselves a clean, well-lighted edifice, concealed by GPS jammers and reflective windows, where intelligence collected by 1,271 government agencies and 1,931 private companies under government contract is supposedly coordinated.

At least there will be plenty of domestic drones to keep an eye on those protesters, as reported by Tim Watts of The Intel Hub:

Did you know that a bill, HR 658, the FAA Air Transportation Modernization and Safety Improvement Act, has just passed both the House and the Senate that authorizes the use of 30,000 spy drones over America? Like the anti-Posse Comitatus NDAA legislation that passed in November, this bill was not widely reported by the mainstream media. Do not feel bad for not knowing about this, because, similar to the anti-Constitutional NDAA legislation, they purposefully tried to hide this from the American public. The corporate controlled mainstream media was once again complicit and was an integral accessory in this crime against “We the People.” The corporate mainstream media failed us all miserably once again.

Think about the enormity of this for a second… 30-THOUSAND drones flying overhead surveilling the US. If you divide that by 50 states, that is 600 drones per state!

I think that Rachel and Tim are getting a bit carried away, of course because this huge mushrooming industry is an antidote to the unemployment problem. We are quietly employing America’s people by hiring them to spy on each other. Perhaps we’ll soon reach a happy equilibrium where there’s one American spy for every American non-spy. Or something like that.

Or perhaps I’m overstating my case. I can’t actually prove that American law enforcement/military personnel are spying on U.S. citizens or that they are doing this from the United States. James Bamford of Wired explains:

For example, NSA can intercept millions of domestic communications and store them in a data center like Bluffdale and still be able to say it has not “intercepted” any domestic communications. This is because of its definition of the word. “Intercept,” in NSA’s lexicon, only takes place when the communications are “processed” “into an intelligible form intended for human inspection,” not as they pass through NSA listening posts and transferred to data warehouses. Complicating matters is the senseless scenario made up for the questioning by Congress, which makes it difficult to make sense of his answers, especially since many seem very parsed, qualified, and surrounded in garbled syntax.

That scenario involved NSA targeting U.S. citizens for making fun of a President Dick Cheney for shooting a fellow hunter in the face with a shotgun, and then the fun-makers being waterboarded for their impertinence. Asked whether the NSA has the capability of monitoring the communications of Americans, he never denies it – he simply says, time and again, that NSA can’t do it “in the United States.” In other words it can monitor those communications from satellites in space, undersea cables, or from one of its partner countries, such as Canada or Britain, all of which it has done in the past.

Related posts:

1. Permanant war and meaningless chatter
2. If the aim of terrorists is to terrify, then why do Republicans help them do it?
3. Americans shop while families from Afghanistan bury their dead children

The lender can cancel stock awards or demand they be repaid if an employee “engages in conduct that causes material financial or reputational harm,” JPMorgan said in its annual proxy statement. The company will claw back pay if it’s appropriate, said one of the executives, who asked not to be identified because no decisions have been made.

But wait!  These big Wall Street firms told us that bonuses were untouchable after they blew up the economy in 2008.  Am I the only one that remembers that?  There was all sorts of bullshit about how these employees were simply too valuable, that if they didn’t get their massive bonuses they would leave to seek other employment, that contracts and bonus structures were sacrosanct and untouchable (untouchability does not extend to unions and teachers, by the way).  Oh, but I guess that was when taxpayers were paying the bonuses.  Now that JP Morgan took a big hit in their own shorts, they want their money back.  Funny how things change.

Related posts:

1. Elizabeth Warren: Nothing much has changed
2. Why financial reform will never happen
3. Wall Street, redux

The starting point for the discussion was the defeat of Senator Lugar, who was accused by his more conservative opponent of working with Barack Obama to dismantle the world’s stocks of aging nuclear weapons to make sure that they don’t fall into the wrong hands. Cooperating with the enemy (in this case, a member of the opposing political party) has become a mortal sin.  The result is, politically speaking, we cannot any longer talk with each other.   Jamieson spreads the blame in many directions; this is not your typical polarized pundit who aims her arrows only at the other party. For instance, Factcheck.org has challenged Barack Obama’s Life of Julia illustration as being based on “some false or dubious assumptions.”

According to Jamieson, the following questions should be the focus of our budget disputes and the upcoming election: “How do we afford this level of government, if we want to keep it? Do we want to keep it? How are we going to pay for it? If we’re going to cut, where are we going to cut?”

The campaigns of Obama and Romney are mostly devoid of economic facts, “depriving us of the common ground we need.” She explains that if this trend continues, massive damage will be done to this country.  What do you do to force these issues?   The media needs to take charge:  These questions regarding spending priorities need to be repeated endlessly at debates until they are actually answered. (min 12).    Check out the simple questions that need to be asked, but usually aren’t, and are never answered in political debates (last half of min 12):

That’s what we need to do in the presidential debates. We’re going to have them. When they don’t answer the question, the next person up should forgo his or her question and ask the question again. And if the entire debate simply has to ask the question then let’s ask, what about Simpson-Bowles don’t you like, Mr. President? You know, Governor Romney? What about it do you like? Are you ready to advance– to say that we should move the Social Security age to 70 in some kind of a phased-in structure?

Should we be doing means testing in some ways? What are your alternatives? When you say you’re going to reform the tax code, is that an excuse for saying you’re going to do nothing? How much money can you get out of the reforms that you were offering? And what are you going to eliminate and what are you going to cut? Right now we’re playing this game. Right now you’ve got the Ryan budget proposal.

BILL MOYERS: Paul Ryan of Wisconsin.

KATHLEEN HALL JAMIESON: Uh-huh. And to his credit, there is a proposal there. The first thing the Democrats did a response was to say, “Ha, we’re going to assume he’s cutting everything across the board.” So they started pushing on the assumption that this good thing is going to be cut. This good thing, this good thing by “X” percent.

Congressman Ryan responds, “No, I’m going to get rid of some things entirely, and I’m going to preserve some things entirely. And I’m going to cut some things.” That’s actually the beginning of a productive exchange. Now the question is what for both sides? And let’s get the public on board to accept that there’s some things we take for granted now we’re not going to have. There’s some costs we’re not now paying that we’re going to have to pay. It’s necessary to preserve our country.

Jamieson came to this discussion with ideas for improving our deplorable situation.  I very much like this one:

I would like to see a proposal that Harvard floated a number of years ago, that we devote Sunday nights, from the beginning of the general election period through the election, to intensive discussions with presidential candidates about the serious issues of the day.  I think you’d find an attentive audience for that. And I think the person who’s elected would find that he was better able to govern if the public had had that opportunity. The public isn’t stupid. The public actually is smart in some important ways.

Moyers asked whether our political system is close to collapsing “of its own absurdity.”   Jamieson doesn’t mince her words (min 16):

We’re close right now to having a campaign run on attack and irrelevant arguments that are highly deceptive and, as a result, make it extremely difficult to solve the problems facing the country, which is what all the concern about money and politics is well justified and why we ought to worry about trying to vigilantly hold the super PACs and the third-party advertisers accountable.

Now, what are the consequences of high level of attack? You don’t have a reason to vote for someone. You’re only being told why to vote against. Hence, no projection of what the alternatives are and no understanding of the trade-offs in government . . . We’re going to have high level of attack; hence, no relevance to governance and votes against. And that we’re going to have high level of deception; hence, people who feel betrayed once they see actual governance or who vote against a candidate they might otherwise support.

The problem with modern political advertising is not framed properly by the use of the phrase “negative advertising”:

I don’t like to use the word “negative” because it conflates legitimate and illegitimate attack and because negative to most people means duplicitous.  [The big problem occurs] when there’s a differential in spending and a high level of deception tied to a high level attack because now you have the worst possible consequences.

Related posts:

1. How the Internet has changed political campaigning
2. Red State, Blue State, My State? You State!
3. John Edwards commits to public financing of political campaigns

Citizens United is a distinctive product of the Roberts Court. The decision followed a lengthy and bitter behind-the-scenes struggle among the Justices that produced both secret unpublished opinions and a rare reargument of a case. The case, too, reflects the aggressive conservative judicial activism of the Roberts Court. It was once liberals who were associated with using the courts to overturn the work of the democratically elected branches of government, but the current Court has matched contempt for Congress with a disdain for many of the Court’s own precedents. When the Court announced its final ruling on Citizens United, on January 21, 2010, the vote was five to four and the majority opinion was written by Anthony Kennedy. Above all, though, the result represented a triumph for Chief Justice Roberts. Even without writing the opinion, Roberts, more than anyone, shaped what the Court did. As American politics assumes its new form in the post-Citizens United era, the credit or the blame goes mostly to him.

Related posts:

1. Citizens United redux?
2. The Onion: U.S. Supreme Court rules opines that right is wrong
3. Citizens United revisited

The Problem with Standard Form Contracts

Many businesses use standard form contracts, pre-printed contracts filled with fine print, in transactions with individual consumers. These contracts are usually “boilerplate,” “take-it-or-leave it,” non-negotiable contracts.

The problem presented by many of these contracts can be summed up as unequal bargaining power — between the consumer and the corporate entity that uses them.

Corporations use these contracts to have uniformity and efficiency by reducing the costs to them of negotiating with consumers on an individual basis. Consumers sign these kinds of contracts routinely — usually never reading, much less understanding, the fine print they contain. And there is the rub.

The party with superior power — the corporate entity that drafts the contract — can use the fine print, coupled with the knowledge that the consumer rarely, if ever, reads the terms, to take advantage of the unsuspecting consumer in the underlying transaction.

Consumers often make purchases based on price and quality, but there are a number of other factors in the fine print of these transactions that merit consumer attention: These provisions may, and often do, work against consumer interests. Though some say consumers can always walk with their feet or dollars and choose to not engage in these transactions, often the consumer, having not read the fine print, is completely unaware of these provisions until the corporation tries to enforce them against the consumer. Worse, often entire industries have contracts containing these unfair provisions, thereby leaving the consumer with no meaningful alternate choice. Even worse, businesses often reserve for themselves the right to modify or change the terms of the contract, making comparison shopping pointless if the contract or the prospective contract is always subject to change.

To add insult to injury, these contracts often contain forced arbitration, venue and/or choice-of- law provisions, so resolution of disputes no longer even takes place in a public courtroom forum, but in a private, business-dominated industry of arbitrators, who are neither required to follow the rule of law, nor are subject to its oversight. Contract law and a consumer’s day in court has been “privatized” to a process whose outcomes are often unknowable and unchallengeable.

[T]he modern-day reality with fine print in standard form contracts is that there is no mutuality of assent, and there is often no time for or inclination by the consumer to read the terms, or even an ability to cross comparison shop those terms. And even if the consumer did try to comparison shop, it wouldn’t do much good if the sellers can always change their terms and insulate their provisions from meaningful judicial review. This adds up to a fiction in the law of contracts and makes a mockery of the idea of consumer freedom in a free market.

Ralph Nader shares these concerns:

This problem of consumers failing to understand critically important contracts if rife in the field of real estate mortgages. Consider, for example, the findings reported by law professor Jeff Sovern, that “more than two-thirds of the brokers reported that less than 30% of their borrowers spent more than a minute with the disclosures.” From “Preventing Future Economic Crises Through Consumer Protection Law or How the Truth in Lending Act Failed the Subprime Borrowers,” p. 786. Here’s another excerpt:

The brokers were nearly unanimous in reporting that borrowers never withdrew from a loan after reading the final TILA disclosures at the closing and never used those disclosures for their stated purpose of comparison shopping for loans. In addition, brokers reported that many borrowers spent a minute or less with the disclosures, despite the fact that mortgage loans are among the largest, longest-term, and most complex obligations most consumers ever assume. It thus appears that many borrowers enter into their mortgages without comprehending the terms and the ramifications of those loans.

Sovern has many ideas for un-tilting the playing field. One of those ideas is for independent consumer agencies to review form contracts and to grade them for consumers. The current problem is that consumers have no incentive to read fine print contracts and businesses have no incentive to draft contracts in readable form.

Related posts:

1. Legal consequences of failing to read fine print
2. Arbitration Fairness Act of 2007
3. Elizabeth Warren explains why we need to carefully regulate credit

Every day, across the world, people like you start campaigns on Change.org to fight for issues they care about — and the Change.org team works to mobilize people to help them win.

We believe that building momentum for social change globally means empowering citizen activists locally. That’s why anyone, anywhere — from Chicago to Cape Town – can start their own grassroots campaign for change using our organizing platform.

Your campaign can be about anything. From supporting curbside recycling programs to fighting wrongful deportation to protecting against anti-gay bullying, Change.org members start campaigns around thousands of different issues. To start your own campaign, just click here.

Our mission is to build an international network of people empowered to fight for what’s right locally, nationally, and globally. We hope you’ll join us.

Change.org is not all talk. The website lists a long strong of successful causes that germinated at the site.

Related posts:

1. More of my favorite quotes
2. Anti-science increases regarding climate change
3. Draw the curves, then plot the data on climate change

This case involving Nancy Genovese is but one of many cases where law enforcement officers have been exposed for harassing and hurting people who are guilty of absolutely nothing.

It’s a long trend here in the United States. The government can spy all it wants, while the people are increasingly prohibited from expressing themselves or even from being curious. A lot of people are squeamish about Wikileaks, but it Wikileaks is an organization that does nothing different than the New York Times claims to be doing, yet the United States has illegally forced it into submission.

And although Nancy Genovese did not claim to be doing serious investigative journalism, the American Vision News reports that she was was acting as a citizen journalist:

Nancy Genovese stopped her car on the side of the road across the street from the airport in an area that is open and accessible to the public, and crossed over the road to the airport entryway that is also open and accessible to the public to take a picture of the helicopter display. While still in her car, she took a picture of the decorative helicopter shell with the intention of posting it on her personal “Support Our Troops” web page.

Related posts:

1. Constitutional Amendment proposed for getting money out of politics
2. On the current attempts to bludgeon innocent children with a Constitutional Amendment
3. Bernie Sanders proposes constitutional amendment to combat Citizen’s United

According to Open Secrets, the oil and gas industry has already spent $37.6 million lobbying the federal government in the first few months of the year alone. They also spend buckets of money on campaign contributions to persuade our elected officials to vote for policies they favor. A recent vote in the Senate revealed just how persuasive campaign cash can be. A bid to end taxpayer subsidies for the five biggest oil companies failed to get the 60 votes it needed. The 57 senators who voted to end the subsidies received about $6 million from the oil and gas industries, compared to a whopping $24 million pocketed by the 41 senators who voted against the bill.

No wonder America is so slow to move to elementary conservation methods and sustainable energy production.   This is not a new story, of course, but a continuation of legalized bribery that infests the entire electoral system.   Even worse, this is a system that severely punishes representatives who do the right thing.

Related posts:

1. How to really kick the fossil fuel habit
2. Big fossil fuel campaigns claim that dirty fuels are green
3. How (corn) ethanol kills: a lesson in basic economics pertaining to fuel supply, fuel demand and price.

Related posts:

1. Guantanamo homicides; government cover-up
2. Why Won’t Facebook Let them Nurse?
3. Time Magazine sticks to science when comparing humans to chimpanzees