Friday, October 25, 2013

NSA Bugs Friendly Leaders' Phones

NSA Monitored Calls of 35 World Leaders After US Official Handed Over Contacts

Angela Merkel was right. Leaders calling it "unprecedented breach of trust."
Photo Credit: Terrance Emerson/Shutterstock.com
 
The National Security Agency monitored the phone conversations of 35 world leaders after being given the numbers by an official in another US government department, according to a classified document provided by whistleblower Edward Snowden.
The confidential memo reveals that the  NSA encourages senior officials in its "customer" departments, such the White House, State and the Pentagon, to share their "Rolodexes" so the agency can add the phone numbers of leading foreign politicians to their  surveillance systems.
The document notes that one unnamed US official handed over 200 numbers, including those of the 35 world leaders, none of whom is named. These were immediately "tasked" for monitoring by the NSA.
The revelation is set to add to mounting diplomatic tensions between the US and its allies, after the German chancellor  Angela Merkel on Wednesday  accused the US of tapping her mobile phone.
After Merkel's allegations became public, White House press secretary Jay Carney issued a statement that said the US "is not monitoring and will not monitor" the German chancellor's communications. But that failed to quell the row, as officials in Berlin quickly pointed out that the US did not deny monitoring the phone in the past.
The NSA memo obtained by the Guardian suggests that such surveillance was not isolated, as the agency routinely monitors the phone numbers of world leaders – and even asks for the assistance of other US officials to do so.
The memo, dated October 2006 and which was issued to staff in the agency's Signals Intelligence Directorate (SID), was titled "Customers Can Help SID Obtain Targetable Phone Numbers".
It begins by setting out an example of how US officials who mixed with world leaders and politicians could help agency surveillance.
"In one recent case," the memo notes, "a US official provided NSA with 200 phone numbers to 35 world leaders … Despite the fact that the majority is probably available via open source, the PCs [intelligence production centers] have noted 43 previously unknown phone numbers. These numbers plus several others have been tasked."
The document continues by saying the new phone numbers had helped the agency discover still more new contact details to add to their monitoring: "These numbers have provided lead information to other numbers that have subsequently been tasked."
But the memo acknowledges that eavesdropping on the numbers had produced "little reportable intelligence". In the wake of the Merkel row, the US is facing growing international criticism that any intelligence benefit from spying on friendly governments is far outweighed by the potential diplomatic damage.
The memo then asks analysts to think about any customers they currently serve who might similarly be happy to turn over details of their contacts.
"This success leads S2 [Signals Intelligence] to wonder if there are NSA liaisons whose supported customers may be willing to share their 'Rolodexes' or phone lists with NSA as potential sources of intelligence," it states. "S2 welcomes such information!"
The document suggests that sometimes these offers come unsolicited, with US "customers" spontaneously offering the agency access to their overseas networks.
"From time to time, SID is offered access to the personal contact databases of US officials," it states. "Such 'Rolodexes' may contain contact information for foreign political or military leaders, to include direct line, fax, residence and cellular numbers."
The Guardian approached the  Obama administration for comment on the latest document. Officials declined to respond directly to the new material, instead referring to comments delivered by Carney at Thursday's daily briefing.
Carney told reporters: "The [NSA] revelations have clearly caused tension in our relationships with some countries, and we are dealing with that through diplomatic channels.

Editor:  Sounds like NSA spin.  Instead of hard wiring and grabbing, hacking they Get Numbers from Friends in other Departments.  Maybe.  The point is, they swore to never listen to US citizens.  They have violated their oath of Office, for at least a decade, and need to be fired.  And not allowed to work in "intelligence" again.

Thursday, October 24, 2013

Right-wing German Gov't Outraged at NSA Spying

Germany summons US ambassador over claim NSA bugged Merkel's phone

Allegations that US spying has reached highest level of government met with outrage and disappointment in Germany

Guido Westerwelle
The decision by Germany's foreign minister, Guido Westerwelle, to summon the ambassador was seen as an unusally drastic move. Photograph: Corbis
 
Germany's foreign minister, Guido Westerwelle, has called the US ambassador to a personal meeting to discuss allegations that US secret services bugged Angela Merkel's mobile phone.
The decision to call in John B Emerson, who has only been the US representative in Berlin since mid-August, is an unusually drastic measure. During previous upheavals in relations, such as over the Syrian crisis, conversations have taken place between diplomats.

Allegations that the US government's spying had reached the highest level were met with outrage and disappointment in Germany on Thursday. The country's defence minister, Thomas de Maiziere, told ARD television it would be bad if the reports turned out to be true. Washington and Berlin could not return to business as usual, he said.

Informed sources in Germany said Merkel was livid about the reports that the NSA had bugged her phone and was convinced, on the basis of a German intelligence investigation, that the reports were utterly substantiated.

The German news weekly, Der Spiegel, reported an investigation by German intelligence, prompted by research from the magazine, that produced plausible information that the chancellor's mobile was targeted by the US eavesdropping agency. She found the evidence substantial enough to call the White House and demand clarification.

The outrage in Berlin came days after the French president, François Hollande, called the White House to confront Barack Obama with reports that the NSA was targeting the private phone calls and text messages of millions of French people.
Link to video: Merkel's phone bug: EU commission calls for action on data protection

While European leaders have generally been keen to play down the impact of the whistleblowing disclosures in recent months, events in the EU's two biggest countries this week threatened an increasing lack of trust in transatlantic relations.

On Wednesday Merkel's spokesman, Steffen Seibert, made plain that the chancellor upbraided Obama unusually sharply and also voiced exasperation at the slowness of the Americans to respond to detailed questions about the NSA scandal since the Snowden revelations first appeared in the Guardian in June.

Merkel told Obama that "she unmistakably disapproves of and views as completely unacceptable such practices, if the indications are authenticated", Seifert said. "This would be a serious breach of confidence. Such practices have to be halted immediately."

The sharpness of the German complaint direct to a US president strongly suggested that Berlin had no doubt about the grounds for protest. Seibert voiced irritation that Berlin had waited for months for proper answers from Washington on the NSA operations.

On Thursday Süddeutsche Zeitung conveyed a strong sense of the depth of disillusionment with the US president in Germany when it wrote that "Barack Obama is not a Nobel peace prize winner, he is a troublemaker".

In a comment piece in the German broadsheet, Robert Rossmann wrote that during his last visit to Germany, "the American president had flamboyantly promised more trusting collaboration between the countries. Even Merkel seems to have lost faith in that promise by now. One doesn't dare imagine how Obama's secret services deal with enemy states, when we see how they treat their closest allies."
Die Zeit wrote that Obama's "half-hearted denial" of the allegations raised more questions than it answered. "Was Merkel's mobile the target of NSA surveillance in the past? … It is time for Obama and the US Congress to be ruthlessly transparent about the macabre practices of the NSA and restrain them strongly. They promised it months ago, but until recently very little has happened. With each revelation trust is eroded further. If America wants to stop annoying its friends and allies, it only has one option. Get on the front foot and be open."

Criticism was not focused solely on Obama, but was extended to Merkel, whose chief of staff only recently declared that the NSA scandal was finished. Many feel Merkel failed to react appropriately to the Snowden revelations, and was only stepping up the rhetoric now that she had been personally affected.

Germany's data protection commissioner, Peter Schaar, said that the reports showed "the absurdity of politicians trying to draw to a close the debate about surveillance of everyday communication here". He said it had been irresponsible of politicians not to be more upfront in calling for the US to clear up the matter.

Anke Domscheit-Berg, of the German Pirate party, told the Guardian: "In the past few months, Chancellor Merkel did very little to make the US government answer all those questions that should have had highest political priority. Now she gets a taste of what it feels like when foreign secret services spy on all your communication. We have stopped trusting empty promises and so should Angela Merkel. It is about time to get all dirty secrets on the table."

The debate in the coming days is likely to focus on how the allegations will affect new data protection regulation at the European level, with some MEPs calling for a Europe-only data cloud. In Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, Georg Mascolo and Ben Scott warned of the creation of a "digital Maginot line" between Europe and the US, and instead called for a "no-spy treaty" between European countries.

"Storing data and surveillance would only be allowed for previously agreed goals – the fight against terrorism, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction as well as grave acts of crime. All forms of political and economic espionage would be banned. The privacy of every EU citizen has to be respected by each EU secret service as if they were their own."


Tuesday, October 22, 2013

Slipping Past NSA Spies

New Google technology ‘uProxy’ to provide uncensored Internet for global activists

Published time: October 22, 2013 00:45
Edited time: October 22, 2013 13:33
Reuters / Cathal McNaughton
Reuters / Cathal McNaughton
Internet privacy advocates and activists suffering under repressive government regimes may now have a new avenue for free expression with uProxy, a tool developed by Google that is expected to bypass censorship and invasive government monitoring.
Developed by Google’s New York City-based think tank Google Ideas, uProxy is a peer-to-peer service that allows one to establish an encrypted internet connection with someone they trust. Google, which provided the funding to developers Brave New Software and the University of Washington, hopes the new technology will outwit government officials around the world who have cracked down on the internet in recent years.
“If you look at existing proxy tools today, as soon as they’re effective for dissidents, the government finds out about them and either blocks them or infiltrates them,” Jared Cohen, director of Google Ideas, told Time magazine. “Every dissident we know in every repressive society has friends outside the country whom they know and trust. What if those trusted friends could unblock the access in those repressive societies by sharing their own access? That was the problem we tried to solve.”
Like Tor, uProxy consists of a simple browser extension that is capable of finding a user’s friends on Facebook. The service, currently in “restricted beta” mode, is not an anonymizing network like Tor but will render an individual connection indistinguishable from all other encrypted conversations online. That anonymity might itself be valuable, considering the lengths that agencies such as the NSA have gone to in order to crack Tor’s security.
“There’s no uProxy-specific mark on traffic that identifies the traffic as being sent by uProxy,” the service’s website notes.
A user in the US would essentially be able to provide an American connection to a friend in Iran, for example, without fear that the link would be revealed.
“The user in Iran can get unfiltered access to the internet that’s completely uncensored and will look just like it does in the US,” Cohen went on. “Every dissident we know in every repressive society has friend outside the country whom they know and trust. What if those trusted friends could unblock the access in those repressive societies by sharing their own access? That was the problem we tried to solve.”
“This is a company of activists and white-hat hackers,” he said. “When you work at Google and tell these engineers that their skill-set is relevant to somebody in Iran who doesn’t have access to information in their country or the rest of the world, it really inspires them to want to do something about it. There is a genuine altruism that exists at this company, and that’s why I’m here and not anywhere else.”
Google Ideas will introduce uProxy in a New York City conference titled “Conflict in a Connected World.” The event will also be the debut of Project Shield, a measure that will help human rights groups, major media organizations, and others fend off the distributed denial-of-service (DDoS) attacks which incapacitate a website by overwhelming it with traffic.
“We believe in human rights, we believe in free expression,” Cohen said. “We believe in election monitoring, and we believe in independent media.”

Monday, October 21, 2013

C. Hedges: Class War Has Begun

Let’s Get This Class War Started

Hedges: “The sooner we realize that we are locked in deadly warfare with our ruling, corporate elite, the sooner we will realize that these elites must be overthrown.”

Editor - Occupy is way ahead of Professor Hedges.  Like where are our Forces?  The hundreds of earnest Occupiers?  Their thousands of silver haired, well meaning supporters?  Overthrow the US Army?  With a couple of thousand earnest rebels?  You are joking, Prof. Hedges.  I hope.

“The rich are different from us,” F. Scott Fitzgerald is said to have remarked to Ernest Hemingway, to which Hemingway allegedly replied, “Yes, they have more money.”
 
Class war only when we fight back

The exchange, although it never actually took place, sums up a wisdom Fitzgerald had that eluded Hemingway. The rich are different. The cocoon of wealth and privilege permits the rich to turn those around them into compliant workers, hangers-on, servants, flatterers and sycophants. Wealth breeds, as Fitzgerald illustrated in “The Great Gatsby” and his short story “The Rich Boy,” a class of people for whom human beings are disposable commodities. Colleagues, associates, employees, kitchen staff, servants, gardeners, tutors, personal trainers, even friends and family, bend to the whims of the wealthy or disappear. Once oligarchs achieve unchecked economic and political power, as they have in the United States, the citizens too become disposable.

The public face of the oligarchic class bears little resemblance to the private face. I, like Fitzgerald, was thrown into the embrace of the upper crust when young. I was shipped off as a scholarship student at the age of 10 to an exclusive New England boarding school. I had classmates whose fathers—fathers they rarely saw—arrived at the school in their limousines accompanied by personal photographers (and at times their mistresses), so the press could be fed images of rich and famous men playing the role of good fathers. I spent time in the homes of the ultra-rich and powerful, watching my classmates, who were children, callously order around men and women who worked as their chauffeurs, cooks, nannies and servants. When the sons and daughters of the rich get into serious trouble there are always lawyers, publicists and political personages to protect them—George W. Bush’s life is a case study in the insidious affirmative action for the rich. The rich have a snobbish disdain for the poor—despite well-publicized acts of philanthropy—and the middle class. These lower classes are viewed as uncouth parasites, annoyances that have to be endured, at times placated and always controlled in the quest to amass more power and money. My hatred of authority, along with my loathing for the pretensions, heartlessness and sense of entitlement of the rich, comes from living among the privileged. It was a deeply unpleasant experience. But it exposed me to their insatiable selfishness and hedonism. I learned, as a boy, who were my enemies.

Class war no war but class war

The inability to grasp the pathology of our oligarchic rulers is one of our gravest faults. We have been blinded to the depravity of our ruling elite by the relentless propaganda of public relations firms that work on behalf of corporations and the rich. Compliant politicians, clueless entertainers and our vapid, corporate-funded popular culture, which holds up the rich as leaders to emulate and assures us that through diligence and hard work we can join them, keep us from seeing the truth.
“They were careless people, Tom and Daisy,” Fitzgerald wrote of the wealthy couple at the center of Gatsby’s life. “They smashed up things and creatures and then retreated back into their money or their vast carelessness, or whatever it was that kept them together, and let other people clean up the mess they had made.”

Aristotle, Niccolò Machiavelli, Alexis de Tocqueville, Adam Smith and Karl Marx all began from the premise there is a natural antagonism between the rich and the masses. “Those who have too much of the goods of fortune, strength, wealth, friends, and the like, are neither willing nor able to submit to authority,” Aristotle wrote in “Politics.” “The evil begins at home; for when they are boys, by reason of the luxury in which they are brought up, they never learn, even at school, the habit of obedience.” Oligarchs, these philosophers knew, are schooled in the mechanisms of manipulation, subtle and overt repression and exploitation to protect their wealth and power at our expense. Foremost among their mechanisms of control is the control of ideas. Ruling elites ensure that the established intellectual class is subservient to an ideology—in this case free market capitalism and globalization—that justifies their greed. “The ruling ideas are nothing more than the ideal expression of the dominant material relationships,” Marx wrote, “the dominant material relationships grasped as ideas.”

The blanket dissemination of the ideology of free market capitalism through the media and the purging, especially in academia, of critical voices have permitted our oligarchs to orchestrate the largest income inequality gap in the industrialized world. The top 1 percent in the United States own 40 percent of the nation’s wealth while the bottom 80 percent own only 7 percent, as Joseph E. Stiglitz wrote in “The Price of Inequality.” For every dollar that the wealthiest 0.1 percent amassed in 1980 they had an additional $3 in yearly income in 2008, David Cay Johnston explained in the article “9 Things the Rich Don’t Want You to Know About Taxes.” The bottom 90 percent, Johnson said, in the same period added only one cent. Half of the country is now classified as poor or low-income. The real value of the minimum wage has fallen by $2.77 since 1968. Oligarchs do not believe in self-sacrifice for the common good. They never have. They never will. They are the cancer of democracy.


Class war and we're losing

“We Americans are not usually thought to be a submissive people, but of course we are,” Wendell Berry writes. “Why else would we allow our country to be destroyed? Why else would we be rewarding its destroyers? Why else would we all—by proxies we have given to greedy corporations and corrupt politicians—be participating in its destruction? Most of us are still too sane to piss in our own cistern, but we allow others to do so and we reward them for it. We reward them so well, in fact, that those who piss in our cistern are wealthier than the rest of us. How do we submit? By not being radical enough. Or by not being thorough enough, which is the same thing.”

The rise of an oligarchic state offers a nation two routes, according to Aristotle. The impoverished masses either revolt to rectify the imbalance of wealth and power or the oligarchs establish a brutal tyranny to keep the masses forcibly enslaved. We have chosen the second of Aristotle’s options. The slow advances we made in the early 20th century through unions, government regulation, the New Deal, the courts, an alternative press and mass movements have been reversed. The oligarchs are turning us—as they did in the 19th century steel and textile factories—into disposable human beings. They are building the most pervasive security and surveillance apparatus in human history to keep us submissive.

This imbalance would not have disturbed most of our Founding Fathers. The Founding Fathers, largely wealthy slaveholders, feared direct democracy. They rigged our political process to thwart popular rule and protect the property rights of the native aristocracy. The masses were to be kept at bay. The Electoral College, the original power of the states to appoint senators, the disenfranchisement of women, Native Americans, African-Americans and men without property locked most people out of the democratic process at the beginning of the republic. We had to fight for our voice. Hundreds of workers were killed and thousands were wounded in our labor wars. The violence dwarfed the labor battles in any other industrialized nation. The democratic openings we achieved were fought for and paid for with the blood of abolitionists, African-Americans, suffragists, workers and those in the anti-war and civil rights movements. Our radical movements, repressed and ruthlessly dismantled in the name of anti-communism, were the real engines of equality and social justice. The squalor and suffering inflicted on workers by the oligarchic class in the 19th century is mirrored in the present, now that we have been stripped of protection. Dissent is once again a criminal act. The Mellons, Rockefellers and Carnegies at the turn of the last century sought to create a nation of masters and serfs. The modern corporate incarnation of this 19th century oligarchic elite has created a worldwide neofeudalism, where workers across the planet toil in misery while corporate oligarchs amass hundreds of millions in personal

wealth.Revolution Its Time

Class struggle defines most of human history. Marx got this right. The sooner we realize that we are locked in deadly warfare with our ruling, corporate elite, the sooner we will realize that these elites must be overthrown.

The corporate oligarchs have now seized all institutional systems of power in the United States. Electoral politics, internal security, the judiciary, our universities, the arts and finance, along with nearly all forms of communication, are in corporate hands. Our democracy, with faux debates between two corporate parties, is meaningless political theater. There is no way within the system to defy the demands of Wall Street, the fossil fuel industry or war profiteers. The only route left to us, as Aristotle knew, is revolt.

It is not a new story. The rich, throughout history, have found ways to subjugate and re-subjugate the masses. And the masses, throughout history, have cyclically awoken to throw off their chains. The ceaseless fight in human societies between the despotic power of the rich and the struggle for justice and equality lies at the heart of Fitzgerald’s novel, which uses the story of Gatsby to carry out a fierce indictment of capitalism. Fitzgerald was reading Oswald Spengler’s “The Decline of the West” as he was writing “The Great Gatsby.” Spengler predicted that, as Western democracies calcified and died, a class of “monied thugs” would replace the traditional political elites. Spengler was right about that.
“There are only two or three human stories,” Willa Cather wrote, “and they go on repeating themselves as fiercely as if they had never happened before.”

The seesaw of history has thrust the oligarchs once again into the sky. We sit humiliated and broken on the ground. It is an old battle. It has been fought over and over in human history. We never seem to learn. It is time to grab our pitchforks.

Editor - Ha ha.  Chris Hedges was kidding.  Pitchforks?  Ha ha..  But then, why urge revolt?
The SDS Weathermen revolted.  Unconnected to the masses, the Weather people bombed and rebelled.  The Corporate Media portrayed them as Terrorists.  The masses did not know them.
They were hunted and jailed.  Pointless. Other Columbia SDS went to work organizing workers against the War. Known as RYM II, these organizers caused 8 Wildcat walkouts in one year, and finally a long strike of an entire State's workers. (135,000). 
Many people believe this is what needs to be done now.  Progressives need to begin building relationships with Labor leadersThey are reaching out to Progressives and Non Profits for support.  We need to Welcome these mighty Union leaders.  They have millions of Members.  They are well-financed.  They are being attacked by greedy Banks and the US Chamber of Commerce.



Sunday, October 20, 2013

Tea Party vs Wall Street, Big Business, NSA

"The media used to love to say that politicians were worthless because they were controlled by Wall Street," said Idaho GOP Rep. Raul Labrador at a Heritage Foundation-sponsored forum this week. "They were controlled by business. They were controlled by special interests.

The only group that has stood up to Wall Street, to the special interests, to the big businesses, has been the Tea Party.  (Also the NSA and DOD cuts -ed).

For the last two weeks, I've read about that in your papers, but it has been in a derisive manner. We are uncontrollable-because Wall Street can't control us. We are uncontrollable because business can't control us.

Instead of praising that, that which the American people have been waiting for for the last 200 years, politicians listening to the people instead of the ruling class, you guys have been writing about that in a derisive manner. I think that's really sad."  (really bad journalism)

Editor.  Tea Party leader Justin Amash (R-Michigan) has called for DOD cuts and NSA reform
He also led the fight against Obama's rush to bomb Syria, Yemen, Mali. 
Progressives can ally with Justin on NSA, DHS, Patriot Act, Syria, Yemen, et al
Just not on our divisive Obamacare.  (He's young, and not thinking
about retirement yet)



Saturday, October 19, 2013

Chase Pays $13 Billion for Criminal Fraud

JPMorgan to Pay $13 Billion for 

Mortgage Claims

Saturday, 19 Oct 2013 05:43 PM
 
Share:
JPMorgan Chase has reached a tentative $13 billion agreement with the U.S. Justice Department to settle a range of mortgage issues, a source familiar with the talks said on Saturday.

The tentative deal does not release the bank from criminal liability, a factor that had been a major sticking point in the discussions, the source said.

As part of the deal, the bank will continue to cooperate in criminal inquiries into certain individuals involved in the conduct at issue, the source, who declined to be identified.

Officials at JPMorgan and the Justice Department declined to comment.

A breakthrough in the weeks-long talks came Friday night, after Attorney General Eric Holder and JPMorgan Chief Executive Jamie Dimon spoke on the phone and the bank agreed to leave criminal liability out of the settlement, the source said.

The bank and the Justice Department have been discussing a broad deal that would resolve not only a civil investigation into mortgage securities that the bank sold in the runup to the financial crisis, but also similar lawsuits from the Federal Housing Finance Agency, the National Credit Union Administration, the state of New York and others.


Friday, October 18, 2013

Senate Women Win for All Citizens

11 Things You Don’t Know About The Senate Sisterhood

And other stuff I learned reporting the Senate women’s story
I have a story in this week’s magazine about the 20 Senate women and their growing—and positive—influence on the Upper Chamber. You can credit the tight, bipartisan bonds that these women have formed for not only seeding the compromise that reopened the government, but the vast majority of the legislation passed this session.

Senate Appropriations Committee Chair Mikulski pushed through a government funding bill in January that avoided both a government shutdown and a default on U.S. debt; Budget Committee Chair Patty Murray passed the first Democratic budget in four years; Environment and Public Works Committee Chair Barbara Boxer saw through a $105 billion transportation bill and a $12.5 billion water resources bill; Agriculture Committee Chair Debbie Stabenow got the  $955 billion farm bill passed; and all 20 women banded together to see the Violence Against Women Act signed into law. Except for immigration reform, every major bill passed this session has been authored by a woman.

I spent nearly six months reporting this story, interviewing 14 of the senators, some of them multiple times, as well as all 20 of the women’s staffs. So, of course, much of my reporting didn’t make it into the story. Here are 10 things—facts, anecdotes, stories—that didn’t make it into the print piece.

1) Women did not begin to maintain a multiple presence in the Senate until 1992. Most of the women elected that cycle—Democrats Patty Murray of Washington, Illinois’ Carol Mosley Braun and Californians Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer— ran to change Congress after watching male senators beat up on Anita Hill during Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas’s confirmation hearings.

2) Until 1992 almost all the women elected to the Senate were filling seats for a relation. But in the last 20 years, more and more women are getting elected in their own right. These days Alaska’s Lisa Murkowski, a Republican, is the only woman who filled a seat for a family member—her father, long time Alaska senator Frank Murkowski. Of course, that doesn’t count members of political dynasties like Mary Landrieu, a Louisiana Democrat, and Hillary Clinton, who represented New York, who may not have had direct relatives serve in the Senate, but they did get a boost from their families.

3) Democrats have a natural advantage with women, a fact which Republicans are working to change. Emily’s List was started in 1986 to help elect Democratic women after Democratic men refused to give “Give ‘Em Hell” Harriet Woods money for her senatorial campaign in Missouri. She lost by 2% of the vote. Democrats have funded a lot of Mikulski’s so-called “macaroni and cheese” issues from breast cancer and other women’s health research to head start, Planned Parenthood, school lunches, maternity leave, equal pay for women, etc. Abortion is also a big issue for Democrats. It puts Republicans in a tough spot—half of the four GOP women in the Senate are pro-choice. So, for example, a Republican woman has never served on the Senate Judiciary Committee because most of the judicial confirmations revolve around abortion and the other issues are mostly hyper-partisan, whereas women generally seek to have less strident personas. Republicans have been slower to focus on electing women but congressional GOP groups this year announced a push to recruit women in 2014. Of the 20 Senate women, four are Republican.

4) Women may look sweet, but don’t assume they don’t know anything about guns and violence. The Senate was debating a ban on assault weapons a few years back and Feinstein was speaking on the floor. Former Idaho Senator Larry Craig interrupted her and patronizingly offered to tutor her about guns. Feinstein patiently explained to him that her predecessor as mayor of San Francisco had been assassinated by gun, along with a member of the a Board of Supervisors. Feinstein then offered to instruct Craig on what life in an inner city is like with guns.

5) They are pretty good camel traders. When Democrats were having trouble getting a Washington building named after former President Bill Clinton, Boxer took the lead. She offered Republicans a trade: naming a courthouse in Midland, TX for George H. W. Bush and George W. Bush. A few other members asked for small items and suddenly they had a deal. Clinton called Boxer up incredulous, “You have to tell me how you did it.”

6) Women believe in the power of food. Almost all of the chairs and ranking members have regular meals with their top counterparts. Barbara Boxer goes so far as to spend her own money catering mark ups and hearings for the staffs on both sides of the aisle. When a big bill passes, she springs for lobster rolls. “Food was an important part of my upbringing,” Boxer says. “I try to take particular staff out on both sides of the aisle.”

7)   Women have an outsized influence. According to Michele Swers, author of Women in the Club, Gender and Policy Making in the Senate, 30% of legislation between 2000-2004 was on so-called “macaroni and cheese” issues, showing that women—who only made up 9% of the chamber at the time—were batting well above average.

8) They don’t go for the kill, especially amongst themselves. The 20 Senate women gathered in the U.S. Capitol’s ceremonial Appropriations Committee hearing room in June at a deadlock over the problem of sexual assault in the military. Missouri Democrat Claire McCaskill made an impassioned plea for her amendment that would leave dealing with such incidents within the chain of command. It fell flat, with 16 of the 20 supporting New York Democrat Kirsten Gillibrand’s competing bill, which would refer sexual assault cases to outside lawyers. Suddenly McCaskill’s long career championing of victims of sexual assault was being called into question by people she had expected to back her. But the next thing that happened was even more remarkable. The women all agreed that they would not air their differences in public, but rather emphasize the fact that the bills are 95% identical and that whichever one passes, it would represent the most significant overhaul of the issue in Congressional history. And this was the message that all 20 women stuck to in events at home or traveling abroad for the entire five-week summer recess. “There’s a list of 12 major reforms,” McCaskill said in an August interview. “Eleven of those, Kirsten and I worked on together and they are in the bill. They are huge historic reforms. But all of that work and the nature of that work unfortunately has been overshadowed by one point where we disagree.”

9) They personalize issues in highly effective ways. In Washington Democrat Patty Murray’s first year in office in 1993, the Senate was debating the Family Medical Leave Act. She took to the floor and spoke about how a dear friend’s son’s sickness and death had cost him his job and nearly bankrupted their family. On her way out of the chamber, an older male senator stopped her. “We don’t tell personal stories here,” he admonished. “It’s inappropriate.” Murray replied that she had every intention of talking about personal stories and she felt it was more than appropriate. “Years later he apologized and thanked me,” Murray recalls. “He realized that highlighting the real impact, that that’s how we help people understand what we’re doing.”

10) The club is diverse. Some women are single. Some are childless. Some ran for office when their children were grown. Many are grandmothers. Age is one commonality; life experience is another, as are geography and politics. Murkowski and Hawaii Democrat Mazie Hirono have bonded over the special needs of representing non-contiguous states. And it doesn’t hurt that Murkowski’s mother-in-law lives in Maui. Democrats Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin, the first openly gay senator, and Heitkamp hail from the same region and were brought together traveling the country in 2012, when they were both elected, as part of a Democratic push to showcase female candidates. Hurricane Katrina veteran Landrieu, who chairs of the Small Business Committee, helped Gillibrand navigate the 9/11 First Responders Fund and Hurricane Sandy relief bills through the Senate. Boxer has taken a special interest in Massachusetts Democrat Elizabeth Warren—both are liberal firebrands.

11) Almost every woman elected to the Senate has stories of sexism. Three months after taking office in 2007, when the number of female senators rose from 14 to 16, Klobuchar was on a Senators only elevator. The doors opened to admit an older male senator, whom she won’t name. He looked at her and barked: “This elevator is for Senators only!” Her staffer replied, “She is a Senator.” The man went bright red, and stepped back. As the doors closed without him, Klobuchar sweetly quipped, “And who are you?” On McCaskill’s first day, she was stopped by a Senate chamber doormen. Assuming she was staff, he told there’d be no floor passes that day. “I said, ‘I think I earned my floor pass,’” McCaskill recalls. “He was mortified.” During Ayotte’s first week as the only woman elected in 2010, she was in the Capitol with Florida Republican Marco Rubio. An orientation aide approached and reminded Rubio that he needed to get an ID, as did his wife, the staffer said, gesturing to Ayotte. “I think Marco was more embarrassed than I was,” Ayotte laughs.