The Arizona Republic has the story Warren rips ‘revolving door’ between banks, government.

“Wall Street insiders have enough influence in Washington already without locking up one powerful job after another in the executive branch of our government,” Warren told an adoring audience at the annual Netroots Nation gathering at the Phoenix Convention Center. “Sure, private-sector experience can be valuable — no one ever said otherwise — but there is a point at which the revolving door compromises the public interest. And we are way beyond that point.”

Before they quote the above words, the article said

In a not-so-subtle message to 2016 Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton, Warren, D-Mass., said anybody who wants to be president must commit to appointing to key economic positions such as Treasury secretary only those people who have demonstrated independence from Wall Street and a willingness to hold “giant banks” accountable.

It would be close to impossible for Hillary Clinton to make this commitment to avoid people with Wall Street connections in her appointments. Just look at who her husband appointed and who is advising her in the current campaign.

Not coincidentally, the article points out

Democratic presidential hopefuls Sens. Bernie Sanders of Vermont and Martin O’Malley of Maryland are expected to appear at Netroots Nation on Saturday. Clinton, a former Secretary of State, is not attending the convention. She was scheduled to speak in Iowa and Arkansas on Friday and Saturday, respectively.

When a Democratic contender is afraid to address an audience of the young, Democratic faithful, then you have to wonder why she is running for the Democratic nomination. It makes more sense to question why she wants to be a Democratic President than it does to question Bernie Sanders’ choice to run in the Democratic primaries.

Alternet has published the article Don’t Count Out the GOP From Trying to Sink Obama’s Historic Iran Deal: They’ve Done It Before by Thom Hartmann. Those of you who know who Thom Hartmann is, know that he is not some left wing crazy person.

The sub-head to the post is

Republican attempts to sabotage a Democratic president’s deal with Iran are nothing new.

The post opens with the paragraph

Ronald Reagan – or at least his campaign – committed treason to become president, and normalizing relations with Iran may expose the whole thing.

The fact that Ronald Reagan did this has been well known almost since the moment he did it. There are details and corroboration of these facts that Hartmann discusses that I did not know about.

Later on, the article goes on to talk about what Nixon did to get elected. In the article you can listen to the recording of a phone call between then President Lyndon Johnson and then Senate Majority Leader Everett Dirksen.

President Johnson: Now, I can identify ‘em, because I know who’s doing this. I don’t want to identify it. I think it would shock America if a principal candidate [Nixon] was playing with a source like this [South Vietnam] on a matter this important. I don’t want to do that.

But if they’re going to put this kind of stuff out, they ought to know that we know what they’re doing. I know who they’re talking to, and I know what they’re saying. …Some of our folks, including some of the old China lobby, are going to the Vietnamese embassy and saying please notify the president [of South Vietnam] that if he’ll hold out ’til November the second [US election day] they could get a better deal. Now, I’m reading their hand, Everett. I don’t want to get this in the campaign. And they oughtn’t to be doin’ this. This is treason.

Sen. Dirksen: I know.

Why do Democrats cover up Republican treason? Never mind calling them Tea Party Republicans, how about calling them Treason Party Republicans?

I don’t think I approve, but I guess we have to talk about them. YouTube has a collection of the ads.

I knew it would be dangerous for a Jewish CEO to sanction commercials like this. What was he thinking? How many people know what a pescatarian is? If you were offended by the ad before you knew what the word meant, were you or would you be any less offended after you knew?

Along with an email, Alan Grayson sent me the link to his announcement video.

Rep. Alan Grayson announces his candidacy for U.S. Senate. Support his campaign at www.SenatorWithGuts.com

How can you not love a guy like this? Well, yeah, I know he and his wife are having problems, but I mean as a politician.

Counterpunch has the article Chris Hedges on Bernie Sanders and the Corporate Democrats.

“Because the party is completely captive to corporate power,” Hedges said. “And Bernie has cut a Faustian deal with the Democrats. And that’s not even speculation. I did an event with him and Bill McKibben, Naomi Klein and Kshama Sawant in New York the day before the Climate March. And Kshama Sawant, the Socialist City Councilwoman from Seattle and I asked Sanders why he wanted to run as a Democrat. And he said — because I don’t want to end up like Nader.”

“He didn’t want to end up pushed out of the establishment,” Hedges said. “He wanted to keep his committee chairmanships, he wanted to keep his Senate seat. And he knew the forms of retribution, punishment that would be visited upon him if he applied his critique to the Democratic establishment. So he won’t.”

Giving Chris Hedges the benefit of the doubt, it is quite possible that Bernie Sanders did say to him “because I don’t want to end up like Nader.” The second paragraph above has Hedge’s inferences of what Sanders had in mind. I only mention that to raise the possibility that what Sanders said is not exactly how Hedges interpreted it.

Elsewhere in the article Hedges said the following:

“That’s why I was a strong supporter of your independent runs,” Hedges told Nader. “That’s why I voted for (Green Party Presidential candidate) Jill Stein in the last election. But they have to be outside the system. And we have to begin to build movements that are divorced from the Democratic and Republican parties. My fear is that by this time next year, Bernie Sanders is running around once again repeating this mantra of the least worst and stoking fears against whoever the Republican candidate is. And we’ve gone nowhere.”

I don’t understand the idea that voting for Nader or Jill Stein produced any results. I say that knowing full well that even I could end up voting for Stein in 2016.

At least at this stage of the game, supporting Bernie Sanders is the most plausible way to play the game. He could win the nomination. If he doesn’t, then we have to consider what to do next. Going to the next step before we know if he could have won doesn’t seem to be the best strategy available to us right now.

Considering the possibilities Hedges talks about, and being open about them right now is probably a good idea strategically. I think it is better strategy than pretending this doesn’t exist. It always pays to let your candidate know what the consequences might be if they betray your trust in them. Perhaps that is what was left out of the article – the consequences for Bernie Sanders if he turns out not to be the real deal.

Thanks to Cedric Flower for sharing this on his Facebook timeline.

Naked Capitalism has the article The Augean Stables – How Corruption Has Amended the Constitution. The article is a discussion of Gary Hart’s Time Magazine essay Gary Hart: America’s Founding Principles Are in Danger of Corruption and his new book The Republic of Conscience.

Here are some excerpts of quotes from Hart’s book.

[T]he largest [lobbying “predator” (his term)] by far is WPP (originally called Wire and Plastic Products; is there a metaphor here?), which has its headquarters in London and more than 150,000 employees in 2,500 offices spread around 107 countries.
.
.
.
According to Mr. Edsall, WPP had billings last year of $72.3 billion, larger than the budgets of quite a number of countries.

This reveals the magnitude and concentration of lobbying on a scale that I could never have imagined. The fact that it is not centralized to one particular country is also shocking. The way this has changed the form of our government, if not shocking, may be more profound than I had imagined.

Mother Jones has the article Chokeholds, Brain Injuries, Beatings: When School Cops Go Bad.

Last March, the US Department of Education reported that 92,000 students were subject to school-related arrests in the 2011-2012 academic year, the first time the agency collected and published such data. Black students comprised 16 percent of the total students enrolled but accounted for 31 percent of arrests. And a quarter of the total arrested were students with disabilities, despite that they comprised only 12 percent of the student population.

Let’s just hope that when Tantasqua Regional High School gets its school resource officer that he or she is well trained to not be one of the problems added to whatever ones the school already has.

Campaign For America’s Future has an excellent article Hillary Clinton’s Economic Story: Stuff Happens. Normally, I don’t like to quote too extensively from an article because I would rather you read the original to give the authors the clicks that they deserve. In this case, the message is so important, that I cannot take the chance you won’t read the original. There is still more to be read in the original than I am quoting here, as the ellipses indicate.

.
.
.
A framing speech can’t and shouldn’t go into policy details, and Clinton pledged a series of speeches would fill in the missing text. But a framing speech should tell a clear story: about how we got in the hole we are in, who drove us there, how do we get out, and what leaders and movements will lead the way.

Here, Clinton’s speech was disappointing. The problem, she argued, is most Americans see “an economy that still isn’t delivering for them… It still seems, to most Americans that I have spoken with, that it is stacked for those at the top.” The “basic bargain” – work hard and get ahead – “has been eroded.” Note the passive voice.
.
.
.

We have been victimized by inexorable economic forces – technology, global trade. Better ideas and policy can fix it. Completely absent from the frame is any sense of the systematic war waged by corporations and the right wing to win the battle of ideas, flood money into our politics and rig the rules of the economy to their benefit. They rigged monetary policy and fiscal policy, global trade rules, labor and wage laws, government investment, deregulation, privatization, global policing – all reinforcing the effort to weaken workers, drive down wages, and capture more of the profits at the top. And then they invested a minute portion of those profits to buy both parties and corrupt our democracy.
.
.
.
Omitting the reality that our policies have been systematically and purposefully rigged to favor the few – and that our politics have been corrupted in that pursuit – both misleads Americans, and weakens that agenda’s appeal.
.
.
.
Progressives are winning the economic argument among Democrats. As Clinton shows, the era of small government is over. Every Democratic candidate summons us to a new era of activist government. But the question of this populist moment is who will speak truth not to power, but to the American people. Clinton is calling people to a policy discussion. Sanders is rousing them for a political revolution. She’s one of the best qualified candidates in the history of the Republic and an overwhelming favorite to win the nomination. But he is telling a far clearer story of why working people are struggling in this wealthy country and what they must do to take it back.

This article does a much better job of explaining exactly what is missing from Clinton’s speech than my previous post about the article Clinton’s Speech on “The Economy”: Where’s the Beef?. The two articles identify many of the same issues. The current article has more details where they are needed and fewer details where they are not needed.

Naked Capitalism has the article Clinton’s Speech on “The Economy”: Where’s the Beef? For me, it was more analysis than I had the patience to read. Feel free to read as much as you have the time and patience for. I single out two issues from the article that I find most striking.

Democrats must abandon the view that balanced budgets and surpluses are a sign of virtue; they are not. And until they do, they will be in the policy straitjacket that they helpfully donned after people like the Peterson Institute helpfully held it for them; always a grand bargain of one sort or another; always “pay for.” How did FDR help win World War II, after all? By cutting domestic spending? With a balanced budget? Fiscal policy matters only for the effects it produces in the real economy.
.
.
.
Also pervasive is lack of agency: There is a “crisis.” Why? For whom? But it “recedes.” Why? For everybody?

The first point is one that I often make on this blog. That’s not a coincidence as Naked Capitalism frequently makes this point. New Economic Perspectives also makes this point frequently. Both Naked Capitalism and I read the New Economic Perspectives blog.

The lack of agency issue is a trick that many Democrats and Neoliberals (meaning not liberals at all) use to hide the fact that someone must have done these awful things. They didn’t just happen. There is someone who has to be held accountable for the outcome of their evil actions. Could the deregulation king himself, Bill Clinton, be blamed for any of these problems?

PC Magazine has the WebCast What You Need to Know About Backdoor Encryption.

FBI Director James Comey wants a backdoor into every encrypted communication in America, but most security experts think that is a really bad idea. PCMag’s Editor-in-Chief Dan Costa talk to Security Analyst Fahmida Rashid about the logical, ethical, and technical problems with creating back doors in security products.

What’s New Now is PCMag’s daily report where we cover the most talked about technology story of the day. Check back every day as we suggest why the story is important to you and provide expert analysis and opinion on the topic.

The two most damaging arguments against the back door are that the bad guys will eventually get the keys, and that other countries will want the keys or they will insist on their own back doors. Some countries might ban back doors. What happens to international trade when some countries insist on something while others forbid it? If you exempt international communications, then that is a back door for avoiding our back door. Supposedly the international communications are the ones the FBI most wants to read.