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.

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.

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."

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.

Sunday Summary

In what is possibly the saddest result of the boom in technology of the last twenty years is the reduction of physical mail we send and receive.  The reason it is sad, is because, well, as a result, the United States Postal Service is broke.  Flat broke.  If they were a private company, they'd be bankrupt.

As it is with any private company, we say this because the costs to operate the USPS far outweigh the revenue it generates, currently by $9.2 billion.  Like the rest of the federal government, they've lately had to borrow the funds necessary to make its payments, and currently, they've reached their credit limit of $15 billion.  At the end of this month, they expect to default on $5.5 billion that covers future retirees' health benefits.  Hence, they're looking to Congress for some kind of action.

Two causes have brought about the USPS's difficulties.  First, thanks to digital technology such as email and online bill-paying as well as competition from private carriers such as UPS, the federal service has simply lost the volume of business, and the revenue that it generates.  In any private company, such loss of revenue would likely mean downsizing through employee layoffs.  However, and the second and more serious cause of the USPS's plight, because of no-layoff clauses in their contracts with the American Postal Workers Union, they cannot legally lay anyone off.  Moreover, a 2006 law requires the postal service to pay an average of $5.5 billion annually for 10 years to finance retiree health costs for the next 75 years.  Thus, the situation is "extremely serious,” according to postmaster general Patrick R. Donahoe.  "If Congress doesn’t act, we will default.”

Donahoe has proposed some measures to resolve the crisis, but most aren't likely to go over well with a number of folks.  They've already suggested ceasing Saturday deliveries, but such an idea has gotten flak from Congressional Representatives, who argue that such is a serious disruption for those who receive medications and newspapers via snail mail.  They have the legal authority to close facilities, and have proposed doing so, but who wants to lose their local post office?  They don't have the legal authority to layoff employees, so they have asked Congress to enact legislation that would overturn the job protections, but the very idea has enraged the postal workers union.  Cliff Guffey, president of the APWU, has already said, "we’re going to fight this and we’re going to fight it hard."

As Donahoe suggests, this is a serious problem that requires immediate attention.  As one member of an oversight committee put it, "Unless there is real structural reform, the Postal Service won’t be here in two years."  As it is, the funds necessary to even cover the current payroll will be depleted by early next year, and so there is talk of shutting down the service entirely this winter.

Ben Franklin, the country's first Postmaster General, must be rolling in his grave.

Sunday Summary

Well, most of the news this past week has been saturated (pardon the pun) with news of Hurricane Irene.  We must therefore include it in today's Sunday Summary.

Oddly enough, what is most historical about Irene is the damage that it didn't cause.  By the time its first landfall in North Carolina, it had already lost much of its steam, and had been downgraded to a category 1 hurricane.  By the time it hit New York, it was merely a tropical storm.  Yet, in New York, the subway was completely shut down, and hundreds of thousands in the low-lying areas of New York were ordered, ordered by Mayor Michael Bloomberg to evacuate.  Yet, of the roughly 370,000 people ordered to evacuate, it is estemated that only 37,000 people complied.

To be sure, Irene did cause some damage, though in dollar terms, it's still being calculated.  As of this writing, 15 people are known to have died as a direct result of the hurricane, either from falling trees or floodwaters.  And many are still in the dark, after power outages affected more than 4 million people on the eastern seaboard.  Moreover, the deluge of rainfail inland of the coast still needs to drain, which still threatens the water level of the rivers that drain it back into the ocean.

However, the damage is rather minimal in comparison to what Irene was anticipated to cause, and so she was, on the whole, more hype than hurricane.  Without minimizing the loss of those 15 who died, (one harrowing report was of a woman's body pulled from her car, under 150 feet of water), 15 dead out of the 4 million otherwise affected by the loss of power gives one pause to consider that either the whole east coast was unbelievably lucky, or the hurricane wasn't at all what it was played up to be.  The most economical damage appears to be in New York, where a sizeable chunk of retail sales were anticipated lost this weekend--more a result of the city shutting down the entire weekend in preparation for the storm, than from the storm itself.

No doubt, much of the hype is generated by the media, which earns its bread on the sensationalism of stories, and which certainly loves natural disasters as backdrops for their "on-scene" reports.  Yet, and perhaps as an instance of poetic justice, they were let down by the rather unsensational nature of Irene.  According to one report, even CNN's Anderson Cooper, well-known for being the reporter in the thick of events like natural disasters, seemed somewhat let down as he reported from New York.  According to Toby Harnden, the U.S. Editor of the Daily Telegraph, "He looked crestfallen fell briefly silent when a weatherwoman told him that the rain was not going to get any worse. 'Wow, because this isn't so bad,' he said. 'It's an annoying rain but it isn't even a sideways rain.'"

Such hype was also, no doubt, played up by state, local and federal politicians, who, of course, would rather be safe than sorry, but also are trying to either boost or protect their image, especially after the latest hit to that image as a result of the national debt "crisis".  Moreover, the memory of the Federal Emergency Management Agency's mismanaged response to hurricane Katrina in 2005 still lingers in the minds of many, including those of politicians.  No one wants to go through that again. 

Say what we will about the hype, it is nonetheless a good thing that Irene didn't cause more damage than it did, and for that, we should truly be thankful.

Sunday Summary

Let's face it--the economy sucks, right now.

Most of us are aware that it doesn't help matters to say this.  After all, the prime mover for consumer economy is confidence, and to admit that the economy sucks is only likely to make it worse by deflating the confidence that everyone has that it's going to get better.  It may still, and will, hopefully, get better, but right now, it ... well, it's really tanking.

All most of us need do is take a look around them, if it hasn't effected them directly, already.  Especially here, in California, rents are up, houses are being foreclosed upon, small businesses are going under, "For Lease" signs are going up, people are struggling to find work, and are ever more thankful that if they have a job.  In the broader perspective, we hear more bad news, every day--the stock market is falling, unemployment is rising, the government has been spending ever more money to spur economic growth, so the national debt is through the roof, and all while the price of just about everything goes up.

Economists and bankers are only now beginning to suggest that the "risk of recession" is now "very great".  In an interview several days ago, President Obama said that he "doesn't think that the U.S. economy is in danger of falling into another recession."  But, seriously, who are these people kidding?  Have we even yet to really recover from the 2008 recession? 

Peter Schiff, an American investment broker, author, financial commentator, and former contender in the 2010 Republican Connecticut Primary, believes we're in a depression.  What gives him the confidence to make such statements is the credit he received from those in the financial world for noticing and commenting on the sub-prime housing "bubble" back in 2006, long before anyone realized it was even a bubble. 

If Schiff is right, it's very, very likely that the economy is going to get much, much worse before it ever gets better.  To him, the Federal Reserve is running a Ponzi scheme, effectively sanctioned by everyone; that Ben Bernanke is going to continue to print money until it becomes so devalued that it will collapse.  As it was during Germany's Weimar Republic, it will take barrowfuls of money to buy a loaf of bread.  And only those who have gold or silver, (used as money for millenia), will have any real purchasing power.  This prognostication is echoed by growing number of others in the public sphere, including Republican Presidential candidate Ron Paul.

Those of us who study history are not in the business of making prognostications.  However, we still have to feed our families, and to that end, it behooves us to have an understanding of the current economic climate.  Moreover, one of the very reasons to study history, and indeed, one of the reasons we began this blog, is because, in the oft-quoted phrase, "those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it," and most of us, we're sure, wish not to have to live through an economic depression, if history is any guide.

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.