I recently published a column on how Barack Obama has publicly assumed many of the powers that were once cited as the basis for the investigation and attempted impeachment of Richard Nixon. One of those areas was the Obama Administration’s crackdown on journalists. This week Attorney General Eric Holder appears to have yet again added to this ignoble record. It appears that the Justice Department secretly obtained two months of telephone records of reporters and editors for The Associated Press. This disclosure follows another recent disclosure that the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) targeted conservative groups associated with the Tea Party. Yet, once again, most Democrats remain silent in a type of cult of personality where principle is discarded in favor of loyalty to the President.
The spying on reporters by the Obama Administration included outgoing calls for the work and personal phone numbers of individual reporters. The seizure covered general AP office numbers in New York, Washington and Hartford, Conn. The Justice Department showed no restraint or concern, even including the AP in the House of Representatives press gallery. It now appears that in a few years historians could well be saying the Nixon was perfectly Obamaesque in his abuses.
AP President and Chief Executive Officer Gary Pruitt has written a letter to Holder objecting to the spying, noting that “[t]here can be no possible justification for such an overbroad collection of the telephone communications of The Associated Press and its reporters.” I would be equally upset with the mere fact of the spying as opposed to its breadth.
The spying may be part of a criminal investigation into a May 7, 2012, AP story about a foiled terror plot. AP agreed to hold the story after an objection from the Administration but ultimately ran the story disclosing a CIA operation in Yemen that stopped an al-Qaida plot to detonate a bomb on an airplane bound for the United States. While working with the Administration in holding the story, the Administration apparently was moving to spy on five reporters and an editor who were involved in the story.
Holder would have to have personally approved the subpoenas under Justice Department regulations. However, it is not enough to again criticize Holder (who has assembled one of the most abusive records on civil liberties in our history). Obama is well aware of the objections by civil libertarians and personally approved such decisions as promising CIA officials that they would not be investigated for torture and the kill list policy.
What is most striking about this story is the sense of complete immunity and lack of concern shown by the Administration. That sense of impunity has developed over four years as Democrats have gone into radio silence over abuses by the Administration from Obama’s “kill list” policy to other rollbacks on civil liberties. There will come a day when this president is no longer in office and many Democrats and Liberals will be faced with the imperial presidency that he created in the hands of someone they do not revere. When that day comes, it will be hard to climb over the mountain of hypocrisy to find a principled ground for criticism.
Source: CNN
Tony, Lol, I never bet enough to fall into those categories but for a certain type of gambler those are all good labels. I knew a gambling addict once and he was a sorry guy, my mother had the Midas touch though, she had great luck and always came out ahead whatever she played. She actually picked horses by how pretty they were- same for dogs. I did not get that particular bit of DNA from her though.
Nick, I always followed the rule someone stated above, never bet more than you’d be willing to throw into the fireplace. I had/have x dollars of mad money, expect the house or track to win and enjoyed playing to the point of delusion, you know, you thought your horse actually had a chance to win on the home stretch and jumped out of your seat tho cheer him on. LOL, the last time I went to the track I lost every race and came home hoarse- it was great.
nick:
most of the financially succesful people I know started work out of high school, never went to college and are now quite wealthy. People who went to college work for them and are satisfied with the crumbs they receive.
A few of them I know laugh at the college boys in their frenzy to make 100k or 150k per year. They say a college boy can kiss an a$$ better than anyone they know for a 10k raise.
A former poster here, Buddha is Laughing, used to say “dance little monkey, dance”, when he was toying with a poster. That about sums up these guys attitudes toward the college educated.
Jesus, when you think about it, a college education doesnt mean much in the real world. Why go to college when all you do is dance for the man?
Jack London laid it out nicely in The Sea Wolf.
Apparently you cannot distinguish between a skill (which may or may not be tradecraft) and a profession. I’m an excellent cook, but I know I’m not a tradesman (I’ve never worked in a restaurant although I know plenty of people who have or do) or a professionally trained Chef. That chip on your shoulder about those with proper educations looks good on you though. Sure explains a lot.
lotta, When you say “lose all your money” the context I read is not that you lost all your savings, but all the money you laid on the table. I’m guessing for you it was under $100. What I love is you want to roll. So many novice women pass the dice for fear of throwing them off the table. Well, if you play as much as I do I can tell you the dice leave the table often..it’s no big deal. I’ve seen the crew get hit, other players get hit, I’ve been hit many times. Unless you got a table of mopes, everyone laughs it off. I call folks like you “drive-bys.” But that’s just me and a few people I know.
Here’s a few unwritten rules. Some are strictly superstitious, but it’s part of the culture. And a considerate person always respects a culture.
Never say 7. Just call it “that number” or “red.”
Never have your hands on the table placing a bet or picking up chips when the dice are out.
NEVER spill a drink on the table. Stand erect away from the table when you take a sip.
Never pull the dice toward your body. The stick man and crew must see the dice @ all times.
There are more, but those will cover you for now. As I said to Blouise, I like playing craps w/ women. Don’t be afraid to ask the crew or a player for help. The crew will give you good info and most craps players are happy to help. This is just my opinion. Some folks here will tell you to go to an accredited Craps School. To each their own.
You gents are dug in deep. It’s quite interesting to me. Thanks for all your efforts. I’m heading back to the real world for supper. I’m not professionally trained, but I can really cook well. Many of the current great chefs learned in the kitchen. This is the 21st Century of which I speak.
LK: what do gamblers call people that gamble, lose all of their money and have no grasp of the odds or underlying complexity of the game they are playing?
1) Their very best friends.
2) Their kid’s college fund.
3) A natural resource.
Third time’s the charm:
About Fallingwater:
Its first owner/s reportedly referred to it as “Rising Mildew.”
Nick: I will grant if I had been born in the mid to late 1800s, when there was plenty of low-hanging fruit to be invented or discovered, I might feel differently. I will point out the inventions of Edison and the Wright brothers (and I will throw in Ford and Bell) while definitely original thinking, are not very complex ideas. They are all pretty simple concepts to grasp, often short leap ideas, like the idea that air flow over a shape can provide lift. Once you have that idea, everything else can follow from their learnt-by-example bicycle construction and repair business.
The low hanging fruit has long been picked, Nick, and now if one wants to contribute to science, one must learn what has gone before, and then pursue the leading edge of what is not known. What is low hanging fruit today is not reachable without climbing the ladder of what has gone before. In 1875 that was a short ladder, and what had gone before (like a bicycle or a pre-block internal combustion engine built of pipes and bracings) could more often than not be understood by inspection or by osmosis in watching others work on it, the concepts of operation were simple enough for children to grasp.
We don’t get to live in 1875. We aren’t going to learn corporate accounting or quantum physics or turbine failure analysis or genetic engineering by watching Dad do it.
Properly re-engineered, it would be a dream house. -Gene H.
Agreed.
“However, since the Western Pennsylvania Conservancy took over…”
My mistake… It’s first owner/s reportedly referred to it as “Rising Mildew.” 😉
Oooooh, craps. I like craps.
Blouise, nick, Wikipedia has a good short explanation of the rules of craps and betting possibilities. I learned to shoot craps with my family and friends. It was great fun. The rules for play are easy, it’s tactile, and you don’t have to be ‘poker serious’. The rules for betting (in casinos) are more complex, or can be if you’re into it- very complex. What the game lacks in complexity the betting options make up for if that’s what you want but you can make simple bets. I never played at a bona fide casino but did play casino rules (for betting) at the occasional social function. I always made simple bets since it was for charity and the house always wins. Nick, what do gamblers call people that gamble, lose all of their money and have no grasp of the odds or underlying complexity of the game they are playing? I was one of those. I just wanted to roll the dice. 🙂
When I played friendly, informal games with a regular circle of friends we had as a house rule that all points had to be made ‘hard’ (the way they were originally thrown). That house rule did though follow an arc that roughly correlated with the duration of the game and amount and type of libation consumed; at some point all points could be made ‘soft’ (additive total of spots on the two dice equals original point number). Lol, good times, fun game.
ap,
I’ve heard the “Rising Mildew” line before as well. It’s a damn shame too. Beautiful design. Properly re-engineered, it would be a dream house. However, since the Western Pennsylvania Conservancy took over, I hear they’ve done a pretty good job on the maintenance.
“Falling Water” is practically falling down. Gene H.
The owners refer to it as “Rising Mildew”, I’ve read. It’s lovely, but…
To which I respond a resounding “so what?”, nick.
Your list proves nothing other than some people succeed in spite of a lack of formal training. It disproves nothing that has been said about the value of formal training.
In fact, you probably should have left Frank Lloyd Wright off that list as an architect. He did have some formal training although no degree and he was a mediocre architect. Many of his buildings suffer from damage today that is the result of poor engineering. “Fallingwater” is practically falling down. Sure, they look pretty. Wright’s genius – and it was genius – was design, not architecture. They are not the same thing. It’s a common misconception that he was a great architect. But think of what he could have done as an architect had he completed his education.
Other valid criticisms can be leveled a number of those on that list. Edison, for example, was an idea man (sometimes stolen ideas – see Tesla) but he farmed out most of his nuts and bolts work. The picture painted by a simple is list is incomplete.
Nope. Your lil’ list is non-evidence about the value of formal training. And it sounds a bit like sour grapes. As an argument it fails as it is a form of special pleading.
Blouise, Vegas is electric when there’s a big fight. I was in Vegas back in the 80’s the days leading up to one of the greatest fights of all time..Hearns v Hagler. My friend started and owned a boxing equipment company called Ringside, out of Lenexa, Ks. We saw Hearns train @ Caesars w/ all the glitz and entourage. Hagler, my favorite boxer, was blue collar, training in a ratty downtown gym w/ no entourage. I had to get back to work so I watched the fight on PPV. It was 3 rounds w/ 12 rounds of action. Hagler knocked Hearns out cold. Boxing is pretty much dead. It’s mixed martial arts now..not a fan.
“It’s interesting this is coming down to a conflict between White House and CIA, isn’t it?” -emptywheel
http://www.emptywheel.net/2013/05/16/did-tommy-vietor-hang-out-cia-on-undiebomb-2-0/
Did Tommy Vietor Hang Out CIA on UndieBomb 2.0?
Posted on May 16, 2013 by emptywheel
The same day that the White House released 94 pages of Benghazi emails, which not only show that most at CIA supported the talking points used by the Administration but also include annotations of the CIA roles involved that reveal far more about CIA’s structure than any FOIA response I’ve ever seen, Tommy Vietor went on the record about UndieBomb 2.0 with both the WaPo and MSNBC. It appears he did so to reinforce the fear-mongering language Eric Holder used (though like Holder, Vietor doesn’t explain why John Brennan got a promotion after contributing to such a damaging leak). He said this to WaPo.
Vietor said that it would be a mistake to dismiss the unauthorized disclosure because al-Qaeda failed to carry out its plot.
“We shouldn’t pretend that this leak of an unbelievably sensitive dangerous piece of information is okay because nobody died,” he said.
But the WaPo account also seems to serve (like the Benghazi email dump does) to place blame on CIA.
It answers a question I hinted at yesterday: whether the CIA and White House were on different pages on what to do with the AP story. Reportedly, after AP had given the CIA time to kill Fahd al-Quso (the WaPo doesn’t mention that was the purpose of the delay), CIA’s Mike Morell told the AP the security issue had been addressed, but asked for one more day. As AP considered that request, the White House overrode that discussion.
Michael J. Morell, the CIA’s deputy director, gave AP reporters some additional background information to persuade them to hold off, Vietor said. The agency needed several days more to protect what it had in the works.
Then, in a meeting on Monday, May 7, CIA officials reported that the national security concerns were “no longer an issue,” according to the individuals familiar with the discussion.
When the journalists rejected a plea to hold off longer, the CIA then offered a compromise. Would they wait a day if AP could have the story exclusively for an hour, with no government officials confirming it for that time?
The reporters left the meeting to discuss the idea with their editors. Within an hour, an administration official was on the line to AP’s offices.
The White House had quashed the one-hour offer as impossible. AP could have the story exclusively for five minutes before the White House made its own announcement. AP then rejected the request to postpone publication any longer.
This must be the crux of the animosity here. CIA told AP the danger had passed (though according to some reports, our informant was still in Yemen). At that point, the AP should have and ultimately did feel safe to publish. But then the White House made this ridiculous request, effectively refusing to let AP tell this story before the White House had a shot at it.
Which is why this claim, from Tommy Vietor, is so absurd.
But former White House national security spokesman Tommy Vietor, recalling the discussion in the administration last year, said officials were simply realistic in their response to AP’s story. They knew that if it were published, the White House would have to address it with an official, detailed statement.
“There was not some press conference planned to take credit for this,” Vietor said in an interview. “There was certainly an understanding [that] we’d have to mitigate and triage this and offer context for other reporters.”
Jeebus Pete! If your idea of “mitigating and triaging” AP’s fairly complimentary story is to make it far, far worse by hinting about the infiltrator, you’re doing it wrong!
Vietor, who presumably had a role in setting up the conference all at which Brennan tipped off Richard Clarke (though according to Brennan, he did not sit in on the call), insists to MSNBC that telling someone we had “inside control” of this plot does not constitute a gigantic clue that the entire plot was just a sting.
Tommy Vietor, then chief national security spokesman for the White House, disputed the idea that Brennan disclosed sensitive details in his background briefing and said it was “ridiculous” to equate Brennan’s use of the phrase “inside control” with having an “informant.”
It’s a nonsense claim, of course. Someone f(u)cked up the “mitigating and triaging” process, and that’s what made this leak so dangerous, not AP’s initial story. But, presumably because AP didn’t let White House tell the official story before they reported their scoop (and did they plan on telling us all we had inside control on the op if they got to tell the story first?!?), the AP has, as far as we know, borne the brunt of the investigation into the leak.
For the moment let me reiterate two more details.
It appears that Vietor is blaming CIA for the way this went down. And guess what? The guy who blathered about “inside control” has now taken over the CIA.
Then there’s this. Eric Holder noted yesterday that the investigation into David Petraeus for leaking classified information — understood to be limited to his mistress Paula Broadwell, mind you — is ongoing. That means the FBI interview he had on April 10 was not sufficient to answer concerns about his involvement in leaking classified information.
It’s interesting this is coming down to a conflict between White House and CIA, isn’t it?
These are just short lists, there are many more people.
Self Taught Pols/Philosophers
Karl Marx
Abe Lincoln
MalcolmX
Ben Franklin
Self Taught Writers
Herman Melville
Ernest Hemingway
Ray Bradbury
Louis LaMour
George Bernard Shaw
Self Taught Inventors
Wright Brothers
Thomas Edison
James Watt
Self Taught Architects
Frank Lloyd Wright
Gustave Eiffel
Louis Sullivan
Don’t get me started on actors, musicians, etc.
“It’s interesting this is coming down to a conflict between White House and CIA, isn’t it?” -emptywheel
http://www.emptywheel.net/2013/05/16/did-tommy-vietor-hang-out-cia-on-undiebomb-2-0/
Did Tommy Vietor Hang Out CIA on UndieBomb 2.0?
Posted on May 16, 2013 by emptywheel
http://www.emptywheel.net/2013/05/16/did-tommy-vietor-hang-out-cia-on-undiebomb-2-0/
The same day that the White House released 94 pages of Benghazi emails, which not only show that most at CIA supported the talking points used by the Administration but also include annotations of the CIA roles involved that reveal far more about CIA’s structure than any FOIA response I’ve ever seen, Tommy Vietor went on the record about UndieBomb 2.0 with both the WaPo and MSNBC. It appears he did so to reinforce the fear-mongering language Eric Holder used (though like Holder, Vietor doesn’t explain why John Brennan got a promotion after contributing to such a damaging leak). He said this to WaPo.
Vietor said that it would be a mistake to dismiss the unauthorized disclosure because al-Qaeda failed to carry out its plot.
“We shouldn’t pretend that this leak of an unbelievably sensitive dangerous piece of information is okay because nobody died,” he said.
But the WaPo account also seems to serve (like the Benghazi email dump does) to place blame on CIA.
It answers a question I hinted at yesterday: whether the CIA and White House were on different pages on what to do with the AP story. Reportedly, after AP had given the CIA time to kill Fahd al-Quso (the WaPo doesn’t mention that was the purpose of the delay), CIA’s Mike Morell told the AP the security issue had been addressed, but asked for one more day. As AP considered that request, the White House overrode that discussion.
Michael J. Morell, the CIA’s deputy director, gave AP reporters some additional background information to persuade them to hold off, Vietor said. The agency needed several days more to protect what it had in the works.
Then, in a meeting on Monday, May 7, CIA officials reported that the national security concerns were “no longer an issue,” according to the individuals familiar with the discussion.
When the journalists rejected a plea to hold off longer, the CIA then offered a compromise. Would they wait a day if AP could have the story exclusively for an hour, with no government officials confirming it for that time?
The reporters left the meeting to discuss the idea with their editors. Within an hour, an administration official was on the line to AP’s offices.
The White House had quashed the one-hour offer as impossible. AP could have the story exclusively for five minutes before the White House made its own announcement. AP then rejected the request to postpone publication any longer.
This must be the crux of the animosity here. CIA told AP the danger had passed (though according to some reports, our informant was still in Yemen). At that point, the AP should have and ultimately did feel safe to publish. But then the White House made this ridiculous request, effectively refusing to let AP tell this story before the White House had a shot at it.
Which is why this claim, from Tommy Vietor, is so absurd.
But former White House national security spokesman Tommy Vietor, recalling the discussion in the administration last year, said officials were simply realistic in their response to AP’s story. They knew that if it were published, the White House would have to address it with an official, detailed statement.
“There was not some press conference planned to take credit for this,” Vietor said in an interview. “There was certainly an understanding [that] we’d have to mitigate and triage this and offer context for other reporters.”
Jeebus Pete! If your idea of “mitigating and triaging” AP’s fairly complimentary story is to make it far, far worse by hinting about the infiltrator, you’re doing it wrong!
Vietor, who presumably had a role in setting up the conference all at which Brennan tipped off Richard Clarke (though according to Brennan, he did not sit in on the call), insists to MSNBC that telling someone we had “inside control” of this plot does not constitute a gigantic clue that the entire plot was just a sting.
Tommy Vietor, then chief national security spokesman for the White House, disputed the idea that Brennan disclosed sensitive details in his background briefing and said it was “ridiculous” to equate Brennan’s use of the phrase “inside control” with having an “informant.”
It’s a nonsense claim, of course. Someone fucked up the “mitigating and triaging” process, and that’s what made this leak so dangerous, not AP’s initial story. But, presumably because AP didn’t let White House tell the official story before they reported their scoop (and did they plan on telling us all we had inside control on the op if they got to tell the story first?!?), the AP has, as far as we know, borne the brunt of the investigation into the leak.
For the moment let me reiterate two more details.
It appears that Vietor is blaming CIA for the way this went down. And guess what? The guy who blathered about “inside control” has now taken over the CIA.
Then there’s this. Eric Holder noted yesterday that the investigation into David Petraeus for leaking classified information — understood to be limited to his mistress Paula Broadwell, mind you — is ongoing. That means the FBI interview he had on April 10 was not sufficient to answer concerns about his involvement in leaking classified information.
It’s interesting this is coming down to a conflict between White House and CIA, isn’t it?
OS, Absolutely! There is no better place to people watch than a casino. I have so many stories but you’ll appreciate this one. I was playing blackjack in Bally’s w/ a guy named Frank. He obviously had some issues. He was a good player and friendly, but there was something in his demeanor and eyes that said there are demons in there. Everything was fine for ~10 -20 hands. THEN THE OCD KICKED IN! At first it was a few touches around his cards. Then he started arranging his stash of chips in different piles. There were other manifestations that eventually started to interfere w/ the game. As the OCD actions increased, he became less and less communicative. After it started getting out of hand the pit boss came over. She was very nice and obviously knew him. She had a towel to put over his chips. She then said w/ a caring voice, “Frank, why don’t you just take a break, I’ll comp you a meal if you like.” Frank just nodded. He said he wasn’t hungry but would just go outside for a bit. I wasn’t there when he returned.
Blouise, You can read a book on craps. I would suggest it to have the basics. But the only way to learn is by having someone w/ knowledge teach you as you play. It seems very complicated, but the bets you should be making are not complicated. Obviously, when you’re learning you would like a $5 table. There are some on the strip, but downtown has many, and even some $3 tables. Downtown is a freak show, which I like once in awhile. It’s blue collar, which I also enjoy. My biggest complaint is they don’t have the superb ventilation the strip casinos have, so smoke can be an issue. Some of the downtowners have tables right near the wide open entrances..they’re ok. I was just busting your lady balls on being able to stand, which I’m quite certain you know.
Bron: I would rather have the person with 10 years of experience over the one with one assuming of course the same training in college.
Way to change the topic completely. If they have the SAME TRAINING IN COLLEGE, you have invalidated the issue of which is more important; theory or experience.
As for experience, the question is whether the person has ten years of experience, or one year of experience ten times. Meaning, has experience taught them anything about avoiding real world errors? Or are they just repeating the same mistakes again and again?
I would (and have) hired greenhorns with stellar academics over the self-taught by experience without academics, or that dropped out, or had mediocre grades. I can work better with somebody that is intelligent and can explain their thinking.