Shooting the Messenger

June 11, 2013, 11:30 a.m.

This series includes: "Lavabit Confronts 'Complicit or Close?' Levison Closes," August 9, 2013; "A Simple Matter to Drag People Along," August 6, 2013; "The Future of Surveillance and How to Stop It," August 4, 2013; "Surveillance: Differences of Degree and of Kind," July 3, 2013; "Shooting the Messenger; Should Government Be Able to Keep Its Abuses Secret?," June 11, 2013; "From Zazi to Stasi; Trusting a Government That Doesn't Trust You," June 9, 2013; "Law's Losing Race With Technology," June 7, 2013.

Should Government Be Able To Keep Its Abuses Secret?

I'd call the cops, but they're already here.
-- Mason Williams

Everybody knows that the dice are loaded . . .
Everybody knows the fight was fixed . . .
Everybody knows that the boat is leaking
Everybody knows that the captain lied . . .
And everybody knows that the Plague is coming
Everybody knows that it's moving fast . . .
Everybody knows the scene is dead
But there's gonna be a meter on your bed
That will disclose
What everybody knows
That's how it goes
Everybody knows
-- Leonard Cohen, "Everybody Knows"

It’s very, very difficult, I think, to have a transparent debate about secret programs approved by a secret court, issuing secret court orders, based on secret interpretations of the law.
-- Senator Tom Udall (D-N.M.) Chris Strohm and Gopal Ratnam, "NSA Leader Seeks Openness on Secret Surveillance Orders," Bloomberg News, June 12, 2013

And what's the response when the cover of secrecy is breached? They lie:

Senator Ron Wyden (D-Ore.): Does the NSA collect any type of data at all on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans?

Director of National Intelligence James Clapper: No, sir.
-- Connie Cass, "Mangled facts, secrecy, confusion leave Americans unsure what to believe about NSA programs," AP/Washington Post, June 13, 2013

[H]e [Edward Snowden] appears to be a product of . . . the apparently growing share of young men in their 20s who are living technological existences in the fuzzy land between their childhood institutions and adult family commitments. . . . [Their] life is not embedded in a series of gently gradated authoritative structures: family, neighborhood, religious group, state, nation and world. Instead, it’s just the solitary naked individual and the gigantic and menacing state. . . . For society to function well, there have to be basic levels of trust and cooperation, a respect for institutions . . ..
-- David Brooks, "The Solitary Leaker," New York Times, June 11, 2013, p. A23; To which an unidentified Times reader responds with the online comment:

I find it somewhat disingenuous to criticize the younger generation for cynicism and mistrust without acknowledging the wider atmosphere that's responsible for creating such attitudes in the first place. . . . [A]uthorities and institutions have betrayed us at every turn. We have witnessed our political system become hobbled by polarization and corruption, our economy crippled by financial elites, our media devolve into petty bickering and mindless infotainment, our liberties eroded by the unending War on Terror and War on Drugs, our social safety net cut to shreds, our incomes stagnate while the wealthy hoard, our jobs disappear while the stock market soars, our natural environment raped in the name of profits and convenience, our friends and relatives sent off to wars built on lies, and our privacy systematically invaded by corporations and the government. And you ask . . . why we have lost our respect for authority and trust in institutions?

First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.

Then they came for the socialists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for the Catholics,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Catholic.

Then they came for me,
and there was no one left to speak for me.
-- Martin Niemöller

We should never forget that everything Adolf Hitler did in Germany was "legal" . . .. It was "illegal" to aid and comfort a Jew in Hitler's Germany. Even so, I am sure that, had I lived in Germany at the time, I would have aided and comforted my Jewish brothers.
-- Dr. Martin Luther King, "Letter from Birmingham Jail," April 16, 1963

_______________
Whom do you call when the cops are the criminals? Where can a military woman find justice when she is raped by her superior, and even if he is found guilty his superior can overturn the conviction?

And, more to the point today, what is the most appropriate response of a democratic society to its whistle-blowers when what they believe they need to reveal regarding a governmental abuse has been classified "secret"? [Photo credit: multiple sources.]

As Senator Udall has reminded us (quoted above), "It’s very, very difficult, I think, to have a transparent debate about secret programs approved by a secret court, issuing secret court orders, based on secret interpretations of the law." Does that make the case for whistle-blowing about secret, questionable programs stronger or weaker? With all that has been, and will be, written about Edward Snowden's revelations, this is an issue that requires much more discussion among Americans and their elected officials. This blog essay is intended as a stimulus to a beginning of that discussion.

Senator Ted Kennedy said of his brother, at Robert Kennedy's memorial service, "My brother need not be idealized, or enlarged in death beyond what he was in life; to be remembered simply as a good and decent man, who saw wrong and tried to right it . . .."

In a world governed by former Speaker of the House Sam Rayburn's advice to new House members, "If you want to get along, go along," a whistle-blower who "sees wrong and tries to right it" -- as an employee of a hospital, corporation, university, or military unit -- knows there will be a price to be paid: at a minimum, things will no longer be the same with their employer and colleagues. They may be fired. They may find it impossible to find work anywhere within their former industry. As an FCC commissioner challenging some of America's most powerful corporations with revelations about their practices, I knew that I would probably never again be either reappointed to the Commission or employed by law firms in Washington.

Most of us, faced with the choice between what we believe is our moral obligation to at least reveal, if not stop, things we believe to be illegal or otherwise wrong, on the one hand, and on the other hand, to remain silent and continue to be paid, will not casually choose the former over the latter. We have an endless list of our rationalizations for averting our eyes from what, as Leonard Cohen reminds us, "everybody knows."

But the question confronting America today is much more serious than the matter of how we treat everyday, conventional whistle-blowers. All they usually risk is unemployment and ostracism. Few, if any, must consider the possibility that their conscientious act will result in their death, with or without a trial, or life in prison.

That was the potential price that Edward Snowden knew he might pay. As he told The Guardian's Glenn Greenwald:

Yeah, I could be, you know, rendered by the CIA. . . . And that’s a fear I’ll live under for the rest of my life, however long that happens to be. You can’t come forward against the world’s most powerful intelligence agencies and be completely free from risk, because they’re such powerful adversaries that no one can meaningfully oppose them. If they want to get you, they’ll get you, in time. . . .

If I had just wanted to harm the U.S., . . . you could shut down the surveillance system in an afternoon. But that’s not my intention. And I think, for anyone making that argument, they need to think, if they were in my position, and, you know, you live a privileged life -- you’re living in Hawaii, in Paradise, and making a ton of money -- what would it take to make you leave everything behind?

"You're Being Watched": Edward Snowden Emerges as Source Behind Explosive Revelations of NSA Spying," Democracy Now, June 10, 2013 -- along with a transcript.

I'm not suggesting that those who make classified information public should be awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor. But neither do I think they should all be knee-jerk labeled "traitors" guilty of "treason" and "espionage" and thrown into the trash pile along with terrorists and felons. ("U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein Monday called self-professed National Security Agency surveillance plans leaker Edward Snowden a traitor. . . . 'I don't look at this as being a whistle-blower. I think it's an act of treason,' said Feinstein, chairwoman of the Senate Intelligence Committee." UPI, June 10, 2013.)

But what are we to make of our Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, who flat-footed lied to the Senate regarding the existence of the NSA program that collects the metadata from millions' of Americans' phone records, quoted above? (Senator Ron Wyden (D-Ore.): "Does the NSA collect any type of data at all on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans?" To which Director Clapper unambiguously responded, "No, sir.") Which is the greater treason? Who is the biggest traitor? Clapper, who lied? Or Snowden, who told the truth?

Note how our First Amendment protections work. Little to no actual harm came from Edward Snowden's conversations with, and gift of documents to, The Guardian's Glenn Greenwald. As a result of Snowden's actions only one additional person knew "the secrets."

The harm charged by our government, if any there be in fact, only came later. It came when Greenwald, his editor, and publisher, decided to tell all their subscribers -- knowing that other papers would pick up and run with the story, thereby ultimately spreading the secrets to millions. And yet no U.S. official, so far as I know, has argued that The Guardian, The New York Times, The Washington Post, or other papers telling the story of the government's secret spying programs should be prosecuted for treason. As the Pentagon Papers case [New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713 (1971)] demonstrated, once the media is given information, however much the government would like to restrain its publication, the courts believe the First Amendment forbids them to permit the government to do so. The media may exercise self-restraint, including in response to government appeals that publication would threaten national security, but the media cannot be restrained against its will from publishing by government or the courts. The newspaper owner is not prosecuted, nor the editor who approved the story, nor the journalist who got the information from the source, conducted the interviews, and did the research.

One can at least ask, if the values of the First Amendment are so overpowering as to trump the government's judgment that the publication of secrets should be restrained, why are those First Amendment values not equally applicable to the source of that information, so valuable to a democracy -- namely, the whistle-blower?

We also, as a civilized society, recognize acts of conscience -- including with laws providing at least some protection for whistle-blowers. (The Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989 forbids retaliation against government employees who report misconduct.)

In Dr. King's "Letter," quoted and linked above, he says of civil disobedience, "One who breaks an unjust law must do so openly, lovingly, and with a willingness to accept the penalty. I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for law."

One of the most serious tests of respect for conscience occurs in wartime, when our government has recognized the right of "conscientious objectors" to decline to be drafted into front line killing of other humans -- substituting community service of some kind as an alternative.

The "Right to Life" folks believe that doctors, pharmacists and others who consider all abortions to be "murder" should be free to act on that belief.

So when Edward Snowden trades in a $200,000-a-year job in Hawaii for the possibility of death and the probability of prison time, I think we have to recognize that as an act of conscience.

I'm with Dr. King. I don't think one should be able to do anything, claim it was compelled by conscience, and thereby escape any recrimination.

However, the issue in Edward Snowden's case is one of the government's own making.

It is saying to potential whistle-blowers, in effect, "You are free to report our run-of-the-mill misconduct; but if you believe our misconduct to be sufficiently serious to constitute a constitutional violation, we can declare our activities to be secret and classified, and thereby reserve the right to prosecute you for treason or espionage if you reveal what we are doing."

Checks and balances? The whole point of whistle-blowing, as with reports of rape in the military, is that the system and requirements of "going through channels" and "following procedure" and "oversight" and "Inspectors General" often fail. Even if the Congress and courts were doing their job of protecting us from the NSA, everything the overseers are doing is also treated as so highly classified as state secrets that they can't tell us enough to reassure us. And, open or closed, there are at least allegations that the NSA sometimes refuses to provide the Intelligence Committees with requested information, and that the Committees have performed more as lapdogs than watchdogs. The FISA "court," some report, has been almost exclusively a rubber stamp for whatever the NSA wants to do. And the executive branch (regardless of who's sleeping in the White House) seems to have been more interested in expanding than restraining its powers.

And with the controversial, litigated, and revised Patriot Act Section 505 gag orders accompanying "National Security Letters" (searches without warrants), American citizens (and their legislative representatives) have even been forbidden to hear from those being searched. The only analogy to that procedure that comes immediately to mind is the pedophile who threatens his victim with severe punishment should he or she ever reveal to anyone how they have been abused.

I'm more interested at this point in stimulating a national debate about revelations of "secrets" than in particular solutions. But here are some of the questions, or standards, I think we might want to consider.

1. Intent. Intent is an element of most crimes; it's one of the differences between "manslaughter" and "murder" -- even though both bring about the death of one person as a result of the actions of another, the defendant. We need to distinguish between revealing state secrets to foreign spies with an intent to aid an enemy, in time of war, and revealing them to a journalist, with an honest intent to prevent government wrongdoing to American citizens.

2. Restraint. In free speech cases we speak of the "least restrictive alternative" standard in evaluating governmental action that impacts speech. In revelations of state secrets we might ask, did the whistle-blower use the most restrictive alternative. That is, did he or she release only enough information to make their point? Did they make an effort to minimize possible harm to the government, or specific individuals? Did they hold back and not disclose some documents, or redact names and portions of others? Or, worst case, did they deliberately try to maximize that harm? Did they personally publicize raw data and documents, or did they filter what was released, both personally and by knowing it would be processed through a responsible media organization, its journalists, editors, and owners?

Snowden told Greenwald, "[A]nybody in the positions of access with the technical capabilities that I had could, you know, suck out secrets, pass them on the open market to Russia. You know, they always have an open door, as we do. I had access to, you know, the full rosters of everyone working at the NSA, the entire intelligence community, and undercover assets all around the world, the locations of every station we have, what their missions are and so forth." The point is, as he's quoted earlier in this blog essay as saying, "If I had just wanted to harm the U.S., . . . you could shut down the surveillance system in an afternoon. But that’s not my intention."

3. Personal responsibility. Did the whistle-blower act behind the curtain of anonymity, or did they come forward, acknowledge, and take responsibility for their revelations -- in the spirit of civil disobedience?

It would seem to me, based on what I now know, that in the case of Edward Snowden he has fully satisfied at least all of those standards.

I am less clear as to the answer of the "So what?" question. I do think we may need new legislation to address that question, and that, at a minimum, meeting these -- and other standards that may be proposed -- ought to take such cases out of the category of "terrorism," "treason," and "espionage," and radically reduce such punishments as might otherwise be appropriate.

For purposes of my question, it is far from decisive -- indeed, it may be not even relevant -- how the American people feel about their government spying on them. (Pew's recent update of its survey indicates we are about equally split, depending on the question -- and, for partisans, which Party occupies the White House.) My question simply addresses the matter of punishment for whistle-blowers who, as a matter of honest conscience, must, in order to be a whistle-blower, reveal things the government considers secret.

There is already a growing support for Snowden (as well as growing disapproval). The photo depicts a demonstration of support in New York City yesterday [June 10]. Robert Johnson, "Rally Held In New York City Supporting 'Hero' NSA Whistleblower Edward Snowden," Business Insider, June 10, 2013.

The White House maintains a Web site where citizens can start, and others can support and sign, petitions. On June 9 one was posted with the headline, "Pardon Edward Snowden," and went on, "Edward Snowden is a national hero and should be immediately issued a a full, free, and absolute pardon for any crimes he has committed or may have committed related to blowing the whistle on secret NSA surveillance programs." By this morning it was already nearly halfway to it's goal of 100,000 supporters (a number that triggers a self-imposed White House requirement that it respond to the petitioners). It's here. [On July 5th it had already surpassed its July 9th drop dead deadline goal, with 127,663 supporters.]

As of this morning [June 11] the Progressive Change Campaign Committee had already raised $20,000 for Snowden's legal defense fund. [By July 5th it stood at $32,000.]

For your further reflection, here is Amy Goodman's report, and reproduction of Glenn Greenwald's interview of Snowden, "You're Being Watched": Edward Snowden Emerges as Source Behind Explosive Revelations of NSA Spying," Democracy Now, June 10, 2013 -- along with a transcript.



# # #

Asmaa Mahfouz: Democracy's Heroine

October 27, 2011, 5:40 p.m.

[Photo credit: "Moral Heroes"]

"Fear of the government, fear of kidnapping, fear of harassment and abuse. These fears had kept the [Egyptian] regime in power for three decades. . . . This all changed on January 18th, 2011 when Asmaa Mahfouz decided to face her fears and ask others to join her in protest. She posted a video of herself online . . . calling on others to join her at a protest in Tahrir Square on January 25." Moral Heroes. [more]

The rest, as they say, is history.

Amy Goodman's powerful and moving juxtaposition of that famous January 18 video with her own interview of 26-year-old Asmaa Mahfouz at the site of Occupy Wall Street, provided more than just a gentle reminder of this remarkable young woman's role in the news at the beginning of this year. It caused me to see her, what she did (and continues to do), what she stands for and represents, in a very much brighter, multi-faceted and awesome light.

Do watch this excerpt from Amy Goodman's "Democracy Now," of October 25, 2011. It runs from 12:00 minutes in, to 25:46:

From Tahrir to Wall Street: Egyptian Revolutionary Asmaa Mahfouz Speaks at Occupy Wall Street

(Actually, the cut begins 15 seconds before 12:00, with news from Occupy Oakland. And I apologize for not providing an embed here but, unlike YouTube (where the New York interview is not yet posted) it was not immediately clear how to embed the segment from Democracy Now into Blogger, other than the link it does provide for Blogger, above.)

The two videos that Amy Goodman has combined spark so many thoughts:

- This powerful, additional illustration of the insight I came to at least 35 years ago that I call "the natural superiority of women" (something Mahfouz demonstrates as well as espouses).

- I consider myself a feminist, in the dictionary sense of someone who is "advocating social, political, legal, and economic rights for women equal to those of men." As such, I think that men and women alike need to watch this video and reflect on what it represents.

- This young woman succeeded in shaming Egyptian men into joining in public protest: "If you think yourself a man, come with me on January 25th. Whoever says women shouldn't go to protests because they will get beaten, let him have some honor and manhood and come with me on January 25th. If you have honor and dignity as a man, come and protect me, and the other girls in the protest."

- I am just so proud of this young woman, whose eyes now look down upon me from my law school office wall, next to those of Dr. King, as inspiration and reminder of how little I have accomplished, how little I have sacrificed, in a life I profess to have committed to "the public interest," compared with what they have each done in far fewer years. Aside from an occasional assassination threat (usually drunken), all I ever did was to willingly "speak truth to power," and espouse positions, that I knew would prevent my ever being offered the most lucrative jobs in Washington -- because I felt that's what "public service" requires of one. But no one ever actually took a shot at me; I didn't have a lot of desire for what those jobs require you to do anyway; and I'd even written a book about the virtues of knowing the difference between "enough" and "more" (Test Pattern for Living).

- Both King and Mahfouz knowingly confronted death (and one was killed) for the causes in which they believed. Aside from our brave military men and women in combat, and the journalists who bring us their stories (such as Christiane Amanpour), most displays of what passes for male macho shrivels by comparison.

- Her historic launching of the 2011 "Arab Spring."

- How an idea like non-violent protest, and the the power of ordinary people in a democracy, can spread -- from Gandhi, to Dr. King, to Asmaa Mahfouz, who then brings it back again to America, to inspire and encourage us at Occupy Wall Street and throughout our country.

- There were (and are) many uses of cyberspace, the Internet, and social media in this year's global popular protests; but none with the drama and impact of Mahfouz' video on her Facebook page, copied to YouTube, inspiring millions of Egyptians to action, and now seen by probably hundreds of millions more.

- For those who mourn for our species' future, and especially those (such as parents and teachers) who work with, and hope for, the coming generation, Mahfouz is a beacon of possibility, a reminder that -- while there may be none exactly like her -- there are others coming along who have at least some of her smarts, her courage, her natural leadership qualities, her moral values, and her ability to articulate (in at least two languages) all of the above.

- The spark of hope that may be found in "the American fall" that has followed "the Arab spring;" our own, very much smaller and milder, "Occupy" movement. A spark that she reached out and helped to fan with her presence at Occupy Wall Street.

- And to think she doesn't even have a law degree! Just a B.A. in business from Cairo University. Amazing. :>)

Here's to you, Asmaa! Thank you.

# # #

Declaration of Independence Global Significance

July 4, 2010, 3:00 a.m. (halfway round the world from Iowa)
[For BP disaster see, "Uncanny Prediction of BP Disaster & Response," June 10, 2010; "BP's Commercial: Shame on Media," June 9; "Big Oil: Calling Shots, Corrupting Government," May 26, 2010; "Obama As Finger-Pointer-In-Chief," May 18, 2010; "Big Oil + Big Corruption = Big Mess," May 10, 2010; "P&L: Public Loss From Private Profit," May 3, 2010.]


Hear Its Echos In the Streets
Of That Half of the World's PopulationWho Have Less Than 1% of the World's Wealth
(bought to you by FromDC2Iowa.blogspot.com*)
"When all else fails, read the manual."

It's good advice when dealing with mechanical or electronics problems -- or corporate-government oppression.

In this case, and on this day, "the manual" is our Declaration of Independence.

NPR on-air personalities read it aloud over the air each year about this time. I read it silently, as my own personal reminder. And for my source I go to the online transcript provided by the folks who are paid to watch over the 234-year-old original for us, the U.S. National Archives & Records Administration.

The NARA describes it as one of our "Charters of Freedom." But it is more than an historic, archival document. It is as timely as today's news, from the Taliban's demands we get out of their country before talks begin, to the hundreds protesting the G20 agenda in Toronto last week, to the anger of our domestic Tea Party crowd and those suffering from the government-corporate abuse of the Gulf of Mexico (Minerals Management Service and BP).

It's a good time to re-read the entire document, linked above, but I'm just going to excerpt some passages that I believe have the greatest currency. As you read them just substitute for "the King of Great Britain" and his abuses, not those of any single individual, but the impact on humanity, especially that least able to defend itself, of the oppressive global-corporate-government-military complex. For what oppresses the world's people today goes well beyond any single nation's government -- as the G20, and its pro-corporate agenda starkly symbolize for us -- and is therefore all the more difficult even to grasp, let alone do something about.

As you read, think about what the BBC and other independent, other-than-American, journalists report as the complaints of those in the streets of Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Palestine, and at least 50 other countries. See if you can feel even just a small part of what they feel. See if you can hear the echos of the drafters of our Declaration of Independence, Constitution and Bill of Rights in the chants of the mobs in their streets, in the cries of mothers with starving children, in the anguish of the survivors who mourn the innocent civilians killed on their way to a wedding -- or a funeral for those killed earlier in the week. And think about the Congress, the institution that threw off our oppressors 234 years ago, and has now become a major part of our domestic problems.

IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. . . .

[W]hen a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them [the People] under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, . . ..
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, . . ..
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people. . . .
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice . . ..
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation. . . .
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us . . ..
In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity . . ..
They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. . . .

If you had difficulty with that exercise, here's a little help from Maude Barlow, head of the "Council of Canadians," Canada's largest public advocacy organization. Her remarks to the thousands gathered in Toronto's Massey Hall, as a part of the protest of the G20 agenda, were reported by Amy Goodman on "Democracy Now!," July 2: "Maude Barlow: 'The World Has Divided Into Rich and Poor as at No Time in History."

Here are excerpts from her remarks:

On the eve of this G-20 gathering, let’s look at a few facts.

Fact, the world has divided into rich and poor as at no time in our history. The richest 2% own more than half the household wealth in the world. The richest 10% hold 85% of total global assets and the bottom half of humanity owns less than 1% of the wealth in the world. The three richest men in the world have more money than the poorest 48 countries.

Fact, while those responsible for the 2008 global financial crisis were bailed out and even rewarded by the G-20 government’s gathering here, the International Labor Organization tells us that in 2009, 34 million people were added to the global unemployed, swelling those ranks to 239 million, the highest ever recorded. Another 200 million are at risk in precarious jobs and the World Bank tells us that at the end of 2010, another 64 million will have lost their jobs. By 2030, more than half the population of the megacities of the Global South will be slumdwellers with no access to education, health care, water, or sanitation.

Fact, global climate change is rapidly advancing, claiming at least 300,000 lives and $125 billion in damages every year. Called the silent crisis, climate change is melting glaciers, eroding soil, causing freak and increasingly wild storms, displacing untold millions from rural communities to live in desperate poverty in peri-urban centers. Almost every victim lives in the Global South in communities not responsible for greenhouse gas emissions and not represented here at the summit. . . .

The global mining industry sucks up . . . 800 trillion liters [of water] which it also leaves behind as poison and fully one-third of global water withdrawals are now used to produce biofuels, enough water to feed the world.

Nearly three billion people on our planet do not have running water within a kilometer of their home and every eight seconds, somewhere in our world, a child is dying of waterborne disease. The global water crisis is getting steadily worse with reports of countries from India to Pakistan to Yemen facing depletion. The World Bank says that by 2030, demand for water will outstrip supply by 40%. This may sound just like a statistic, but the suffering behind that is absolutely unspeakable.

Fact, knowing there will not be enough food and water for all in the near future, wealthy countries and global investment pension and hedge funds are buying up land and water, fields and forests in the Global South, creating a new wave of invasive colonialism that will have huge geopolitical ramifications. Rich countries faced by food shortages have already bought up an area in Africa alone more than twice the size of the United Kingdom.

Now I don’t think I exaggerate if I say that our world has never faced a greater set of threats and issues than it does today.

So what are the twenty leaders who have gathered here, some already here and the others coming in tonight, what are they going to talk about over the next two days? By the way, their summit costs . . . $2 billion when it’s finished, and the annual budget to run the United Nations is $1.9 billion. I assure you, they are not going to tackle the above issues in any serious way.

The declarations have already been drafted, the failures already spun.

Instead, this global royalty who have more in common with one another than they do with their own citizens . . . are here really to advance the issues and interest of their class . . . to advance the status quo that serves the interest of the elite in their own countries and the business community or the B-20, the new term, a community that will get private and privileged access to advance their free market solutions to these eager leaders.

The agenda is more of the bad medicine that made the world sick in the first place. Environmental deregulation, unbridled financial speculation, unlimited growth, unregulated free trade, relentless resource exploitation, tax cuts for the wealthy, cuts to Social Security and a war on working people. In other words, savage capitalism.

Amy Goodman concluded her report of Barlow's remarks: "Three thousand people packed into the Toronto event. This was at the same time the G8 and then the G20 met. Between 900 and 1,000 people are believed to have been arrested, the largest mass arrest in Canadian history. Among them, many journalists. More than a billion dollars, it’s believed, were spent on so-called security, the most expensive security event in Canadian history."

For some of my own take on such issues see "Golden Rules & Revolutions: A Series - VIII," April 19, 2008 (with links to the prior seven blog entries in the series).

To end this on a little happier, and more optimistic note, there's music -- music is at the core of most peoples' movements, and here's an example just brought to me that also makes reference to the past. First, the lyrics from the talented Steve Earle's song, "Christmas in Washington," followed by a YouTube of him singing it in 2008. (A search will bring you a number of YouTubes of Joan Baez singing it.)

Christmas In Washington”

It's Christmastime in Washington
The Democrats rehearsed
Gettin' into gear for four more years
Things not gettin' worse
The Republicans drink whiskey neat
And thanked their lucky stars
They said, 'He cannot seek another term
They'll be no more FDRs'
I sat home in Tennessee
Staring at the screen
With an uneasy feeling in my chest
And I'm wonderin' what it means

Chorus:
So come back Woody Guthrie
Come back to us now
Tear your eyes from paradise
And rise again somehow
If you run into Jesus
Maybe he can help you out
Come back Woody Guthrie to us now

I followed in your footsteps once
Back in my travelin' days
Somewhere I failed to find your trail
Now I'm stumblin' through the haze
But there's killers on the highway now
And a man can't get around
So I sold my soul for wheels that roll
Now I'm stuck here in this town

Chorus

There's foxes in the hen house
Cows out in the corn
The unions have been busted
Their proud red banners torn
To listen to the radio
You'd think that all was well
But you and me and Cisco know
It's going straight to hell

So come back, Emma Goldman
Rise up, old Joe Hill
The barracades are goin' up
They cannot break our will
Come back to us, Malcolm X
And Martin Luther King
We're marching into Selma
As the bells of freedom ring

So enjoy the hot dogs and fireworks, and the day off on July 5, but don't forget to read the Declaration of Independence again sometime before Tuesday. And remember, "The Declaration of Independence: It's not just for history class anymore."
_______________

* Why do I put this blog ID at the top of the entry, when you know full well what blog you're reading? Because there are a number of Internet sites that, for whatever reason, simply take the blog entries of others and reproduce them as their own without crediting the source. I don't mind the flattering attention, but would appreciate acknowledgment as the source -- even if I have to embed it myself.
-- Nicholas Johnson


# # #

Why Are We in Afghanistan . . .

July 2, 2010, 5:55 a.m.
[For BP disaster see, "Uncanny Prediction of BP Disaster & Response," June 10, 2010; "BP's Commercial: Shame on Media," June 9; "Big Oil: Calling Shots, Corrupting Government," May 26, 2010; "Obama As Finger-Pointer-In-Chief," May 18, 2010; "Big Oil + Big Corruption = Big Mess," May 10, 2010; "P&L: Public Loss From Private Profit," May 3, 2010.]

. . . and how do we get out?
(bought to you by FromDC2Iowa.blogspot.com*)
There are some things I think you and I need to reflect upon regarding our role in Afghanistan.

It's July 1 in Iowa, and July 2 where I am, addressing policies other than war. But I've just taken a "Democracy Now!" (Amy Goodman) break, thanks to the wonders of a tiny computer, an Ethernet cable, and the global Internet.

Her July 1 show (which you can find at the link, above) is a review of Afghanistan. And bringing that show to your attention is my purpose in breaking silence on this blog. (The absence of entries -- which will continue until my return -- has been occasioned by heavier than usual obligations, and shorter deadlines on other writing projects, than usual.)

So the following paragraph, an item from her opening headlines for that show, while not the topic of this blog entry, provides an explanation for why I think her daily, hour-long program is always an important part of your news budget -- and especially this one.

Study: Media Stopped Calling Waterboarding "Torture" Following Its Disclosure as Routine U.S. PracticeA new study says the U.S. corporate media drastically altered its use of the word torture after its practice by the U.S. became widely exposed under the Bush administration. Researchers at Harvard University found newspapers almost uniformly described waterboarding as torture dating back to the 1930s. But when it was revealed as a common tactic approved under President Bush, the same newspapers stopped using the word torture almost entirely. Whereas the New York Times had previously characterized waterboarding as torture in 81.5% of articles, from 2002 to 2008 it characterized waterboarding as torture in just 1.4 percent of articles.

"Democracy Now Headlines," July 1, 2010.

Now I don't think it's a good practice for any of us, regardless of our political/ideological orientation, to limit our news and opinion sources to those most likely to re-enforce our prejudices. I wouldn't suggest anyone limit their knowledge of the world to what Amy Goodman provides. The six daily papers I examine, as well as other sources, are almost exclusively what that brief story describes as "U.S. corporate media." I look to the official line from whitehouse.gov, and BP. And I add to them dips into the unabashedly right wing sources as well.

But I also watch Amy Goodman, for news and interviews I can get almost nowhere else (including PBS/NPR). And I devote a Website to links for a random sampling of what I call "Global Media." Because, in my judgment and experience, there does seem to be disproportionate pro-government/establishment/corporate emphasis in the "U.S. corporate media."

The paragraph quoted above, regarding the media's flip-flop handling of waterboarding as torture, simply reminded me of that all over again.

Headlines of interviews from the July 1 show include:

•Michael Hastings of Rolling Stone on the Story that Brought Down Gen. McChrystal and Exposed Widening Disputes Behind the U.S. Debacle in Afghanistan

•Rep. John Conyers and Out of Afghanistan Caucus Oppose Obama Admin’s $33B Escalation of Afghan War

•Fmr. Marine, State Dept. Official Matthew Hoh is First U.S. Official to Resign Over Afghan War

All involve facts and insights at least some of which will probably be new to you.

There is also a clip from Robert McNamera, explaining what was wrong with our analysis of Vietnam as a place for "war" -- insights that are almost perfectly applicable to Iraq and Afghanistan.

I offered President Johnson a similar perspective regarding our Vietnam catastrophe -- but before rather than after that war. While the fate that my message produced was neither as severe nor public as what General McChrystal has recently experienced (nor was my confidential report as ad hominem or public as McChrystal's), I always believed it did have something to do with LBJ's deciding that his young Maritime Administrator, handling sealift to Vietnam, would make a really terrific FCC Commissioner.

President G.W. Bush received similar advice from me before the Iraq War, e.g., "Ten Questions for Bush Before War," The Daily Iowan, February 4, 2003, p. 6A; "War in Iraq: The Military Objections," International Law Talks, University of Iowa College of Law, February 27, 2003.

Similar observations were made about Afghanistan in "General Semantics, Terrorism and War," Address, Fordham University, 2006.

And for the application of the analysis to Afghanistan, and a somewhat different appraisal of General McChrystal, see especially, Nicholas Johnson, "General McChrystal: Afghan Efforts 'Not Working,'" August 31, 2009, e.g.:

The top thinkers in the military, many of whom do make their way to the top of their service, or the Joint Chiefs' staff, are well educated, bright, analytical and rational.

When left to their own independent judgment and opinions they are the ones likely to ask questions like those I outlined above.

What, exactly, is it you are trying to do in this country? How are our national interests involved? In what ways do you think a military presence could be helpful in reaching that goal (as distinguished from, e.g., Peace Corps presence and building infrastructure; cultural exchanges; or bringing their best students to our universities)? How would you describe that military mission? With what metrics would you measure our military's progress? How many troops will it take to accomplish that mission? How long will it take? What is your basis for thinking the American people, and their elected representatives, will support the cost in human life and taxes over that time? (Support for the Afghan war has now dropped below 50%.) What support is there in the international community for this action? Does that support include financial support and troops? Once in, how do we get out; that is, what is our "exit strategy"? On the assumption the military mission produces the outcome desired, why is it reasonable to assume that progress will be sustained after we leave?

Note what General McChrystal is said to be talking about. Our military efforts "have not made their lives better;" security must be provided by locals "but their army will not be ready to do that for three years and it will take much longer for the police;" and a jobs program would be more effective than continuing to shoot Afghans ("60% of the problem would go away if they could be found jobs").

Having extolled the benefits of exposure to views other than your own, above, as you may have guessed by now, you will find more from the guests interviewed on Amy Goodman's July 1 program that is consistent, than that which contradicts, my own view of our Afghanistan efforts.

But, then, a little support for one's instincts from time to time isn't all bad either.

Watch, or just listen, to the July 1 "Democracy Now!" show now, while you're thinking about it. You'll thank me that you did.

Oh, and how do we get out? That's Chairman John Conyers' contribution to the program.

_______________

* Why do I put this blog ID at the top of the entry, when you know full well what blog you're reading? Because there are a number of Internet sites that, for whatever reason, simply take the blog entries of others and reproduce them as their own without crediting the source. I don't mind the flattering attention, but would appreciate acknowledgment as the source -- even if I have to embed it myself.
-- Nicholas Johnson
# # #

Is Obama Continuing Gitmo Brutality?

May 21, 2009, 7:45 a.m.

Jeremy Scahill Charges Obama Continues Gitmo "Thug Squad"
(brought to you by FromDC2Iowa.blogspot.com*
Is there a “Little Known Military Thug Squad Still Brutalizing Prisoners at Gitmo Under Obama”?

Jeremy Scahill charged as much when Amy Goodman interviewed him for "Democracy Now" on May 19, 2009. Jeremy Scahill: “Little Known Military Thug Squad Still Brutalizing Prisoners at Gitmo Under Obama”.

These charges are serious enough that the Obama administration needs to either (a) come forward with credible evidence as to why they are not true, or (b) if true, provide some explanation as to why this deliberate brutalization is continuing on President Obama's watch.

President Obama has made a great deal of his desire to close the Gitmo prison camp. He will even be speaking on the subject today. He has said we will no longer engage in torture. As a result, either (a) those who brief him on such matters have some explaining to do as to why he was not told of this American "thug squad," or (b) if he was, why he has done nothing to stop it.

What Scahill is alleging goes well beyond mere "waterboarding." His article, on which the interview is based, is Jeremy Scahill, "Little Known Military Thug Squad Still Brutalizing Prisoners at Gitmo Under Obama," AlterNet, May 15, 2009.

Here are excerpts from a transcript of Amy Goodman's interview (available in full from the "Democracy Now" link, above):

AMY GOODMAN: . . .

While there’s been a lot of focus on torture under the Bush administration, what about under President Obama? In a new article, investigative journalist Jeremy Scahill writes the Obama administration is continuing to use a notorious military police unit at Guantanamo that regularly brutalizes unarmed prisoners, including gang-beating them, breaking their bones, gouging their eyes, dousing them with chemicals.

This force, officially known as the Immediate Reaction Force, has been labeled the “Extreme Repression Force” by Guantanamo prisoners, and human rights lawyers call their actions illegal, Jeremy writes.

Jeremy Scahill is an award-winning investigative journalist, author of the bestselling book Blackwater: The Rise of the World’s Most Powerful Mercenary Army. His writing and reporting is available at RebelReports.com. . . .

Describe what you call as this “little known military thug squad.”

JEREMY SCAHILL: . . . [W]hile much of the focus has been on the tactical use of torture at Guantanamo, almost no attention had been paid to a parallel force that was torturing prisoners in a variety of ways, including waterboarding them, and that is this riot squad of sorts that you referred to called the Immediate Reaction Force. The prisoners and their lawyers at Guantanamo call it the “Extreme Repression Force.”

And basically what this is is a thug squad that is used to mercilessly punish prisoners who show the slightest bit of resistance or who do things that technically they’re not supposed to do, infractions like having two Styrofoam cups in their cell instead of one.

Guards will call in this goon squad. They come in with their Darth Vader outfits, and they literally gang-beat prisoners. There are five men, generally, that are sent in. Each of them is assigned to one body part of the prisoner: the head, the left arm, the right arm, the left leg, the right leg. They go in, and they hogtie the prisoner, sometimes leaving them hogtied for hours on end. They douse them with chemical agents. They have put their heads in toilets and flushed the toilets repeatedly. They have urinated on the heads of prisoners. They’ve squeezed their testicles in the course of restraining them. They’ve taken the feces from one prisoner and smeared it in the face of another prisoner.

And while Barack Obama, almost immediately upon taking office, issued an executive order saying he was going to close down Guantanamo within a year and that he was going to respect the Geneva Convention while his administration reviewed Guantanamo, this force has continued to operate and torture prisoners under the Obama administration.

In fact, in February of this year, about a month after Obama was inaugurated, there were sixteen prisoners on a hunger strike at Guantanamo. The . . . Immediate Reaction Force was used to go in and violently shove massive tubes down their noses into their stomachs. . . . They would use no anesthetics or any painkillers, shove this massive tube by force down their nose into their stomach and then yank it out. . . . [M]any have passed out from the sheer pain of this operation.

This force has received almost no scrutiny in the US Congress or the US media and operates at this moment.

AMY GOODMAN: How do you know about this?

JEREMY SCAHILL: Well, I discovered these teams, because I’ve been covering the investigation being done by Judge Baltasar Garzon in Spain into the Bush torture system. What’s interesting is that the most aggressive investigation at this point into the Bush war crimes is being done an ocean away in Madrid.

And I came across a story of a prisoner named Omar Deghayes, and he is one of the four people that is cited directly in the Spanish investigation as having been tortured by the United States. . . . Omar Deghayes was . . . repeatedly abused by one of these squads. . . . I started to look into it and realized that there has been a multi-year pattern of abuse on the part of this team.

And yet, the only time when it’s really made any kind of a flash in the corporate media was when a US soldier, a young guy named Sean Baker, who was a Gulf War vet, was participating in a training exercise in Guantanamo in January of 2003, where he was ordered, he says, by his superiors to dress up in an orange jumpsuit and play the part of a restive or combative detainee at Guantanamo. . . . He describes them just mercilessly beating him, . . . even after he then said, “I’m a US soldier! I’m a US soldier!” . . .

That young man, Sean Baker, has permanent brain damage, suffers from multiple seizures, and had actually sued Rumsfeld and other officials because of his treatment. . . . As Scott Horton, a military and constitutional law expert I talked to, said, you know, this is one US soldier who received this kind of treatment; imagine what happens to these detainees. . . .

[D]despite Obama’s rhetoric about how he’s going to reform the military tribunal system, we understand that it’s all cosmetic changes. The fact is, torture continues at Guantanamo. . . .

[T]he status quo alive and well, and it’s very, very damaging to the US Constitution, international law and the lives of these prisoners who remain in legal limbo.

AMY GOODMAN: Jeremy, this force, known as the Immediate Reaction Force, or Emergency Reaction Force, IRF or ERF, are they being filmed when they go into these cells?

JEREMY SCAHILL: . . . I’ve been reading the now-declassified Standard Operating Procedures for Guantanamo that were written by Major General Geoffrey Miller, the man . . . who is believed to have started all of this . . . and then Gitmo-ized Abu Ghraib . . ..

In the Standard Operating Procedures that General Miller issued in 2003, he said that all of the IRF teams, when they would go in to restrain a prisoner, that they had to videotape the operation . . ..

So, Michael Ratner of the Center for Constitutional Rights asks a very simple question: “Where are the tapes?” Presumably, if the Standard Operating Procedures were followed, we could see . . . the breaking of noses and other body parts on the part of prisoners. But in order to do that, we would have to have an administration that was going to come completely clean with the crimes of the past and make these videos available, along with the thousands of photos that show the systematic abuse of US prisoners.

But what we see at every turn is the Obama administration, backed up by the Wall Street Journal editorial board, backed up by the neoconservatives, backed up by the hawkish Republicans, on one side, and then the ACLU, the Center for Constitutional Rights, and social justice and antiwar activists and human rights advocates, on the other side. This is a sad reality in America today, where you have a president that campaigned on a change that we can believe in continuing the most repressive policies of the Bush administration.

Obviously, I have no personal knowledge of any of this. I am unaware of any independent, confirming sources of Scahill's charges. Nor have I read, however, the response of anyone who is challenging what he is saying.

All I'm saying by repeating some of his allegations in this blog, is that when an independent, investigative reporter with Scahill's credentials makes them I think they are serious enough that they can't simply be left out there with no response.

I'm waiting.
_______________

* Why do I put this blog ID at the top of the entry, when you know full well what blog you're reading? Because there are a number of Internet sites that, for whatever reason, simply take the blog entries of others and reproduce them as their own without crediting the source. I don't mind the flattering attention, but would appreciate acknowledgment as the source -- even if I have to embed it myself. -- Nicholas Johnson

# # #

Can Economy Produce Americanized Hitler?

April 15, 2009, 7:15 a.m.

Homeland Security Seems to be Saying:
Chomsky Got It Right
(brought to you by FromDC2Iowa.blogspot.com*)
Every once in awhile it is the serendipitous confluence of two events that is the story.

Yesterday [April 14] I added the Amy Goodman, Democracy Now! interview of Noam Chomsky to the "Obama's Potential Wall Street Downfall" blog entry of April 12.

Although I didn't refer to the following passage at that time, because it did not directly relate to the topic of the entry, I found it quite startling then and more so now -- especially when watching and listening to him deliver it in the video than from this comparatively sterile transcript:

AMY GOODMAN: The whole issue of populist rage, Noam Chomsky, actually, do you think that this rage is going to boil over as the unemployment figures rise?

NOAM CHOMSKY: It’s very hard to predict those things. I mean, it has a potentially positive side, like it could be like the activism of the 1930s or the 1960s, which ended up making it a more civilized society in many ways, or it could be like an unfortunate precedent that quickly comes to mind. . . .

Take a look at Germany. In the 1920s, Germany was the absolute peak of Western civilization, in the arts and the sciences. It was regarded as a model of democracy and so on. I mean, ten years later, it was the depths of barbarism. . . .

Now, if you listen to early Nazi propaganda . . . and you listen to talk radio in the United States . . . there’s a resemblance. And in both cases, you have a lot of demagogues appealing to people with real grievances.

Grievances aren’t invented. I mean, for the American population, the last thirty years have been some of the worst in economic history. It’s a rich country, but real wages have stagnated or declined, working hours have shot up, benefits have gone down, and people are in real trouble and now in very real trouble after the bubble's burst. And they’re angry. And they want to know, “What happened to me? . . . I’m a hard-working, white, God-fearing American. [H]ow come this is happening to me?”

That’s pretty much the Nazi appeal. The grievances were real. And one of the possibilities is what Rush Limbaugh tells you: “Well, it’s happening to you because of those bad guys out there.” OK, in the Nazi case, it was the Jews and the Bolsheviks. Here, it’s the rich Democrats who run Wall Street and run the media and give everything away to illegal immigrants . . ..

AMY GOODMAN: And she [Sarah Palin] very much is being talked about as a leader, really, of the Republican Party.

NOAM CHOMSKY: [T]he talk radio mob went crazy over her. And one shouldn’t demean it. [T]hey describe themselves — it’s really worth listening to: “We’re fly-by country. [T]hey don’t care about us, those rich Democrats on the East Coast and the West Coast who are all . . . interested in gay rights and giving things away to illegal immigrants and so on. They don’t care about us, the hard-working, God-fearing people, so we’ve got to somehow rise up and take over and elect Sarah Palin or Rush Limbaugh or someone like that.” . . .

[T]his kind of populist rage could boil over and could have very dangerous consequences. . . .

[W]e’re very lucky that we have never had an honest demagogue. I mean, the demagogues we’ve had are so corrupt that they never got anywhere — . . . Nixon, McCarthy, Jimmy Swaggart and others . . . were kind of destroyed by their own corruption.

But suppose we had an honest demagogue, . . . a Hitler type, who was not corrupt. [I]t could be unpleasant. There’s a background of concern and fear, tremendous fear, and searching for some answer, which they’re not getting from the establishment. “Who’s responsible for my plight?” [T]hat can be exploited. And unless there’s active, effective organizing and education, it’s dangerous.

Note that Chomsky's not saying it will happen. He's saying there's a risk. He's not saying our "honest demagogue" would be Hitler, identical to Hitler, or even similar to Hitler. He's just saying that the conditions of our economy and country bear some similarity to those in pre-Hitler Germany -- and they do.

So what's my "serendipitous confluence"?

Neither Amy Goodman nor Noam Chomsky could have known on April 3, when the interview was recorded, of a Department of Homeland Security report, issued April 7, leaked to the media, and reported yesterday, April 14.

Titled U.S. Department of Homeland Security, "Assessment: Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment," April 7, 2009, the text is available at The Huffington Post, "Homeland Security Report Warns of Rising Right-Wing Extremism," April 14, 2009.

It essentially confirms and echos Chomsky's concerns.

There has been a rise in extremist organizations' membership. Much of their rhetoric has been consistent with Chomsky's characterizations -- including concerns about gun control and immigration. There have been efforts to recruit returning soldiers, with their military training.

You need to read the report; I'm not going to repeat it all. For summaries see The Huffington Post story, linked above, and the Washington Times take, Audrey Hudson and Eli Lake, "Federal agency warns of radicals on right; 9-page report sent to police," Washington Times, April 14, 2009.

As with Chomsky's concerns, Homeland Security is not suggesting that a demagogue is on the verge of taking over, let alone one backed by armed mobs. It's merely noting, as Chomsky did, that our economic conditions, the extremists' recruiting efforts, and the rhetoric make this a legitimate concern of the Department, something worth watching carefully.

Also worth watching carefully are the rightwing extremist, Obama-hating talk show hosts and Republicans who have even said they want him (and presumably the rest of us with him) to fail. It's bad enough when they are just playing politics. Now they are also playing with fire.

For my own take on the connection between oligarchy and revolution a full year ago see, Nicholas Johnson, "Golden Rules & Revolutions: A Series - I; Income Disparity & Revolution," April 12, 2008.

Ah, the far, far reaching consequences of the greed and ignorance of the Wall Street oligarchy. The price we end up paying, in this country and abroad, may be far more than global economic collapse, the trillions they have taken from the taxpayers (with the help of their friends Obama recruited to "solve" the problem), the resulting inevitable inflation, and the debt we're all leaving to our great grandchildren.
_______________

* Why do I put this blog ID at the top of the entry, when you know full well what blog you're reading? Because there are a number of Internet sites that, for whatever reason, simply take the blog entries of others and reproduce them as their own without crediting the source. I don't mind the flattering attention, but would appreciate acknowledgment as the source -- even if I have to embed it myself. -- Nicholas Johnson

# # #

Democracy Now! -- Via the Internet

April 2, 2009, 1:45 p.m.

Democracy
(brought to you by FromDC2Iowa.blogspot.com*)
Ready for a quiz question?

Name this program:

"[T]he largest public media collaboration in the U.S., [this program] is broadcast on Pacifica, NPR, community, and college radio stations; on public access, PBS, satellite television (DISH network: Free Speech TV ch. 9415 and Link TV ch. 9410; DIRECTV: Link TV ch. 375); and on the internet. [Its] podcast is one of the most popular on the web." [Source.]

If you know the answer, "good on you," as the Aussies would say.

If you don't, shame on your local mainstream newspapers, radio and television stations for neither offering the program nor mentioning it sufficiently that you would know.

It's Democracy Now!

And now that we're being robbed blind to the tune of trillions of dollars by the former "masters of the universe" and their Washington friends, with the help of the dominant political party controlling Congress, the Wall Street Party, our thoughts are turning back to "democracy." To inform ourselves about true democracy and the alternative future it might offer, Americans are turning their TVs and radios back to Democracy Now!

What Democracy Now! reveals, for starters, is that there are enormous numbers of well educated, articulate present and former politicians, academics, journalists, and experts in many fields who are, for all practical purposes, simply shut out of the mainstream media. Little is contributed by trying to label them "left" or "right," "conservative" or "liberal." Nor will you find most of them to be engaged in the rants and raves we've grown accustomed to hearing from the chattering classes on cable channels. They are simply providing current and historic facts (and opinions) that don't support the world view held, and propagated, by mainstream media and its corporate sponsors.

As the bumper sticker puts it: "The corporate media are as liberal as their conservative owners permit them to be." (See, e.g., "Examining the 'Liberal Media' Claim; Journalists' Views on Politics, Economic Policy and Media Coverage," FAIR, June 1, 1998.)

For a confirmation, watch these revelations from Jeff Cohen regarding his years inside CNN and MSNBC:

Amy Goodman, "Jeff Cohen Interview," Democracy Now!, October 12, 2006

And then check the Democracy Now! site and watch, or listen, to one of host Amy Goodman's recent hour-long news programs.

The Internet
As an FCC commissioner forty years ago I thought TV left a lot to be desired. Sometimes I shared John Prine's suggestion we should all simply "blow up your TV."

[Blow up your T.V. throw away your paper
Go to the country, build you a home
Plant a little garden, eat a lot of peaches
Try an find Jesus on your own
-- John Prine, "Spanish Pipedream", original release date, November 30, 1970.]

It was distressing when CBS abruptly canceled the award-winning, very popular "Smothers Brothers Comedy Hour" -- 40 years ago this coming Saturday, April 4, 1969.

At the time I wrote a couple of books offering alternative solutions as well as concerns: How to Talk Back to Your Television Set and Test Pattern for Living (both now available for free as links from my main Web site). (The newest book on the subject, Your Second Priority, 2008, is also linked from there.)

For an adult to die, having spent a full 13 years of their life merely "watching TV," struck me as a bit of a waste.

But over the years I, too, became a TV watcher -- albeit more like seven hours a week than the seven hours a day the TV is running in the average home -- but nonetheless sucked into TV's effort to schedule its audience members' lives: ABC Evening News, 5:30-6:00, Jim Lehrer, 6:00-6:30, and so forth.

Years ago, to free myself from its grip, I used a VCR to videotape the shows in which I had an interest -- often playing them back at 10 times normal speed and slowing the tape only when something looked compelling.

More recently, everyone from Norman Lear to my son, Sherman, has been insisting I subscribe to the TiVo service.

We've come up with a different solution: the Internet.

The media have always been subject to the influence of new technology from the time the monks had to surrender some of their power over hand written books, literacy and libraries to the printing press.

The telegraph impacted newspapers' reach and timeliness. Radio news supplanted, to some degree, the "Extra! Extra! Read all about it!" marketing of updates to the morning newspaper.

Television offered the kinds of moving pictures of the news, delivered daily to the home, formerly available only in the dated "Fox Movietone News" film clips accompanying local theaters' feature films -- yet the newspapers and radio news survived.

Today, with the newspapers giving away for free on the Internet what they are also trying to sell to subscribers in hard copy, they may have, to some degree, met their technological match. See, Nicholas Johnson, "Whither Newspapers?" January 18, 2009; Tom Price, "Future of Journalism," CQ Researcher 19.12 (2009): 273-296. CQ Researcher Online. CQ Press. University of Iowa Libraries. March 30, 2009; "Rescuing Investigative Journalism," International Leadership Forum, February 28, 2009-.

Now it's not that I haven't been aware that there is video material on the Internet as well -- everything from individuals' productions on YouTube to programs from the old line conventional networks, ABC, CBS, NBC and PBS. And I've known that many radio stations also have their Internet, streaming presence.

But it was only a month or so ago that this knowledge affected our daily behavior as well as our intellect.

With a cable bill running over $100 a month, the economy getting worse by the day, and being of the penny-pinching persuasion, some savings on that monthly cable bill looked attractive. So as a week long experiment my wife and I began watching "TV" on our laptops rather than the TV set. Much to our surprise, it seemed an improvement. Most of the shows we cared to watch were not only available in timely fashion, they were archived as well; we could watch Jon Stewart's "Daily Show" opening anytime we wished. The Internet was fast becoming our free TiVo -- with vastly greater range of choice and storage capability.

(It turned out that it's actually cheaper to subscribe to "basic" cable than to eliminate all cable programming. Wall Street evaluates a cable company's worth on the basis of the number of subscribers.) So we cut back to "basic," and since the greater speed being promised by the higher priced broadband Internet service wasn't delivering on the promise, we cut that back as well. All told, it was nearly an $800 a year savings.

Always interested in the community radio (and public access channels) I supported as an FCC commissioner, I took a special interest in KBRP-TV on a recent trip to Bisbee. I had purchased a cheap ($300) 8.9" Acer AspireOne traveling computer for that trip. Upon my return, initially wondering how it could be used at home, I realized I could listen to that Bisbee station on my Acer -- my new "bedside radio." Now I have clicks to WBAI-FM, New York, KPFA-FM, Berkeley, and a number of other stations as well -- including Amy Goodman's Democracy Now!

A big laptop is my "TV;" the little netbook is my "radio." And this very significant shift in my access to "broadcasting" -- after a lifetime of fascination with "radio" (commercial and amateur) -- all happened in less than a month.

Democracy Now!, like orange juice, is no longer "just for breakfast." But the two do go well together: weekday mornings, 7:00-8:00 central time, on an Internet near you (as well as a local cable access channel). Try it; you'll like it.
_______________

* Why do I put this blog ID at the top of the entry, when you know full well what blog you're reading? Because there are a number of Internet sites that, for whatever reason, simply take the blog entries of others and reproduce them as their own without crediting the source. I don't mind the flattering attention, but would appreciate acknowledgment as the source -- even if I have to embed it myself. -- Nicholas Johnson

# # #