Mediaboss Marketing

March 6, 2017, 8:15 a.m.

After weeks of Republican members of Congress catching an earful during their hometown town hall meetings, Rep. David Valadao(R-Hanford) in Californias Central Valley is taking a safer route.

The congressman and dairy farmer plans to hold a huddle with constituents in his district which means hell be camped out in his Hanford district office and will meet with constituents for first come, first served one-on-one meetings. Valadao has vowed to meet with all comers for a maximum of 10 minutes, and will talk with everyone no matter how long that takes.

While my constituents and I communicate with each other in many forms, one-on-one meetings are extremely beneficial as I am able to discuss and address their specific concerns and hear their story firsthand, Valadao said in a statement.

Valadao'sevent comes after he has been targeted by protestors who have criticized him for not holding an open town hall meeting in his districtas other members of Congress across the county have done. Those highly charged meetings have attractedgroups of residents upset about GOP plans to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Actand about the Trump administration's immigration policies.

Only those who live in Valadaos 21stCongressional District will be allowed to meet with the congressman.

Valadao, who represents a Democratic-leaning district, has been targeted by the Democratic Party since he was first elected in 2012. He has won three straight elections. He won handily in November, even though Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton trounced Republican Donald Trump in that congressional district.

Read more here:
Central Valley Republican congressman invites his constituents to sit down for one-on-one meetings - Los Angeles Times

New York Times columnist Paul Krugman asserted on Monday that Donald Trumps presidency has shown that the Republican Party is completely unprepared and unable to enact the policies it has promised voters for years.

In his Monday column, Krugman notes that the Republican Partys failure to pass legislation like the repeal and replacement of President Barack Obamas signature health care reform law has little to do with the temper tantrums and antics of President Donald Trump.

But the broader Republican quagmire the partys failure so far to make significant progress toward any of its policy promises isnt just about Mr. Trumps inadequacies, Krugman writes. The whole party, it turns out, has been faking it for years. Its leaders rhetoric was empty; they have no idea how to turn their slogans into actual legislation, because theyve never bothered to understand how anything important works.

According to the Times columnist, Republicans who promised to repeal the Affordable Care Act and reform the tax code seem utterly shocked to find themselves facing reality.

At this point, then, major Republican initiatives are bogged down for reasons that have nothing to do with the personality flaws of the tweeter in chief, and everything to do with the broader, more fundamental fecklessness of his party.

Faced with the difficulties of making substantive reforms, Krugman predicts that Republicans may just throw a few trillion dollars at rich people instead.

But whatever the eventual outcome, what were witnessing is what happens when a party that gave up hard thinking in favor of empty sloganeering ends up in charge of actual policy, he concludes. And its not a pretty sight.

Read Paul Krugmans entire column here.

Continued here:
Paul Krugman says Trump exposes GOP dirty secret: The Republican Party 'has been faking it for years' - Raw Story

Either we own political technologies, or they will own us. Illustration by Ellie Foreman-Peck Illustration: Ellie Foreman Peck

Has a digital coup begun? Is big data being used, in the US and the UK, to create personalised political advertising, to bypass our rational minds and alter the way we vote? The short answer is probably not. Ornotyet.

A series of terrifying articles suggests that a company called Cambridge Analytica helped to swing both the US election and the EU referendum by mining data from Facebook and using it to predict peoples personalities, then tailoring advertising to their psychological profiles. These reports, originating with the Swiss publication Das Magazin (published in translation by Vice), were clearly written in good faith, but apparently with insufficient diligence. They relied heavily on claims made by Cambridge Analytica that now appear to have been exaggerated. I found the story convincing, until I read the deconstructions by Martin Robbins on Little Atoms, Kendall Taggart on Buzzfeed and Leonid Bershidsky on Bloomberg.

None of this is to suggest we should not be vigilant. The Cambridge Analytica story gives us a glimpse of a possible dystopian future, especially in the US, where data protection is weak. Online information already lends itself to manipulation and political abuse, and the age of big data has scarcely begun. In combination with advances in cognitive linguistics and neuroscience, this data could become a powerful tool for changing the electoral decisions we make.

Our capacity to resist manipulation is limited. Even the crudest forms of subliminal advertising swerve past our capacity for reason and make critical thinking impossible. The simplest language shifts can trip us up. For example, when Americans were asked whether the federal government was spending too little on assistance to the poor, 65% agreed. When they were asked whether it was spending too little on welfare, 25% agreed. What hope do we have of resisting carefully targeted digital messaging that uses trigger words to influence our judgment? Those who are charged with protecting the integrity of elections should be urgently developing a new generation of safeguards.

Already big money exercises illegitimate power over political systems, making a mockery of democracy: the battering ram of campaign finance, which gives billionaires and corporations a huge political advantage over ordinary citizens; the dark money network (a web of lobby groups, funded by billionaires, that disguise themselves as thinktanks); astroturf campaigning (employing people to masquerade as grassroots movements); and botswarming (creating fake online accounts to give the impression that large numbers of people support a political position). All these are current threats to political freedom. Election authorities such as the Electoral Commission in the UK have signally failed to control these abuses, or even, in most cases, to acknowledge them.

China shows how much worse this could become. There, according to a recent article in Scientific American, deep-learning algorithms enable the state to develop its citizen score. This uses peoples online activities to determine how loyal and compliant they are, and whether they should qualify for jobs, loans or entitlement to travel to other countries. Combine this level of monitoring with nudging technologies tools designed subtly to change peoples opinions and responses and you develop a system that tends towards complete control.

Already big money exercises illegitimate power over political systems, making a mockery of democracy

Thats the bad news. But digital technologies could also be a powerful force for positive change. Political systems, particularly in the Anglophone nations, have scarcely changed since the fastest means of delivering information was the horse. They remain remote, centralised and paternalist. The great potential for participation and deeper democratic engagement is almost untapped. Because the rest of us have not been invited to occupy them, it is easy for billionaires to seize and enclose the political cyber-commons.

A recent report by the innovation foundation Nesta argues that there are no quick or cheap digital fixes. But, when they receive sufficient support from governments or political parties, new technologies can improve the quality of democratic decisions. They can use the wisdom of crowds to make politics more transparent, to propose ideas that dont occur to professional politicians, and to spot flaws and loopholes in government bills.

Among the best uses of online technologies it documents are the LabHacker and eDemocracia programmes in Brazil, which allow people to make proposals to their representatives and work with them to improve bills and policies; Parlement et Citoyens in France, which plays a similar role; vTaiwan, which crowdsources new parliamentary bills; the Better Reykjavk programme, which allows people to suggest and rank ideas for improving the city, and has now been used by more than half the population; and the Pirate party, also in Iceland, whose policies are chosen by its members, in both digital and offline forums. In all these cases, digital technologies are used to improve representative democracy rather than to replace it.

Participation tends to be deep but narrow. Tech-savvy young men are often over-represented, while most of those who are alienated by offline politics remain, so far, alienated by online politics. But these results could be greatly improved, especially by using blockchain technology (a method of recording data), text-mining with the help of natural language processing (that enables very large numbers of comments and ideas to be synthesised and analysed), and other innovations that could make electronic democracy more meaningful, more feasible and more secure.

Of course, there are hazards here. No political system, offline or online, is immune to hacking; all systems require safeguards that evolve to protect them from being captured by money and undemocratic power. The regulation of politics lags decades behind the tricks, scams and new technologies deployed by people seeking illegitimate power. This is part of the reason for the mass disillusionment with politics: the belief that outcomes are rigged, and the emergence of a virulent anti-politics that finds expression in extremism anddemagoguery.

Either we own political technologies, or they will own us. The great potential of big data, big analysis and online forums will be used by us or against us. We must move fast to beat thebillionaires.

Twitter: @GeorgeMonbiot. A fully linked version of this column will be published at monbiot.com

Read more from the original source:
Big data's power is terrifying. That could be good news for democracy - The Guardian

Defense Minister Avigdor Liberman is in over his head.

Few had high hopes for Liberman when he was appointed to his post, but most observers on the political Right were willing to swallow the pill of having a man with an understanding of military and strategic affairs that began and ended with applause lines because his appointment solved two pressing political problems.

Libermans appointment to serve as defense minister brought his Yisrael Beitenu party into the government, which increased the size of the coalition from its razor-thin 61-seat majority to a more healthy 66 seats. Moreover, by appointing him, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was able to remove Moshe Yaalon from the Defense Ministry. Yaalon had become unacceptable to Likud voters due to his rush to convict IDF Sgt. Elor Azaria as guilty of criminal wrongdoing last March when Azaria killed a downed terrorist who had stabbed a fellow soldier in Hebron.

Monday morning Liberman showed that concerns about his suitability for his position were spot on.

Speaking to reporters at the Knesset, Liberman said that growing discussion among leading members of the coalition about applying Israeli law to parts of Judea and Samaria must stop.

Anyone who wants to apply Israeli sovereignty to Judea and Samaria needs to understand that such a step will bring immediate repercussions from the new US government, Liberman alleged.

He added, We received a direct not indirect message: Apply sovereignty and you will be cutting ties with the new administration.

Libermans statement was both ignorant and damaging.

It was ignorant because it critically misrepresented how decisions are made in US administrations.

It isnt hard to guess which Trump administration official is threatening Israel and trying to force the government to abide by the failed and damaging policy of surrendering Jude and Samaria to Palestinian terrorists.

As defense minister, he speaks to his counterpart, US Defense Secretary James Mattis. Mattis is no friend of Israels.

During his confirmation hearings in the Senate, when Senator Lindsay Graham asked him what the capital of Israel is, Mattis replied Tel Aviv.

Mattis also said that solving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a vital [US] interest.

After being fired from his command of Central Command in 2013, Mattis claimed that the US alliance with Israel harms the US. In his words, I paid a military security price every day as the commander of CentCom because the Americans were seen as biased in support of Israel, and... moderate Arabs who want to be with us... cant come out publicly in support of people who dont show respect for the Arab Palestinians.

In the same address, Mattis argued that if Israel continues to allow Jews to assert their property rights in Judea and Samaria, it will risk becoming an apartheid state.

When President Donald Trump appointed Mattis, supporters of Israel in the US were willing to give him the benefit of the doubt and hope that his statements were the product of his service in the anti-Israel Obama administration and that once liberated from its intellectual straitjacket, he would abandon his preposterous positions on Israel. Concern over Mattis was abated by the fact that he opposed president Obamas Iran policy.

But last week Mattis made clear that he actually shares Obamas worldview when he decided to appoint Anne Patterson to serve as his undersecretary of defense for policy. Patterson, who served as assistant secretary of state for Near Eastern affairs under Obama, is a harsh critic of Israel and an apologist for the Palestinian Authoritys support for terrorism.

In testimony before Congress in April 2014 for instance, Patterson defended the PAs practice of paying salaries to Palestinian terrorists and their families. The payments are legitimate, she told lawmakers, because they need to provide for the families.

Last year, when Mahmoud Shalan, a Palestinian terrorist with US citizenship was shot by soldiers at a checkpoint after he tried to kill them, and later died of his wounds, Patterson demanded an explanation from Israel for his death.

As Steven Flatow, father of Alisa Flatow, who was murdered by Palestinian terrorists in Gaza in 1995, noted in an article at JNS news service, Patterson did not demand that the PA provide an explanation for why Shalan, who was a resident of the PA, was engaged in terrorism against Israelis.

Before being appointed to head the State Departments Near East bureau, Patterson served as Obamas ambassador to Egypt from 2011 to 2013, during tumult that saw two leaders outed in so many years.

Patterson supported the overthrow of longtime US ally then-president Hosni Mubarak.

She supported the Muslim Brotherhood regime that replaced him.

She urged Christians and others who were being persecuted by the Muslim Brotherhood regime not to demonstrate against it. She supported Morsis moves to seize tyrannical power and transform Egypt into an Iranian-allied Islamic state.

After the military overthrew Morsi and his regime, Patterson supported cutting off US military assistance to the regime of President Abdel Fattah Sisi.

For her pro-Muslim Brotherhood positions, Patterson became one of the most hated people in Egypt and a symbol of the Obama administrations abandonment of Egypt.

Mattiss decision to appoint Patterson was rejected by the White House, on the basis of Pattersons record in Egypt and at the State Department.

The Patterson episode shows that Mattis continues to embrace Obamas policy of supporting Islamists and opposing US allies. The White Houses rejection of Patterson shows that Mattis is not in charge of policymaking, the White House is.

The fact that Liberman has represented Mattiss threats to Israel as the official policy of the Trump administration indicates that he doesnt understand either who Mattis is, or how decisions are made in US administrations generally or how they are made in the Trump administration in particular.

Moreover, by claiming that Mattiss positions are US policy, Liberman insulted Trump, attributing policymaking powers to Trumps appointed adviser that belong to the president alone.

Trump, for his part, has clearly not made a determination of where he stands on the disposition of Judea and Samaria. But he has made clear that he has no intention of striking out at Israel. He similarly made clear that he has no intention of maintaining Obamas position, which Patterson communicated to Congress, of supporting payoffs to Palestinian terrorists.

If this werent reason enough to be appalled by Libermans deeply destructive statement, the fact is that this isnt the main problem with it.

Libermans argument that Israel must maintain allegiance to the failed and destructive policy of empowering the PLO lest it wreck its ties to America is most destructive because it undermines Israeli democracy and Israels international position. Libermans statement invites indeed begs for a foreign government to threaten Israel in order to cow elected officials and the public into accepting a policy they rightly reject and abandoning discussion of an alternative path that advances Israels strategic interests.

In behaving in this manner, Liberman is adopting the anti-democratic practice of Israels political Left. Incapable of winning the publics support for their obsessive agenda of giving land to Palestinian terrorists, for years, leftist politicians like former justice minister Tzipi Livni have threatened the public and her fellow elected officials that if they dare step away from the disastrous policy, Israeli officials and citizens will face war crimes indictments in international courts.

To his great discredit, Prime Minister Netanyahu began engaging in this sort of behavior recently as he warned that passage of the Settlements Regulation Law would expose Israel to war crimes charges at the International Criminal Court.

Netanyahu was substantively ridiculous. There is no international legal basis for such charges. On its own, the ICC would be unlikely to initiate such proceedings, given their legal weakness. But by arguing that action by the ICC would be a reasonable response to the law, Netanyahu created the political opening for anti-Israel lawfare by the ICC.

After all, if the prime minister himself is saying such charges will ensue, far be it for ICC prosecutors to disagree with him.

This practice of alleging foreign opposition and so inviting foreigners to attack Israel in order to prevent Israels elected officials from loyally performing their duties in accordance with the wishes of their constituents has always been harmful to the country.

Libermans false statement regarding the purported policies of the Trump administration brings this practice to a new low.

Liberman should issue an immediate clarification.

Prime Minister Netanyahu should reject Libermans statement. And both men should affirm their commitment to Israeli democracy and the power of elected officials to determine the course of the nation in accordance with Israel law and on basis of their assessments of Israels national interests.

Relevant to your professional network? Please share on Linkedin

Read the original here:
Our World: Avigdor Liberman vs. Israeli democracy - Jerusalem Post Israel News

FBI Director James Comey is asking the Justice Department to publicly refute President Trumps unsubstantiated claims that former President Obama ordered Trumps phones be wiretapped during the 2016 presidential campaign. FBI Director Comey, President Obama and others have all rejected Trumps allegations, which he first made during a tweet storm on Saturday. Trump began by tweeting "Terrible! Just found out that Obama had my "wires tapped" in Trump Tower just before the victory. Nothing found. This is McCarthyism!" He went on to tweet, "How low has President Obama gone to tapp my phones during the very sacred election process. This is Nixon/Watergate. Bad (or sick) guy!" Trump has called for a congressional investigation and the White House is standing by the allegations, even though it has not provided evidence to back them up. This is Trump spokesperson Sarah Huckabee Sanders speaking to Martha Raddatz on ABCs "This Week" Sunday.

Sarah Huckabee Sanders: "Look, I think hes going off of information that hes seen that has led him to believe that this is a very real potential. And if it is, this is the greatest overreach and the greatest abuse of power that I think we have ever seen and a huge attack on democracy itself. And the American people have a right to know if this took place."

It appears the "information" Trump spokesperson Sarah Huckabee Sanders is referring to is a Breitbart article that has been circulated within the White House. The article draws on a Thursday report by the far-right-wing radio host Mark Levin, who claimed without evidence that Obama submitted a request to the secret FISA court to tap Trumps phones at Trump Tower. Both Democratic and Republican lawmakers, including Florida Senator Marco Rubio, say they have seen "no evidence" supporting these claims. This is California Democratic Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi.

Nancy Pelosi: "This is called a wrap-up smear. You make up something, then you have the press write about it, then you say everybody is writing about this charge. Its the tool of an authoritarian, to just have you always be talking about what you want them to be talking about."

The Intercept reports that, as President of the United States, Trump has the power to declassify surveillance recordsmeaning if his wiretapping claims were true, he could prove it immediately.

Continued here:
US Military Carries Out 30 Airstrikes in Yemen - Democracy Now!