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.

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."

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

The rioting in Britain has settled down, now, which affords us an opportunity to examine some possible underlying causes of the event.  From a historical perspective, this needs to be done, for it allows us the opportunity to understand the zeitgeist from which such violence and destructive behavior springs.  Knowing that, we may be further able to address possible remedies, as well as possible methods of prevention.

Sometimes riots are quite clear-cut in their causes.  Anyone who was anywhere around Los Angeles in the spring of 1992, when local African-Americans rioted after 3 LAPD officers were acquitted of charges of police brutality of Rodney King, understood that L.A. blacks were lashing out at what they considered the racial and social injustices in their neighborhoods.  It was indeed brutal.  53 people were killed.  Thousands more were injured. 

However, the causes of the rioting in England aren't so clear.  Though it started in Tottenham, North London, after an organized protest against the the shooting death of Mark Duggan by Metropolitan Police Service officers, thanks to light-speed communication like Twitter, the violence quickly spread to other parts of London, then to cities farther north of London.  That Mark Duggan was a black man is irrelevant, as the rioters consisted of people of all colors.

Wikipedia summarizes that "commentators have attributed the causes of the riots to factors including high poverty and unemployment, the growing gap between rich and poor, gang culture, and the lowest social mobility in the developed world."  But, could the riots be due to merely socioeconomic factors?  Or, as it was posited earlier in this blog, was it just England's disaffected youth having their say?

In an insightful online article in England's Financial Times, Gautam Malkani compares and contrasts the underlying psychology of the violence of the riots to that fictionalized in Anthony Burgess' A Clockwork Orange.  In it, he suggests that, not unlike Alex and his "droogs," rioters were "revel[ing] in demonic violence to stave off the demon of boredom," as "many rioters in London and other cities were laughing as they looted. [...] Like football hooliganism, the violence was recreational--a day out in a Nietzschean theme park."

Malkani also suggests that consumerism may have played a role in the looting.  "In place of the traditionally anti-capitalist stance of previous youth counter-cultures came reports of rioters in low-end fashion retailers, engaged in the new practice of 'trying before you loot.'  This form of extreme consumerism meant that, by the end of the week, the biggest bogeyman was our culture of rampant materialism and instant gratification."

With that, it appears that we have at last discovered the apparent causes of last week's violence and destruction in Britain:  socioeconomic disaffection augmented by consumerism run amok.  Almost makes one long for the simpler days of race riots.  Almost.

Global Unrest

There appears to be a growing global unrest taking place in 2011.  Already this year, the world has witnessed --

-- the Egyptian Revolution, and the overthrow of Hosni Mubarak

-- riots in Athens, over their debt crisis, and severe cutbacks in government spending.

-- massive strikes and protests in Lisbon, over their debt crisis, and severe cutbacks in government spending

-- thousands of Spaniards in Madrid, protesting their 21 percent unemployment rate, government corruption, and austerity measures (a result of their debt crisis)

-- multiple protests in the Philippines, over everything from low worker pay to oil exploration and drilling.

-- protests and riots in Syria against the rule of President Bashar al-Assad, where (reports say) over 1600 people have been killed over the last four months

-- protests in Israel over their rising cost of living

-- riots, looting, and arson in a number of cities in Great Britain

Even here in the United States, a gang of black youths targeted white Wisconsin State Fair-goers in Milwaukee for beatings.

What's going on here?  I mean, what is the underlying cause of such global unrest?  Is it all the result of sinking economies and corrupt governments?

After reading all these accounts, I noticed the one thread that ties all of these events together.  It's not economies (though to be sure, failing economies are an underlying concern).  It's not race.  It's not anarchy.  No, the vast majority of those involved in these protests and uprisings consist of a younger generation of people.  I am reminded of the college campus protests of the sixties.  As it happens every so often, the youth of the world are making their voice heard.

Rioting in Britain

Over the last 3 nights, British poor people have been rioting, replete with all the arson and looting that goes with it.  I am reminded of the Rodney King riots here in L.A., but this seems worse, somehow.  This one's aided by Twitter (ah, the wonders of modern technology!).  I suppose you would call this the mother of all flash mobs.  Fortunately, the violence appears at this point to be dying down, but I fear that the sentiments that generated such an event may take root here in the United States, as the economic situation gets worse.

Two girls being interviewed during the actual violence said, "we're showing rich people that we can do what we want," which seems to make it a class warfare situation, and highlights the concept of a widening gap between rich and poor.