On election day in 2016, Vladimir Putin must have thought he was a pretty smart guy. The candidate for President of the U.S. that he favored, Donald Trump, had won. Putin, according to America's intelligence agencies, tried to help Trump out through various nefarious means to discredit Hillary Clinton. Although it's unclear how much Putin's underhanded tactics affected the actual vote, he probably wasn't averse to giving himself a pat on the back.
That was then. Things are different now, just two months later. U.S. intelligence agencies have revealed Putin's shenanigans. Important leaders in Congress, including Republicans as well as Democrats, are alarmed. Trump nominees for cabinet positions, when asked about Russia, have been very careful to distance themselves from Putin and Russia. Even Trump has had to admit that Russia tried to interfere in the election.
The uproar will limit Trump's options with Russia and Putin. Congress won't give him a free hand in dealing with them. It will be tough on the issue of sanctions. It will insist that the U.S. honor its pledge to defend NATO members. It will insist that human rights still exist and must be defended. It will insist that Russia's military aggression not be rewarded with friendship,
Putin has already blown it. He incorrectly assumed that his misdeeds would go undetected. But that didn't happen, and now he's been exposed. He's proven to be an embarrassment and a liability to his buddy, Trump. The bromance may have to cool off. Trump has been on the defensive about Putin and Russia, and his post-election sheen is a little tarnished. Trump has lost some power even before he took office, power he might have needed to cozy up to Russia and Putin. Too bad, Vlad. You may have outsmarted yourself.
Showing posts with label Congress. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Congress. Show all posts
Friday, January 13, 2017
Wednesday, November 19, 2014
Uber Shows Us Why Privacy Matters
It appears that a senior vice president at Uber, the online taxi service, suggested that the company ought to investigate journalists who offend the company. In particular, Emil Michael, the SVP in question, seems to have directed his remarks at a BuzzFeed reporter named Sarah Lacy, who evidently has been critical of the company.
Although Uber has repudiated Michael's remarks and pledged not to investigate journalists, let's think hypothetically about what a nasty corporation might do in order to dig up dirt on an individual. There is the company's own database. In the case of an online taxi service, that would include name, credit card information, and perhaps a lot of addresses. Some you might not want your significant other to know about if you've been less than a paragon of fidelity. Others you might not want your employer to know about if you've been interviewing discreetly for a new job. Of course, there could be the address of the only abortion clinic in your city or a seedy hotel where the only things you could get are services from sex workers or illegal drugs.
In addition, businesses corporations have access to commercial databases created by shadowy companies that vacuum up everything about you they can find on the Internet and sell it for a fee. These databases might well include archived pages from social networking and other sites that you thought you deleted years ago (shiploads of stuff on the Internet have been archived, and a deletion on the active website doesn't necessarily mean all the archived stuff is gone). Businesses can also hire snoops to snoop around online and otherwise. They can get the name of the driver from the online taxi service, interview him, and find out that you were getting mighty friendly with someone in the back seat when you told your spouse you were going alone to a client dinner. Or they can find out the name of the restaurant where you were taken, and interview the bartender to learn there was someone waiting for you who whisked you away after spending five minutes at the bar.
No one is perfect. For many, their imperfections can be uncovered online or through information available online. Private interests can be bad. Some can be evil. There are fewer legal constraints on private interests digging up dirt online than there are on the government. It's creepy to think that NSA or some other government agency might be sneaking peaks at our e-mail accounts. But, ultimately, the government is subject to a variety of constraints that, at least sometimes, can be invoked. A business corporation or other private interest that wants to do evil is much harder to rein in because of the paucity of rules.
Privacy laws are like locks on doors. You lock your doors to keep undesired people out of the privacy of your home. Privacy rules keep undesired people out of the privacy of your data. Everyone wants a nonpublic place where they aren't subject to prying eyes. Even the Uber SVP, Emil Michael, who reportedly claims that his inflammatory remarks were meant to be off the record. (See http://www.cnbc.com/id/102199538). From the vantage point of his petard, Michael acknowledges the desirability of privacy.
It's unlikely Congress will do anything useful in the foreseeable future. But if it wanted to shock us with a pleasant surprise, it could enact a strong set of privacy rules for online data and the use of online data. After all, privacy matters.
Although Uber has repudiated Michael's remarks and pledged not to investigate journalists, let's think hypothetically about what a nasty corporation might do in order to dig up dirt on an individual. There is the company's own database. In the case of an online taxi service, that would include name, credit card information, and perhaps a lot of addresses. Some you might not want your significant other to know about if you've been less than a paragon of fidelity. Others you might not want your employer to know about if you've been interviewing discreetly for a new job. Of course, there could be the address of the only abortion clinic in your city or a seedy hotel where the only things you could get are services from sex workers or illegal drugs.
In addition, businesses corporations have access to commercial databases created by shadowy companies that vacuum up everything about you they can find on the Internet and sell it for a fee. These databases might well include archived pages from social networking and other sites that you thought you deleted years ago (shiploads of stuff on the Internet have been archived, and a deletion on the active website doesn't necessarily mean all the archived stuff is gone). Businesses can also hire snoops to snoop around online and otherwise. They can get the name of the driver from the online taxi service, interview him, and find out that you were getting mighty friendly with someone in the back seat when you told your spouse you were going alone to a client dinner. Or they can find out the name of the restaurant where you were taken, and interview the bartender to learn there was someone waiting for you who whisked you away after spending five minutes at the bar.
No one is perfect. For many, their imperfections can be uncovered online or through information available online. Private interests can be bad. Some can be evil. There are fewer legal constraints on private interests digging up dirt online than there are on the government. It's creepy to think that NSA or some other government agency might be sneaking peaks at our e-mail accounts. But, ultimately, the government is subject to a variety of constraints that, at least sometimes, can be invoked. A business corporation or other private interest that wants to do evil is much harder to rein in because of the paucity of rules.
Privacy laws are like locks on doors. You lock your doors to keep undesired people out of the privacy of your home. Privacy rules keep undesired people out of the privacy of your data. Everyone wants a nonpublic place where they aren't subject to prying eyes. Even the Uber SVP, Emil Michael, who reportedly claims that his inflammatory remarks were meant to be off the record. (See http://www.cnbc.com/id/102199538). From the vantage point of his petard, Michael acknowledges the desirability of privacy.
It's unlikely Congress will do anything useful in the foreseeable future. But if it wanted to shock us with a pleasant surprise, it could enact a strong set of privacy rules for online data and the use of online data. After all, privacy matters.
Tuesday, November 26, 2013
Are We Stuck With a Powerless Government?
Despite its image as an overbearing ogre, the federal government may be largely powerless these days. The President has managed to undercut himself with an astonishingly bad non-launch of the federal health insurance exchange. Is there anyone in his administration with executive or management ability? Could anyone in his administration succeed as evening shift supervisor at the local McDonald's?
On the foreign policy front, the President managed to set his foot downrange and pull the trigger over Syria's use of poison gas. Only an embarrassing intervention by Russia prevented the President from a real morass of a morass. Now, the administration touts a deal with Iran to freeze its nuclear program, even though it can continue to enrich uranium to the 5% level. Not very frozen, but perhaps global warming is having an impact. One wonders whether this deal with Iran is a sign of strength or weakness on the part of the President.
Meanwhile, over on Capitol Hill, Congress remains essentially non-functional. The Democratically controlled Senate was able to approve the appointment of a few judges by changing its rules, although scowling Republicans made many dire and threatening predictions that the Dems would be sorry for doing this. Nothing like a love fest to make folks feel collegial. As for the federal budget and the debt ceiling, they aren't likely to trigger new crises, but will be resolved by kicking the can down the road.
The only institution that seems to be doing anything is the Federal Reserve. And even it may be losing some of its mojo. The most recently released minutes of the Open Market Committee meeting in October have been interpreted to mean that the Fed may be thinking about pulling back soon on quantitative easing. Antacid sales on Wall Street have jumped. If the efficacy of Fed money printing is diminishing, we may find ourselves in a public policy Sahara with very few water holes.
A powerful government can be scary. A powerless one can be scarier. The problem is this isn't a horror movie and we can't get up and leave the theater if we don't like the show.
On the foreign policy front, the President managed to set his foot downrange and pull the trigger over Syria's use of poison gas. Only an embarrassing intervention by Russia prevented the President from a real morass of a morass. Now, the administration touts a deal with Iran to freeze its nuclear program, even though it can continue to enrich uranium to the 5% level. Not very frozen, but perhaps global warming is having an impact. One wonders whether this deal with Iran is a sign of strength or weakness on the part of the President.
Meanwhile, over on Capitol Hill, Congress remains essentially non-functional. The Democratically controlled Senate was able to approve the appointment of a few judges by changing its rules, although scowling Republicans made many dire and threatening predictions that the Dems would be sorry for doing this. Nothing like a love fest to make folks feel collegial. As for the federal budget and the debt ceiling, they aren't likely to trigger new crises, but will be resolved by kicking the can down the road.
The only institution that seems to be doing anything is the Federal Reserve. And even it may be losing some of its mojo. The most recently released minutes of the Open Market Committee meeting in October have been interpreted to mean that the Fed may be thinking about pulling back soon on quantitative easing. Antacid sales on Wall Street have jumped. If the efficacy of Fed money printing is diminishing, we may find ourselves in a public policy Sahara with very few water holes.
A powerful government can be scary. A powerless one can be scarier. The problem is this isn't a horror movie and we can't get up and leave the theater if we don't like the show.
Thursday, October 17, 2013
The Fiscal Crisis: Can Kicks Are All We Can Expect
Tonight (Wednesday, Oct. 16, 2013), Congress has temporarily "fixed" the fiscal and debt crises by re-opening the government until Jan. 15, 2014, and raising the debt ceiling until Feb. 7, 2014. In other words, the government will resume operations and not default on its debt until early next year, when we return to crisis mode again.
Can kicking is all we can expect. The government that the voters elected in 2012 isn't capable of decisive action on divisive issues like government spending. With the House held hostage by a small but very loud group of Tea Partiers, and the rest of government controlled by the Democrats, dysfunction is baked into the cake the voters made last year. Maintaining the status quo--a/k/a can kicking--is the only thing a sharply divided government can do.
Early next year, when Congress and the White House revisit the fiscal and debt crises, they will again kick the can through the end of the 2014 fiscal year (which ends Sept. 30, 2014)--because they won't be able to do anything else. Maybe they'll make minor tweaks, but nothing big will happen. Come late September or early October 2014, with the 2014 Congressional elections imminent, they will kick the can again past the election date, perhaps into early 2015 for the next Congress to deal with.
To end can kicking, voters need to elect a functional government next fall. Yes, the idiots in Washington are to blame for behaving like children. But the electorate put them in office. Democracies function by compromising. If narrow-minded, uncompromising fanatics are elected, expect the can to be well-kicked for years to come.
Can kicking is all we can expect. The government that the voters elected in 2012 isn't capable of decisive action on divisive issues like government spending. With the House held hostage by a small but very loud group of Tea Partiers, and the rest of government controlled by the Democrats, dysfunction is baked into the cake the voters made last year. Maintaining the status quo--a/k/a can kicking--is the only thing a sharply divided government can do.
Early next year, when Congress and the White House revisit the fiscal and debt crises, they will again kick the can through the end of the 2014 fiscal year (which ends Sept. 30, 2014)--because they won't be able to do anything else. Maybe they'll make minor tweaks, but nothing big will happen. Come late September or early October 2014, with the 2014 Congressional elections imminent, they will kick the can again past the election date, perhaps into early 2015 for the next Congress to deal with.
To end can kicking, voters need to elect a functional government next fall. Yes, the idiots in Washington are to blame for behaving like children. But the electorate put them in office. Democracies function by compromising. If narrow-minded, uncompromising fanatics are elected, expect the can to be well-kicked for years to come.
Tuesday, March 19, 2013
Why Republicans Are Trapped by Gerrymandering
Much of the Republican Party's power today is the result of legislative gerrymandering, the drawing of electoral districts in Rorschach test-like patterns to include majorities of reliably Republican voters. (See http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-03-19/republicans-win-congress-as-democrats-get-most-votes.html.) Thus, the Republicans now control the House of Representatives. But their gerrymandering has also trapped them in a time warp, and they are paying the price.
After last fall's loss of the Presidential election, Republicans are trying to figure out what went wrong in a contest they could have won. One of the key conclusions seems to be that a party of, by and for old white guys doesn't have much curb appeal for America's demographically changing populace. Many leading Republican voices now call for diversification. But that won't be easy, with their feet caught in the bear trap of their own gerrymandering.
Many Republicans politicians, particularly those inclined toward tea parties, are sworn to uphold and defend, even with their cold, dead hands if necessary, values that resonate primarily with old, white guys. If they start humming Kumbaya with anyone who doesn't party with tea, they'll be run out of office by people wielding old, white pitchforks. Let's be clear: if you represent a gerrymandered Republican district, you had damn well better look, sound and act like a Republican gerrymanderer. If you start to go wobbly, expect your constituents' footprints all over your caboose the next time you run for re-election.
The fact that many Republican politicians are beholden to a very narrow constituency now limits their options. It's a major reason why compromise in Washington is so difficult. Republican leaders in Congress have very little negotiating latitude, and can't engage in the swaps and accommodations that comprise political compromises. The upcoming deadlines--expiration of the federal government's funding on March 27 and the expiration of the debt ceiling on May 19--will probably be "resolved" with short term kicks of the can down the road. The Republicans appear to be taking more of the blame for federal dysfunction than the Democrats, and they may have limited their own ability to do anything about it.
Although Democrats have some problems with gerrymandered limits, they are much more tolerant of a diversity of views within their party. As the American populace diversifies, the flexibility of the Democratic Party could become perhaps its greatest asset, even while Republicans trash talk from their gerrymandered districts.
After last fall's loss of the Presidential election, Republicans are trying to figure out what went wrong in a contest they could have won. One of the key conclusions seems to be that a party of, by and for old white guys doesn't have much curb appeal for America's demographically changing populace. Many leading Republican voices now call for diversification. But that won't be easy, with their feet caught in the bear trap of their own gerrymandering.
Many Republicans politicians, particularly those inclined toward tea parties, are sworn to uphold and defend, even with their cold, dead hands if necessary, values that resonate primarily with old, white guys. If they start humming Kumbaya with anyone who doesn't party with tea, they'll be run out of office by people wielding old, white pitchforks. Let's be clear: if you represent a gerrymandered Republican district, you had damn well better look, sound and act like a Republican gerrymanderer. If you start to go wobbly, expect your constituents' footprints all over your caboose the next time you run for re-election.
The fact that many Republican politicians are beholden to a very narrow constituency now limits their options. It's a major reason why compromise in Washington is so difficult. Republican leaders in Congress have very little negotiating latitude, and can't engage in the swaps and accommodations that comprise political compromises. The upcoming deadlines--expiration of the federal government's funding on March 27 and the expiration of the debt ceiling on May 19--will probably be "resolved" with short term kicks of the can down the road. The Republicans appear to be taking more of the blame for federal dysfunction than the Democrats, and they may have limited their own ability to do anything about it.
Although Democrats have some problems with gerrymandered limits, they are much more tolerant of a diversity of views within their party. As the American populace diversifies, the flexibility of the Democratic Party could become perhaps its greatest asset, even while Republicans trash talk from their gerrymandered districts.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
