Letters from the Internet Censorship Front

Well, the Battle for the Internet is now officially in full swing.

In an earlier post on this blog, we reported how two bills in the United States Congress, (now officially regarded as SOPA in the House of Representatives, and PIPA in the Senate), had been proposed in order to reign in the offenders of internet piracy, and how the passage of either bill threatens due process in terms of the legal proceedings necessary to that end.  We also mentioned how the Federal Government wasn't necessarily waiting for passage of the bill before getting a head start in siezing domain names. The bills themselves have still yet to be voted on, but let there be no doubt that some web-based companies aren't waiting for passage of the bill, either, before making their voice heard in opposition to them.  And because so much more internet traffic is directed through these companies than through Federal sites, their voices speak many decibels higher.

Yesterday, Wikipedia went completely dark, while Google and other well-known sites included prominent links to sites providing for users a media allowing for dissent to be heard by those in power.  We're sure most of you, dear readers, are aware of this, as we're sure that if you happen upon this blog, you are no doubt familiar with Wikipedia and Google.

What is pleasantly surprising, is that apparently the voices of the internet are being heard.  Some prominent senators, including PIPA's co-sponsor Marco Rubio, have renounced their support of the bill, and Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell is now calling for the bill to be shelved.  Even in tonight's Republican Presidential debate in South Carolina, every candidate on stage stated opposition to the legislation.

Nonetheless, the Feds remain dedicated to stopping internet piracy, and so, just as Wikipedia was powering back up, they were shutting down the mega-popular, New Zealand-based Megaupload, carrying out a federal grand jury indictment processed earlier this month, with all the intention of extradicting and prosecuting those associated with the filesharing site.  Subsequently, and currently, however, hackers associated with the group, Anonymous, are retaliating, declaring openly that they are taking down websites at the Department of Justice, Universal Music Group, the U.S. Copyright Office, and EMI, just to mention a few.

The War for a free internet is now on.

Excercising Our Freedom of Speech

Forgive us, if tonight we opine.

We about spit out our coffee this morning, after reading an article that reported the following:

"Under the National Operations Center (NOC)’s Media Monitoring Initiative that came out of DHS headquarters in November, Washington has the written permission to retain data on users of social media and online networking platforms.

Specifically, the DHS announced the NCO and its Office of Operations Coordination and Planning (OPS) can collect personal information from news anchors, journalists, reporters or anyone who may use 'traditional and/or social media in real time to keep their audience situationally aware and informed.'"

This applies to us bloggers.  In fact, it applies to this very blog.  It even applies to this very post.  Yes, the Feds are now authorized to spy on all media operations.  Not even Brian Williams is immune.  Heck, not even government officials making public statements are immune.

Ladies and gentlemen, Big Brother is now official.  Does this not yet confirm that we now live in a police state?

Historians, especially this historian, is not wont to opine on current events, as opinions themselves are neither history, nor history-making.  But anyone with even a minor understanding of the United States Constitution can see this as an infringment of the first amendment, which states, "Congress shall make no law [...] abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press."  This is not to say that we bloggers are about to be rounded up "for the sake of national security."  But it does provide all the information the Feds would need in order to accomplish such an end.  It also puts bona fide journalists, public officials, and otherwise innocent bloggers in a state of fear for saying anything that may be considered a potential threat to national security, all in the name of the "war on terror".  Hence, though our opinions here may not be history-making, this news most certainly is.

Although the United States is increasingly becoming a police state, this American blogger, for one, refuses to live in a state of fear.  Thus, now aware that the government has free access to our identity, and at risk of being classified and possibly arrested as "terrorists", we in this office hereby, and publicly, defy and refute all government efforts to limit our freedom of speech.  We have nothing to hide.  We are not terrorists.  Our conscience is clear, and our honor, our dignity, our integrity are intact.  We shall continue to report historical events such as this one, come hell or high water.  Come and get us.

Predictions from a Historian

One of our favorite tag lines here has always been George Santayana's oft-quoted, "those who cannot remember the past, are condemned to repeat it."  Yet, the older we get, the more we realize how easily people forget the past, (if they ever really understood it all) and so, how often history repeats itself.  This is why there are repeating patterns to all of human history.  The details might be different, but the underlying motives are no less different now than they were at any another point in history--success; glory; honor; ego.  That said, one of the very reasons we who study history look to our past, is so that we might be better able to glimpse our future. 

We now find ourselves at the beginning of a new year, many of us looking out at its prospects with a heavy heart.  Generally, and globally speaking, those prospects for a happy and prosperous 2012 do not bode well, and certainly no better than the history of 2011 would inform us:  currently, Europe is on the verge of an economic meltdown; economically significant countries in Europe, as well as the United States are mired in such increasing debt as to put them on the verge of veritable bankruptcy; wars and the threat of more wars continue in the middle east; and politicians have become ever more disconnected to the plight of the average citizen, while they grow ever wealthier in the process.  Seriously--does anyone really think 2012 will be any better than 2011?

Though of course, no one can predict the future with any accuracy, given how human history tends to repeat patterns, and given the situation we all find ourselves in, after a fairly bleak 2011, we can nonetheless prognosticate a few things.

1. The war against Iran (which we have already intimated is covertly underway) will escalate, and likely become more visible.  The circumstances that will signal its official commencement is anyone's guess, but rest assured that whatever that particular event may be, all participants will blame the other side for initiating hostilities.

2. Crude oil will likely reach $200 per barrel.  Because of the escalating tensions in the middle East, average gasoline prices in the U.S. will increase to at least $5.00 per gallon.

3. The U.S. Presidential election will be, for most people, and once again, a choice between the lesser of two evils.  Seems the only Republican candidate who has any significant support is Dr. Ron Paul, but no one seems to think he can win, and the Republican establishment is sure to make sure he won't.  Hence, the Republican electorate will only nominate someone they think can beat Barack Obama.

4. Whether the economy gets better or worse, the Federal Reserve will print more money.  As the dollar is continually devalued, retail prices for goods and services will continue to increase, as "Helicopter Ben" Bernanke follows through on the anti-deflation doctrine he established before being confirmed as the U.S. Fed Head.

5. Civil liberties in the United States will continue to erode through continued Congressional legislation geared to combat the presumedly perpetual "war on terror".  Nations must always have an enemy, and even if the enemy is tactic, it serves the powers-that-be to maintain that enemy in order to strengthen their power.  Just read Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four.

Never have we in this office hoped more that we were wrong in our prognostications.  And, perhaps, we go out on a limb just in making them.  We certainly want not to extinguish all hope for a better year.  But, in light of the current events now facing us, and in light of the history of western thinking, we consider it more beneficial to inform the public of impending maladies, than to elicit a false sense of hope through an irrational positivity.

Whatever happens, we nonetheless harbor the wish that everyone can make the best of it, and have a truly prosperous new year.

Out with the Old

This office knows of no one personally who can say that the year 2011 was a good year.  Average salaries are down.  People are still unemployed, while folks continued to endure the "Great Recession".  Houses were foreclosed on.  Many Americans lost faith in their government, if they didn't outright overthrow it in various places around the world.  Iran wants to make nukes, while no one else will let them.

If we can arrive at a single descriptive word for 2011, it would be, "bleak".

But, say what we might about the year now almost ended, historically, it was year of endings of eras:

--American troops are finally out of Iraq.  For better or for worse, Operation Iraqi Freedom is over.
--Osama Bin Laden is finally dead.  Or, so the Feds tell us.  We can now declare the "war on terror" over.  Or, no, wait ...
--Libya's Mohamar Khaddafi is dead.  Not that anyone will miss him, but after forty years, forgive us if we assumed it was bound to happen, eventually.
--Joe Paterno resigned as the head coach of the Penn State Nittany Lions.  For those who don't follow college football, just trust us, this is a massive surprise.  The man was an icon.  Was.
--The Space Shuttle program is no more.  So, no more getting up at all hours to see it launch from Florida or touch down in the California desert.
--Jerry Lewis is no longer the main celebrity benefactor of the Muscular Dystrophy Association, and no longer hosts their annual telethon.  For those of us who grew up watching that thing at 3 o'clock in the morning when we couldn't sleep, THAT is the end of an era.
--Steve Jobs is no more.  Last call for gratitude--thanks again, Steve.  I don't know what I'd do without my iPhone.  Or, my desktop, for that matter.
--The Oprah Winfrey Show is no more.  But never fear, Oprah lovers--she now has her OWN network.  (Pardon the pun, Oprah, but we just can't help it when you lay it in our lap).

And so ends the year 2011, as these eras are now safely tucked away into the annals of history.

So Much for the Bill of Rights

Every year since 1963, the United States Congress has taken it upon itself to specify the budget and expenditures of the U.S. Department of Defense, for the upcoming year, in what is known as the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA).  On December 15th, after much heated debate, Congress passed the bill for the 48th time, authorizing budget and expenditures for the year 2012.  On the 23rd, President Barack Obama signed it into law.

In this latest bill, however, there's a bit of a catch.

Under the section on "Counterterrorism" (Subtitle D), the law authorizes the "detention under the law of war without trial until the end of the hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force."  The AUMF, enacted in the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, authorized the President "to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occured on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by nations, organizations or persons."  This language is further clarified in the NDAA for 2012 to include, more specifically, "al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerant act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces."

The reason why this, what is now being called the "indefinite detention" clause, was so hotly contested by Constitutionalist representatives in Congress, is that it makes no allowance for American citizens.  An amendment to exclude U.S. citizens from indefinite detention was proposed by California Senator Dianne Feinstein, but was rejected by Senate vote.  A later amendment that passed, clarifies that "nothing in the NDAA is intended to alter the government's current legal authority to detain prisoners captured in the war on terror," according to Politico.  Such authority, under the AUMF, includes the indefinite detention of U.S. citizens.

Under Congress' typically vague language, what this means is that not only can just about anyone, under current law, be considered a terrorist, but that anyone suspected of "belligerant acts" can now be legally arrested and detained, without trial, until the "war on terrorism" has ended.  No "war" has ever been officially or legally declared on "terrorism", yet its belligerants, even if they by American citizens, shall now be treated as prisoners of war.  By definition, this law puts all U.S. citizens under martial law, as it disregards the Bill of Rights, from which we have long had the impression that U.S. citizens were "innocent until proven guilty".

Few have the courage to speak out about this publically, but as Doctor, Congressman, and Presidential candidate Ron Paul explains, "the Bill of Rights has no exceptions for really bad people or terrorists or even non-citizens. It is a key check on government power against any person. That is not a weakness in our legal system, it is the very strength of our legal system. The NDAA attempts to justify abridging the Bill of Rights on the theory that rights are suspended in a time of war, and the entire United States is a battlefield in the war on terror. This is a very dangerous development, indeed. Beware."

Note that none of these laws mean that American citizens will inevitably suffer the consequences of the martial law established by them.  But, the point is that they could, as now it's all perfectly legal.  That's where the root of the issue lies.  That's what the Bill of Right was even for--to protect this stuff from happening.  But, these laws on "terrorism" effectively render the Bill of Rights null and void.

Are We Already at War with Iran?

Last weekend, Iran declared that they had shot down a U.S. RQ-170 surveillance drone in the eastern part of the country.  Repudiating this charge, U.S. officials claim that the drone had crash-landed after mechanical difficulties caused its operators to lose control of it.  In any event, its now in the hands of the Iranians, who now have at their disposal some the United States top secrets.  "Its bad," said one official, "they'll have everything."

Of course, it is no secret that the United States regularly conducts covert operations on, around, and in territories considered a threat to its interests.  In fact, it's the very reason the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) was even established.  Of course, back in 1947, the threat was the Soviet Union, but through the years, the CIA has been used for all sorts of covert operations designed to monitor, subvert, and sometimes even eliminate what the Federal government considers threats to the country's national security.  Though highly secretive, there is little doubt now that the Agency is being utilized to monitor activities in Iran, and since the Feds have made no secret of their opposition to Iran's reported efforts to advance their nuclear weapons capabilities, it wouldn't be surprising if such monitoring were attempts to gather intelligence that would assist in neutralizing such capability.

The downed-drone incident also follows on the heels of a series of explosive mishaps at Iranian nuclear facilities that some officials claim, on the condition of anonymity, are evidence of covert sabotage.  Such claims are substantiated by the continuing "accidents" at Iranian nuclear facilities, reportedly brought about by a computer worm (a sort of virus) called Stuxnet, which affects roughly 58 percent of all the computers in Iran, many of which are utilized in their nuclear refining operations.

Needless to say, this series of events has raised Iran's ire to such a point as to lead its General Mohammed Al Jaafari to raise the operational readiness of the country's military forces.  Now, as we already reported two weeks ago, Israel has not ruled out possible military force against Iran; and just today, Saudi Arabia's former intelligence chief has called for Saudi leadership to consider nuclear armament in order to counter threats from both Iran as well as Isreal.  Add to that the United States' continued covert operations, and one can't help but wonder if we're not already at war with Iran.

Kissing the Free Internet Goodbye?

Two bills currently await a vote the Congress of the United States--one, Senate Bill S968, called the "Protect Internet Piracy Act" ; and the other, House Bill HR3261, called the "Stop Online Piracy Act".  (Some may find it rather curious that they're called "acts", as logically, until a bill is voted into law, it's only a "bill".)  Though two different bills, they share similarities in both their intent and their language (sometimes known as "legalese").  Ostensibly, both these bills propose to regulate internet piracy, and clamp down on "rogue sites".  But, latent within vague language typical for Congressional legislation these days, lies the possible seeds of the ultimate destruction of what we've taken for granted as the freedom of the internet.

As summarized by Wikipedia, the House bill "would allow the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), as well as copyright holders to seek court orders against websites accused of enabling or facilitating copyright infringement.  Depending on who requests the court orders, the actions could include barring online advertising networks and payment facilitators such as PayPal from doing business with the infringing website; barring search engines from linking to such sites and requiring Internet service providers to block access to such sites.  The bill would make unauthorized streaming of copyright content a felony.  The bill also gives immunity to Internet services that voluntarily take action against websites dedicated to infringement, while making liable for damages any copyright holder who knowingly misrepresents that a website is dedicated to infringement."

The reader here, may want to read the above again, if he doesn't quite appreciate the full import of this bill, for it signifies the end of the freedom of the internet as we know it.

To be sure, the Feds haven't been waiting around for this bill to pass, as this morning, the they seized 150 domain names for selling counterfeit products, bringing the total domain names seized in the past year to 350.  Though, if the Feds seizing 350 domain names isn't enough to spark fear in the hearts of internet lovers, the passage of either of the two Congressional bills surely will, for it will then involve not only copyright holders (seeking court orders), but also ISPs (seeking to limit their liability for providing service to any site they deem infringing on intellectual property laws).  Passage of either of these bills means the Feds will again, subtly pit big corporations against small businesses.  The issuance of court orders will, as they usually do, set up enforcement with a "shoot now and ask questions later" scenario, and thus chip another chunk out of the block that is due process.

This office can find no individual who supports either of these bills, yet the House bill, currently in committee, appears to be on a fast track, as the New York Post reports that "sources familiar with the legislation said it could come to a vote before Christmas."

If you like the internet, and want to keep it free, you may want to inform your government that you oppose this bill.  Otherwise, we all might be kissing our free internet goodbye.

Is War against Iran Inevitable?

The Obama administration, in apparent concert with British and Canadian authorities, issued a statement yesterday, condemning Iran's nuclear development activities, and announcing a new round of sanctions.  "As long as Iran continues down this dangerous path, the United States will continue to find ways, both in concert with our partners and through our own actions to isolate and increase the pressure upon the Iranian regime," the statement said.

The concert of statements follow a report issued earlier this month by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), that asserts that Iran is developing nuclear weapons--that they are building hi-tech precision detonators essential for a nuclear device, and that they are devloping a uranium core for a nuclear warhead.

None of this is really unexpected, since the west has long suspected Iran of secretly attempting to develop nuclear weapons, but the signs of an escalating conflict grow with each passing day.  Israel has already suggested that "the time has come" to deal with Iran, and has not ruled out the use of its own military forces in the process.  Yesterday, the United Kingdom cut ties with all Iranian banks, and Canada banned the export to Iran of all goods used in the petrochemical, oil and gas industries.  The Russians claim that the IAEA is biased, and had the "set goal to deliver a guilty verdict."  Iran itself claims that the report is politically motivated, and based on false evidence cooked up by American intelligence services.  Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad called the head of the IAEA a "pawn of the U.S."

The whole affair, so far, bears a remarkable resemblance to the events that led up to the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003, which leads many of us who remember clearly those events to wonder if some kind of war with Iran is inevitable.  We shall see.  In the meantime, we shall keep a close watch.

The E.U. on the Brink

Don't look now, but it appears Europe, as a confederation of European nations, is crumbling.

Ostensibly, the beginning of its troubles started with the sovereign debt crises in what are called the "PIIGS" countries (Portugal, Ireland, Italy, Greece, and Spain), but particularly with Greece's debt crisis, made much worse not only by the widespread use of credit default swaps (sponsored, of course, by U.S. financial "experts"), but also by a 110 billion Euro bailout.  Monetizing Greece's debt, however, hasn't helped, and a deal is in now in the works for another bailout.

If Greece's debt troubles weren't difficult enough for the European Central Bank to handle, now Italy faces a debt crisis of its own.  The problem with Italy, however, is that it's not Greece.  In fact, its economy is the third largest of the European Union, behind Germany and France.  Their debt is now well over 2 trillion euros.  They were thought to be too big to default, but now, they're too big to bail out.  Though it hangs by a thread, the Euro is all but dead, as British PM David Cameron asserted that the currency was facing it's "moment of truth." 

Greece's and Italy's fiscal woes are not without their political consequences, either.  Prime Minister George Papandreou resigned yesterday, as Greek faith in their government collapses.  Italian PM Silvio Berlusconi has pledged to do the same.  Economist/Bankers are taking over in their stead.  French citizens, now facing austerity measures of their own, thanks to their own contributions in attempts to keep Greece afloat, all but assume that President Nicolas Sarkozy will be replaced in coming elections by socialist candidate Francois Hollande.  German Chancellor Angela Merkel is calling for a "breakthrough to a new Europe."

No one is sure, of course, exactly how the breakup of the E.U. will play out, but in all likelihood, it's not going to be pretty.

The Power of the Pretext

When one peruses the history of mankind, it is difficult not to notice certain patterns--how, in the rise and fall of civilizations, as historian Carroll Quigley noted, there are periods of migration, expansion, and decline; how a civilization's expansion is directly proportional to its economy and upward social mobility; and how wars between civilizations begin, and how they are terminated either through conquest or truce.

Those of us who studied those patterns suspected well enough back in 2002, that the persistent claims by both the Bush administration and Tony Blair's Labour government that Iraq was in possession of weapons of mass destruction ("WMDs"), whether true or false,  would inevitably lead to military action in Iraq.  Those suspicions were confirmed when the Bush administration mobilized troops the region, while claiming that such mobilization was merely a precautionary measure, should Iraq's government at the time prove resistant to U.N. efforts to search for the WMDs. 

Few seem to remember that no WMDs were found, but most do remember the invasion itself, and in all likelihood consider the justification for that invasion and "regime change" to be simply the removal of Saddam Hussein.  This is because of what we may call the Pattern of the Pretext, especially in regards to empire civilizations going to war--that Iraq was suspected of harboring WMDs was merely the pretext for invading, occupying, and establishing a new government in Iraq.

We note this pattern, because now the Obama administration has a pretext of its own in regards to Iran--on Tuesday last, the administration claimed that an Iranian plot to assassinate Saudi ambassador to the United States Adel Al-Jubier was foiled by FBI and DEA agents.  Assuming that story is indeed true, while we might give credit to the FBI and DEA, the administration went farther, and took sudden steps to ensure not only that the entire world was aware of the plot, but that it should unite in at least isolating Iran through sanctions.  Deja vu--back in 2002, the Bush administration went to the United Natons with supposedly incontrovertible evidence of WMDs in Iraq, determined to convince the world that those WMDs could be used in terrorist plots.

Say and think what you will about Iran.  Believe what you will about Iran and nuclear capablities and terrorism.  We do not write this post to disclaim such.  One may even speculate that banging the war drums provides for a nice diversion from the Occupation protests.  But know this:  the war drums are most certainly being banged, and, as with the war drums that have been banged before, they are being banged with the drumsticks of the pretext.

Letters from The Occupation

The image above will stand alone in this post for now, as it pretty much says it all.

Some Input for the Occupation Movement

Historically, the most effective movements focus on one, fundamental, principle change: in the United States, the founding fathers focused on independence from England; in the nineteenth century, the big movement focused on slavery's abolition; in the early twentieth century, there was women's sufferage and prohibition.

With their official list of grievances now posted, there is little doubt, anymore, that those "occupying" Wall Street have one thing on their mind--they are dissatisfied with corporate greed:  "We come to you at a time," they declare, "when corporations, which place profit over people, self-interest over justice, and oppression over equality, run our governments."  Very well.  With this single statement, they declare their cause.

Few could argue that many of their more specific claims are not prime examples of the behavior on the part of corporations that have contributed significantly, if not implicitly caused, the economic difficulties the United States, and indeed the world, now face.  Moreover, and as importantly, their claims touch a nerve in many people who may consider themelves victims of such corrupt behavior, as ever more register their support for the cause, in ever more locations in the U.S., as well as other countries.

However, though they have made it clear enough that the source of their discontent is corporate greed, they seem to fail to recognize that the government, which they effectively "run", is no less implicit in the corruption that greed fosters, and that the only real difference is what form the greed takes, in the collusion between corporations and government.  They mark their disgruntlement with entities that, among other things, have taken bailouts at taxpayers' expense, but fail to make accountable the politicians who authorized the bailouts, and thus squandered taxpayer funds.  Indeed, greed is the ultimate impetus in the collusion inherent in the corporatist structure, but while corporations are greedy for profits, we must not forget that the politicians that facilitate those profits are no less greedy for power.

With the attention that it is now getting, the Occupation movement that is now spreading has a grand opportunity to affect a great and radical change in this country, and to do that, all they need do is to address the one, fundamental issue that harbors at the core of the corruption that is now the source of so much disgruntlement.  But it is not greed.  Greed has forever been and will forever be something between a man and his God, if he has one.  It is a nasty side effect of all economic structures.  It is a moral issue, not a political issue, and if the history of the United States shows us anything, it is that a people, even unified in their intentions, can neither dictate nor legislate morality.

We have already discussed in these web pages what we believe to be the real and fundamental causes of the ever widening economic disparities facing the American people.  For what it's worth, consider this our input to the serious and important discussion that you have brought to the attention of the world.  As we explained in our last post here, we are with you in spirit, for we, too, consider ourselves part of the 99%.  But we cannot continue participation in a dicussion that remains blind to the realities of the world's Corporatocracies, and looks to government to solve the problems that government is complicit in creating in the first place.

The "Occupation" of Wall Street

Back on Constitution Day, September 17, inspired by the Arab Spring movement, a group of about 1,000 activists began a protest in the streets of Manhattan, in the vicinity of Wall Street.  Stemming from the group calling itself Anonymous, as well as other groups dedicated to civil disobedience, the protesters marched and waved their placards with no conspicuous leader, and no real actionable agenda.  As the protest maintained its peaceful intentions, it received little media attention.  Yet, the activists of this protest were nonetheless passionate and unmovable--so much so, that the protest not only continues to this day, but has gained in strength and size, and has even spread to other cities, as those sympathetic their cause have now convened to protest in Boston, Chicago, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Denver, and Washington. 

Although leaderless and without a concrete agenda, the protest itself, called in some circles the new American Revolution, is devoutly dedicated to raising awareness of the greed and corruption endemic in the American economic and political system.  To put it simply, these protesters are fed up.  The official Occupy Wall Street website summarizes that "the one thing we all have in common is that We Are The 99% that will no longer tolerate the greed and corruption of the 1%."  Their live feed at times shows clips from films such as the 1976's Network, where news anchor Howard Beal encourages his television audience to go to their windows and shout, "I'm as mad as hell, and I'm not going to take this anymore!"

Such emotion has apparently tapped into the general sentiment of an increasing number of Americans.  Hence, the movement has attracted activists of all types and creeds, each demanding their own resolutions--Leftists call for raising taxes on the rich and on corporations, ending corporate welfare, and support for trade unions; Libertarians call for an end to the Federal Reserve System, an end to corporatism, and an end to all wars.  These protesters are Jews as well as Muslims, Christians as well as Atheists.  And their numbers are growing.

And as its size and scope increases, so does the media attention, if only for the lack of media attention it has received thus far.  When the protest first began, MSNBC's Kieth Olbermann exclaimed, "if that's a tea party protest in front of Wall Street about Bernanke [...], it's the lead story on every network newscast.  How is that disconnect possible in this country today with so many different outlets and so many different ways of transmitting news?"  But, yesterday, October 2, now into the third week of the protest, roughly 700 protesters were rounded up and jailed for blocking a traffic lane of the Brooklyn Bridge, and face charges of disorderly conduct and resisting arrest, which simply could not go unreported by most of the news agencies.  The mass arrest has even sparked a debate about whether the NYPD wasn't acting a little heavy-handed.

It is indeed difficult for anyone who has witnessed the monetary and political collusion and corruption that has taken over the economic and political system of the United States to not support the underlying sentiment of those who dedicate their lives and livelihoods to this protest.  We are with them in spirit, if not out there with them, with our own placards.  This may or may not be the beginning of another American Revolution, but as long as it lasts, it will nonetheless put a test on us all, to see who is on which side of the current and rising politicoeconomic fence, as either one must side with the corrupt corporatist elements of the monetary and power structure, or must ultimately pledge their "lives, fortunes and sacred honor."

So Much for Democracy

Speaking before the Rotary Club today, North Carolina Democratic Governor Bev Perdue said, "I think we ought to suspend, perhaps, elections for Congress for two years and just tell them we won't hold it against them, whatever decisions they make, to just let them help this country recover. I really hope that someone can agree with me on that." Later in the afternoon, Perdue's office clarified by explaining, "Gov. Perdue was obviously using hyperbole to highlight what we can all agree is a serious problem: Washington politicians who focus on their own election instead of what’s best for the people they serve."

Hyperbole--meaning "exaggeration." As in, "just kidding". But, as the saying goes, no one is ever "just kidding."

We can say this because of an op-ed article, written a couple of weeks ago by Peter Orszag, President Obama's former Budget Director, and now Adjunct Senior Fellow on the Council on Foreign Relations. In it, Orszag suggests that the political gridlock in Washington, these days, is due to increasing voter polarization, and that to stem such polarization, "what we need [...] are ways around our politicians". Among the means he suggests, is the creation of "more independent institutions," such as the Congressional Commissions that are becoming more commonplace. But, in sum, he suggests that "we need to counter the gridlock of our political institutions by making them a bit less democratic."

"A bit less democratic." Like the suspension of Congressional elections for two years?

Well, so long democracy. It was nice knowing you.

America's Failing Corporatocracy

In May 2010, President Barack Obama paid a personal and well-publicized visit to a solar panel manufacturing company in California, called Solyndra.  In order to promote government "investment" in green technology, the Obama administration granted Solyndra a $535 billion loan guarantee.  The guarantee had been applied for and denied under the Bush administration, but the company's investors and executives had made substantial donations to Obama's campaign.  They had also spent over a million dollars lobbying Congress on bills that would benefit companies in the business of clean energy production.  Thus, the administration fast-tracked the company's loan application.  But, in early September 2011, Solyndra filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy, and is now not only under FBI investigation, but is also being sued by the 1,100 workers who were abruptly laid off.  Meanwhile, taxpayers are now liable for the $535 million, in order to cover Solyndra's defaulted loan.

We post this news neither to single out a failed corporation, nor to single out a poor economic decision on the part of a presidential administration.  Rather, we deliver this news so as to explain that the Solyndra affair now typefies what can happen when government crawls into bed with corporations.  And anymore, crawling into bed with corporations is what government does most effectively.  Political party affiliation matters not, for both Democratics and Republicans do it.  For better or for worse, the United States has become a full-fledged corporatocracy, and as the economy flails and wags and sinks, so does the government that marries it. 

Few could, or even would, argue that government does not benefit most those who contribute to it.  Politicians cater to campaign contributors, if only to get more contributions.  Meanwhile, government funds are proportioned (lately, under the guise of "stimulus" measures), loans are guaranteed, and regulations are legislated and subsequently enforced by newly created regulatory bodies, all to the benefit of specifically those entities that have contributed.  As those companies succeed, more is contributed to the politicians who perpetuate and propagate them; and when they fail, they're "bailed out."

Yet, though many may admit to America's corporatism, few seem to recognize that the ones who must ultimately pay for it is, well, everyone else who's not a member of the corporatist structure.  The taxpayer.  The voter.  Joe and Josephine Sixpack, who still naively believe that America is the land of opportunity, but can't start their own business because they're regulated and taxed out of the prospect, or because they lack the mountain of funds necessary to contribute to the campaigns of those politicians that would help them.  As a result, they must resign themselves to their workaday jobs in order to make enough money to buy their food from the corporations that process it, and to pay their taxes to the government that subsidizes and regulates the food processing corporations.

It is no wonder that the call is often heard for a "viable third party."  Yet, even members of prospective third parties are most likely to be co-opted into the corporatist structure.  Greens are absorbed by the Democrats; Libertarians are catered to by Republicans.  The only difference becomes what corporations would benefit from whomever is in power.  Such is in the nature of American politics, we suppose, and so it is even less wonder that so many are indifferent to the whole mess.  Yet, such is the state that the country currently finds itself in.

Media Marginalization

The Republicans held another debate last night in Orlando, Florida.  Sponsored and monitored by Fox News and Google, we here in this office were actually impressed with the format, and with the live polls and questions that were offered online, even while the candidates debated.  Mitt Romney and Rick Perry, the two current "frontrunners", so-called by the Establishment media had a very nice mudslinging match, while the more marginal candidates struggled for air time.

However, the most astonishing thing happened after the debate was over.  Fox News held an online poll, asking viewers who, in their opinion, "won" the debate.  The poll remained online for a few minutes, and as it did so, the numbers racked up for, of all people, Ron Paul.  Yet, before too much longer, Fox News removed the poll from its site, and before the evening was over, issued a separate declaration entitiled, "Experts: Mitt Romney wins debate ... again".

This is not the first time Congressman Paul's presidential campaign has been marginalized.  In fact, if there was a record for a candidate being most marginalized by the media, Ron Paul would be in Guiness, hands down.  In every poll this office has witnessed, asking who won a debate in which Mr. Paul was an option, he has won, sometimes by double digits.  In the Iowa straw poll, he lost out to Michelle Bachmann by a mere percent or two, yet while Bachmann was interviewed on all the networks, nothing was mentioned of Ron Paul.  Nothing.  More attention was given to Rick Santorum for withdrawing from the race. Such neglect of a candidate has been so obvious, Jon Stewart, in a Daily Show spot, asked, "why is everyone still ignoring Ron Paul?"

There is no doubt in this author's mind why Paul receives such disaffection:  as a former Libertarian, and as currently a Republican who still holds to his libertarian principles, he's far removed from being part of the Establishment.  As one who holds unswervingly to the principles of less government, more personal responsibility; who has written a book calling for the end of the Federal Reserve System; who has called and voted repeatedly to end United States militarism abroad, he's not just an outsider, he's an outsider to even the regular "outsiders."

Say and think what you will about Ron Paul, but we write about him today to provide a verbal snapshot of twenty-first century America, where the Establishment, i.e., the ruling political class and the colluding media, squelches the authentic voices of those they claim to protect and defend.  This Establishment is concerned not with voters, and not with the welfare of the populace, but only with their own interests, their own political agenda, their own income.  This Establishment is the very reason why the country is in the shape that it's in.  This Establishment is the reason why everything becomes more expensive, while ever fewer people can afford any of it.  And this Establishment is the reason why those not of the Establishment must resort to instruments such as the increasingly-hated Tea Party just to be heard.

Israeli Nervousness

While the Arab Spring may signal liberation and democraticization for Arabs, for Israel, it would be an understatement to call it a major cause for concern.

Few historical chronologies of the twentieth century are more complex than that of the seemingly unresolvable conflict between the predominantly Muslim Arabs and Jews of Israel.  Suffice it to say that significantly few Arab states recognize Israel as a legitimate state, since it was established in 1947, not through any military conquest of its own, but rather through legislated resolutions issued by the then newly created United Nations.  From a western perspective, the establishment (or re-establishment, some would say) of Israel served to provide a place of refuge for the many Jews throughout the world displaced by anti-semitic conflicts.  From an Arab perspective, the establishment of the State of Israel is effectively an enduring and expanding occupation of Arab Palestine.  Objectively, given the nature of the hostility exhibited by both parties throughout the years, neither the Arabs nor the Israelis are entirely blameless for the ongoing conflict.

But this year's Arab Spring alters the balance of power in the region.  Emboldened by increasingly favorable Arab sentiment globally, as well as by President Barack Obama's implied endorsement of a Palestinian state in a speech back in May, Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas is pursuing a vote for full Palestinian statehood by the United Nations Security Council, despite warnings from the U.S. State Department that it would veto such a vote. 

In the Palestinian pursuit of statehood, Abbas explains that "we are not going to annul Israel's legitimacy, [...] we wish to isolate Israel's policy." However, Israel is not swayed from a defensive postition, and has increased its military presence around certain Jewish settlements, fearful of violent demonstrations by emboldened Palestinians.  Although the Palestinians pursue an independent Palestine drawn from the pre-1967 borders, Israelis are concerned that, once a legitimate state, Palestine may then resort to the International Criminal Court in the Hague to prosecute Isreal for the illegitimacy of these Jewish settlements.  The vote for Palestinian statehood is next week, but tensions are already running high.

The Arab Spring

In mid-December, 2010, in the city of Sidi Bouzid, Tunisia, a well-known and reportedly generous 26-year-old street vendor named Mohamed Bouazizi was confronted, as he had often been, by local municipal officials, ostensibly for not having a permit to sell fruit in the street.  Lacking the funds to either obtain a permit or bribe the officials, one particular female official publicly humiliated him by slapping him, spitting on him, confiscating his scales, and tossing his fruit cart aside.  Angered by the confrontation, he attempted to lodge a complaint with the governor's office, and to ask for the return of his scales.  When the governor refused to even see him, he promptly acquired a can of gasoline from a nearby gas station, and in the middle of traffic, after reportedly shouting, "how do you expect me to make a living?", doused himself with the gas, and lit a match.  Although the flames were ultimately extinguished, the burns he suffered over 90 percent of his body caused him to slip into a coma, and 18 days later, he died.

Bouazizi's self-immolation would set off a series of mass protests, strikes, marches, rallies, and riots by the endemically unemployed and disaffected youth across the Arab world, first in Tunisia, then in Egypt, then in Algeria, Libya, Yemen, Lebanon, Jordan, Palestine, Bahrain, Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Morocco.  Some of these uprisings, as in Saudi Arabia, would be subdued by governing authorities; but others, as in Tunisia and Egypt, would lead to outright revolutions; still others, as in Libya, would lead to civil war.  And as of this date, it's not over.  In what is being called the Arab Spring, young Arabs, angered by the economic decline and political corruption in their respective countries, are taking to the streets in what some have called the "fifth wave of democracy," so called, as it brings to mind the "third wave", experienced throughout Latin America in the '70s and '80s.

To be sure, and the reason why we post this text, the United States is not immune to being the object of such protests as the Arab Spring is generating, as the sentiment of it begins to extend beyond Arab borders.  On Sunday last, while we were paying our tributes to those lost in the 9/11 tragedy, about 100 or so Arabs in England were burning an American flag in protest.  Yet, although many of us in the west are oblivious to the import of the Arab Spring, (after all, we have our own economic decline and political corruption to deal with), those of us who know our history can certainly empathize with democratic uprisings.  Hence, we are sympathetic to their cause, if only by necessity, tacitly so.

Sunday Summary

Few people who were alive back then will ever forget where they were ten years ago today, when they heard about the 9/11 tragedy.  This author was just walking into a college political science class, when he noticed the classroom television on, a live report of the burning world trade center, and the words, written on the chalkboard next the television, "Pearl Harbor II".

Most of the historical facts of the event are fairly clear after ten years:  On the morning of September 11, 2001, 19 Islamist militants coordinated the hijacking of four passenger jets taking flight from several airports on the east coast, with the intention of flying them into several economically and politically significant buildings.  Two of those planes were each flown into a tower of the World Trade Center; another smashed into the Pentagon in Arlington, VA; and the fourth crashed into a Pennsylvania field, after passengers attempted to take control from the hijackers before they could reach their intended target.  Both towers of the WTC collapsed, significant damage was sustained by the Pentagon, and after all was said and done, nearly 3,000 people perished.

Despite an investigation and report by a congressionally legislated commission, some of the other facts of 9/11 remain murky, at best.  A significant number of individuals and groups, both as witnesses and researchers of the tragedy, assert that the explanations of the events offered by U.S. government, the 9/11 Commission, and the mainstream media, are inconsistent to a significant degree, which suggests either a cover-up of the authentic causes, or complicity by, if not the explicit responsibility of, those in power at the time.  These individuals and groups have, for the past several years, called for a new investigation of the events.

Though all the facts may never be known, or at least publicized, what is most clear is that 9/11 changed daily life, as we knew it in the United States, if not the world, and in some ways that are not insignificant.  Most significant, is western civilization's perception and fear of "terrorism", put in quotes here, as the term itself has become so politically and emotionally charged, as to lose a clear definition.  Ostensibly, 9/11 was an act of "terrorism" as most of us understand the term, today, and because of it's tragic nature, security officials go to extreme lengths, if not, at times, pushing, if not exceeding their constitutional authority, in order to ensure that anything like that never happens again.  Hence, if we're not fearful of another "terrorist" attack, we are fearful of being investigated, interrogated, or searched as a possible "terrorist" ourselves.

To be sure, and from a historical perspective, living in a state of fear is not really new to the American populace.  For that matter, it is nothing new to civilization, itself.  For a time, the Romans lived in fear of the Carthaginians; Europeans lived in fear of the "Black Death" of the Plague; during WWII, British citizens lived in fear of being bombed by the German Luftwaffe, while Americans citizens lived in fear of another attack by the Japanese Navy; after WWII, pretty much the entire western world lived in fear of communism.  In fact, historically, civilizations have most often lived in fear of something.  What changed on 9/11 was the object that fear, namely, "terrorism", and although acts of "terrorism" were certainly nothing new ten years ago, for the first time, it had a direct and lasting impact upon a significant number of American people.

Such impact is the reason why many of us are likely to take time today to reflect upon the horrific events of this date, ten years ago, and to remember the lives we knew back then, that were suddenly and forever lost to us.

President Proposes a Plan for Jobs

President Barack Obama spoke before a joint session of Congress last night, proposing a plan to create jobs. 

Much political ado had been made over the past week, particularly over the scheduling and the anticipated attendance of the speech.  Initially, the White House scheduled it to coincide with the Republican debate on Wednesday evening, causing no small amount of disgruntlement among Republicans, who would have had to quickly reschedule the debate, were it not for an unprecedented letter from House Speaker John Boehner to the White House, claiming that the date and time of the scheduled speech conflicted with pre-scheduled House voting.  Hence, the speech was rescheduled for last night, then rescheduled again, so as not to conflict with the first official game commencing football season.  As if tensions weren't high enough, already, some Republican Congresional representatives voiced their indifference to the media to even attending the speech, opting instead to watch the football game.  Affronted by the Republican speech-skippers indifference, Senate Democratic Majority Leader Harry Reid astutely scheduled the procedural vote to disapprove the debt ceiling increase to commence immediatly after the speech.

It was then no wonder that in the preamble of the speech itself, the President referred to the "political circus" that characterizes Washington, these days.

In summary, the President's roughly $450 billion plan proposes--
--a significant reduction in employer payroll taxes, to make it cheaper for businesses to hire
--spending on infrastructure and education, to provide for construction and teaching jobs
--funds to retain teachers in budget-crunched states and retrain the long-term unemloyed, and
--a broad-based tax cut in 2012, to put more money in people's pockets.

Although stipulating that "everything in this bill will be paid for. Everything," the detail of precisely where the money to pay for the plan wasn't so clear.  The President expects to deliver that apparently minor detail to Congress next week.  At this point, it is assumed that it will be paid for with the budget cuts to be laid out by Congresses' special committee before December 31 of this year.

In regards to the delivery of the speech, notable was the President's tone, through which, he was adamant that the bill, called the "American Jobs Act" (though it's not officially an "act" until it is passed and signed), be "passed right away."  In fact, he used the phrase, "right away" eight times.

We'll let you draw your own conclusions from all that.