The DOJ investigates AP, and that is bad news

So the DOJ has secretly sought to have the phone records of reporters at the Associated Press (AP) as part of an investigation into national security leaks. Show of hands, anyone surprised?

No one, good. This is the DOJ that deports more people than ever before and looks the other way as the President assassinates people and has them permanently detained without any rights. I just want to make sure everyone is paying attention. I heard about this Monday afternoon via ThinkProgress’ piece by Hayes Brown. So remember the underwear bomber, part of Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP)? When the AP broke this story it attracted the attention of the DOJ because the CIA foiled the plot, and AP made it clear,

“The FBI is examining the latest bomb to see whether it could have passed through airport security and brought down an airplane, officials said. They said the device did not contain metal, meaning it probably could have passed through an airport metal detector. But it was not clear whether new body scanners used in many airports would have detected it.

“The would-be suicide bomber, based in Yemen, had not yet picked a target or bought a plane ticket when the CIA stepped in and seized the bomb, officials said. It’s not immediately clear what happened to the alleged bomber.”

AP had learned about the plot a week before, but at the request of the White House and CIA didn’t publish it immediately because of national security concerns. (Noted, the press now works for the White House and CIA, anyone else get chills?) However, by reporting the CIA foiled the plot they put AQAP on notice that the CIA was involved in their activities. It became a concern that the operative involved would become a target of AQAP as they sought retribution.

John Brennan (head of the CIA for those of you who don’t monitor insanely scary and powerful men) said during his confirmation that the release of the information to AP was an “unauthorized and dangerous disclosure of classified information.” The DOJ pursuit of information on the leaks isn’t new, Attorney General Eric Holder’s appointment of federal prosecutors were to look into the disclosures last year. ThinkProgress finds it surprising that the DOJ is amassing tons of information because they don’t know how this works:

“In all, the government seized those records for more than 20 separate telephone lines assigned to AP and its journalists in April and May of 2012. The exact number of journalists who used the phone lines during that period is unknown [who cares, we’re searching for a presumed bad guy, fuck journalism] but more than 100 journalists work in the offices whose phone records were targeted on a wide array of stories about the government and other matters.”

*Shoulder shrug* No it’s cool, man. Who cares about confidential sources and privacy? Terrorism! AP released a letter to Holder denouncing the invasion of their records without their consent. They call it an “unprecedented step” and “a serious interference with AP’s constitutional rights to gather and report the news.” The US Attorney’s DC office issued a statement on the case, claiming, “because we value the freedom of the press, we are always careful and deliberative in seeking to strike the right balance between the free flow of information and the public interest” in carrying out those laws. Of course, the investigation appears really broad anyway. Also, we don’t know if other news outlets were targeted as well.

I’m concerned that ThinkProgress doesn’t seem as horrified by this as I am. It is a big deal because the DOJ is pulling records without notifying news outlets, and of course there are lots of problems with media and news right now, but come on. Secondly, as noted the AP is holding stories at the request of the White House and the CIA, which I can get behind on occasion, but I’m thinking this is a more regular occurrence than a onetime thing. The shift the press has taken (which isn't a new one) to side with the administrations and not actually investigate is scary. Also, possibly a waste of resources for the DOJ. The invasion by the DOJ into the workings of the press should put everyone on notice. After all, don't we usually complain about lack of free press in nations? Usually, using it as a marker that these countries are less advanced or need the West to interfere?

Shockingly people are pissed about voter suppression, and it may change politics

John Nicholas had an article in The Nation on the backlash against voter suppression and its impact on politics. I’m not particularly interested in rehashing the voter suppression. I wrote about what happened in Ohio with the early voting restrictions, the mass tossing of absentee ballots, and turning people away at the polls. We know these efforts are targeting voters of color specifically black voters.

There has been push back of course; civil rights groups, the League of Women Voters, Common Cause, and other organizations are working together. However, the strongest backlash is coming from voter registration and mobilization drives in Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin (you know the states that decide the presidential election).

Ohio State and resident badass Senator Nina Turner said, “Republicans thought that they could suppress the vote, but these efforts actually motivated people to get registered and cast a ballot. It’s no surprise that the communities targeted by these policies came out to the polls in a big way—they saw this not just as an affront to their rights, but as a call to action.”

Turner was spot on. William Frey and the Brookings Institute produced a new study for the Associated Press, and they found voter turnout was down overall from 2004 and 2008, but African-American turnout didn’t decline at the same rate as white turnout. If the headlines are right, black turnout might have surpassed white for the first time. Of course, Frey notes this can’t be confirmed until we have the census data which isn’t available yet. However, the data that is available gives us this: overall turnout dropped from 2008 to 2012, but black turnout held steady at 13%.

So why is this a big deal? African Americans only make up 12% of eligible voters, which means the actual number of African Americans voting outperformed their percentage of eligible voters. Turnout among Hispanic voters traditionally outperforms their number of eligible voters. Naturally, this had a strong impact on President Obama’s reelection because there was some concern about enthusiasm turnout, but President Obama still had strong support among African Americans and young people.

AP notes:

“Romney would have erased Obama’s nearly 5 million-vote victory margin and narrowly won the popular vote if voters had turned out as they did in 2004, according to Frey’s analysis. Then, white turnout was slightly higher and black turnout lower.

“More significantly, the battleground states of Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Florida, and Colorado would have tipped in favor of Romney, handing him the presidency if the outcome of other states remained the same.”

 Mom always said cheaters never prosper. I never believed her given the banking industry and professional sports (look at you Patriots), but hell maybe there was something to this.

We know Republicans are running to embrace people of color (usually in the “good minority” model), but with African American turnout like this it suggests that candidates are going to play less of a role than say, voting issues. This is hard to imagine if Republicans continue to be associated with voter suppression or actually continue to implement policies to suppress votes (Ohio). I’m ok with Republicans being associated as the party that wants to stop people from voting because it obviously helps us in the polls. I am however opposed to voter suppression. If Republicans want to fix this association then they need to push for voter inclusion (I have some ideas like stopping these stupid laws and letting felons who have served their time vote).

As we all learned from Rep. Paul Ryan (or were reminded in a condescending way), Republicans are trying to rely on a legacy of voter innovation and civil rights ignoring more recent developments. So this is like the kid who is a Harvard legacy that has shitty grades and then wonders why he didn’t get in.

Republicans need to rethink their voter policies or continue to lose elections.

DC is Pushing Female Condoms to Fight HIV

According to the CDC, the District of Columbia is suffering a "severe epidemic" in respect to AIDS/HIV. The MAC AIDS fund gave DC a grant to distribute female condoms; 500,000 female condoms are supposed to be handed out.

However, they are having trouble distributing them. They aren't quite as easy to use as the traditional male condom. And according to one pro-condom using man, men are reluctant to use something new that they don't have control over.

Well, gee...you mean not being in control over your own STD protection is intimidating? Crazy. Let's see, the female condom maybe more effective at protecting against STDs, but people are reluctant to use them because they are different. I'm a new proponent of these...According to the Jezebel post, the FDA has improved upon the female condom making it less expensive and less nosy. Yeah, they are still more expensive than male condoms, but the benefits may out way the negatives to be in complete control of your sexual health.

Jezebel and AP.

I want to be a teenage mother too...

Well, I learn everything from celebrities too. Thus unwed teen mother is totally making my to-do list. Damn, I’m in my 20s. However I applaud the article from the AP on the double standard for pregnant teens. It is important to note the likes of Jamie Lynn Spears and Bristol Palin have the family structure to raise these children, and come from families that are willing and able to foot the bill. (We can’t underestimate the importance of Sex-Education in schools). However, the estimated cost of births to teens is $7.6 billion a year. You also have to remember that there is an argument to cut public funding to the programs that help these young women not only during the birth, but also after. After all these girls often have to leave school to support their child. Continuing the cycle of poverty.

The actual issue is the class issue. Having a child from a low-income background cares a stigma that having a child in from an affluent background does not. Of course class can’t be discussed without race. The low-income girls of color are always seen as to blame for their bad/irresponsible choices.