Microsoft Whines About an "Urgent Collective Need" to Fix Its Stinking Isht...,

Microsoft |  This attack demonstrates the degree to which cybersecurity has become a shared responsibility between tech companies and customers. The fact that so many computers remained vulnerable two months after the release of a patch illustrates this aspect. As cybercriminals become more sophisticated, there is simply no way for customers to protect themselves against threats unless they update their systems. Otherwise they’re literally fighting the problems of the present with tools from the past. This attack is a powerful reminder that information technology basics like keeping computers current and patched are a high responsibility for everyone, and it’s something every top executive should support.

At the same time, we have a clear understanding of the complexity and diversity of today’s IT infrastructure, and how updates can be a formidable practical challenge for many customers. Today, we use robust testing and analytics to enable rapid updates into IT infrastructure, and we are dedicated to developing further steps to help ensure security updates are applied immediately to all IT environments.

Finally, this attack provides yet another example of why the stockpiling of vulnerabilities by governments is such a problem. This is an emerging pattern in 2017. We have seen vulnerabilities stored by the CIA show up on WikiLeaks, and now this vulnerability stolen from the NSA has affected customers around the world. Repeatedly, exploits in the hands of governments have leaked into the public domain and caused widespread damage. An equivalent scenario with conventional weapons would be the U.S. military having some of its Tomahawk missiles stolen. And this most recent attack represents a completely unintended but disconcerting link between the two most serious forms of cybersecurity threats in the world today – nation-state action and organized criminal action.

The governments of the world should treat this attack as a wake-up call. They need to take a different approach and adhere in cyberspace to the same rules applied to weapons in the physical world. We need governments to consider the damage to civilians that comes from hoarding these vulnerabilities and the use of these exploits. This is one reason we called in February for a new “Digital Geneva Convention” to govern these issues, including a new requirement for governments to report vulnerabilities to vendors, rather than stockpile, sell, or exploit them. And it’s why we’ve pledged our support for defending every customer everywhere in the face of cyberattacks, regardless of their nationality. This weekend, whether it’s in London, New York, Moscow, Delhi, Sao Paulo, or Beijing, we’re putting this principle into action and working with customers around the world.

Ransomware "Attack" a Self-Licking Ice Cream Cone

washingtonsblog |  What should we make of the global ransomware attacks which happened today?

We’ve documented that the intelligence services intentionally create digital vulnerabilities, then intentionally leave them open … leaving us exposed and insecure.

Washington’s Blog asked the highest level NSA whistleblower ever* – Bill Binney – what he thinks of the attacks.

Binney told us:

This is what I called short sighted finite thinking on the part of the Intelligence Community managers.
This is also what I called (for some years now) a swindle of the tax payers. First, they find or create weaknesses then they don’t fix these weaknesses so we are all vulnerable to attack.
Then, when attacks occur, they say they need more money for cyber security — a total swindle!!! [Indeed.]
This is only the second swindle of the public. The first was terror efforts by saying we need to collect everything to stop terror — another lie. They said that because to collect everything takes lots and lots of money.
Then, when the terror attack occurs, they say they need more money, people and data to stop terror. Another swindle from the start. [The war on terror is a “self-licking ice cream cone”, because it creates many more terrorists than it stops.]
And, finally, the latest swindle “THE RUSSIANS DID IT.” This is an effort to start a new cold war which means another bigger swindle of US tax payers.

For cyber security, I would suggest the president order NSA, CIA and any others to fix the cyber problems they know about; then, maybe we will start to have some cyber security.

The bottom line is that our intelligence services should start concentrating on actually defending us, rather than focusing their resources on offensive mischief.

Who is to Blame for Compromising Computers with Obsolete Operating Systems?

theduran |  A widespread computer virus attack known as ‘WannaCry’ has been compromising computers with obsolete operating systems across the world. This should be the opening sentence of just about every article on this subject, but unfortunately it is not.

The virus does not attack modern computer operating systems, it is designed to attack the Windows XP operating system that is so old, it was likely used in offices in the World Trade Center prior to September 11 2001, when the buildings collapsed. Windows XP was first released on 25 August, 2001.

Furthermore, early vulnerabilities in modern Windows systems were almost instantly patched up by Microsoft as per the fact that such operating systems are constantly updated.

The obsolete XP system is simply out of the loop.

A child born on the release date of Windows XP is now on the verge of his or her 17th birthday. Feeling old yet?

The fact of the matter is that governments and businesses around the world should not only feel old, they should feel humiliated and disgraced.

With the amount of money governments tax individuals and private entities, it is beyond belief that government organisations ranging from some computers in the Russian Interior Ministry to virtually all computers in Britain’s National Health Service, should be using an operating system so obsolete that its manufacturer, Microsoft, no longer supports it and hasn’t done for some time.

Military-Backed Criminal Superhacking Looks Like....,

arstechnica |  A highly virulent new strain of self-replicating ransomware shut down computers all over the world, in part by appropriating a National Security Agency exploit that was publicly released last month by the mysterious group calling itself Shadow Brokers.

The malware, known as Wanna, Wannacry, or Wcry, has infected at least 75,000 computers, according to antivirus provider Avast. AV provider Kaspersky Lab said organizations in at least 74 countries have been affected, with Russia being disproportionately affected, followed by Ukraine, India, and Taiwan. Infections are also spreading through the United States. The malware is notable for its multi-lingual ransom demands, which support more than two-dozen languages.

Wcry is reportedly causing disruptions at banks, hospitals, telecommunications services, train stations, and other mission-critical organizations in multiple countries, including the UK, Spain, Germany, and Turkey. FedEx, the UK government's National Health Service, and Spanish telecom Telefonica have all been hit. The Spanish CERT has called it a "massive ransomware attack" that is encrypting all the files of entire networks and spreading laterally through organizations.

The virally spreading worm was ultimately stopped when a researcher who uses the Twitter handle MalwareTech and works for security firm Kryptos Logic took control of a domain name that was hard-coded into the self-replicating exploit. The domain registration, which occurred around 6 AM California time, was a major stroke of good luck, because it was possible only because the attackers had failed to obtain the address first.

The address appeared to serve as a sort of kill switch the attackers could use to terminate the campaign. MalwareTech's registration had the effect of ending the attacks that had started earlier Friday morning in other parts of the world. As a result, the number of infection detections plateaued dramatically in the hours following the registration. It had no effect on WCry infections that were initiated through earlier campaigns.

Trump Made the Right Call Firing Comey

WaPo  |  It is true, as I pointed out in a Post op-ed in October, that Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch, after her tarmac meeting with Bill Clinton, had left a vacuum by neither formally recusing herself nor exercising supervision over the case. But the remedy for that was for Comey to present his factual findings to the deputy attorney general, not to exercise the prosecutorial power himself on a matter of such grave importance.

Until Comey’s testimony last week, I had assumed that Lynch had authorized Comey to act unilaterally. It is now clear that the department’s leadership was sandbagged. I know of no former senior Justice Department official — Democrat or Republican — who does not view Comey’s conduct in July to have been a grave usurpation of authority.

Comey’s basic misjudgment boxed him in, compelling him to take increasingly controversial actions giving the impression that the FBI was enmeshed in politics. Once Comey staked out a position in July, he had no choice on the near-eve of the election but to reopen the investigation when new evidence materialized. Regrettably, however, this performance made Comey himself the issue, placing him on center stage in public political discourse and causing him to lose credibility on both sides of the aisle. It was widely recognized that Comey’s job was in jeopardy regardless of who won the election.

It is not surprising that Trump would be inclined to make a fresh start at the bureau and would consult with the leadership of the Justice Department about whether Comey should remain. Those deliberations could not begin in earnest until the new deputy attorney general, Rod J. Rosenstein, to whom Comey would report, was confirmed and in a position to assess Comey and his performance. No matter how far along the president was in his own thinking, Rosenstein’s assessment is cogent and vindicates the president’s decision.

Rosenstein made clear in his memorandum that he was concerned not so much with Comey’s past arrogation of power, as astonishing as it was, but rather with his ongoing refusal to acknowledge his errors. I do not dispute that Comey sincerely believes he acted properly in the best interests of the country. But at the same time, I think it is quite understandable that the administration would not want an FBI director who did not recognize established limits on his powers.

It is telling that none of the president’s critics are challenging the decision on the merits. None argue that Comey’s performance warranted keeping him on as director. Instead, they are attacking the president’s motives, claiming the president acted to neuter the investigation into Russia’s role in the election.

The notion that the integrity of this investigation depends on Comey’s presence just does not hold water. Contrary to the critics’ talking points, Comey was not “in charge” of the investigation.

Triangular Diplomacy

Sputniknews |  In his recent Davos speech, Kissinger reiterated that the global order the US and EU were familiar with is fading away.

"One of the key problems of our period is that the international order with which we were familiar is disintegrating in some respects, and that new elements from Asia and the developing world are entering it," Kissinger pointed out Friday.

In light of this, it is no surprise that Kissinger sees Trump's approach toward Russia largely as a step in the right direction.

Kissinger as Trump's 'Informal Foreign Policy Adviser'

Furthermore, German newspaper Bild reported that the former American diplomat has taken on the role of Trump's informal foreign policy adviser.

Citing information obtained by Western European intelligence from Trump's transition team, the German newspaper  wrote in late December that Kissinger has repeatedly met with Trump in the past couple of months and that the White House is likely to go for "constructive cooperation" with the Kremlin.

In early January 2017, citing officials with Trump's transition team, Eli Lake of Bloomberg disclosed that since the election, the veteran diplomat has been counselling incoming National Security Adviser Michael Flynn and his team, citing officials with Trump's transition team.

But that's half the story. According to Lake, it was Kissinger who urged Trump to nominate Rex Tillerson as Secretary of State and recommended his former assistant K.T. McFarland to be Flynn's deputy.

"Kissinger is one of the few people in Trump's orbit who can get him on the phone whenever he wants, according to one transition adviser," Lake noted.

Corporate Media's Role in American Politics

theautomaticearth |  Take a step back and oversee the picture, and you’ll find that Trump is not the biggest threat to American democracy, the media are. They have a job but they stopped doing it. They have turned to smearing, something neither the NYT nor the WaPo should ever have stooped to, but did.

Democracy is not primarily under threat from what one party does, or the other, or a third one, it is under threat because parties have withdrawn themselves into their respective echo chambers from which no dialogue with other parties is possible, or even tolerated.

None of this is to say that there will be no revelations about some ties between some Russian entities or persons and some Trump-related ones. Such ties are entirely possible, and certainly on the business front. Whether that has had any influence on the American presidential election is a whole other story though. And jumping to conclusions because it serves your political purposes is, to put it mildly, not helping.

The problem is that so much has been said and printed on the topic that was unsubstantiated, that if actual ties are proven, that news will be blurred by what was insinuated before. You made your bed, guys.

A lot of sources today talk about how Trump was reportedly frustrated with the constant focus on the alleged Russia ties, but assuming those allegations are not true, and remember nothing has been proven after a year of echo-chambering, isn’t it at least a little understandable that he would be?

Comey was already compromised from 10 different angles, and many wanted him gone, though not necessarily at the same time. The same Democrats, and their media, who now scream murder because he was fired, fell over themselves clamoring for his resignation for months. That does not constitute an opinion, it’s the opposite of one: you can’t change your view of someone as important as the FBI director every day and twice on Sundays without losing credibility.

And yes, many Republicans played similar games. It’s the kind of game that has become acceptable in the Washington swamp and the media that report on it. And many of them also protest yesterday’s decision. Ostensibly, it all has to do not with the fact that Comey was fired, but with the timing. Which in turn would be linked to the fact that the FBI is investigating Trump.

But what’s the logic there? That firing Comey would halt that investigation? Why would that be true? Why would a replacement director do that? Don’t FBI agents count for anything? And isn’t the present investigation itself supposed to be proof that there is proof and/or strong suspicion of that alleged link between Russia and the Trump election victory? Wouldn’t those agents revolt if a new director threw that away with the bathwater?

Since we still run on ‘innocent until proven guilty’, perhaps it’s a thought to hold back a little, but given what we’ve seen since, say, early 2016, that doesn’t look like an option anymore. The trenches have been dug.

These are troubled times, but the trouble is not necessarily where you might think it is. America has an undeniable political crisis, and a severe one, but that’s not the only crisis.

.45 Conducted Grown Folks Bidnis Free From "Ideological" Bias

theatlantic |  The Russians clearly understood what the visit and its timing meant, which is why it was so prominently covered by the Kremlin media. The man investigating Russian meddling in the election had just been fired by the man whose campaign was under investigation. Which to the Russians meant Trump essentially agreed with their reaction to the alleged election interference—as Lavrov put it in his American press conference: “Guys, you cannot be serious.” It is why he praised this administration for being “business-like” and for “wanting to make deals,” which in Russian has a few other shades of meaning. The word Lavrov used was dogovarivatsya, meaning to come to an understanding and come to agreements; it’s a key word both in Russian business and politics. At its heart is ruthless pragmatic compromise. There is no room for feelings and values, and certainly not for law. Only for interests and nebulous, subjective notions of fairness. “For us, fairness is above the law, including international law,” one Russian close to the Kremlin told me. “When it’s advantageous for us to appeal to the law, we do it. When it’s not, we ignore it.” It is why Lavrov said that he welcomed these talks with an administration who wanted to dogovarivatsya, people “who were free of the dogmatism of the Obama administration.”  

It was all too perfect, starting with the idea of having Tillerson meet with Putin in the Kremlin—which created an obvious opportunity for Lavrov to reciprocate by meeting Trump in the White House—and ending with the choice of music piped in to the American journalists waiting for Lavrov’s presser (“All I’m asking is for a little respect.”)

REAL VIP's Aren't On the Public Schedule...,

publicpool |  The White House summoned the press pool just after 11:20 a.m. for what some had assumed would be a spray of President Trump's meeting with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov.

Pool was ushered into the Oval Office at 11:26 a.m., but Trump was instead seated beside former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger. The meeting with Kissinger was not on Trump's public schedule today.

POTUS, wearing a dark suit and red striped tie, said he met with Kissinger to talk "about Russia and various other matters."

"We're talking about Syria and I think that we're going to do very well with respect to Syria and things are happening that are really, really, really positive," Trump added. "We're going to stop the killing and the death."

POTUS then said he had a "very, very good meeting" with FM Lavrov. He said both sides want to end "the killing -- the horrible, horrible killing in Syria as soon as possible and everybody is working toward that end."

The Lavrov meeting was closed to the press and the only visual account we have of it thus far is via handout photos from the Russian government. 

Those images show Trump also met with Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak.

Trump circled back and said it was "an honor" to discuss the issues with Kissinger because "he's been a friend of mine for a long time."

His Style IS the Message

bloomberg |  Sergei Lavrov's official job is foreign minister of Russia, but his visit to Washington Wednesday won't be remembered for any diplomatic breakthrough -- just for Lavrov's dripping irony and skill at provoking adversaries. Lavrov's style, which mirrors that of his boss, Vladimir Putin, is often criticized as unfit for a diplomat. But I'd argue that Lavrov knows exactly what he's doing and that the medium is the message here.

In Washington, Lavrov feigned astonishment for a U.S. reporter who asked about Tuesday's firing of Federal Bureau of Investigation chief James Comey: "Was he fired? You're kidding! You're kidding!" 

He also smuggled a photographer from the state-owned news agency, TASS, into his meeting with President Donald Trump as his official photographer. TASS immediately published photos of Trump beaming at his Russian visitors, Lavrov and Ambassador Sergei Kislyak, who are obviously delighted by the reception. With the U.S. press kept out, these happy photos from their Russian propaganda source created an uproar.

Sarcasm, provocation, a desire to throw interlocutors off balance always bubble just below the surface of Lavrov's communications. He regularly stuns Western conversation partners with crude or offensive comments.

At a recent meeting of North Atlantic Treaty Organization ministers, U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson quipped, "You cannot tango with Lavrov because he's not allowed to dance that one." He meant that President Vladimir Putin determined policy in Russia and Lavrov wouldn't be authorized to make deals. "My mother used to tell me: always be a good boy, don't ever dance with other boys," the Russian foreign minister responded. 

In this, Lavrov's style mirrors that of his boss. In 2006, Putin memorably told Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert to say hi to then-president Moshe Katsav, accused of raping and sexually harassing women: "He turned out to be a strong man, raped 10 women. I never would have expected it of him. He has surprised us all, we all envy him." The Kremlin, whose communication was a little more self-conscious back then, had to explain that Putin didn't condone rape and that his words were meant as a hard-to-translate joke.

Putin's crude jokes are often written off as a product of his childhood on the streets of St. Petersburg. He's only as polished as an intelligence officer who served in the former East Germany needed to be. Lavrov, however, is a highly professional diplomat. He knows the protocol, speaks three languages besides Russian, and is sophisticated in his tastes and interests. Even his verse, while not touched by genius, is competent and far less embarrassing than the poetic efforts of many other Russian officials.

Lavrov knows well how his remarks sound to Western ears. He is also aware that sarcasm and taunts are often considered unprofessional and seen as a sign of bad manners in the English-speaking world, especially in the U.S. And yet he keeps saying things that would have gotten any Western diplomat fired, playing out barbed comedy routines and engaging in practical jokes worthy of a college student.

His style is the message: Russians won't play by others' rules, it says. But this isn't about touting Russia's size and its nuclear arsenal; it's more of a mischievous enticement, a dare.

Putin's Russia has allied itself with Western populist forces, whose stand against political correctness and the constant self-censorship that comes with it constitutes a strong voter appeal. During the election campaign in the U.S. last year, I was told many times that Trump's penchant for uncensored speech was his most attractive quality. The Dutch say the same of Geert Wilders, the French of Marine Le Pen. The freedom to say whatever one wants without wondering if it could be construed as misogynist, racist, homophobic or offensive in a myriad other ways is, to many voters, a bonus.

Post-Soviet Russians have relished their freedom to say whatever they want, to be sarcastic, crude and informal, to be provocative and thus project confidence. Cursing in the workplace, a lack of respect for propriety and protocol, an absence of linguistic and ideological constraints were prizes to a society that had just cast off the Communist straitjacket.

Whose Side is He On?

QZ |  Former secretary of state Henry Kissinger may be in his nineties, but he’s continuing to play a key, globe-spanning role in one of the most substantive foreign policy negotiations of the US presidency so far.

Kissinger, who brokered a ground-breaking detente between the US and China’s Communist Party’s in 1972, has served a valued go-between for the two nations for more than four decades, earning him the nickname of “old friend of the Chinese people.” It’s privilege he has shared with at least 600 people, although Kissinger may be the living person who has held the nickname the longest.

As recently as December, when then US president-elect Donald Trump threatened upheaval between the world’s most powerful nations, by accepting a congratulatory call from Taiwan’s Tsai Ing-wen, Kissinger was already in Beijing with Chinese president Xi Jinping, reassuring him that “overall, we hope to see the China-US relationship moving ahead in a sustained and stable manner.” (A Bloomberg report suggested that Xi may have turned to the venerable diplomat to better understand Trump, telling Kissinger he was “all ears” regarding what he had to say about the future of US-China relations.)

Kissinger met with the incoming Trump administration soon after the election, and helped to connect Chinese politicians with the US president’s son-in-law Jared Kushner, the Washington Post reports—connections that ultimately led to this week’s meeting.

In doing so, he’s opened up a now familiar controversy in the US—who does Kissinger work for, exactly, and whose side is he on?

Kissinger is “representing China’s interests and trying to influence American foreign policy,” said Craig Holman, a government affairs lobbyist for Public Citizen, a nonpartisan group that advocates for citizens’ rights in Congress. “That crosses the threshold for FARA,” he said, referring to the Foreign Agents Registration Act.

Foreign Policy is the Art of Establishing Priorities

WaPo |  For the West, the demonization of Vladimir Putin is not a policy; it is an alibi for the absence of one.

Putin should come to realize that, whatever his grievances, a policy of military impositions would produce another Cold War. For its part, the United States needs to avoid treating Russia as an aberrant to be patiently taught rules of conduct established by Washington. Putin is a serious strategist — on the premises of Russian history. Understanding U.S. values and psychology are not his strong suits. Nor has understanding Russian history and psychology been a strong point of U.S. policymakers.

Leaders of all sides should return to examining outcomes, not compete in posturing. Here is my notion of an outcome compatible with the values and security interests of all sides:

1. Ukraine should have the right to choose freely its economic and political associations, including with Europe.

2. Ukraine should not join NATO, a position I took seven years ago, when it last came up. 

3. Ukraine should be free to create any government compatible with the expressed will of its people. Wise Ukrainian leaders would then opt for a policy of reconciliation between the various parts of their country. Internationally, they should pursue a posture comparable to that of Finland. That nation leaves no doubt about its fierce independence and cooperates with the West in most fields but carefully avoids institutional hostility toward Russia.

4. It is incompatible with the rules of the existing world order for Russia to annex Crimea. But it should be possible to put Crimea’s relationship to Ukraine on a less fraught basis. To that end, Russia would recognize Ukraine’s sovereignty over Crimea. Ukraine should reinforce Crimea’s autonomy in elections held in the presence of international observers. The process would include removing any ambiguities about the status of the Black Sea Fleet at Sevastopol.

These are principles, not prescriptions. People familiar with the region will know that not all of them will be palatable to all parties. The test is not absolute satisfaction but balanced dissatisfaction. If some solution based on these or comparable elements is not achieved, the drift toward confrontation will accelerate. The time for that will come soon enough.

Duty, Honor, Country..., and NOT Jailing Any Banksters!!!

libertyblitzkrieg |  Which brings me to the final and most important part of this piece. The entire Comey firing saga could go in several directions, but an increasingly likely outcome is the one I don’t see being discussed anywhere. First we need to ask ourselves, what’s likely to happen next? Calls for a special prosecutor and independent investigation into Trump-Russia collusion are likely to get louder and louder. Given the timing of the firing, I support this and I think there’s a good chance it’ll happen. I hope it does happen, as we really do need to put an end to all the speculation and hysteria one way or the other, once and for all. But here’s where it gets really interesting…

If Trump really did coordinate with the Russian government to affect the U.S. election and indisputable evidence emerges, it will be an enormous scandal and he will likely be removed from office. Personally, I don’t think such evidence exists because I don’t think such collusion happened, but I support an independent investigation. On the other hand, what might happen if Trump didn’t collude with Russia?

Here’s where Trump legitimately has a chance to destroy the Democratic Party once and for all. The Democrats have already been putting all their eggs in the Russia conspiracy theory basket, and this focus on Russia as opposed to jobs, healthcare, student loans, debt slavery etc., has made the American public think the Democratic Party is more out of touch than both Trump and the GOP. Given that’s where things stand today, imagine what’ll happen to the party and its leaders if they start spending 100% of their time pursuing this lead and then nothing comes up? What then?

I’ll tell you what happens. The Democratic Party, as useless as it is today, will completely evaporate as a serious political opposition force in America. This is because it appears all of its handful of 2020 hopefuls seem to be completely hyperventilating and losing their minds about Comey’s dismissal and asserting that it represents proof Trump colluded with Russia.

Imagine if Trump is cleared by an independent investigation? These Dems will look like complete imbeciles with horrible judgement who wasted the nation’s time while tens of millions of Americans struggled to make ends meet. This will destroy the party and lead to an easy Trump win in 2020. This is a potentially lethal trap for Democrats and they seem to be falling for it in unison.

Those Controlling the Technology and Those Carrying Out the Tasks...,

opendemocracy |  Vulnerable employment, with workers experiencing high levels of precariousness, is a global phenomenon. The ILO projects global growth in vulnerable forms of employment to grow by 11 million a year. The impacts of this are being felt across developed, emerging and developing countries.

In the UK, much concern about the changing labour market has been framed in terms of the shift in risk that has occurred between employers and individuals. The gig economy is often used to epitomise the imbalance in power between those controlling the technology, and those carrying out the tasks: 

However, this shift of risk reaches far beyond Uber drivers and millennials on bicycles. It can be seen in the use of contracted, agency and temporary staff and in the unpredictability of zero and minimum hours contracts of those working for supermarkets, in warehouses, in social care and in universities. 

The impact of this on people’s lives is exacerbated by a parallel transfer of risk in the systems set up to support those who are unemployed or in low paid work. At the same time as work has become less predictable, the safety net has become less springy and with bigger holes. 

This shift can be seen in cuts to social security, in the changes and increasing conditionality that universal credit brings, in the way jobs are measured and impact on poverty is not. It is seen in adult learning and the introduction of adult learner loans. It is also seen in a childcare sector that does not have the capacity to offer care to those with unpredictable or non-standard hours, even though those are the jobs increasingly likely to be available for those on low pay. 

The Hardest Part is Not Knowing What Your Next Paycheck is From...,

newyorker |  “These are jobs that don’t lead to anything,” he said, without looking up from his work. “It doesn’t feel”—he weighed the word—“sustainable to me.”

The American workplace is both a seat of national identity and a site of chronic upheaval and shame. The industry that drove America’s rise in the nineteenth century was often inhumane. The twentieth-century corrective—a corporate workplace of rules, hierarchies, collective bargaining, triplicate forms—brought its own unfairnesses. Gigging reflects the endlessly personalizable values of our own era, but its social effects, untried by time, remain uncertain.

Support for the new work model has come together swiftly, though, in surprising quarters. On the second day of the most recent Democratic National Convention, in July, members of a four-person panel suggested that gigging life was not only sustainable but the embodiment of today’s progressive values. “It’s all about democratizing capitalism,” Chris Lehane, a strategist in the Clinton Administration and now Airbnb’s head of global policy and public affairs, said during the proceedings, in Philadelphia. David Plouffe, who had managed Barack Obama’s 2008 campaign before he joined Uber, explained, “Politically, you’re seeing a large contingent of the Obama coalition demanding the sharing economy.” Instead of being pawns in the games of industry, the panelists thought, working Americans could thrive by hiring out skills as they wanted, and putting money in the pockets of peers who had done the same. The power to control one’s working life would return, grassroots style, to the people.

The basis for such confidence was largely demographic. Though statistics about gigging work are few, and general at best, a Pew study last year found that seventy-two per cent of American adults had used one of eleven sharing or on-demand services, and that a third of people under forty-five had used four or more. “To ‘speak millennial,’ you ought to be talking about the sharing economy, because it is core and central to their economic future,” Lehane declared, and many of his political kin have agreed. No other commercial field has lately drawn as deeply from the Democratic brain trust. Yet what does democratized capitalism actually promise a politically unsettled generation? Who are its beneficiaries? At a moment when the nation’s electoral future seems tied to the fate of its jobs, much more than next month’s paycheck depends on the answers.

Snoop's Sign Language Interpreter IS THE SHOW!!!

How Grown Folks Handle Nonsense

Shameless Globalism - Double-00 Stacking Dead Presidents Like Hot Cakes!!!

express |  BARACK Obama will reportedly pocket a staggering £2.5million (€3million) today for delivering a speech to a sold-out audience in Milan as part of his lucrative post-presidential speaking tour.

The former President, who has already earned hundreds of thousands of dollars for private speeches since leaving the White House, will make his highest-paying appearance yet at the Global Food Innovation Summit today.

24 Forbidden Kwestins You're Too Scared to Ask

tomdispatch |  Since the late eighteenth century, the United States has been involved in an almost ceaseless string of wars, interventions, punitive expeditions, and other types of military ventures abroad -- from fighting the British and Mexicans to the Filipinos and Koreans to the Vietnamese and Laotians to the Afghans and Iraqis. The country has formally declared war 11 times and has often engaged in undeclared conflicts with some form of congressional authorization, as with the post-9/11 “wars” that rage on today.

Recent presidents have conducted such wars without seemingly asking the hard questions -- whether about the validity of intelligence claims, the efficacy of military power, or the likely blowback from invasions, drone strikes, and the deposing of dictators. The consequences have been catastrophic for Afghans and Iraqis, Libyans and Yemenis, among others.  At last, however, we finally have a president willing to raise some of the hard questions about war. Well, at least, about one war. Or, rather, questions about one war that are, at least, hard to decipher.

“People don't ask that question, but why was there the Civil War?” President Donald Trump wondered in a recent interview, referring to America’s nineteenth century war over slavery. “Why could that one not have been worked out?"

Trump then suggested that, had President Andrew Jackson -- to whom he’s compared himself -- been in office, he would have avoided the conflict that claimed more American lives than any other: “He was really angry that he saw what was happening with regard to the Civil War.  He said, ‘There's no reason for this.’”  Of course, Andrew Jackson, who fought in his fair share of America’s ceaseless conflicts (including against the British during the War of 1812 and the Seminoles in Spanish Florida), died in 1845, more than a decade and a half before the Civil War began.

No matter. The important thing is that we finally have a president willing to ask some questions about some wars -- even if it’s the wrong questions about a war that ended more than 150 years ago.

Today, TomDispatch regular Andrew Bacevich offers a cheat sheet of sorts: the real questions about war and national security that should be asked but never are in these United States.  Since it’s bound to take President Trump some time to work his way to the present -- what with all the questions about why we fought Japanese, Koreans, Spaniards, Filipinos, Chinese, Mexicans, Nicaraguans, Haitians, Japanese (again), Germans, Koreans (again), Chinese (again), Vietnamese, and so many others -- it’s incumbent upon the rest of us to start asking Bacevich’s questions and demanding some answers.

The Last Nuremberg Prosecutor

cbsnews |  It is not often you get the chance to meet a man who holds a place in history like Ben Ferencz.  He's 97 years old, barely 5 feet tall, and he served as prosecutor of what's been called the biggest murder trial ever. The courtroom was Nuremberg; the crime, genocide; the defendants, a group of German SS officers accused of committing the largest number of Nazi killings outside the concentration camps -- more than a million men, women, and children shot down in their own towns and villages in cold blood.

Ferencz is the last Nuremberg prosecutor alive today. But he isn't content just to be part of 20th century history -- he believes he has something important to offer the world right now.

"If it's naive to want peace instead of war, let 'em make sure they say I'm naive. Because I want peace instead of war."

• Twenty-two SS officers responsible for the deaths of 1M+ people would never have been brought to justice were it not for Ben Ferencz.
• The officers were part of units called Einsatzgruppen, or action groups. Their job was to follow the German army as it invaded the Soviet Union in 1941 and kill Communists, Gypsies and Jews.
• Ferencz believes "war makes murderers out of otherwise decent people" and has spent his life working to deter war and war crimes.