Showing posts with label Senate. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Senate. Show all posts

March 24, 2017

Senate Votes to Abolish Rules So ISP’s Could Sell Your Info Without Asking



The Senate took the first step Thursday toward blocking rules that would restrict how some big tech companies share and sell your personal data, a prospect that digital activists said would be a huge loss for online privacy. 
On a party-line vote of 50-48, the Senate passed a joint resolution that would bar the Federal Communications Commission from enforcing rules it approved last year — when it was under Democratic control — that sought to ban internet service providers like cable and cellphone companies from selling your data without your consent. 
IMAGE: Cellphone
AP
The vote has little immediate impact: The measure would have to pass the House and be signed by President Donald Trump before it could become law. No timetable for House action has been set. In the meantime, the FCC rules that the measure would overturn aren't scheduled to go into effect until December. 
If it becomes law, the measure, in effect, would preserve a two-track regulatory system that treats ISPs — the companies that connect you to the internet, which are overseen by the FCC — differently from web companies like Google and Facebook, which are regulated by the Federal Trade Commission. 
The rules passed last year by the Democratic majority on the FCC would require ISPs to ask you explicitly to "opt in" to letting them share personal information. On web-based ad networks, data sharing is usually turned on by default and you have to dig through menus and setting and opt out of it. 
Here's why that's important: Just by themselves, Google and Facebook take in 54 percent to 60 percent of all U.S. digital ad revenue, depending on who's doing the counting. 
More tellingly, Google and Facebook snapped up 90 percent of all new online ad spending in the first half of 2016, the last period for which complete figures are available, according to data compiled by PricewaterhouseCoopers U.S. for the Internet Advertising Bureau. 
That leaves everybody else to fight it out for the remaining 10 percent of new ad spending. And the big cable and phone companies said the Senate vote was a step toward keeping that tiny playing field somewhat level. 
CTIA, formerly the Cellular Telecommunications and Internet Association, applauded the measure's sponsors Thursday for "seeking a common-sense and harmonized approach to protecting Americans' privacy." 
"Wireless carriers are committed to safeguarding consumer privacy, and we support regulatory clarity and uniformity across our digital economy," it said in a statement
 Despite Erasing, Personal Data Likely Remains on Devices2:20
Ajit Pai, the new chairman of the newly Republican-led FCC, also welcomed the Senate vote, telling reporters afterward: "My own core goal is to make sure that [the] uniform expectation of privacy is vindicated through the use of a regulatory framework that establishes a more level playing field." 
But advocates for online privacy slammed the vote. 
Neema Singh Guliani, a legislative counsel specializing in surveillance and privacy issues for the American Civil Liberties Union, said the Senate was content to "sacrifice the privacy rights of Americans in the interest of protecting the profits of major internet companies, including Comcast, AT&T and Verizon." 
(NBC News is a division of NBCUniversal, which is owned by Comcast Corp., the nation's largest cable provider.) 
Others noted that the measure would also bar the FCC from advancing "substantially similar" rules in the future, which Kate Tummarello, a policy analyst for the nonprofit Electronic Frontier Foundation, said "would be a crushing loss for online privacy." 
"ISPs act as gatekeepers to the Internet, giving them incredible access to records of what you do online," Tummarello said. "They shouldn't be able to profit off of the information about what you search for, read about, purchase and more without your consent." 
They were joined by Mignon Clyburn, the only Democratic member of the FCC, who said the Senate measure would "frustrate the FCC's future efforts to protect the privacy of voice and broadband customers." 
The vote, she said, opens up “a massive gap in consumer protection law.

January 25, 2017

Sen(D) Markey Introduces Legislation to Have Trump Not be First to Use Nukes








Washington (January 24, 2017) – Today, Senator Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.) and Congressman Ted W. Lieu (CA-33) and introduced the Restricting First Use of Nuclear Weapons Act of 2017. This legislation would prohibit the President from launching a nuclear first strike without a declaration of war by Congress. The crucial issue of nuclear “first use” is more urgent than ever now that President Donald Trump has the power to launch a nuclear war at a moment’s notice.
“Nuclear war poses the gravest risk to human survival,” said Senator Markey. “Yet, President Trump has suggested that he would consider launching nuclear attacks against terrorists. Unfortunately, by maintaining the option of using nuclear weapons first in a conflict, U.S. policy provides him with that power. In a crisis with another nuclear-armed country, this policy drastically increases the risk of unintended nuclear escalation. Neither President Trump, nor any other president, should be allowed to use nuclear weapons except in response to a nuclear attack. By restricting the first use of nuclear weapons, this legislation enshrines that simple principle into law. I thank Rep. Lieu for his partnership on this common-sense bill during this critical time in our nation’s history.”
“It is a frightening reality that the U.S. now has a Commander-in-Chief who has demonstrated ignorance of the nuclear triad, stated his desire to be ‘unpredictable’ with nuclear weapons, and as President-elect was making sweeping statements about U.S. nuclear policy over Twitter,” said Rep. Lieu. “Congress must act to preserve global stability by restricting the circumstances under which the U.S. would be the first nation to use a nuclear weapon. Our Founders created a system of checks and balances, and it is essential for that standard to be applied to the potentially civilization-ending threat of nuclear war. I am proud to introduce the Restricting First Use of Nuclear Weapons Act of 2017 with Sen. Markey to realign our nation’s nuclear weapons launch policy with the Constitution and work towards a safer world.”
A copy of the legislation can be found HERE.

markey.senate.gov

March 15, 2014

Hot Mic Catches Lindsey Graham Offering John Kerry 'Help' With John Boehner






Hot Mic Catches Lindsey Graham Offering John Kerry 'Help' With John Boehner

  

August 8, 2013

Come Out Lindsay Graham the Waters Are Warm


Gay GOP Hypocrites



It’s been my experience that those that take the time and effort and sometimes the chance to call other people names, particularly names that have to do with one sexuality have a Kok in the ring. Be that as it may I was surprised when femme in words and in mannerisms the Senator from South Carolina Lindsay Graham as resorted to calling his contender for the job Nance Mace’s a ’Nancy boy" which is an offensive slang in the South meaning “effeminate men.”

May be he was trying to say that she looks masculine to him, the thing is that he looks Femme to most of us.  Why does an effeminate men calls a woman a Nancy boy? Well, I remember when I was in the closet I used to call attention to effeminate men and make jokes about gays only to reflect attention away from me. Why would he be making fun of his own kind? The thing is we know the kind Lindsay Graham is and is not just me or people like me. This is a quote from the tea party about him:


At a Tea Party rally in 2010, ALITPAC leader William Gheen told the crowd homosexuality is "a secret that Lindsey Graham has," further stating, "I hope this secret isn’t being used as leverage over Senator Graham, so today I think Senator Graham, you need to come forward and tell people about your alternative lifestyle and your homosexuality.”
 This new twist and turn of Lindsay is not going to go his swinging way. Below is what Edge Boston wrote about this marvelous situation. I could not be happier that he is decided or something inside of him is decided to come out little by little. Why Should he come Out? He should come out because he has been a hypocrite in dealing with issues dealing with gays such as DOMA, DADT, gay marriage, AIDS funding and many other things. These are things that we would never tolerate from a gay politician to be hurting us at every opportunity.
People that are in the closet, not quietly but working against their fellow human beings and sexual partners need to be exposed for what they are. 

 Tea Party:


The South Carolina GOP Senate primary just got a whole lot more interesting. Incumbent Lindsey Graham has been guarding against an attack from the right wing of the party because he’s insufficiently delusional to satisfy the base. (He’s still a crank.) What he may not have prepared for was an attack on his heterosexual creds. One of his primary opponents, Nancy Mace, retweeted a tweet from a Florida supporter that included the sentiment “Nancy Mace vs Nancy boy Graham,” presumably because she agreed with it.
Mace deleted the tweet after ten minutes, apparently unaware that nothing ever disappears from the internet. Her campaign did not respond to media requests for comment. Mace, the first female graduate from the Citadel military academy, is a Tea Party favorite who has criticized Graham for being insufficiently conservative and, now, insufficiently straight.
The tweet raises a delicate issue for Graham, who has long been dogged by gay rumorsBloggers regularly refer to him as Huckleberry Closetcase. Graham, who has never married, keeps having to deny that he is gay to a variety of media sources, including GQ (not exactly the straightest magazine on the newsstand) and The New York Times. Tea Party activists, who have the same kind of weakness for conspiracy theories that closeted Republican Senators have for bathroom sex, have alleged that Graham is nice to the Obama administration (i.e., he acknowledges Obama is president) only because he’s being blackmailed by the Kenyan Socialist cabal that knows he is gay.
Needless to say, Graham is unalterably opposed to anything gay, at least in legislative terms. He was against including protections for same-sex bi-national couples in immigration reform, opposes marriage equality, and has a 15% rating from the Human Rights Campaign, which is about 30 percentage points too high for the Tea Party’s taste.
The South Carolina primary is not until June 10, 2014. Given that Mace just launched her campaign a few days ago, it promises to be an interesting ten months.

Come out Lindsay you Nancy boy, the waters are warm now!

Adam Gonzalez

April 30, 2013

Why Does The GOP Fiscal Hawks Want to Give The Army Expensive Tanks THEY Don’t WANT??

 Why are These Hawks willing to cut almost anything as long as it doesn’t inconvenience them. SS, Medicare , Food Stamps, Libraries closing, Hospitals..No end..and no budget. But since they know more than the army about what they know, they want to shove it down their throats. I ask why but is rhetorical. I know why. These companies that make this equipment, the weapons complex production machine (sits on private hands) they already paid these misfits Senators and few Representatives already. They have been lunched, massaged, entertain, sexed and put to bed How many times? Their houses already nicely built with what money and if any loans? No interest. They need to come up with their side of the bargain and Produce.  That’s what you do when you have been bribed. No for the country, yes for the Pentagon weapons complex. So the Army…well they are paid to fight and die not to think. This is for the senators in those committes’  to do their pocket duty senators. Which senators? Google it or Bing it….names is no prob.why, are, gop, deficit, hawks, telling, the, army, to, buy, tank, upgrades, they, dont, want?,

Why Are GOP Deficit Hawks Telling the Army to Buy Tank Upgrades
 They Dont Want 


 There is a $436 million dollar program that senior Army officials have repeatedly said they do not want to proceed and would make an excellent measure for cuts or payments for other services. The problem? Congress refuses to listen and is insisting they spend this money that they do not want.
As talks of how to cut spending and government waste have become the normal modus operandi of debate on Capitol Hill, a curious little show is playing out within the halls of power in Washington that provides a demonstration of the difference between rhetoric and the reality of attempts to cut spending.
The program in question is an upgrade to the M1 Abrams main battle tank. General Raymond Odierno, a 37-year Army veteran, told the Associated Press, "If we had our choice, we would use that money in a different way." Nearly two-thirds of the Abrams tank fleet has already been upgraded and the Army has signaled that future upgrades to the fleet are not needed. The current plan is to allow the current tank fleet to suffice until a new tank is developed and production starts around 2017.
"The Army is on record saying we do not require any additional M1A2s," said Davis Welch, deputy director of the Army Budget Office.
Yet two of Congress's biggest deficit hawks, Senator Rob Portman (R-Ohio) and Representative Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), are champions of the measure. They claim that they have a better view on defense issues then the Department of Defense and that stopping the project would result in difficulty restarting the supply line. Jordan said if "it was not in the best interests of the national defense for the United States of America, then you would not see me supporting it like we do."
Portman claimed, "That supply chain is going to be much more costly and much more inefficient to create if you mothball the plant." 
Does the Depart of Defense know best with regards of identifying wasteful defense spending, or are they being too hasty, as many in Congress think?
Let us know on Twitter at @policymic or in the comments below.

Featured Posts

Human Rights Campaign Testifies Against Judge Neil Gorsuch

LGBTQ groups have come out in strong opposition to the nomination of Neil Gorsuch as U.S. Supreme Court Justice, ar...