November 2, 2016


News and Views


http://www.cbsnews.com/news/poll-only-about-1-in-4-want-donald-trump-to-repeal-obamacare/

Poll: Only about 1 in 4 want Donald Trump to repeal Obamacare
CBS/AP
December 1, 2016, 1:48 PM

Photograph -- A small group of demonstrators stand outside of of a hotel before former South Carolina Senator Jim DeMint, president of the The Heritage Foundation, speaks at a “Defund Obamacare Tour” rally in Indianapolis, Indiana, U.S. August 26, 2013. REUTERS


WASHINGTON -- Only about one in four Americans wants President-elect Donald Trump to entirely repeal his predecessor’s health care law that extended coverage to millions, a new poll has found.

The post-election survey released Thursday by the nonpartisan Kaiser Family Foundation also found hints of a pragmatic shift among some Republican foes of “Obamacare.”

While 52 percent of Republicans say they want the law completely repealed, that share is down from 69 percent just last month, before the election. And more Republicans now say they want the law “scaled back” under the new president and GOP Congress, with that share more than doubling from 11 percent before the election to 24 percent after.

Kaiser CEO Drew Altman said the foundation’s polling experts aren’t quite sure what to make of that finding, and will continue to track the apparent shift in future polls. The organization is a clearinghouse for information and analysis about the health care system.

Trump’s health chief: The perfect executioner for Obamacare
It could be that some Republicans “got a protest vote off their chests, and they’re done with that,” Altman said. “They now have a more moderate position.”

After branding the Affordable Care Act a “disaster” during an election campaign that saw big premium hikes unveiled in its closing days, Mr. Trump has been saying he’d like to keep parts of the law.

And indeed, its popularity only seems to be gaining among Americans: The day following the election, HealthCare.gov notched 100,000 signups, the highest single-day number since open enrollment began.

Trump doesn't mention Obamacare, border wall promises in first address as president-elect
Play VIDEO
Trump doesn't mention Obamacare, border wall promises in first address as president-elect
On Capitol Hill, Republican leaders are trying to choreograph a legislative dance that would let them quickly repeal “Obamacare,” then allow an interlude to segue to a replacement. The complex undertaking is fraught with political risk, because success is not guaranteed. It could disrupt coverage for millions by destabilizing the law’s already fragile health insurance markets, such as HealthCare.gov.

The poll found some skepticism about that approach. Forty-two percent of those who want the 2010 health care law repealed said lawmakers should wait until they figure out the details of a replacement plan before doing so.

A senior administration official expressed concern over this possibility, telling CBS News that “repeal and delay replacement is repeal.” Such an option could force insurance companies out of the marketplace if they are unsure what the future looks like. The official noted that six years of Republican promises for a replacement have yielded few viable replacement plans.

A full repeal with no replacement, the official emphasized, could then result in the loss of 20 million people’s insurance coverage, including young adults under 26 who are on their parents’ health insurance plans. Among other effects of an ACA repeal: Women would have to pay for contraception, seniors’ drug prices could rise, preventative visits and routine screenings would no longer be free, and annual and lifetime coverage limits would disappear.

Americans were divided on next steps for President Barack Obama’s signature law. Overall, 30 percent said the new president and Congress should expand what the law does, and another 19 percent said it should be implemented as is. On the other side, 26 percent said the law should be entirely repealed and 17 percent called for it to be scaled back.

Among Trump voters, 8 in 10 viewed the health care law unfavorably, and half wanted it entirely repealed.

Trump changes his tune on Obamacare
Play VIDEO
Trump changes his tune on Obamacare
Georgia Rep. Tom Price, Mr. Trump’s pick for HHS secretary, has already outlined a plan to replace the ACA, but the current administration is wary of its implementation. According to the senior administration official, there are several negative effects of Price’s proposals, including a cap of employer tax benefits, dumping in the employer market, and elimination of mental health coverage in the ACA.

As Republicans start to make changes in health care, potentially revamping Medicare and Medicaid as well, the politics of the issue could turn against them, Altman said. “They are going to go from casting stones to owning the problem,” he said.

The poll found majorities across party lines support many of the health care law’s provisions, but not its requirement that individuals have coverage or risk fines, and its mandate that medium-to-large employers pay fines if they don’t offer health insurance.

Among the provisions with support across party lines:

-- Allowing young adults to stay on a parent’s insurance until age 26.
-- No copayments for many preventive services.
-- Closing the Medicare prescription drug coverage gap known as the “doughnut hole.”
-- Financial help for low- and moderate-income people to pay their insurance premiums.
-- A state option to expand Medicaid to cover more low-income adults.
-- Barring insurance companies from denying coverage because of a person’s medical history.
-- Increased Medicare payroll taxes for upper-income earners.

The senior administration official noted to CBS News, however, that keeping the popular provisions (including those ensuring people with preexisting conditions can keep their insurance and guaranteeing that children can stay on their parents’ plans until the age of 26) will be difficult to do without the less -- popular [sic] provisions like the individual mandate.

The telephone poll was conducted from Nov. 15-21 among a nationally representative random digit dial sample of 1,202 adults, including people reached by landlines and cell phones. The margin of sampling error is plus or minus 3 percentage points for the full sample. For subgroups, the margin of sampling error may be higher.



CHANGES TO RULE 41


https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20161201/12214736168/thanks-to-months-doing-nothing-senate-allows-dojs-rule-41-changes-to-become-law.shtml

Thanks To Months Of Doing Nothing, Senate Allows DOJ's Rule 41 Changes To Become Law
from the do-nothing-lawmakers-manage-to-accomplish-something dept


The amendments to Rule 41 are now law, thanks to Sen. John Cornyn, who prevented bills opposing the immediate adoption of the changes from being debated.

Sens. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), Steve Daines (R-Mont.) and Chris Coons (D-Del) took to the floor and unsuccessfully asked for unanimous consent to either pass or formally vote on three bills to delay or prevent updates to the process used by law enforcement to get a warrant to hack suspects' computers.

“We simply can’t give unlimited power for unlimited hacking,” Daines argued. [...]

But the bid to prevent the imminent changes to Rule 41 ended quickly. After Wyden spoke, Majority Whip John Cornyn (R-Texas) immediately objected to all three bills, without waiting to hear from Coons and Daines.

But Cornyn alone can't be blamed for this outcome. A vast majority of senators did nothing to prevent the proposed changes from becoming law -- even though the decision has been in their hands since the Supreme Court's approval in April.

The FBI and others will be able to take advantage of the removal of jurisdictional limits to search computers anywhere in the world using a single warrant issued by a magistrate judge. It will also be granted the same power for use in the disruption of botnets -- in essence, searches/seizures of devices owned by US citizens suspected of no wrongdoing.

Cornyn, who prevented any debate over the "updates" to Rule 41, seems closely aligned with the DOJ's views -- that these changes will have "little effect" on civil liberties because the FBI, etc. "will still have to get a warrant."

Sure, warrants are still involved, but the scope of what can be accessed with a single warrant has been expanded greatly. And the DOJ has yet to explain how it's going to prevent law enforcement agencies from shopping around for the most compliant magistrates, now that they're not required to perform searches in the issuing court's jurisdiction. The DOJ also hasn't adequately explained what sort of notification process it will use when performing its botnet cleanups.

What it has done, however, is issue a statement saying the ends justify the means.

In an effort to address concerns, U.S. Assistant Attorney General Leslie Caldwell wrote a blog post this week arguing that the benefits given to authorities from the rule changes outweighed any potential for "unintended harm."

The DOJ wanted fewer restrictions, more power, and the opportunity to treat any appearance of anonymization software as an excuse to deploy these newly-granted powers. The Senate -- for the most part -- gave it everything it wanted by doing nothing at all to stop it.


Reader Comments


Anonymous Coward, Dec 1st, 2016 @ 2:45pm
and the constituents wont punish their representatives now or in the future by voting them out!! we get what we deserve for sitting back, thumbs up asses, brains in neutral!!


Anonymous Coward, Dec 1st, 2016 @ 3:33pm
Christ. Anyone that uses a VPN to connect securely to their company to work remotely falls under "appearance of anonymization". Including politicians. Suppose we have no shortage of leaks in our future as tools add more cracks in the security.


Wyrm (profile), Dec 1st, 2016 @ 4:29pm
Strange wording

that the benefits given to authorities from the rule changes outweighed any potential for "unintended harm."
What about "intended harm" then? Why even say it this way? Am I reading too much into their poor excuse of an excuse?
Really, it looks like a perfect bait for paranoid trolls out there.


That One Guy (profile), Dec 1st, 2016 @ 4:33pm
But the bid to prevent the imminent changes to Rule 41 ended quickly. After Wyden spoke, Majority Whip John Cornyn (R-Texas) immediately objected to all three bills, without waiting to hear from Coons and Daines.
One person completely stopped cold any debate or discussion of a massive increase in the DOJ's power, allowing the changes to go through unopposed, not because they were voted for, but simply because they weren't voted against.
Nice to know that all it takes is a single person in the right/wrong place in order to allow the various agencies to screw the public over in new and bigger ways.


Groaker (profile), Dec 1st, 2016 @ 4:51pm
Unfortunately this technique, and others like it are nothing new. You will see more and them exercised more frequently in the coming months. This is quite possibly Comey's *quid pro quo* for the meaningless emails.

It solves the problem of the FBI committing multiple reprehensible crimes, because there is a new generic defense *ante ex post facto*. One (typically a member of upper government) may not be prosecuted for breaking a law that is currently no longer a law, no matter how heinous and blatant the crimes were.


Anonymous Coward, Dec 1st, 2016 @ 5:40pm
Seems to me that the bast way to wake these bastards up is to make sure all of their devices get caught up in a botnet sting...


Anonymous Coward, Dec 1st, 2016 @ 8:03pm
Team America: World Police. Thinking they have the right to access your devices anywhere, anytime. Isn't it great, as someone who isn't even in the US, to know that the US thinks it has that right?


Anonymous Coward, Dec 1st, 2016 @ 11:49pm
Criminal organisation

This obviously makes the FBI a criminal organisation in the rest of the world.

I'd like other countries to step up and arrest anyone associated with the FBI immediately, on grounds of belonging to a criminal organisation -- and of course, to make it very clear to the USA that they will do that.


Anonymous Coward, Dec 2nd, 2016 @ 12:41am
Your law enforcement agencies and your hilariously misnamend DoJ have proven, over and over again, they are just the biggest criminal organisation in the U.S., not in any way proponents or defenders of law or justice. THey hold themselves above it, an repeatedly shield criminals in their own ranks from the consequences of their actions. Now, the U.S. has even declared legally that any person anywhere on this world is free game for their actions. WHich means the U.S: has declared it's completely, officially OK with them that they attack us digitally and in violation of the laws we live under.

Just think about that for a minute. There is a foreign government out there that will, without hesitation, break the laws I live under and the souvereign domain of my country to attack me digitally, and openly admits to that practice and calls it right and just. That is not the position of an ally, or even a friend. That is the position of an agressor, an enemy, that respects neither me, my country or our laws.

What the fuck are we supposed to do about that? Just accept that you will do with us what you want? Sever the global internet into nation state splinters? What the fuck? The digital policies of the U.S. threaten us all, on a global scale. And there is absolutely no remedy I can see, no way for us to do anything about this. The U.S. will continue in this avenue until it has eradicated freedom of any kind, and we are helpless.


crashsuit, Dec 2nd, 2016 @ 12:49am
Re:

No need to worry, I'm sure the politicians themselves are exempt.


Anonymous Coward, Dec 2nd, 2016 @ 3:45am
Re: Re:

Politicians are not exempt from bullets to their brains.



Despite the humorous cleverness of these reader comments, I must say that I also am appalled by the way this Rule amendment was put through, and the content of it. What will be the future fate of outspoken columnists and even us humble bloggers? Suppose Trump’s personal sensitivity to criticism causes him to go after his critics digitally and perhaps legally? I agree 100% with Anonymous Coward’s comment:

“Anonymous Coward, Dec 1st, 2016 @ 2:45pm
and the constituents wont punish their representatives now or in the future by voting them out!! we get what we deserve for sitting back, thumbs up asses, brains in neutral!!”

We have been taught repeatedly and in a heavy-handed manner to accept and even praise our public officials. That isn’t the American Way, in my view, but the way of sheep. I hope something can and will be done to reverse this rule change. We need to take a hard look at how we allow changes to what I consider to be freedom to be pushed through. We have become a shockingly passive and mentally lazy citizenry, and it frightens me.



http://www.ktvz.com/news/wyden-merkley-to-doj-keep-prosecuting-hate-crimes/194031901

Wyden, Merkley to DOJ: Keep prosecuting hate crimes
Pair note rising reports, 'disturbing animosity'
By: KTVZ.COM news sources
Posted: Dec 01, 2016 06:43 PM PST
Updated: Dec 01, 2016 07:53 PM PST

Photograph -- Senators Ron Wyden, Jeff Merkley


WASHINGTON - In a letter to the Department of Justice, Sens. Ron Wyden and Jeff Merkley, D-Ore., called on the department to continue investigating all instances of reported hate crimes in the U.S. and to prosecute perpetrators of such crimes.

Wyden and Merkley specifically noted that reports of hate crimes against Muslims, Jews, African-Americans and LBGTQ individuals have risen nationwide over the last year, according to the FBI.

The senators also mentioned a “disturbing level of animosity” against minority groups throughout the recent election cycle.

“We write to express our deep concern about the harassment and intimidation of people in Oregon and across this country based on their race, religion, ethnicity, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation and other personal characteristics. We urge you to continue to investigate all instances of such behavior and to hold perpetrators accountable for any illegal actions,” Wyden and Merkley wrote.

The senators added “We will continue to fight for the rule of law in the U.S. Senate, regardless of who serves as Attorney General. We urge you to do all that you can to embolden the entire DOJ, particularly the FBI, to protect the public and ensure the fair administration of justice for all Americans.”



EXCERPT – “In a letter to the Department of Justice, Sens. Ron Wyden and Jeff Merkley, D-Ore., called on the department to continue investigating all instances of reported hate crimes in the U.S. and to prosecute perpetrators of such crimes. Wyden and Merkley specifically noted that reports of hate crimes against Muslims, Jews, African-Americans and LBGTQ individuals have risen nationwide over the last year, according to the FBI. The senators also mentioned a “disturbing level of animosity” against minority groups throughout the recent election cycle. . . . . We urge you to do all that you can to embolden the entire DOJ, particularly the FBI, to protect the public and ensure the fair administration of justice for all Americans.”



The “political climate” has changed drastically since 9/11, the election of our very competent and honest -- but Black – President Obama, and now the rhetoric of Donald Trump. The South and other “conservative” parts of the country have remained deeply hostile to the protection of human rights when they don’t happen to be White Heterosexual Christian Rights. Some of it is simply that certain mentally/emotionally unbalanced or underdeveloped people hate any and all restraints on their “liberty.” I say “underdeveloped” not to be elitist, but because those who have not been frequently enough exposed to people and IDEAS with differences from their views, race, etc. tend to have hostility on those grounds. That tends to occur more in rural and isolated areas, as there are poor roads, little business and lower populations in those places. People don’t usually go there to get an education or to get a better job, but to find a “quiet” place to live. Well, they are usually “quiet,” and beautiful also, but I still prefer a city with one or more local colleges, good living areas, and good jobs.

The mindset that has erupted like a volcano in the last 15 years or so is “group think” at its’ worst. Such people often call politeness and gentleness by the pejorative term “political correctness,” and they reserve the right unto themselves to take vengeance verbally and physically against all who don’t follow their own personal rules about life. In the 1950s the Supreme Court admitted certain kinds of free speech which happens to be a clear psychological threat to our society as a whole, to be allowed under the Constitution, as long as it is not very specifically “advocating the overthrow of the US government” or “fighting words.” Pornography was such a discussion. As a result of that we now have an Internet full of Kiddie Porn and Violent Sex. Nobody can convince me that these things are not deeply harmful, not because it goes against Biblical teaching, but because the human mind is fragile and such things do increase perversity among mentally “slow,” “weak” or already disturbed people. What we haven’t wanted to acknowledge is that a much higher percentage of Americans fit into those categories than anyone used to believe.

We are not the eminently superior population that we consider ourselves to be. The two reasons for that which come to my mind right now are that, first, we have not educated our Working Class and poor people nearly well enough to allow them to REASON as well as they should be able to, and when we see SYMPTOMS of mental illness such as withdrawing, refusing to talk freely, refusing to make eye contact, sexual or violent proclivities, profound or sudden religious changes, etc. tend to be blamed on “addictions,” “sin,” a bad crowd, “cowardice,” “laziness,” “a bad seed,” or anything else other than Mental Illness, because that is still to this day the most socially embarrassing thing that is found among Americans. Second to that might be venereal disease.

Part of the reason for that is the simple fact that our overly powerful Business community has dragged the concept that the wealthier we are, the “better” we are, into the public mainstream. It has almost totally overwhelmed the humility and compassion that Jesus taught. Nowadays we read the Bible, but ignore its’ core message. I hate to be like many old people, harking back to the halcyon days of my young years, but when I was young Christianity as a Right Wing Political movement rather than a religion of kindness and love hadn’t come on the scene yet, at least among us “common folk.” As a result, mental confusions like the so-called “prosperity Gospel” has made many of us nowadays think that to abuse someone because we disagree, disapprove, or just simply because we want to, is our right if we can get away with it.

Most sex criminals and criminals in general aren’t very stable or intelligent people to begin with, and telling them in hundreds of subtle and not so subtle ways that all they need to do to be high quality members of the human race is to have the right skin color and get a 10 room house, a sports car, a big diamond, several big screen TVs, and of course a membership at a prestigious social club. Such people too often see no problem with social and legal abuse of others for personal weaknesses or mere differences. Of that, I am sure, so why allow things that encourage hatred and violence, like “hate speech?” The Right has frequently called that idea “UnAmerican,” and a constraint on their right to “Free Speech.” That is a very serious mistake.

That means that no political, religious, or social group may be legally deterred from arousing and fostering hatred. You see, it isn’t just the speech itself, but the psychological effect on the sheep-like mind of our modern society. As we have allowed our population to remain largely uneducated, both Whites and Blacks; while at the same time for us to be pumped full of false patriotism from the Right, we are rapidly becoming a rogue state like Nazi Germany or South Africa. The patriotism from my youth didn’t require that all Muslims from certain countries should be blocked from stepping foot in the US, much less from becoming residents or citizens. We Americans proudly called ourselves the “Melting Pot.” Now we are literally afraid of any admixture with “inferiors.” Does that sound like anybody from the past to you?




http://www.cbsnews.com/news/michael-slager-trial-jury-deadlock-walter-scott-case/

Michael Slager trial: Jury announces deadlock; judge sends them back to work
By CRIMESIDER STAFF CBS/AP
December 2, 2016, 2:35 PM

Photograph -- Former North Charleston police officer Michael Slager testifies during his murder trial at the Charleston County court in Charleston, S.C., Tuesday, Nov. 29, 2016. GRACE BEAHM, AP

Play VIDEO -- South Carolina shooting video is telling evidence in cop's murder charge



CHARLESTON, S.C. – A jury has announced they are unable to reach a unanimous verdict in the trial of a former South Carolina cop accused of murder in the fatal shooting of a black man, but a judge has ordered them to continue deliberations.

Michael Slager, who is white, is charged in the death of 50-year-old Walter Scott, who was shot five times in the back in April 2015 as he fled a traffic stop after his 1990 Mercedes was pulled for a broken taillight. A bystander’s cellphone video of the shooting shocked the nation.

Slager testified that he feared for his life when he said Scott wrestled with him, got control of his Taser and pointed it at him.

The 12-member jury - comprised of 11 white members and one African-American - heard testimony from 55 witnesses during the month-long trial.

The jury is allowed to consider a lesser charge of voluntary manslaughter, which is shooting someone in the heat of passion. A murder conviction, which requires the jury to agree that Slager had malice toward Scott, carries a sentence of 30 years to life.

Voluntary manslaughter carries a sentence of from two to 30 years.

On Thursday, the jurors asked for transcripts of key testimony and wondered about the difference between passion and fear. Judge Clifton Newman told the jurors Friday morning that the court could not instruct them, saying it’s an issue jurors must decide.

At around 1:00 p.m., the jury asked for the testimony of Feidin Santana, the man who recorded the cellphone video of the shooting. Newman said he would be willing to re-play Santana’s statement to the court.

Shortly after requesting the testimony, the jury again sent a note to the judge, this time saying, “It is clear that jurors will not be able to reach a consensus.”

Newman ordered them to continue deliberating.

“It isn’t always easy for even two people to agree, so when 12 people must agree, it becomes even more difficult,” Newman said.

However, the judge said the jurors have a “duty” to make every effort to reach a unanimous verdict.

While he said each juror has a right to their own opinion and cautioned against giving up firmly held beliefs, he said “you should carefully consider and respect the opinions of everyone and re-evaluate your positions for reasonableness, correctness and impartiality.”

Newman ordered jurors to “lay aside all outside matters and re-examine the questions before you based on the law and the evidence in this case.”

The jury was handed the case Wednesday evening.



I remember the video from this shooting very well. The officer stood like a man at a shooting gallery trying to win a prize, and simply drilled Scott with bullets in his back, showing no emotion at all. It was shocking. There are some people who become less than fully human when they receive police and military training. There are some who have never had much empathy for anyone or any creature in their lives, and they may be drawn to violent work. If they’re a serial killer at heart, this is their ideal job. Likewise, people who are drawn to having sexual activity with children and very young people, will all too often end up in teaching. In both professions, we need to SELECT employees much more carefully, in addition to training them well. This officer claimed in court that Scott wrestled him for his stun gun, but the video didn’t show that, and unfortunately, the officer obviously wasn’t wearing a body cam either. Those things don’t give me a good feeling about Slager, nor the fact that he used that standard cop mantra, “I feared for my life.” Can’t they come up with something more original?

About training, though, we also need to change our expectations of a good officer. The deep rift between police and the communities needs to be mended with trustworthy, trusting, fair, respectful relations on a simple human level, besides that inevitable day when a cop has to investigate or prevent a crime in a poor or minority neighborhood. If the people in that community are already ones’ enemies, that can’t be a good thing. They also need more and better training on things like dealing with the mentally ill or drug-impaired citizens as well. Many of the calls they receive are about the mentally ill. Shooting them immediately may be a simple solution to the problem, but it is deeply unjust. The mentally ill can usually be treated successfully nowadays with the proper drugs and talk therapy. In my opinion an ambulance should automatically be sent along with an officer if the caller has stated that there is a mentally disturbed person in the situation. In two such stories, it was mentioned in the article that the officer had a mental health social worker with him, to talk to the person. That’s very good, but I think the officer also should have more generalized human interaction training than they usually seem to have, just in case they need it.

Being able to communicate verbally is actually more important than being able to shoot straight. Finally, and above all, officers need training on race and poverty. Perceived status differences are the root of most abusive interactions. Whether an officer feels “respect” for a citizen or not, he should nonetheless treat him with humanity. Respect isn’t nearly so much a matter of what we think or feel about one another, but about how a decent human should relate to another, perhaps especially if that person has a lesser status in the world.

If a police officer can retain his or her basic humanity, then I fully back him. If not, I think he should be treated as a criminal when he kills without cause or mercy, or at the very least FIRED with no recommendation to another police department. Even without a history of misbehavior, any officer should be observed at least periodically by his superior officers when performing his job. The superior officers need to know what is actually happening on the streets. If there is a story of abusiveness or other corruption on a police officer, that should be investigated in depth rather than simply assumed to be harmless. Remember, a person when faced with possible prison time will be more likely to lie about his role in the problem than trust in the truth.

One final comment on most of these shootings. It is clear to me that a man who jumps out of his car and runs is NOT a “perpetrator” until he commits a crime, and running from a policeman is not in itself a crime, especially one that will, in a court of law, receive the death penalty. Most of those patrol officers are men, so the “testosterone” issue is part of it, I’m sure. I have also seen quotations several times of a policeman calling his job a “war.” To that, I have only one thing to say. No. We are a peaceful nation and we are not at war here at home. Thinking of the matter from that viewpoint is one of the worst parts of the problem. Assumptions and attitudes are key.

That’s because doing the job well is critical to our being a just and moral society, and “the streets” are full of temptation, from taking bribes or sexual misbehavior to simply degenerating into an ever more cynical and therefore evil person as time passes. A certain level of moral rectitude is basic to having a good police force and maintaining “law and order” in the correct way, by which I mean a way that will win more friends than enemies. Believe me, if the citizens felt that they could TRUST the police as we once did when I was young, there would be no race war in our streets here, and those lone wolf cop killers would be truly rare. Sometimes if we want a good result we have to modify how we do things.