Internet Security

WARNING! Scammers are using Facebook targeting tool to steal accounts

The large scale phishing campaign by cybercriminals amid the pandemic was a huge success, it harvested more than six hundred thousand Facebook credentials from Nepal, Egypt, the Philippines, and other countries. Early this month, ThreatNix, a group of security professionals that provides cybersecurity solutions published a report that shows more than fifteen thousand compromised Facebook…

The large scale phishing campaign by cybercriminals amid the pandemic was a huge success, it harvested more than six hundred thousand Facebook credentials from Nepal, Egypt, the Philippines, and other countries. Early this month, ThreatNix, a group of security professionals that provides cybersecurity solutions published a report that shows more than fifteen thousand compromised Facebook PH accounts in this phishing campaign.

ThreatNix published a report that shows more than fifteen thousand compromised Facebook PH accounts in this phishing campaign. (Photo from threatnix.io)

Ad sales are the primary source of Facebook’s revenue and because of the sudden shift to online commerce by many retailers due to the Covid-19 pandemic, the increase in demands for ad placements on Facebook has also tremendously increased. But even before the health crisis, Facebook has made it a point to make things convenient and productive to advertisers by providing tools with a wide range of targeting options to get maximum results on their placements. One of these tools is called Facebook Audience. With more than one billion daily active users, the social media giant recognizes that it is critical that advertisers only show paid posts to those who are more likely to engage with them. Any user where the ad is shown who is not likely to engage with the ad is a waste of advertising money. Using the Audience Manager Tool advertisers could easily identify Facebook users who would potentially click the ads or engage with them. This same tool that assures reach and engagement for ads placed on the FB platform was exploited by cybercriminals to get the same results, this time for clicks on the phishing links and tricking gullible users to engage with the FB paid posts. Once

Read More

Be the first to write a comment.

Leave a Reply

Internet Security

An Oath Keepers leader arrested for participating in the Capitol riot said she met with Secret Service and was providing ‘security’ to legislators and other key figures

Summary List PlacementA woman arrested for her alleged participation in the January 6 riot at the US Capitol said she was at the riot to provide security to legislators and other important people and had met with Secret Service agents.  In new court filings this weekend, lawyers for Jessica Watkins, a leader with the far-right,…

Summary List PlacementA woman arrested for her alleged participation in the January 6 riot at the US Capitol said she was at the riot to provide security to legislators and other important people and had met with Secret Service agents. 
In new court filings this weekend, lawyers for Jessica Watkins, a leader with the far-right, anti-government militia group Oath Keepers, argued that Watkins was not a participant in the insurrection but was instead working security to speakers at former President Donald Trump’s rally that preceded the insurrection that left five people dead, CNN first reported.  
“On January 5 and 6, Ms. Watkins was present not as an insurrectionist, but to provide security to the speakers at the rally, to provide escort for the legislators and others to march to the Capitol as directed by the then-President, and to safely escort protestors away from the Capitol to their vehicles and cars at the conclusion of the protest,” the Saturday court filing said.
“She was given a VIP pass to the rally,” it continued. “She met with Secret Service agents. She was within 50 feet of the stage during the rally to provide security for the speakers. At the time the Capitol was breached, she was still at the sight of the initial rally where she had provided security.”
In a statement to Insider, a spokesperson US Secret Service said it did not employ the assistance of any private citizens on January 6.
“To carry out its protective functions on January 6th, the U.S. Secret Service relied on the assistance of various government partners,” the statement said. “Any assertion that the Secret Service employed private citizens to perform those functions is false.”
In the filing, attorneys for Watkins, who has been jailed since mid-January, said she believed Trump would evoke the Insurrection Act and use the US Military to stop President Biden from assuming office. Her lawyer said she and others  “would have a role” in assisting the former president in his attempt to remain in office.  
“However misguided, her intentions were not in any way related to an intention to overthrow the government but to support what she believed to be the lawful government,” Watkins’ attorney Michelle Peterson. “She took an oath to support the Constitution and had no intention of violating that oath or of committing any violent acts.”
As Insider reported Friday, nine members of the far-right Oath Keepers have been charged with conspiracy to obstruct Congress with the January 6 riot. Three, including Watkins, had previously been charged, but six new charges were announced by the Justice Department on Friday. 
Prosecutors said in the indictment Friday the defendants planned to besiege the Capitol as early as November 3 and coordinated plans on social media for weeks beforehand the insurrection in DC.
Watkins, an Army veteran who served in Afghanistan, also this weekend petitioned for release on safety grounds due to her treatment as a transgender woman. She claimed she was “treated harshly” and is at “particular risk in custody” because she is transgender.
So far, more than 250 people have been charged in the Capitol insurrection. Join the conversation about this story » NOW WATCH: Inside London during COVID-19 lockdown
Read More

Continue Reading
Internet Security

Kuch To Hai: Krishna Mukherjee reveals about her dream to play a Naagin one day!

News Kuch To Hai: Krishna Mukherjee reveals about her dream to play a Naagin one day! By TellychakkarTeam 20 Feb 2021 12:37 AM Mumbai Follow us on Google news to get the best breaking news MUMBAI: Krishna Mukherjee, who was last seen in Yeh Hai Mohabbatein, returned to television with hit franchise Naagin’s spin-off Kuch Toh…

News
Kuch To Hai: Krishna Mukherjee reveals about her dream to play a Naagin one day!

By TellychakkarTeam
20 Feb 2021 12:37 AM

Mumbai

Follow us on Google news to get the best breaking news

MUMBAI: Krishna Mukherjee, who was last seen in Yeh Hai Mohabbatein, returned to television with hit franchise Naagin’s spin-off Kuch Toh Hai. The actress recently revealed that it was her dream to be a Naagin on the small screen one day and she’s happy being a part of the show.Krishna also shared about how she bagged the role and that she was in her hometown when she was offered Kuch Toh Hai. She shared that she didn’t audition for Kuch Toh Hai and bagged the role because of her previous work. Krishna also spilled the beans about her favourite Naagin on television and how her parents did not allow her to return to Mumbai during the pandemic.Is there any pressure of carrying forward the successful franchise of Naagin, Kuch Toh Hai?Of course, we are a little nervous. But there is no pressure, we understand that the previous seasons have been successful and now it is our turn to give our best. There’s no pressure on us because we are starting as fresh and we don’t want to compare ourselves to anyone. We are just going to give our best. The love I got from Yeh Hai Mohabbatein and the love Harsh Rajput got from Nazar because we worked hard on our projects we are expecting the same. We are going to work equally hard for this.It was my dream to be seen in the Naagin franchise or play a Naagin and I am very excited and happy to be part of it. I am really thankful to Ekta Kapoor ma’am, Mukta ma’am and the channel that they gave me such a big opportunity and they showed the trust in me that I can do this and take it ahead. I am really happy by God’s grace, I hope this show does well. Till now everything is going smooth, I just hope it does well and people like it. I did not audition for Kuch Toh HaiNo, it was not a conscious decision to stay away from the small screen. Initially, it was lockdown and the pandemic. I was not in Mumbai, I was in my hometown with my parents and they were not ready to make me travel to Mumbai during the pandemic. I did give auditions from there, but to be honest with you I did not give too many auditions. I only tried for projects which I thought would interest me. I did not audition for this, they saw my previous work and they finalised me. They called me for the mock shoot and when I got a call from the production house I was in my hometown. They told me to come the next day for the mock shoot and I informed them that I am not in Mumbai. Then next I took a flight from my hometown and still I was confused whether it will work out or not because such things happen in an actor’s life. After three days they told me I am finalised and doing this show. I first thought they were joking and that’s the reason I did not inform my family or any of my friends that I’ve bagged this show. Everyone came to know after watching the promo and then I informed everyone that I was doing Kuch Toh Hai. It is a big opportunity for me and it took time for me to register.Also read: Kanika Mann, Karishma Tanna, Kritika Kamra, Mahira Sharma and Sargun Mehta make some very UNIQUE and BOLD statements in SUNGLASSESI have realised that you can survive with minimum and basic thingsBy God’s grace I was with my family and I felt really bad for people who were away from their family. They had to deal with problems and difficulties and when you don’t have anyone’s support things become worse. When you have someone to give you a hug or just to tell you that things will be alright you get strength to fight back. For me I had a great time, I know there was panic everyone and people were going through bad times, but I really enjoyed my time with my family. As I always stayed away from my family I hardly got time to spend with them as I was mostly busy shooting but because of the lockdown I got to connect with them again. I leant a lot of things while staying with them again and I felt blessed to be with my family. I leant to be patient and stay positive during the lockdown. I have realised that you can survive with minimum and basic things.There was no insecurity, but I was missing my workThere was no insecurity of not getting work but when you open your social media account and you see other people working, you start missing your work as you also want to work. Because you are so used to working that you miss your sets, work. Who doesn’t want to work. In my head I knew that if not today, I will get work tomorrow.Mouni Roy is my favourite NaaginIt is a very difficult question. Honestly, if you look at the word Naagin I feel Mouni Roy fits the bill perfectly. I like both Surbhi Jyoti and Surbhi Chandna, they are dear friends. They were really good. But when in my mind I think about Naagin two people who immediately come to my mind are either Sridevi or Mouni Roy. And both Mouni’s seasons were successful.Well, the actress is clear about her dreams and surely has a long way to go!Also read: Parvin Dabas, Yatin Karekar and Pavitra Lokesh to come together for a film titled Abhinav; deets inside Stay tuned to this space for more updates from the show.Credits: TOI 

Share

Tags
Kuch to Hai Krishna Mukherjee Krishna Yeh Hai Mohabbatein Harsh Rajput Ekta Kapoor TellyChakkar

Read More

Continue Reading
Internet Security

How the Democratic Party Can Create a Majoritarian Coalition

The Saturday afternoon following Election Day 2020 felt like a holiday Democratic voters feared would never happen. In cities across the country, interracial crowds, united in masked joy, rushed out of doors as soon as the major networks finally called the presidential race for Joe Biden. Where I live in deep-blue D.C., honking cars clogged…

The Saturday afternoon following Election Day 2020 felt like a holiday Democratic voters feared would never happen. In cities across the country, interracial crowds, united in masked joy, rushed out of doors as soon as the major networks finally called the presidential race for Joe Biden. Where I live in deep-blue D.C., honking cars clogged the streets, and strangers cheered one another as if the home team had just come from behind to win a World Series or a Super Bowl. In the park across from my house, a bluegrass trio offered a decent rendition of the Hank Williams classic “I Saw the Light” before a cluster of happy residents who struggled to remember the words. It reminded me of the night a dozen years before when Barack Obama cruised to victory, and his party won healthy majorities in both the House and Senate.Yet what occurred last November was simply relief, not redemption. To many left-leaning Americans in 2008, the election of the first Black president had seemed the triumph of a social movement—an outburst of audacious hope that Obama’s gauzy rhetoric and racial identity encouraged. But Joe Biden won in 2020 largely because he was the sole alternative to the most wretched president and administration in living memory. What else but the prospect of four more years of Donald Trump could have persuaded Angela Davis and Noam Chomsky to back the same ticket that John McCain’s campaign manager and Mitt Romney’s top strategist had? The Democrats’ depressing down-ballot performance—shrinking the party’s House majority and, thanks to Black voters in Georgia, winning the narrowest possible control of the Senate—has left the new president with little hope of leading the fresh era of bold reform the United States and the world so urgently need.At the state level—where GOP dominance had already yielded a set of gerrymandered districts and voter-suppression measures that helped to entrench Republican rule—the returns were bleaker still for the forces of liberal revival. The violent invasion of the Capitol on January 6 may loosen Donald Trump’s vise grip over the Republican faithful. But America has lacked a dominant party since the downfall of the New Deal coalition at the end of the 1960s; the partisan standoff has lasted longer than any such period in history and shows no sign of ending.What can Democratic politicians and activists do to gain the upper hand in electoral combat? How might they become, again, a force that can win consistently, govern effectively, and help bring about the more egalitarian and climate-friendly society Biden and Kamala Harris advocated on the virtual campaign trail?Like most adherents of left egalitarian politics, I believe the only path to such a future lies in adopting a populist program about jobs, income, health care, and other material necessities, while making a transition to a sustainable economy. And Democrats have to convey their goals in language that a majority of Americans can understand and endorse.But any realistic discussion of such a strategy must begin by acknowledging the structural impediments to its success. Democrats compete for power in what is, by any literal definition, not a truly democratic polity. Their nominees for the White House have won the popular vote in all but one of the last eight elections, and their candidates for the Senate routinely take more votes nationwide than do their Republican opponents. But because of a document that 55 gentlemen in wigs and breeches drafted nearly a quarter of a millennium ago and convinced just enough states to ratify, neither accomplishment, by itself, gives contemporary Democrats control over the two most powerful institutions of the federal government. The small-d democratic mandate of abolishing the Electoral College would require a bipartisan consensus that has rarely existed, while it would take a new Constitution to give every voter equal representation in the Senate. (Article V guarantees as much, with its proviso that “no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.”) So rural red states like Wyoming and North Dakota with fewer than a million residents apiece will continue to have the same clout in the upper chamber as massive blue ones like California and New York.Then there’s the problem of big money. Since mass parties emerged in the antebellum era, they have always depended on donations from well-off Americans—and, at least indirectly, the businesses many of them own or run. In 1860, New York financier August Belmont became the first chairman of the Democratic National Committee who was more than a figurehead; he claimed the post thanks at least as much to his ability to raise money from his wealthy friends and associates as to any great political savvy. The Jewish-born immigrant from the Rhineland owned a mansion on Fifth Avenue in Manhattan that featured the first private ballroom in the city.With rare pauses, the cost of running for office has kept climbing since then. Widely adopted public financing of campaigns would stop or reverse this plutocratic creep, while also freeing politicians from the incessant mandate of grubbing for dollars from big-ticket donors. But that solution is impossible as long as the Supreme Court equates donations with free speech—the legal consensus enshrined in the Roberts court’s landmark, and disastrous, 2010 Citizens United decision. Biden’s campaign raised about a billion dollars last year, with large sums from well-off partisans and PACs run by unions.Thanks to the relentless escalation of campaign costs, the amount needed to fund a congressional race in a swing district today dwarfs even what it took less than a decade ago. In 2014, the second most expensive competitive contest for a House seat in the nation was fought out in the 7th District of California; it was narrowly won by Democrat Ami Bera, whose campaign spent nearly $4.4 million. In 2020, his Golden State colleague Katie Porter won reelection after raising almost four times that amount, in what was the nation’s tenth most expensive House race.Famous, charismatic politicians can amass the bulk of their campaign war chests from individual citizens with a wide range of incomes. In 2020, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez raised nearly $15 million in contributions of $200 or less—nearly 80 percent of her total for that cycle. But few congressional Democrats match her renown, and many of the donations she received for a race she won by 44 points would have been better spent on an uncelebrated contender in a purple district whose victory would have increased the party’s slim majority. One can dream of returning to an era before the pollsters, ad-makers, social media specialists, and the salaried campaign staffers who now soak up much of that cash. But in the present, no serious candidate can risk doing without them.To make headway in this environment, Democrats can take some comfort in the diversity of their base. All the hand-wringing about the party’s steady loss of white working-class voters over the past half-century should not obscure the fact that the American majority that votes Democratic represents a broader set of constituencies than the white Christians who are the mainstay of the GOP—and just 43 percent of the population. That majority includes most people of color, most voters—of all races—either under 30 or who live in big cities or inner-ring suburbs, and most recent immigrants. If these constituencies begin to decline and the number of churchgoing whites surges, it will astonish every demographer in the nation.But demography is not, in fact, destiny. In order to contain multitudes, Democrats have to prevent their diverse rank-and-file supporters from waging bitter internal battles that weaken their party’s image and power. Since party leaders decisively rejected their Jim Crow heritage in the 1960s and embraced feminism a decade later, they have often strained to satisfy the demands of nonwhites and women for appointments and a commitment to policies targeted to their specific interests. The white men who run the GOP don’t have that problem: They need not worry whether their cabinets contain enough African Americans or women or any LGBTQ people at all. Neither do they fret that opposing reparations or calls to defund the police will stir up contention among their party’s movement base.The ideological differences that roil the Democrats may appear intractable in part because, in one form or another, they have been around since the days when Mayor Richard Daley’s police smashed the heads of anti-war protesters in downtown Chicago during the party’s national convention in 1968. The left-wing activists who accuse Biden of seeking to restore an unlovely status quo ante are the heirs of the peace crusaders who sought to topple Hubert Humphrey that year, the followers of George McGovern in 1972, and the rainbow warriors who fought to nominate Jesse Jackson in the 1980s (one of whom was a mayor from Vermont named Bernie Sanders). Now as in the past, the prime concern of party centrists is to gain power and retain it, while the left burns to achieve transformative change. In the service of that bolder agenda, left reformers are often willing to suffer a heroic defeat that builds their movement and makes a future triumph based on its ideals seem more possible.But only a broad coalition in which neither camp tries to vanquish the other will secure the victories needed actually to use the power of the state to make substantive reforms. The New Deal succeeded in the 1930s because it unified a party of vicious Southern racists and Blacks who had fled to the North, socialist-minded union leaders and Irish-Catholic bosses, white working-class evangelicals and bed-hopping Hollywood stars. Three decades later, Lyndon B. Johnson pushed the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act, and Medicare through a Congress swollen with Democrats from big cities and farm towns, as well as moderate Republicans turned off by the Goldwater insurgency that had captured their party.Since Bernie Sanders ran his first, surprisingly competitive race for president in 2016, the American left has undergone a significant change, one that’s nudged all parts of the Democratic coalition to embrace economic populist goals—from doubling the minimum wage to making it easier to organize unions. Most leftists now agree, however grudgingly, that the only electoral vehicle for achieving such aims, and more, is the Democratic Party. The old hope for a labor, socialist, or Green party that might awaken the dormant anti-capitalist sentiments of the masses has cracked, perhaps forever, against the wall of the adamantine major-party duopoly. But as a consequence of his two national campaigns, Sanders and his legion of admirers embedded a growing social-democratic movement inside the heart of the Democratic Party.On the eve of the 1960s, Sanders’s fellow socialist Irving Howe acknowledged the same reality: “The decisive political struggles during the next few years will occur in the Democratic party,” he wrote. “This may not be the ideal political arena—of course, it’s not … but there it is: take it or leave it, a fact.” The triumph of Reaganism made his judgment seem dated, for a while. But nothing has changed in the last six decades to make the dream of a radical third party anything more than a sectarian fantasy.Alas, not every new, left Democrat understands that being inside the party incurs an obligation that righteous, if powerless, radicals on the outside don’t share. Any serious political mobilization within the Democratic Party entails a willingness to compromise with centrists who can win elections in parts of the country where the GOP frightens voters by quoting members of the Squad and labeling every Democrat a stalking horse for “socialism.” For their part, centrists need to realize that leftists now make up one of the largest and most committed cohorts of party activists; to disappoint them, continually, means a spiritless future of campaigns dependent on the Republicans nominating candidates as polarizing as Donald Trump, but without his adoring millions. Each camp of Democrats thus has a responsibility to learn from, if not gratify, the other.As an institution, the party could equip itself better to advance its goals. Without the state and municipal machines of old that dispensed patronage and rewarded loyalty, Democrats outside the national centers of power rely heavily on dedicated volunteers whose numbers and enthusiasm wax and wane with each election cycle. The ease with which individual candidates use technology to appeal directly to voters also weakens the party structures that remain. And candidates for state elections depend more on corporate money than their federal counterparts do, because small donors tend to know little and care less about economic issues where they live in contrast to the larger economic forces they hear about on cable news and read about online.At the national level, the DNC, despite the media visibility of its chairperson, devotes itself mostly to raising money and putting on a convention every four years. The task of winning or holding seats in Congress and the states falls largely to the DCCC, the DSCC, the DGA, and the DLCC—acronyms that conceal the labors of thousands of managers, consultants, publicists, programmers, and canvassers all serving candidates whose ambitions can outstrip their political skills. The cosmopolitan background of those who labor in what political scientist Daniel Schlozman calls a “vast Washington-centric Blob” inclines them to give strong backing to abortion rights, marriage equality, and racial justice. But professional Democrats often have less contact with those who live on meager paychecks and can feel less urgency about highlighting solutions to the economic inequality their candidates condemn in speeches.Democrats don’t have to battle the GOP armed solely with the party’s official apparatus.Democrats don’t have to battle the GOP armed solely with the party’s official apparatus. The reformist corners of civil society have lately blossomed with a welter of grassroots organizations that vigorously perform the same quotidian tasks of running campaigns and providing them with eager supporters. There is, for example, Indivisible, founded after the 2016 election to resist Trump and his party at the polls. By the start of the next presidential campaign, it boasted some 5,000 local chapters with at least one in each congressional district. There is Fair Fight, the group created by Stacey Abrams to combat the GOP voter suppression that probably defeated her 2018 bid for governor of Georgia and to educate new voters, particularly young ones of color. “Voting rights” may not be “the pinnacle of power in our country,” as Abrams asserts. But she understands that they’re indispensable in scaling the summits of our politics: making it easier for Democrats of all races to cast ballots expands the constituency demanding a program to meet their needs. And there is the Fairness Project, which spearheaded initiatives that raised the minimum wage in red states like Arkansas and Missouri and expanded Medicaid coverage in Idaho and Utah.That’s just a sample of the ballot-minded grassroots organizations on the left. Older single-issue groups like the Sierra Club and Planned Parenthood routinely donate to, and canvass for, their favored candidates as well. But the fresh troops of the anti-Trump resistance helped provide the party with the élan of a social movement combined with a heightened zeal to carry out some of the practical duties ward bosses once performed.At the same time, the new generation of progressives should not try to turn the Democratic Party into something that might resemble a left-wing insurgency. The failure of Obama’s presidency to live up to its exalted promise was a sober reminder of the difference between the ethos of a movement and the raison d’être of a mass party. The job of the latter is to win elections and cajole enough officeholders to enact policies that voters want. Social movements exist to articulate bold alternatives and make convincing cases for them. Their task is not to capture a working majority but to mobilize a passionate minority to press for fundamental changes in how power works.Still, Democrats would benefit from stoking the impulse behind every successful movement: a sense of common purpose toward a worthy end, of solidarity among its loyalists and empathy toward Americans who need and deserve a more decent society. In the 1930s and early ’40s, that emotion helped cement the partnership between the rising labor movement and the liberal wing of the party under FDR. Such movement-minded stalwarts as Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, AOC, and the late John Lewis have sought to rekindle an analogous flame in our own time.But, by itself, a grand vision will do little to return the Democrats to the commanding position they held in national politics during the three decades from the pit of the Great Depression to LBJ’s fateful decision to send ground troops into the deltas and jungles of South Vietnam. For just a lonely couple of months since the heyday of the 2008 campaign have a majority of Americans, according to the Gallup Poll, held a favorable opinion of the party. No doubt its beleaguered public image stems from Obama’s rocky performance in office as well as the low opinion ratings of its leaders in Congress. But the inability of prominent Democrats to agree about what the party believes and wants to change does not help.In the summer of 2017, I had a brief debate about this critical issue with DNC chair Tom Perez, during a podcast conducted by Politico. “One of the problems that Hillary Clinton had, and one of the problems that Democrats still have,” I told him, “is people don’t really know what we stand for.” Perez countered with vague talk about “our values” and praise for the “technology infrastructure” under development for campaigns. Three years later, neither he nor other party leaders came up with a more compelling pitch. In 2020, Democrats won and lost thanks to campaign branding depicting them as the saviors of the republic from Donald Trump and, perhaps, as the politicians who would not rip away our health care coverage.One reason Republicans swept three straight presidential elections back in the 1980s was that they left no one in doubt about their creed. It did not matter much that the three-part gospel of limited government, traditional values, and a strong military preached by Ronald Reagan and his disciples was built on lies and failed to produce fair or competent governance. Until George H.W. Bush weakened and divided his party in the final year of his single administration, the Reaganite package made conservatism seem the ideology most likely to shape the nation’s future. By the end of the decade, far more Americans under 30 identified themselves as Republicans than with the opposition.Democrats today have plenty of good ideas but seem reluctant to choose which ones to craft into an image that could rival the appeal of Reaganism, for purposes the right-wing icon would have abhorred. Take “The People’s Agenda,” unveiled last December by the nearly 100 members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus. The seven-part program ticks off a long list of worthy left demands, from raising the minimum wage to at least $15 an hour and Medicare for All to the Green New Deal, demilitarizing the police, ending all discrimination against BIPOC and LGBTQ people, and cutting the military budget. It concludes with a ringing call to “End Corporate Greed and Corporate Monopolies.” But like the platform the Democrats ratified at their virtual convention last summer, its length and too much of its language appeal mainly to the already convinced. How many Americans know what BIPOC or “restorative justice” mean? If Democratic reformers stand for so many things, they should not be surprised if millions of Americans with just a casual interest in politics think they stand for almost nothing.If Democratic reformers stand for so many things, they should not be surprised if millions of Americans with just a casual interest in politics think they stand for almost nothing.In bygone days when Democrats ran the political system, they robustly declared themselves to be on the side of anyone who earned a wage or ran a small business and against the moneyed elite seeking to deprive them of the rewards they deserved. In 1936, the party platform hailed the “right to collective bargaining and self-organization free from the interference of employers.” To underline that message, FDR delivered a rousing acceptance speech blasting the “economic royalists” who loathed both him and the “organized power of government” that was challenging their “tyranny.” In an explicit nod to labor, he announced, “Liberty requires opportunity to make a living—a living decent according to the standard of the time, a living which gives man not only enough to live by, but something to live for.” This ethic drove the rationale for such landmark programs of the New Deal as public works jobs, the GI Bill, the Wagner Act, Social Security, and the Fair Labor Standards Act (which created the first national minimum wage and overtime pay rule). To win Southern votes in Congress, the last three laws carved out exemptions for jobs held by millions of African Americans in agriculture and other people’s homes. But they laid the foundation of a robust welfare state that, under popular pressure, could also provide greater security and income support to Black people and other minority groups.The kind of populist rhetoric employed by FDR and his allies had a long history in their party. Democrats won national elections and were competitive in most states when they articulated a broadly egalitarian economic vision and advocated laws intended to fulfill it—just for white Americans until the middle of the twentieth century, and then for everyone. A thread of ideological adherence to what I would call “moral capitalism” stretched from Andrew Jackson’s war against the Second Bank of the United States to Grover Cleveland’s attack on the protective tariff, from William Jennings Bryan’s crusade against the “money power” to FDR’s assault on economic royalists to the full employment promise embedded in the Humphrey-Hawkins Act of 1978. In the 1990s, the pro-corporate centrism of the Democratic Leadership Council muted the traditional message, and Bill Clinton’s two presidential wins made it seem outdated (although he never won a majority of the popular vote).Prominent Democrats picked up this thread again after the Great Recession of 2008. Obama declared that crisis was “a make-or-break moment for the middle class, and for all those who are fighting to get into the middle class.” In their 2020 bids for the presidency, Bernie Sanders vowed to “tax [the] extreme wealth” of billionaires “and invest in working people,” while Elizabeth Warren declared, “I support markets…. But markets without rules … that’s corruption, that’s capture of our government by the richest and most powerful around us.” Joe Biden kept pace by declaring he would be the “most pro-union president” and raise taxes on big corporations and the rich.But to unite a party of many parts and help win over swing voters of modest means, such sentiments need to be translated into a pithy appeal the GOP cannot match. As Jedediah Britton-Purdy wrote last year in Dissent, “There is a tremendous gap between our capacity to articulate a case for a different world and the ability to make it matter to the unpersuaded.”I am a historian, not a political strategist. But a crusading demand for good jobs at good wages, affordable health care for everyone, racial equality, and a green infrastructure would combine four essential objectives a clear majority of Americans already support. The two Democrats who won their Senate races in Georgia in January boiled this down to “Health, Jobs, Justice”—although it would be a terrible mistake to omit the urgency of curbing climate change.Taken together, these aims set forth a vision of a welfare state quite different from the right wing’s false notion of a government that bestows the bulk of tax revenues on the lazy, immoral poor. They would build on the undeniable mass appeal of the Covid relief bailouts of 2020, which only became controversial when the Republican Senate closed ranks to shrink them. Democrats might add to this quartet of first-rank priorities a plea to honor what Senator Sherrod Brown calls “the dignity of work”—with secure jobs protected by unions, the sole institution in America where people of different races cooperate to “lift one another out of the vicious cycle of living paycheck to paycheck,” as Thomas Geoghegan wrote recently in these pages.What these ends have in common is their universality. They speak to the interests of the majority of Americans (except big shareholders in oil companies and proud white supremacists). In breadth of coverage and ambition, they hark back to the programs of the New Deal and Great Society that remain popular today—from Social Security and Medicare, to aid to education and the GI Bill and the Civil Rights Act. They embody the Constitution’s vows to “establish Justice” and “promote the general Welfare,” updating them for a nation far more diverse than that envisioned by the Framers, but a nation that still applies those ideals unequally, if at all.Although these purposes do not explicitly include the eradication of systemic racism, their majoritarian appeal has greater potential to improve the lives of Black and other working-class people of color than do narrower and more race-specific remedies with little chance of enactment. White supremacy has always depended on a state that excludes, clearly or implicitly, aid and protection to Americans of other races. Refusing to compromise with the vow to serve the welfare of everyone would be a profound break with that dreadful tradition. Shaping the party’s image around such goals would not prevent left Democrats from advocating policies, such as defunding the police and abolishing most limits on immigration, that are more controversial than popular. But, for now, their backers could not insist that the party unite behind them.“I was a fool to wander and a-stray/ Straight is the gate and narrow the way,” goes the third verse of the Hank Williams song I heard on that sunny day last fall. The great country musician grew up in a white working-class family in rural Alabama during the Great Depression and moved to Montgomery as a teenager to begin his career. He died accidentally, nearly three years before Martin Luther King Jr. led the bus boycott in that same city—a protest action that ended up altering the nation and the Democratic Party for good.It will not be easy to persuade the descendants of Williams’s worshipful fans and King’s proud boycotters to work together for the same goals and vote for the same candidates. And the structural impediments to a revived liberalism will remain. But a Democratic Party that shows it can speak to what both groups of Americans want and need in language they understand can make the way less narrow. As it gathers confidence and direction, it can also look beyond the past year of unremitting darkness to begin shedding some healing light on our sick society.
Read More

Continue Reading
Internet Security

Chechen Police ‘Kidnap’ Two Brothers in Anti-LGBTQ Crackdown

Marcos del Mazo/LightRocket via Getty ImagesMOSCOW — The Islamist insurgency in Chechnya was crushed long ago, but the harsh security services apparatus remained in place. Police routinely round up gay men, and reports of torture are well documented.In a new development, these police have now arrested ethnic Chechen gay men far from Chechnya. Security agents…

Marcos del Mazo/LightRocket via Getty ImagesMOSCOW — The Islamist insurgency in Chechnya was crushed long ago, but the harsh security services apparatus remained in place. Police routinely round up gay men, and reports of torture are well documented.In a new development, these police have now arrested ethnic Chechen gay men far from Chechnya. Security agents detained two brothers, 17-year-old Ismail Isayev and 20-year-old Salekh Magomadov, in a shelter in Nizhny Novgorod in central Russia earlier this month. The two brothers were active on social media, and posted LGBTQ and Pride symbols.Police brought both back to Chechnya by force, without any official allegations of a crime. Currently they are not allowed to see lawyers. Police depriving detainees of legal defense is a repressive method broadly used against opposition activists these days.Read more at The Daily Beast.
Read More

Continue Reading