logo Sign In

Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo — Page 194

This topic has been locked by a moderator.

Author
Time

Dek, what happened to your avatar?

Where were you in '77?

Author
Time

Ok. You got me. But in my defense, it’s still March 31st here.

Where were you in '77?

Author
Time

http://www.voanews.com/a/cyber-firm-rewrites-part-disputed-russian-hacking-report/3781411.html

http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2017/03/30/a-cyber-gulf-of-tonkin/

The “cyber-security” firm that everyone is depending on to make the case for Russia’s alleged “hacking” of the 2016 presidential election, CrowdStrike, has just retracted a key component of its analysis – but the “mainstream” media continues to chug along, ignoring any facts that contradict their preferred narrative.

“U.S. cybersecurity firm CrowdStrike has revised and retracted statements it used to buttress claims of Russian hacking during last year’s American presidential election campaign. The shift followed a VOA report that the company misrepresented data published by an influential British think tank.”

This retraction pulls the rug out from under CrowdStrike’s identification of the hacking group that supposedly broke into the Democratic National Committee’s server. Last year, the company announced that “Fancy Bear” – the name they gave to the hackers – had used identical tools and methods to hack into software used by the Ukrainian military, an act they claimed led to the destruction of 80% of the Ukrainians’ howitzers in their war with rebel forces. Up until that point, CrowdStrike had merely “suspected” that the Russians were behind the DNC hack. However, given the Ukrainian “evidence,” combined with the assumption that the rebels are “Russian-backed,” CrowdStrike head honcho Dmitri Alpervovitch told the Washington Post: “Now we have high confidence it was a unit of the GRU,” i.e. Russian military intelligence.

Their retraction means that “high confidence” has been considerably lowered down to the level of a mere “suspicion.” Forced to backtrack in light of VOA’s definitive takedown, CrowdStrike’s whole case collapses. Despite dubbing the alleged hackers with the nom de guerre of “Fancy Bear” – as in the Russian bear – the evidence that supposedly identifies whoever broke into the DNC servers as GRU agents is virtually nonexistent. And the remaining “evidence” is hardly impressive. As cyber-security expert James Bamford pointed out:

“Last summer, cyber investigators plowing through the thousands of leaked emails from the Democratic National Committee uncovered a clue.

“A user named ‘Феликс Эдмундович’ modified one of the documents using settings in the Russian language. Translated, his name was Felix Edmundovich, a pseudonym referring to Felix Edmundovich Dzerzhinsky, the chief of the Soviet Union’s first secret-police organization, the Cheka.”

So why would the nefarious albeit highly skilled Russians leave this glaring clue – in Cyrillic, no less! — for all to see? Or was this “clue” deliberate misdirection on the part of the real hackers? The latter seems highly likely – not that the geniuses over at CrowdStrike would want to understand this. After all, they were paid by the Democratic National Committee, which used the incident to drum up a narrative that the evil Russians were trying to damage Hillary Clinton and elect Donald Trump. Follow the money, folks – and Alperovitch’s position with the Atlantic Council, an organization that is assiduously trying to launch another cold war with Moscow.

Remember, the FBI never looked at the DNC servers: they depended on CrowdStrike — which has a $150,000 a year no bid contract to perform “security” services for the agency — to analyze the forensic evidence. Shawn Henry, CrowdStrike’s CSO and head of CrowdStrike Services, is a former assistant executive director of the FBI.

Author
Time

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/29/us/politics/epa-insecticide-chlorpyrifos.html

Scott Pruitt, the head of the Environmental Protection Agency, moved late on Wednesday to reject the scientific conclusion of the agency’s own chemical safety experts who under the Obama administration recommended that one of the nation’s most widely used insecticides be permanently banned at farms nationwide because of the harm it potentially causes children and farm workers.

Yeah, fuck the health of kids and workers, it’s the big companies who need government help. Hooray for Trump and Republicans!

Author
Time
 (Edited)

An E.P.A. scientific review panel made up of academic experts last July also had raised questions about some of the conclusions the chemical safety staff had reached. That led the staff to revise the way it had justified its findings of harm, although the agency employees as of late last year still concluded that the chemical should be banned.

Mr. Pruitt, in an announcement issued Wednesday night, said the agency needed to study the science more.

“We need to provide regulatory certainty to the thousands of American farms that rely on chlorpyrifos, while still protecting human health and the environment,” Mr. Pruitt said in his statement. “By reversing the previous administration’s steps to ban one of the most widely used pesticides in the world, we are returning to using sound science in decision-making — rather than predetermined results.”

The United States Department of Agriculture, which works close with the nation’s farmers, supported Mr. Pruitt’s action.

“It means that this important pest management tool will remain available to growers, helping to ensure an abundant and affordable food supply for this nation,” Sheryl Kunickis, director of the U.S.D.A. Office of Pest Management Policy, said in a statement Wednesday.

Dow Agrosciences, the division that sells the product, also praised the ruling, calling it in a statement “the right decision for farmers who, in about 100 countries, rely on the effectiveness of chlorpyrifos to protect more than 50 crops.”


Though I can see why you cherry-picked the article for info relative to your displeasure of Trump and Republicans, they didn’t make the decision. It was Mr. Scott Pruitt. Write your state officials and voice your concerns. Let them hear your displeasure so they can voice that concern up the ladder. It is your right as an American and your obligation if you disagree with choice made.

Give em hell Frink.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Oh, the angelic Dr. Farkas … she is a thorn, isn’t she?

I never saw any article or interview claim that she herself was in possession of any leaked documentation nor that she herself leaked it. For some reason unknown at present she certainly seemed to want the spotlight and now that she’s got it she’s unhappy with it.

Author
Time

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/04/02/a-judge-rules-trump-may-have-incited-violence-and-trump-again-has-his-own-mouth-to-blame/?utm_term=.8a8a7b58d50d

The courts keep taking Donald Trump both seriously and literally. And the president’s word choices are proving to be a real headache.

A federal judge in Kentucky is the latest to take Trump at his word when he says something controversial. Judge David J. Hale ruled against efforts by Trump’s attorneys to throw out a lawsuit accusing him of inciting violence against protesters at a March 2016 campaign rally in Louisville.

At the rally, Trump repeatedly said “get ‘em out of here” before, according to the protesters, they were shoved and punched by his supporters. Trump’s attorneys sought to have the case dismissed on free speech grounds, arguing that he didn’t intend for his supporters to use force. But Hale noted that speech inciting violence is not protected by the First Amendment and ruled that there is plenty of evidence that the protesters’ injuries were a “direct and proximate result” of Trump’s words.

“It is plausible that Trump’s direction to ‘get 'em out of here’ advocated the use of force,” Hale wrote. “It was an order, an instruction, a command.”

Author
Time
 (Edited)

I just saw that one. Well … I’m surprised they aren’t going after the actual people that physically handled them. They would have been the ones causing the actual physical damage, whatever it was, but Trump is higher profile and probably worth more financially. I don’t see anyone chasing around those “Black Lives Matter” people whose supporters were doing physical damage to people and property so who knows.

It will be interesting to see how this one ends. My suggestion to him would be, offer an apology, pay their bills, and drop them a little something for their troubles.

Author
Time

Jetrell Fo said:

An E.P.A. scientific review panel made up of academic experts last July also had raised questions about some of the conclusions the chemical safety staff had reached. That led the staff to revise the way it had justified its findings of harm, although the agency employees as of late last year still concluded that the chemical should be banned.

Mr. Pruitt, in an announcement issued Wednesday night, said the agency needed to study the science more.

“We need to provide regulatory certainty to the thousands of American farms that rely on chlorpyrifos, while still protecting human health and the environment,” Mr. Pruitt said in his statement. “By reversing the previous administration’s steps to ban one of the most widely used pesticides in the world, we are returning to using sound science in decision-making — rather than predetermined results.”

The United States Department of Agriculture, which works close with the nation’s farmers, supported Mr. Pruitt’s action.

“It means that this important pest management tool will remain available to growers, helping to ensure an abundant and affordable food supply for this nation,” Sheryl Kunickis, director of the U.S.D.A. Office of Pest Management Policy, said in a statement Wednesday.

Dow Agrosciences, the division that sells the product, also praised the ruling, calling it in a statement “the right decision for farmers who, in about 100 countries, rely on the effectiveness of chlorpyrifos to protect more than 50 crops.”


Though I can see why you cherry-picked the article for info relative to your displeasure of Trump and Republicans, they didn’t make the decision. It was Mr. Scott Pruitt. Write your state officials and voice your concerns. Let them hear your displeasure so they can voice that concern up the ladder. It is your right as an American and your obligation if you disagree with choice made.

Give em hell Frink.

DDT was such was a resounding environmental success, so why worry? 😉

Thank goodness a lot of farms around here are organic.

Where were you in '77?

Author
Time
 (Edited)

SilverWook said:

Jetrell Fo said:

An E.P.A. scientific review panel made up of academic experts last July also had raised questions about some of the conclusions the chemical safety staff had reached. That led the staff to revise the way it had justified its findings of harm, although the agency employees as of late last year still concluded that the chemical should be banned.

Mr. Pruitt, in an announcement issued Wednesday night, said the agency needed to study the science more.

“We need to provide regulatory certainty to the thousands of American farms that rely on chlorpyrifos, while still protecting human health and the environment,” Mr. Pruitt said in his statement. “By reversing the previous administration’s steps to ban one of the most widely used pesticides in the world, we are returning to using sound science in decision-making — rather than predetermined results.”

The United States Department of Agriculture, which works close with the nation’s farmers, supported Mr. Pruitt’s action.

“It means that this important pest management tool will remain available to growers, helping to ensure an abundant and affordable food supply for this nation,” Sheryl Kunickis, director of the U.S.D.A. Office of Pest Management Policy, said in a statement Wednesday.

Dow Agrosciences, the division that sells the product, also praised the ruling, calling it in a statement “the right decision for farmers who, in about 100 countries, rely on the effectiveness of chlorpyrifos to protect more than 50 crops.”


Though I can see why you cherry-picked the article for info relative to your displeasure of Trump and Republicans, they didn’t make the decision. It was Mr. Scott Pruitt. Write your state officials and voice your concerns. Let them hear your displeasure so they can voice that concern up the ladder. It is your right as an American and your obligation if you disagree with choice made.

Give em hell Frink.

DDT was such was a resounding environmental success, so why worry? 😉

Thank goodness a lot of farms around here are organic.

Since I am not a Graduated Chemist or Scientist I don’t know what the actual differences between DDT and Chlorpyrifos are.

I did look up these two and found this information.


Chlorpyrifos (IUPAC name: O,O-diethyl O-3,5,6-trichloropyridin-2-yl phosphorothioate) is a crystalline organophosphate insecticide, acaracide and miticide. It was introduced in 1965 by Dow Chemical Company and is known by many trade names including Dursban, Lorsban, Bolton Insecticide, Nufos, Cobalt, Hatchet, and Warhawk [5]. It acts on the nervous system of insects by inhibiting acetylcholinesterase.

Chlorpyrifos is moderately toxic to humans, and exposure has been linked to neurological effects, persistent developmental disorders and autoimmune disorders. Exposure during pregnancy retards the mental development of children, and most home use was banned in 2001 in the U.S.[6] In agriculture, it is “one of the most widely used organophosphate insecticides” in the United States, according to the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and before being phased out for residential use was one of the most used residential insecticides.[7] On March 29, 2017, EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt denied a petition to ban chlorpyrifos.[8]


Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT) is a colorless, crystalline, tasteless, and almost odorless organochlorine known for its insecticidal properties and environmental impacts. First synthesized in 1874, DDT’s insecticidal action was discovered by the Swiss chemist Paul Hermann Müller in 1939. It was used in the second half of World War II to control malaria and typhus among civilians and troops. After the war, DDT was also used as an agricultural insecticide and its production and use duly increased.[5] Müller was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine “for his discovery of the high efficiency of DDT as a contact poison against several arthropods” in 1948.[6]

In 1962, Rachel Carson’s book Silent Spring was published. It cataloged environmental impacts that coincided with widespread use of DDT in agriculture in the United States, and it questioned the logic of broadcasting potentially dangerous chemicals into the environment with little prior investigation of their environment and health effects. The book claimed that DDT and other pesticides had been shown to cause cancer and that their agricultural use was a threat to wildlife, particularly birds. Its publication was a seminal event for the environmental movement and resulted in a large public outcry that eventually led, in 1972, to a ban on DDT’s agricultural use in the United States.[7] A worldwide ban on agricultural use was formalized under the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants, but its limited and still-controversial use in disease vector control continues,[8][9] because of its effectiveness in reducing malarial infections, balanced by environmental and other health concerns.

Along with the passage of the Endangered Species Act, the United States ban on DDT is a major factor in the comeback of the bald eagle (the national bird of the United States) and the peregrine falcon from near-extinction in the contiguous United States.[10][11]

Author
Time
 (Edited)

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/02/house-staff-criminal-investigation-234714

House staffers under criminal investigation still employed.

Multiple Democratic lawmakers have yet to cut ties with House staffers under criminal investigation for wide-ranging equipment and data theft.

Imran Awan, a longtime House staffer who worked for more than two dozen Democrats since 2004, is still employed by Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, though his access to the House IT network has been blocked since last week.

“At this time we are continuing to gather information from House officials and will determine the best approach to move forward once we have reviewed that information,” David Damron, communications director for Wasserman Schultz, said in an email when asked by POLITICO if Awan was still working for the Florida Democrat.

Wasserman Schultz declined to comment, referring POLITICO to the statement when asked follow-up questions Monday night.

Multiple relatives of Imran Awan, including his wife Hina Alvi, Abid Awan and Jamal Awan — all House staffers until recently — are also being investigated in connection to the alleged procurement scam, according to a senior House official close to the investigation.

Alvi has worked for more than a dozen House Democrats and the House Democratic Caucus since 2007. At least one member, Rep. Gregory Meeks (D-N.Y.), is still employing her.

“My office is in the process of gathering information to make a determination in the near future about the employment of Ms. Alvi with our office,” Meeks said Monday in a statement to POLITICO.

Five House staffers are accused of stealing equipment from members’ offices without their knowledge and committing serious, potentially illegal, violations on the House IT network, according to multiple sources briefed on the investigation.

Top staffers for lawmakers impacted by the scam were briefed last Thursday. A source in the briefing said the Sergeant-at-Arms confirmed the U.S. Capitol Police is conducting an active criminal investigation but said no arrests have been made.

Imran Awan was first employed on Capitol Hill by former Rep. Robert Wexler in January 2004 as an “information technology director.” Awan has worked for at least 25 other House Democrats since that time as a shared employee providing technical support including to previous House Democratic Caucus Chairman Xavier Becerra, currently the California attorney general.

Imran Awan has a longtime relationship with some members, including working for Meeks and Becerra starting in 2004 and joining Wasserman Schultz’s office in 2005.

Several members who have employed Imran Awan and Alvi in the past confirmed to POLITICO they terminated their employment late last week.

Jamal Awan worked as a House IT staffer for more than half-dozen House Democrats since 2014, according to LegiStorm, a website that tracks congressional employment. Abid Awan worked for more than a dozen House Democrats as a systems administrator since 2005, according to congressional records.

Another House staff with connections to Imran Awan is also under investigation, according to the senior House official.

No one named in this POLITICO report as being under investigation returned multiple calls and emails requesting comment over the past several days.

Capitol Police also did not return multiple requests for comment Monday asking for an update on the case.

http://dailycaller.com/2017/03/09/suspect-in-house-it-security-probe-also-had-access-to-dnc-emails/#ixzz4b3rTtD4p