Malik Jalal, writing in the Independent, tells you how being on the White House's "kill list" has affected his life. Put yourself in his shoes, and imagine keeping away from your family so they don't get "accidentally" bombed to death by drones, and you'll find it a sobering assessment. If you're wondering if Mr. Jalal has maybe "done something" to be on the list, ask yourself who decides who's on a "kill list," or whether the very existence of a "kill list" doesn't actually rid the world of terrorists but merely creates more of them.
FDIC and the Fed find that five big banksters have failed to come up with "credible" plans to wind their businesses down in case of financial instability, and as such can be subject to stricter regulation and/or breaking up in to smaller banks. That's ostensibly so these banksters can't crash the economy with their bad gambles and then receive massive taxpayer bailouts, like, you know, in 2008. But the two agencies couldn't agree on Goldman Sachs and gave Citigroup a shot at fixing the flaws in their plan. Perhaps not coincidentally, Goldman Sachs and Citigroup have been perhaps the most connected banksters in our government (and worst actors in our economy) for many years.
President Obama threatens veto of H.R. 2666, the bill supposedly concerning broadband rate regulation that actually seriously injures, if not kills, internet freedom. "(C)able and phone companies could claim that FCC rules against blocking and throttling -- concepts at the core of federal net neutrality protections -- amount to rate regulation," author Sam Gustin writes, putting it rather more succinctly than I did yesterday. The House plans to vote on H.R. 2666 today (you can call your House Reps using the tools in the upper left-hand corner of this page), so we'll see if it can get a veto-proof majority. Then, of course, it still has to go through the Senate.
The Guardian looks at some 70 million comments left on its articles over the last decade, and finds -- surprise, surprise! -- that of the 10 writers who receive the most abusive comments, eight are women and the other two are black men. The Guardian doesn't just block threats to life and safety, but also abusive speech toward the author, ad hominem attacks on both journalists and other commenters, "dismissive trolling" (which mocks the author or the reader for thinking the subject serious enough to merit coverage), and "whataboutery" (the kind of thing that earns the "are you conceding the point by changing the subject" response from me). That's pretty hardcore -- I tend to let people argue or behave badly and then ridicule them for it, but in any case, the First Amendment only protects you from your government, not from The Guardian's (or anyone else's) rules for commenting.
Finally, Three New York Times op-ed writers ask "Did Blacks Really Endorse the 1994 Crime Bill?" Short answer: not really. Somewhat longer answer: black leaders did, in fact, want less crime (duh), but also wanted more of the kind of investment in their communities that might have actually curtailed crime for the long term, and, well, they didn't get that. They got longer sentences instead. And "(w)hen blacks ask for better policing," the writers say, "legislators tend to hear more instead. It's true that a lot of black Congressfolk voted for it, just as a lot of Medicare-for-All advocates voted for the Affordable Care Act -- but that's hardly a signal of devotion.