Atlantic Monthly Contributors's Blog, page 969

This Church Choir Would Like You to 'Keep Yo Business Off of Facebook'

We realize there's only so much time one can spend in a day watching new trailers, viral video clips, and shaky cellphone footage of people arguing on live television. This is why, every day, The Atlantic Wire highlights the videos that truly earn your five minutes (or less) of attention. Today:

This church choir has the right idea: keep your business off of Facebook. Seriously. 

Kookaburras are amazing birds. Kinda annoying, yes. But pretty amazing: 

Is this the first crowdsurf Price is Right history?  Why has this not been done before?

And finally... karate, go home. You are drunk: 

       

A Winter Olympics Boycott Is Not the Answer to Russia's Anti-Gay Laws

The upcoming Winter Olympics has put Russia's anti-gay laws in the center of the coverage of the games. The best way to get more attention is for this conversation to keep going all the way through next February, not by boycotting the games.

In the latest development, a spokesperson for the United States Olympic Committee clarified an earlier statement by his CEO that American athletes were expected to comply with local laws during the Olympics. The clarification was that Russia's law, which makes the expression of homosexual "propaganda" illegal, is "inconsistent with fundamental Olympic principles." Yet, that won't stop the U.S. from sending its athletes or advising them to "respect the laws of the host country." In other words, while U.S. Olympics doesn't approve of Russia's anti-gay laws, it's not condoning any civil disobedience against them.

But one thing we can do is expose Russians to more gay people and prove that they just regular people. Or extraordinary athletes. What could be more powerful ("propaganda" even?) than for a gay athlete (or straight supporter, like Nick Symmonds) to win a medal, shake the hand of a Russian Olympic official, and walk away with their head held high? We might even see a LGBT version of the famous 1968 "Black Power" salute. Those kind of gestures can be the most important of all, especially in a country that, in the words of one of its most famous athletes, pole vaulter Yelena Isinbayeva, considers itself "like normal, standard people."

The New Republic's Julia Ioffe — who in case you haven't heard, actually knows a few things about Russia — has the clearest and most succinct explanation for why a boycott of the Sochi Games is a bad idea: It simply won't help. You can't change Russian (or any country's) minds by scolding them from a distance. We boycotted an Olympics in Moscow 33 years ago, and they boycotted the Games in Los Angeles four years later, and most (objective) observers would probably agree that the Games and the athletes were worse off for it. (Even if it allowed to United States to completely dominate the podium in 1984.) But, more importantly, in the realm of global politics, it changed absolutely nothing.

The more that foreigners try to tell a country what to do, the more likely that country is to keep doing what you don't like. (See: Iran, North Korea, etc.) And they will be even more defiant and angry about than before, America included. Russian attitudes are deplorable, but that's a problem Russia will have to solve on its own.

It is a fair argument to say that a boycott is more about standing up for our principles than changing theirs. But, you might say that bringing these countries together, even (or especially) those we disagree with, is the real Olympic principle. Iran, North Korea, Qatar, Uganda, China: They all get to participate despite having laws and behaving in ways that a lot of people find deplorable. The only organization more stubborn than the Russian government might be the International Olympic Committee. But their Games still bring people together and make the world a little smaller. It won't change everyone or everything, but it just might help more than it hurts.

       

Egypt Braces for Friday's 'Day of Rage'

The Islamist-based supporters of former Egyptian president Mohamed Morsi have called for a "day of anger" on Friday after over 600 people were killed and thousands were injured in a violent military crackdown that began on Wednesday. And with the military already promising to use lethal force in response to anything interpreted as an "attack" on the police or on buildings, many are bracing for what seems to be a continuation of the bloodshed. Dozens of marches will move towards Ramsis square in Cairo tomorrow in a coordinated effort to demonstrate support for the pro-Morsi protesters.

The Muslim Brotherhood coalition of those who support the ousted government, with their leaders in jail or otherwise keeping quiet, will take to the streets again tomorrow to protest the removal of their camps after the early July uprising that led to the toppling of the government they supported. Meanwhile, pro-Morsi protesters have collected the bodies of hundreds of dead Egyptians in a mosque serving as a makeshift morgue. As the New York Times reports, pro-Morsi Egyptians are frustrated that the violent crackdown on their protests hasn't led to more popular support within their own country:

Many of those waiting outside the makeshift morgue talked of civil war. Some blamed members of Egypt’s Coptic Christian minority for supporting the military takeover. A few argued openly for a turn to violence.

“The solution might be an assassination list,” said Ahmed, 27, who like others refused to use his full name for fear of reprisals from the new authorities. “Shoot anyone in uniform. It doesn’t matter if the good is taken with the bad, because that is what happened to us last night.”

Mohamed Rasmy, a 30-year-old engineer, interrupted. “That is not the solution,” he said, insisting that Islamist leaders would re-emerge with a plan “to come together in protest.” Despite the apparently wide support for the police action by the private news media and much of Cairo, he argued that the bloodshed was now turning the rest of the public against the military-appointed government.

As the Times notes, most of Cairo, along with the Egyptian press, seem to be siding with the military. But as a Cairo dispatch from The Week notes, the two sides — Islamists or the military, are something of a construction that doesn't bode well for the coming days, "The atmosphere is so polarized almost everyone here is minimizing the atrocities of one group and exaggerating those of the other." According to the AP, here's what the Egyptian press is saying about the protests and ensuing crackdown:

State-run TV and newspapers, meanwhile, are filled with commentators and other content full of anti-Brotherhood sentiment, often portraying Islamists as enemies of the people and tapping into nationalistic fervor by alleging that the Brotherhood is a violent group that is secretly enlisting foreign help against the rest of Egyptians and that views Egypt as just a part in a greater Muslim nation that transcends borders.

Meanwhile, some Islamists have burned the churches of Coptic Christians in the country, a religious minority that makes up about 10 percent of the population. Copts, along with many more moderate and liberal Egyptians have sided with the military in the current crackdown, despite the high death toll.

And even as the international community steps up their condemnation of the violence this week, the limitations of those words have been cast in a stark light in recent days. President Obama cancelled a planned joint military exercise with Egypt (no word yet on weather he'll cancel military aid or not), and the U.N. called for "maximum restraint" in the country going forward. But if the past two days are any indication, words from the international community are barely registering — or relevant — on Cairo's streets as the clashes continue.

       

Snowden: Dad's Legal Team 'Misled' Journalists

Edward Snowden isn't happy with a series of reports detailing his "situation" in Russia, according to a statement the NSA whistleblower released to the Huffington Post on Thursday evening.  "News organizations seeking information regarding my current situation have...been misled by individuals associated with my father into printing false claims about my situation," Snowden wrote.

Snowden specifically says that his dad Lon Snowden, lawyer Bruce Fein, and Fein's wife and spokeswoman Mattie Fein don't speak for him. Lon Snowden announced plans to travel to see his son last weekend on ABC's This Week, where he said the following about a possible return to the U.S. for his son: "As a father I want my son to come home if I believe that the justice system … is going to be applied correctly."

[image error]video platformvideo managementvideo solutionsvideo player

As the Huffington Post notes, Mattie Fein was the source for a story at the Wall Street Journal indicating that journalist Glenn Greenwald was shopping around an interview for a hefty sum. Meanwhile, Bruce Fein was the subject of a Washington Post profile this week that portrayed the D.C. based lawyer as seeking, and eager for, the spotlight — "[he] is having the time of his life," the paper writes — generated by the Snowden story. Of Snowden himself, Fein said:

“If government by the consent of the governed means you get to know what your government is doing in terms of policy — though not necessarily how you’re deploying your troops on the ground because that could aid the enemy” — then “in my view, even if [PRISM] was a spectacular success, we the people get to decide whether we think success is worth the invasion [of privacy] or the crushing of the right to be left alone. Maybe we will, and maybe we won’t. But we the people are sovereign.”

Here's Snowden's full statement:

It has come to my attention that news organizations seeking information regarding my current situation have, due to the difficulty in contacting me directly, been misled by individuals associated with my father into printing false claims about my situation.

I would like to correct the record: I've been fortunate to have legal advice from an international team of some of the finest lawyers in the world, and to work with journalists whose integrity and courage are beyond question. There is no conflict amongst myself and any of the individuals or organizations with whom I have been involved.

Neither my father, his lawyer Bruce Fein, nor his wife Mattie Fein represent me in any way. None of them have been or are involved in my current situation, and this will not change in the future. I ask journalists to understand that they do not possess any special knowledge regarding my situation or future plans, and not to exploit the tragic vacuum of my father's emotional compromise for the sake of tabloid news.

Thank you.

       

Leaked NSA Audit Found Agency Broke Privacy Rules 'Thousands' of Times

According to two major scoops by the Washington Post, the NSA's own audit found thousands of instances in which the agency broke existing privacy laws, while the man in charge of the secretive FISC court in charge of policing American spying programs admits that their ability to actually do so is limited. The stories address the legality of the surveillance and data collection programs we're learning more and more about thanks to the leaks by whistleblower Edward Snowden, who was also the source for the internal audit cited in their report. "Most of the infractions involve unauthorized surveillance of Americans or foreign intelligence targets in the United States," the Post's Barton Gellman writes.

That's going to make the following quote from President Obama, from his Friday news conference, read kind of awkwardly (emphasis ours):

And if you look at the reports -- even the disclosures that Mr. Snowden has put forward -- all the stories that have been written, what you’re not reading about is the government actually abusing these programs and listening in on people’s phone calls or inappropriately reading people’s emails. What you're hearing about is the prospect that these could be abused. Now, part of the reason they’re not abused is because these checks are in place, and those abuses would be against the law and would be against the orders of the FISC.

The audit, dated in May 2012 and spanning the period of about one year, found 2,776 cases of "unauthorized collection, storage, access to or distribution of legally protected communications," most of which were unintentional. The audit only includes incidences from the NSA headquarters at Fort Meade, and other facilities around Washington.

The instances of broken privacy laws include the NSA's failure to report an "unintentional" surveillance of a "large number" of calls when a programming area resulted in the agency zeroing in on the D.C. area 202 area code, instead of on the intended target in Egypt (international country code 20). They also include improper access to information on about 3,000 Americans and green card holders, and a violation of a court order. Foreshadowing the Post's story on the FISC response to the NSA's own audit, the Post explains that the agency has gone ahead with new programs without running them by the court first:

In another case, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which has authority over some NSA operations, did not learn about a new collection method until it had been in operation for many months. The court ruled it unconstitutional.

But this isn't the first we've seen of references to the NSA overstepping its own confines of oversight. A series of incidences in 2009 (see the bottom of page four), according to documents recently declassified by the Director of National Intelligence led to an increase in oversight. The Post notes that the 2009 events led to a "dramatic" increase in staff working on NSA compliance. But according to the audit, those incidences increased in rate between 2011 and 2012. So what's going on? In a statement to the post, the current FISC chief U.S. District Judge Reggie Walton, said the following:

“The FISC is forced to rely upon the accuracy of the information that is provided to the Court. The FISC does not have the capacity to investigate issues of noncompliance, and in that respect the FISC is in the same position as any other court when it comes to enforcing [government] compliance with its orders.”

There's also a document, published by the Post, that seems to show NSA analysts how to avoid giving away too much information to their "overseers."

The twin reports come just about a week after President Obama announced that he would tweak the NSA's surveillance programs in the wake of increasing public criticism of the government's data collection policies. While some are downplaying the Post's report:

These are management errors, not the stuff of a police state. Perspective, please

— davidfrum (@davidfrum) August 16, 2013

The paper did grab an interesting reaction from Dianne Feinstein, one of the biggest defenders of the NSA programs in the wake of Snowden's leaks:

Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), who did not receive a copy of the 2012 audit until The Post asked her staff about it, said in a statement late Thursday that the committee “can and should do more to independently verify that NSA’s operations are appropriate, and its reports of compliance incidents are accurate.”

If you're wondering what the NSA had to say about the latest leaks, the Post has helpfully published all of their statements about the story. That includes a note indicating that NSA director of compliance John DeLong gave a 90-minute interview to the Post, only to have the White House take the entire thing off the record after the fact.

       

Howard Dean Is Going to Iowa

Howard Dean will go to Iowa later this month, prompting some to wonder if he's going to join Joe Biden in a competition to lose the 2016 democratic nomination for president to Hillary Clinton. While it's science fact that any time a politician travels to Iowa this year, someone adds 2016 to the end of his or her name, Dean's visit is bringing up memories of 2004.

As a reminder, here's the last famous thing Dean did in Iowa:

Dean is apparently "open" to another shot at the campaign trail, but the former Vermont governor's trip will focus on winning House and Senate seats for Democrats. The New York Times, who first reported Dean's trip, notes that his speech is part of the “Purple to Blue” campaign that focuses on congressional victories. But aides for Dean's Democracy for America can't seem to stop dropping hints that the speech indicates something bigger: "This isn’t the last you’ll be hearing of Dean and Democracy for America in Iowa leading up to 2016,” one aide told the Times. Politico's unnamed source described Dean's ambitions thusly:

"He’s also going to spend time talking about the progressive values that…any candidate who runs in 2016 is going to have to have and is going to have to show that they are fighting for..So in addition to talking about the ‘Purple to Blue’ program and what that means and how that focus on state house races can change and empower progressive Democrats across the country, he definitely will be talking about national subjects as well.”

Dean's said a few months ago that his presidential ambitions depend on whether he's "satisfied" with the other candidates in the field. And his opinion on Clinton is mixed: Dean thinks the potential candidate would prompt a challenge from a more progressive candidate.

       

Wyden Considered Blowing the Whistle on the NSA from the Senate Floor

Sen. Ron Wyden of Oregon, one of the most vocal critics of the NSA's surveillance infrastructure, revealed in an interview to Rolling Stone that he considered, however briefly, publicly exposing details of those programs from the Senate floor.

That response came after Wyden was asked about his now-famous exchange with Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, an exchange in which Clapper denied that the government collected data on citizens. Wyden, who'd given Clapper the question in advance, took action immediately afterward.

When the Director gave an inaccurate answer to the question, I had my staff call his office later on a secure line and urge them to amend his response. They decided to let his inaccurate answer stand on the public record, until about a month after the Snowden disclosures. Even then, they started off trying to defend his answer, before finally admitting publicly that it had been inaccurate.

(Clapper eventually settled on a response he was happy with.)

So why, Rolling Stone asked, didn't he speak up publicly before the Snowden leaks? After all, as we've noted, members of Congress are immune from prosecution for anything they say from the floor of the chamber.

A lot of people have just said to me, "Well, you feel so strongly about [these issues] — when you knew this, why didn't you just go to the floor of the United States Senate and just, you know, read it all [into the record]?" And, of course, anybody who does this kind of work thinks a lot about that. You think about it all the time. I can see why plenty of people would criticize me — progressives and others.

That sentiment was echoed by Wyden's former deputy chief of staff, Jennifer Hoelzer. In a post at TechDirt, Hoelzer lamented that even as a member of Wyden's staff she wasn't privy to the classified details of the programs the senator opposed. "[D]uring my tenure in Wyden's office," she writes, "I probably spent in upwards of 1,000 hours trying to help my boss raise concerns about programs that he couldn't even tell me about."

Now that Wyden can talk about the programs — he is.

Hat-tip: The Hill.

       

Now We Know That Snowden Stole Files Before Booz Allen

While much of the speculation surrounding NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden's actions has focused on his flight from the U.S. and his asylum bid in Russia, we're also learning a bit more today about how (or rather, when) he collected the leaked documents in the first place. Reuters, citing anonymous U.S. officials, reports that Snowden began accessing the documents back in April of 2012, earlier than previously confirmed. At the time, he was working for Dell.

But Snowden's time at Dell was, for all intents and purposes, much like his time at Booz Allen Hamilton, the company that's taken much of the reputational flack for being the institution that employed the leaker. At Dell, Snowden worked as a contractor for the NSA, too, presumably for Dell-owned Perot Systems. The Atlantic Wire's Philip Bump has pointed out that Snowden probably took documents from the NSA before his time at Booz Allen, despite the prevailing narrative that the contractor took a job with the company specifically to steal secrets. For one thing, Snowden's time with Dell coincides with his increasing dissatisfaction with the state of the U.S. security and surveillance industry. Reuters has some details on what he reportedly took early on:

Snowden downloaded information while employed by Dell about eavesdropping programs run by the NSA and Britain's Government Communications Headquarters, and left an electronic footprint indicating when he accessed the documents, said the sources, speaking on condition of anonymity.

David Frink, a spokesman for Round Rock, Texas-based Dell, declined to comment on any aspect of Snowden's employment with the company, saying Dell's "customer" - presumably the NSA - had asked Dell not to talk publicly about him.

The fact that Snowden collected documents before his few months at Booz Allen shouldn't be surprising — he's had access to it for years. Before starting work as an NSA contractor in 2009, Snowden worked for the CIA. So why, then, did Snowden seemingly admit to taking the Booz Allen job specifically to take the files? “My position with Booz Allen Hamilton granted me access to lists of machines all over the world the NSA hacked,” he said in June. As the Atlantic Wire has previously speculated, it's possible that his most recent contracting position provided him with documents he wanted that he, for one reason or another, couldn't get from Dell.

       

How Obama's Pick for Fed Chair Became Obama's Sexism Test

The "race" for the next Federal Reserve chair has, in a way, turned into a test of the White House's openness to women. It's the second time that's happened this year. Though Obama won the women's vote, and Democrats campaigned against a Republican "war on women," by January the president was facing criticism his cabinet was getting too white and too male. A widely-circulated photo showed the Oval Office packed with 10 male advisers, with only the leg of a single female aide visible. For the last few weeks, the same kind of controversy has been brewing over who will be the next Fed chair.

Among people who talk about these things, the field's been narrowed down to two candidates: former Treasury Secretary and National Economic Council chairman Larry Summers and current Fed vice chairwoman Janet Yellen. Yellen would be the first woman to lead the Fed, if President Obama decides to pick her. A lot of people think he should. 

The case for Yellen: Economists, according to two new polls, think she's the best choice for the job. A comprehensive Wall Street Journal study showed that of 14 Fed policy makers, Yellen made the most accurate financial predictions between 2009 and 2012. The case against Yellen: an assortment of sexist cliches. Summers wouldn't be a bad choice, necessarily. But the fact that he's gotten in trouble for sexist comments in the past doesn't help.

Bloomberg and Reuters polled economists and found that they think that Yellen is both the most likely and the best choice to lead the central bank. Bloomberg found that 53 percent of the economists polled think Yellen makes the best candidate, and 65 percent think she is the most likely choice. Only 10 percent thought Summers would make the best candidate. Similarly, Reuters found that 26 out of 39 economists polled thought Yellen is the most likely choice.

But since Fed chair discussions began, certain Washingtonians, according to Ezra Klein's report for The Washington Post, have questioned Yellen's "toughness" and "gravitas." Gravitas, according to Salon's Joan Walsh, is just a "well-known Beltway code word for 'penis.'" Others, as New York's Jonathan Chait pointed out in July, think Yellen is only a contender because liberals like that she's a woman:

Yellen, the [Wall Street] Journal concedes, "doesn't lack for professional credentials. But her cause has been taken up by the liberal diversity police as a gender issue because she'd be the first female Fed chairman."

That is a pretty remarkable passage, especially the "but." The "gender police" would argue that they support Yellen because she is so highly credentialed, not despite her qualifications. 

An editorial in the conservative New York Sun worried in July, "Are we entering the era of the gender-backed dollar?" We're not quite sure what that meant, but it wasn't flattering to Yellen or women in general. 

Obama hasn't said anything about these gender-based attacks. That would be fine, if it weren't for the fact that he made sure to defend Summers from preemptive attacks at his press conference last Friday. "I think the perception that Mr. Summers might have an inside track simply had to do with a bunch of attacks that I was hearing on Mr. Summers preemptively, which is sort of a standard Washington exercise, that I don't like." Obama added that he would "defend folks who I think have done a good job and don't deserve attacks." As Walsh points out, that line was was only talking about Summers. (Previously when he did mentioned Yellen, he called her "Mr. Yellen," which was noticed by, well, everyone). There have also been reports that Obama has been privately defending Summers to Democrats in Congress since July. It is, Walsh writes, Obama's right to nominate whomever he wishes. "But his high-profile defense of his controversial former staffer (while ignoring the slurs against Yellen) and his very public brush-back to Yellen’s congressional advocates hasn’t made his or Summers’ path any easier politically." And if Obama's going to pick Yellen, he shouldn't be the last one to speak up for her. 

Photo of President Obama at his press conference last Friday, and Fed vice chairwoman Janet Yellen in June, both via AP.

       

Everyone Loves 'Rizzoli & Isles,' Apparently

Today in show business news: TNT has a hit on its hands it seems, Jeremy Piven gets into sci-fi, and a look a star-studded new comedy. 

TNT has renewed three of its series, including the extremely popular Rizzoli & Isles. Well, at least it seems to be extremely popular when you look at its ratings. It averages 8.4 million viewers a week with DVR and On Demand factored in. That's a lotta dang viewers! That's like two Mad Mens, for cripe's sake. And yet... Has anyone actually ever seen this Rizzoli & Isles? I mean this isn't quite a Rookie Blue situation, I am aware that people are watching Rizzoli & Isles to some extent, but are you watching Rizzoli & Isles? Who is watching Rizzoli & Isles? Where do these 8.4 million people live, where are they hiding? Is it just all of Virginia watching it? Or Oregon and Louisiana combined? We may never know. But they're out there, and they're watching Rizzoli & Isles. And Major Cases and Perception, which were also renewed. What mysterious people. [Deadline]

Well this is an interesting mix. Gina Gershon, Raquel Welch, and Enrico Colantoni are all set to star in a Lifetime movie based on Donatella Versace's life. Gershon will be playing the platinum blonde fashion mogul, though it'd be way more interesting if Colantoni was playing her. Instead he's playing her late brother Gianni, while Raquel Welch plays "their Aunt Lucia." So that'll be interesting. Lotta bad Italian accents coming our way? Maybe some good Italian accents? Who knows! Either way, it's happening. Lifetime will never stop making biopics. [The Hollywood Reporter]

Jeremy Piven has been cast, very late in the game, in the Tom Cruise sci-fi actioner Edge of Tomorrow (it used to have the better/worse title All You Needs Is Kill). Filming had wrapped, but they've gone back to film additional scenes and Piven got a role in those. He's playing some sort of colonel. Does the colonel make Tom Cruise hug him while calling him a bitch? Probably! I mean that's all Mr. Selfridge does, so why would this be any different? [Deadline]

Here's a trailer for Blue Caprice, the well-received Sundance drama about the 2002 D.C. sniper attacks. It stars Isaiah Washington as the manipulative John Allen Muhammad who lured Lee Boyd Malvo into his world of murder. Are we still mad at Isaiah Washington? Y'know, because of that Grey's Anatomy thing? It was a while ago, but I don't know. I'm asking because it looks like he's pretty good in this and it seems like an interesting, if very grim, movie that I might like to see, but if we're still mad at him I won't. So, just let me know.

Here is a trailer for A.C.O.D., a comedy which features Amy Poehler and Catherine O'Hara, but stars Adam Scott. Aw, can't it star Amy Poehler and Catherine O'Hara? Wouldn't you prefer that movie? I know people like Adam Scott but he's doing his usual Adam Scot thing here and we've seen a lot of that lately and I'd like to see more of Amy Poehler and Catherine O'Hara's things. I want to see their things. Wait. I mean. No I just want them to have starring roles. Poehler has the David Wain movie They Came Together, which she stars in, coming up, so that's exciting. But there isn't a trailer out for that yet so I'm going to whine about this. That's what I'm going to do.