Hasta La Gadget!

A police officer who shot a 12-year-old dead in a Cleveland park late last month had been judged unfit for police service two years earlier by a small suburban force where he worked for six months, according to records released Wednesday.

WASHINGTON — As lawmakers race to get out of Washington next week for the holidays, they’re sending a clear message that the role of Congress in authorizing war — and the need for debate on it — has become an afterthought.

It was just last month that President Barack Obama was talking up the need for a new Authorization for Use of Military Force, or AUMF. After all, the U.S. has been launching airstrikes against Islamic State militants in Iraq and Syria since August without any new authorization from Congress. The military campaign has involved more than 1,100 coalition airstrikes so far, mostly carried out by the U.S. military, and the cost to U.S. taxpayers is in excess of $1 billion.

“I’m going to begin engaging Congress over a new Authorization to Use Military Force against ISIL,” Obama said during a Nov. 5 news conference, as he laid out his top priorities for the lame duck session. “The world needs to know we are united behind this effort, and the men and women of our military deserve our clear and unified support.”

Nothing has happened since.

The White House hasn’t sent draft AUMF language to Congress, which typically kicks off the process. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee has tried to hold hearings with key administration officials to get a sense of the parameters Obama would like to see in a new AUMF, but the administration hasn’t produced key witnesses like Secretary of State John Kerry or Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel.

“It’s been very difficult,” said one Senate Democratic source involved in AUMF matters. “How do you authorize war if you can’t hear from the people in charge of executing the war at that high level?”

It’s not just Democrats frustrated with the lack of direction from the White House.

“The commander in chief needs to tell us what his goal is and how he plans to achieve it,” said Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), a member of Armed Services Committee. “It’s a matter of national security.”

In the meantime, Obama has announced plans to send 1,500 U.S. troops to Iraq, for a total of about 3,000 in the country, and sent Congress a request for more than $5 billion to keep fighting the Islamic State, also known as ISIS or ISIL. Lawmakers are poised to quietly OK that money next week in the 2015 National Defense Authorization Act, the annual bill that authorizes American military activity.

A National Security Council official said the administration has been having conversations with lawmakers about a new AUMF, but wouldn’t say when, or if, Obama plans to send over draft language.

“We will continue to engage with the Congress on the elements of an AUMF to ensure that they are appropriately tailored, while still preserving the authorities the president needs to execute his counter-ISIL strategy and to respond as might be necessary to defend the United States,” said NSC spokeswoman Alistair Baskey.

The president maintains that he doesn’t need new war authorization to fight ISIL, only that he would welcome it. He points to two old AUMFs that never expired — one from 2001 that allowed then-President George W. Bush to go after terrorists affiliated with al Qaeda, and one from 2002 that authorized the Iraq War — as his legal justification for bombing Islamic State terrorists in Syria and Iraq.

But a number of lawmakers disagree that a 13-year-old AUMF can be used for a new, longterm military campaign against Islamic State militants in various countries. Among the skeptics: Sen. Bob Menendez (D-N.J.), chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

“I am personally uncomfortable relying on either the 2001 September 11th AUMF and certainly the 2002 Iraq AUMF to prosecute action against ISIL,” Menendez told Obama’s deputy national security adviser Tony Blinken in a November hearing. “I think if you’re going to have, as the president has clearly stated, ‘a new, prolonged military campaign,’ that needs a congressionally approved AUMF.”

Blinken said he agreed, and gave support to ideas Menendez had for how a new AUMF should look: it should be specific to ISIL, it should be limited to three years or some specific time frame, and it should not allow the possibility of a large-scale enduring combat mission.

But beyond that agreement in principle, the administration hasn’t presented Congress with any draft language.

On Wednesday, Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.), one of the loudest critics of the lack of action on new war authorization, laid into Obama and Congress over the “strange conspiracy of silence” on the matter.

“The president has not offered any proposed authorization for the war, despite his suggestions that one is needed,” Kaine said on the Senate floor, urging lawmakers to stay in town past next week to focus on the matter. “Congress has not debated on, taken committee action on, or voted on the ongoing war.”

The Virginia senator noted that, during an Armed Services committee hearing on Tuesday, not a single Defense Department witness could recall a time when a president had told Congress of the need for a war authorization but failed to present a proposal spelling out the military mission.

“Giving this president … a green light to wage unilateral war for five or six months without any meaningful debate or authorization would be deeply destructive of the legitimacy of the legislative branch of our government; it would be deeply disrespectful of our citizens; and it would be especially disrespectful of the troops who are risking their lives every day while we do nothing,” Kaine said.

White House press secretary Josh Earnest said Wednesday that it’s Congress, not the administration, that holds the cards when it comes to action on war authorization.

“Ultimately, the pace of this legislative process will be determined by members of Congress,” he said during his daily briefing.

Earnest also disagreed “strongly” that the White House hasn’t been cooperating with Menendez. He noted that Kerry, who Menendez has been trying to get to come before his committee, has been busy overseas helping to build a coalition of international partners to combat ISIL.

For now, the only thing Congress appears ready to do this year is give Obama the billions of dollars he wants to keep fighting ISIL. In the 1,648-page NDAA bill unveiled Tuesday night, there are just two AUMF-related caveats.

The first calls for a report explaining what it means for the legal authorities provided by the 2001 AUMF when hostilities in Afghanistan end.

The second states that Obama doesn’t have the authority under the 2002 AUMF to train and equip Iraqi soldiers to combat ISIL. But then it says Congress will provide the money to do that anyway.

We are officially in the holiday season. A time that is full of merriment and cheer, but also a time when we can’t do virtually anything online, watch any TV show or open our email (or mailbox) without seeing a promotion for holiday shopping. As the holiday rush accounts for nearly 20 percent of annual sales for the retail industry, it’s critical for marketers to break through the noise to capture consumers’ attention — and wallets — a task that has become as difficult as selling ice to an eskimo. Not because he doesn’t need it, but because there are about a thousand other guys trying to sell him something.

What are brands supposed to do? Perhaps more importantly than opening on Thanksgiving Day at 6pm (or is it now 4pm??), marketers need to follow a mobile-first world’s take on GlenGarry Glen Ross’s “Always Be Closing”… and Always Be Engaging. Engaging with consumers is not following them around their digital lives with ads or sending out daily email blasts for free shipping. Ads are often ignored and free shipping is something that everyone expects in the holiday season — no longer generating the excitement it once did. Marketing engagement is about listening, learning, anticipating and providing unique experiences for each individual customer, at every touch point, when it’s relevant to their immediate situation and need.

Fueled by mobile, marketing has undergone a shift over the past few years, a shift that has accelerated as fast as a Porsche 911 in the past 12 months. Marketing is not about your brand or product or reaching the masses. It’s now about what your brand can do for an individual and engaging consistently.

The rules of mobile engagement are simple: win hearts, enter customers’ personal space and respect every relationship. Engagement must reflect immediacy and current context to truly understand and predict what their customers need and would appreciate in the moment. Context of course is a person’s location, environment, preferences and where they are on the customer journey. Every brand interaction also has its own immediacy requirements that have to be understood. If you ignore context and immediacy, you will end up bombarding consumers with a ton of push alerts and useless banner ads that are not only completely ignored but could also cause irreparable damage to the brand.

The biggest ally that brands have to engage with their customers is big data. But even as companies have heaps of data at their disposal, the lack of relevance with much of the marketing I am personally targeted with is astonishing. I got an email this week from the CEO of a large retailer of outdoor recreation and clothing products, thanking me for my continued patronage. I have not bought loafers (or anything else) from the store in over three years. I see this and immediately dismiss it because it’s not relevant. I understand the need for the marketing teams to send me something, so why not a “We miss you. See what we’ve rolled out since you’ve been gone” instead?

So how can brands better use their data to provide more relevant and engaging marketing this year? Here are a few ideas:

• Predict their holiday shopping list. Can you determine the attributes of who they bought for last year and recommend gifts that are popular among people with similar traits. Instead of promoting your line of kitchen gadgets, inform loyal customer Myles, who purchases for a novice at the holidays when he himself is rather advanced, about recommendations on beginner products, cooking classes or recipes that would be perfect for the budding chef on his list.
• Understand who is likely to host holiday events at their home, known by their social graph and items purchased. Use this information to help the stressed holiday hostess with tips, recipes, ideas to entertain the kiddos, playlists, etc.
• Know how much they are likely to spend. Look at your customers’ spending habits throughout the year and past holiday seasons to determine the size of their holiday budget. Yes, we all would love to buy the 900 cashmere throw, but which of your customers are the ones who could afford this? Target only your big spenders with this, while more reasonable items to the rest of us.
• Recognize habits. Understand customers’ habits and when they are likely to shop (i.e. Michelle is an early bird shopper, while Laurie waits for the very last minute). Does Joel pass by your store during your commute? Then don’t send a geo-targeted ad to them on a Monday when he is heading to work, but try to entice him one evening after work with personal gift recommendations.

So, I challenge marketers to approach this festive time not as selling season, but engagement season, and trust me, the sales will follow.

An eruption of violence unfolded on national television last Monday night after the city of Ferguson, Missouri, learned that Officer Darren Wilson would not be indicted by the St. Louis County grand jury for the killing of Michael Brown Jr., yet another young, unarmed, black male. Eager for answers throughout this painstaking ordeal, the black citizens of Ferguson and other voices from across the nation were calling for unbiased due process in the investigation into the shooting of their “son.” Attorney Benjamin Crump, representing Brown’s family, implored Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon to assign a special prosecutor to the case, one who is not intimately involved with the Ferguson Police Department on a day-to-day basis. He called for, at the very least, an appearance of fairness. Yet his pleas fell on deaf ears.

Michael Brown’s stepfather, Louis Head, attempting to console his wife after the announcement by the county prosecutor that there would be no indictment of the man who killed her son, became visibly overcome with grief himself and unbridled his passions. Unleashing his pent-up anger, he bellowed, “Burn this b**** down!” A war cry that’s well known among the dispossessed, this demand for justice is born out of the black struggle against the preponderance of everyday forms of institutionalized white racism. The news outlets have tried to characterize his words as the ignition that incited a weary crowd to violence. Whether you believe his cries to be literal or figurative, the rebellion was inevitable regardless of his statements, because what is hidden beneath this sound bite are decades of black rage and frustration over blocked opportunities and the denial of equal access to decent jobs, high-quality education, health care and other resources that white Americans ignorantly take for granted. Instead, what black Americans have come to expect from their homeland is continued discrimination in virtually every sphere of society and the subsequent white denial of the existence of said discrimination. In this context, Mike Brown’s death stands as a symbol for any black youth who has ever found himself or herself accosted by our racially exclusive social structure. In this case, the criminal-justice system has been woefully unfair and outright hostile to the concerns of black Americans and other Americans of color.

The African-American experience of North America was born from violent encounters with elite white men and their unrelenting quest for power, control and economic supremacy in what would later evolve into our free-market capitalist empire. This monumental achievement by such a young nation came by way of genocidal campaigns against Native Americans for their land and the enslavement of Africans for their labor power. Today most Americans underestimate the foundational and destructive nature of systemic white racism and how it is reproduced with each proceeding generation. Black folks have had centuries of violence inflicted upon them by their nation and each other. The people grow tired and impatient, and, left with few other options, they ultimately dissent.

It was almost 50 years ago that the Watts neighborhood of Los Angeles went up in flames. The 1965 Watts riots marked the turning point in the civil-rights movement when black Americans had had enough and chose to fight violence with violence. Though the riots were set off by a particular act of police violence against a handful of black citizens, the California governor recognized that the main source of the anger that fueled the riots was the broader context of high unemployment, poor schooling and inadequate housing for blacks in the city. Not much had changed 27 years later when rioting once again erupted in the area following the acquittal of the four officers who brutally beat the late Rodney King in plain view of their dash cam. And not much has changed in the 49 years since the initial riots. An extended history of violence exacted on black Americans has found its way to the millennial generation. This modern-day riot is in line with Bayard Rustin’s 1966 observation that the unequivocal purpose of the Watts riots was to “no longer quietly submit to the deprivation….”

Just as Rodney King was called upon to appeal for peace with his famous remark “Can we all get along?”, Michael Brown Sr. had a similar request of the people of Ferguson. But in the end these urgings fell silent, because the riot was bigger than this one moment in time. The unrest is ultimately the result of systemic inequalities that have long determined African Americans’ standing in society, relegating them to a position as America’s most disenfranchised group. Four hundred years of violence and oppression cannot be assuaged by a few public appeals. Calm and peaceful demonstrations constitute a strategy that eventually runs its course as an effective means of being heard. Black Americans are repeatedly expected to exercise restraint and show patience in the face of white brutality — this after years of suffering and oppression. But after a series of tragedies involving black men and boys dying at the hands of white law-enforcement officers (or community watchmen), very little has been done. Black folks remained calm through Oscar Grant and remained calm through Trayvon Martin. They remained calm through Eric Gardner and Dante Parker and John Crawford. And still no action was taken.

What is happening in Ferguson is a result of the unfinished business of the civil-rights movement. The process is unjust, and laws have been systematically stripped away, undoing many of the provisions that protected minorities from white terror. Many blacks feel they have been denied all legitimate means of civic redress; thus they have no other appropriate venue to express their angst. Malcolm X warned a generation ago that it’s a question of “either the ballot or the bullet.” It is not merely coincidental that the rioters’ first act of defiance was to set two Ferguson patrol cars on fire; this aggressive act epitomizes the deep mistrust that the citizens of Ferguson and other cities have of their own police force, which is supposedly sworn to “protect and serve” its residents. Gone are the days of the community police who were a part of the people. The real perpetrators of violence in U.S. society are those with white privilege who disproportionately target young blacks on the presumption of guilt. It is not a surprise, then, that the voiceless resort to anarchy to be heard.

And still at every juncture, modest attempts at societal transformation are typically met with stiff white resistance and rancorous political partisanship. Blacks are blamed for their own circumstances in life under a regime of white supremacy, and if they fail to pull themselves up by their non-existent bootstraps and carve out a piece of the “American dream,” it is their own fault. As Dr. King observed, “a riot is the language of the unheard.” What did you expect would happen, America?

From the first minutes of “Murder House” through the latest episode of “Freak Show,” “American Horror Story” is responsible for countless nightmares thanks to its weekly doses of disturbing moments. Co-creators Ryan Murphy and Brad Falchuk (and their writers) consistently outdo themselves when it comes to grisly killings, brutal sex scenes, and creepy characters, campily intermingling supernatural tropes with terrors that are grounded in reality.