Gender: Do not display
Current location: Orlando
Member since: Wed Nov 10, 2004, 08:49 AM
Number of posts: 19,085
Current location: Orlando
Member since: Wed Nov 10, 2004, 08:49 AM
Number of posts: 19,085
(h/t DirkGently from his comment here, with my own comments)
So. Threats of truth telling should be treated like threats of violence?
This is exactly the rationale applied by every despicable authoritarian regime in history.
He's too nice to say it, but I will. "The rationale" of "every despicable authoritarian regime," referenced here calls to mind some really nasty times in history such as:
Chile under Pinochet
China under the Chinese Communist Party
Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge
Saudi Arabia under the House of Saud
And many more. Something they have in common is need to control information to protect their crimes. It's just too inconvenient to have reporters running around reminding people they're being spied on or worse.
This isn't to say that we're there, or even headed in that direction. I believe we're going in a completely different direction...but I'll save that for later.
Congratulations. This post bulls-eyes the absolute bottom of the philosophical barrel.
The argument that embarrassing the state with truthful information that is threatening only in its likelihood of raising the public consciousness of government wrongdoing is precisely the most anti-democratic, purely vile and evil sentiment possible, on not only the subject of press freedom, but as to civilization or government of any kind.
It's the absolute bottom of the philosophical barrel precisely because we're not any of these authoritarian regimes. Not even close. It's historically been a point of patriotism that we fought wars for our freedom, and ostensibly for the "freedom" of other countries (although, that's rarely true -- we fight wars in other places for resources).
Dirk hits the nail on the head when he says that the threat level of truth-telling is proportional to the wrongdoing of the governments threatened by it. This is plain as day to most people. Uncontroversial. In the civilized world we know that we fight to keep things transparent in order to keep things civilized and working for the people. Otherwise we get trampled. We see it on school boards, county commissions and in the U.S. Senate -- when we're locked out, that's when bad things happen (which, I thought was the whole point of electing Democrats...to keep things open, transparent, and working for the people).
This is how you get to dictators and genocide and everything else Americans and all decent people everywhere oppose.
Repellant. Filthy. Indefensible.
Like I said, we're not there now, but letting this djinn out of the bottle is NOT something that patriotic Americans cheer for. We're not subjects under King George. Our forefathers fought and died for these freedoms. It is filthy, repellant and indefensible to argue for their demise when they are figuratively written in blood in our Constitution.
I am deeply saddened and ashamed to see Democrats willing to dismantle that which makes us uniquely American. And for what? What is possibly so threatening about Greenwald, Gellman or the truth of the domestic spying program, that you would be willing to burn the Bill of Rights?
Shame. Seriously. We should all be ashamed of this.
Talk about being detrimental to the party: how fast will people run from the Democratic brand when they see party members proudly shouting to lock up journalists?
The good news is that we're talking about a tiny but noisy minority of voices carrying this repellant message. Together we're shining a light and turning down the heat on this nonsense. This shit isn't going to stick -- not if we have anything to say about it.
Posted by nashville_brook | Tue Aug 20, 2013, 10:28 PM (54 replies)
When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child. But when I became a man, I put away childish things.
Greenwald's partner's detention is not convenient, hype or self-promotion.
And no one needs to wait a 'couple of days' or even minutes to figure that out.
David Miranda's detention is an act of intimidation that will likely become a rallying point. The fact that some suggest it's a publicity stunt only proves how ludicrous the pro-NSA arguments have become. You see, it's just too "convenient." It's a set-up. You'll see..it's a devilish ploy.
There's a pattern here. When the NSA dragnet story broke is was derided by some as a "fake scandal." It was imagined to be a broadside aimed at the president, regardless of the fact that no rational commenter suggested that. It was imagined to be an attack on POTUS regardless of the fact that republican leaders took time out from bashing POTUS and the ACA to vigorously defend the NSA and their defense industry patrons.
When the story became larger to include layers of programs, contractors and countries, some said that it was all made up...it was all self-promotion...all to "sell" clicks for a media organization...and that it would "all blow over" when Greenwald and Snowden are proven to be liars, libertarians or leprechauns.
So when a member of Greenwald's family is detained under suspicion of "terror," this pretty much refutes the idea that this journo is not to be taken seriously -- because someone, somewhere is taking him very seriously.
What we're seeing emerge here is the criminalizing of investigative journalism. Miranda was held under Schedule 7 which is intended to ferret out suspected "terrorists." Here we see it used instead to intimidate someone suspected of making the intelligence establishment look bad.
This is a very big deal. It's bigger than partisan politics. It's bigger than the POTUS. It's time to get serious and stop with the comforting bedtime stories of hype and publicity stunts.
It's time to put away these childish things.
As an FYI here's some background on Schedule 7 which is the law that UK police detained Miranda under. From the ACLU press release:
Schedule 7 is the law that allows the police to detain anyone at the UK borders without any requirement to show probable cause and hold them for up to nine hours, without seeking further justification. The detainee must respond to any questions, regardless of whether a lawyer is present. No lawyer is provided automatically.
It is a criminal offence for the detainee to refuse to answer questions -- regardless of the grounds for that refusal or otherwise fully cooperate with the police.
According to the advice published by the Association of Chief Police Officers’, Schedule 7 should only be used to counter terrorism and may not be used for any other purpose.
A similarly over-broad and vague section of the Act which allowed stop and frisk without any grounds was held to be unlawful by the European Court of Human Rights in 2010. Section 44 - as it was known - violated Article 8 of the European Charter of Human Rights which protects privacy.
Posted by nashville_brook | Sun Aug 18, 2013, 08:13 PM (203 replies)
The Snowden Effect, Special Sunday Edition
By Charles P. Pierce
Sooner or later, we're all going to start paying more attention to the folks at McClatchy than we do to the kidz at Tiger Beat On The Potomac. It was some of them who kept warning us that the Bush administration case for going to war in Iraq was shot through with moonshine and bullshit, but the courtier press got itself dazzled by mushroom clouds, aluminum tubes, African uranium, and Colin Powell, aka The Most Overrated Man In The World, and off to war we went. Now, they've come out with a gigantic story revealing, in detail, that the Obama administration is the most fertile environment for paranoids since the Nixon people first cut a check to Egil Krogh.
President Barack Obama's unprecedented initiative, known as the Insider Threat Program, is sweeping in its reach. It has received scant public attention even though it extends beyond the U.S. national security bureaucracies to most federal departments and agencies nationwide, including the Peace Corps, the Social Security Administration and the Education and Agriculture departments. It emphasizes leaks of classified material, but catchall definitions of "insider threat" give agencies latitude to pursue and penalize a range of other conduct. Government documents reviewed by McClatchy illustrate how some agencies are using that latitude to pursue unauthorized disclosures of any information, not just classified material. They also show how millions of federal employees and contractors must watch for "high-risk persons or behaviors" among co-workers and could face penalties, including criminal charges, for failing to report them. Leaks to the media are equated with espionage.
You want "Nixonian"? This, right here, this is Nixonian, if Nixon had grown up in East Germany. You've got the entire federal bureaucracy looking for signs of "high-risk persons or behaviors" the way Nixon sent Fred Malek out to count the Jews. You've got created within the entire federal bureaucracy a culture of spies and informers, which will inevitably breed fear and deceit and countless acts of interoffice treachery. (Don't like your boss at the Bureau Of Land Management? Hmm, he looks like a high-risk person. Tell someone.) And this is the clincher.
Hammer this fact home . . . leaking is tantamount to aiding the enemies of the United States," says a June 1, 2012, Defense Department strategy for the program that was obtained by McClatchy.
I don't want to hear about "safeguards" because I don't believe in them any more. I don't want to hear about "transparency" any more because the president lost his privileges on that word when he cited the secret rubber-stamp FISA court as the vehicle for transparency last week. I don't want to hear about "oversight" because, really, stop kidding us all. And I especially don't want to hear about how all the administration's really done is "formalize" programs that were already in place, as though giving the creation of a culture of informers the imprimatur of the presidency makes it better. This, after all, is what you're "formalizing," as dramatized on June 13, 1971 by the Oval Office Players, Richard M. Nixon, artistic director:
President Nixon: Doesn't it involve secure information, a lot of other things? What kind of-what kind of people would do such things?
Kissinger: It has the most-it has the highest classification, Mr. President.
President Nixon: Yeah. Yeah.
Kissinger: It's treasonable. There's no question it's actionable. I'm absolutely certain that this violates all sorts of security laws.
President Nixon: What-what do we do about it? Don't we ask for an-
Kissinger: I think I-I should talk to Mitchell.
President Nixon: Yeah.
No, Mr. Current President, this is not business as usual. This is not even the NSA sifting through e-mails and phone calls. This is giving Big Brother a desk in every federal agency and telling him to go to work.
Posted by nashville_brook | Sun Jun 23, 2013, 01:14 PM (138 replies)
This is for those of us who are horrified at the "so what" response to the PRISM/Boundless Informant revelations.
We know that when people say "I assume my email is read," or that "my every move is logged," they're admitting tolerance and complicity to a form of totalitarianism that has a long and predictable history.
We also know it's not going to be different because of who holds office at this point in time. Indeed, these intelligence programs might even be beyond the control of an executive who is beholden to the most rarified ranks of the elite. Obama admitted as much when he passed the buck back to Congress during his remarkable comments on the subject Friday.
As this article points out, there's a LOGIC to state spying, and it's not what they're telling you. It's not about terror. Not exclusively. It's about keeping all of us pliant.
The very existence of such state spying apparatus is enough for MOST people to forgo any serious involvement in organizing against it. People fear losing their jobs, of having their secrets revealed, and of having their lives upended. People in this state of insecurity are not going to mount a serious campaign for Congress or the president to do anything...let alone give up the crown jewel of power: total surveillance.
Posted by nashville_brook | Sun Jun 9, 2013, 10:21 AM (162 replies)
It's best to learn this early in political life. It's the core of power-building, so accept it, or find another hobby or vocation. No permanent friends, and no permanent enemies. Not everyone is going to come along on every campaign, but we still need each other in the long run. Also, you remember when people come to your side when it wasn't easy for them.
"No permanent friends, no permanent enemies," is one of those beautiful imperatives that enables society to function -- like the separation of church and state.
If your issues are workers rights, healthcare, Social Security, you're going to find those who are champions for your cause, who might be on the opposite side of the next issue, policy idea, or economic proposal. You work with those who bring themselves to the table with enthusiasm. If you're playing by gentleman's rules, you step around those who insist on being obstacles. But, "no permanent friends, no permanent enemies" means you'll always have the room to critique policy ideas and economic proposals that injure our interests.
Many Dems held their tongues on the president while working to GOTV, and voting for him (I'm sure that's the case with every president ever -- it's not new to Obama). Everyone knew Obama was going to have an extraordinarily short honeymoon this year, because everyone knew the lame duck session was going to be a huge fight for those opposing cuts in Social Security (such as unions and c-3's who just worked their asses off helping Obama get elected).
As the lame duck session reaches it's crescendo and I start to see the old "you're not a loyal dem, you emo-firebagger," non-sense, I have no sympathy. "No permanent friends, no permanent enemies," means that among equals, you never bully people or show contempt because next week, next month or next year you're going to need them in your coalition.
The lame duck fight happening right now…the one to protect Social Security/Medicaid/Medicare…is not being fought "among equals." You've got Pete Peterson's coalition of CEOs, "Fix The Debt," and you've got "rank and file" dems (little old ladies, workers and college students) coming up against party leaders who can't/won't have our back against this odious proposal. Subbing for Rachel Maddow the other night, Ezra Klein pointed out that everyone on the beltway food chain fears losing access and influence, and so they are counting on us, the rank and file with no access or influence to risk, to get loud and be heard.
Let's get real. Obama governs as a right-of-center Dem who too-often has sided with interests that seriously hurt the economic security of the rank and file. It's our right and responsibility to stand up for our interests. This is about survival, not whether we get a big enough bonus this year.
So here it is, Mr. President: This Social Security cut terrifies people. I've seen old ladies break down in tears describing how they already can't afford rent and medicine. The fear and shame is shockingly palpable. Seniors simply can't cut anything else from their budgets, and it's unconscionable that we'd ask them to. Future generations like myself will have even fewer resources available beside Social Security. I'm 46 and I know no one with a pension. I know no one with more than $20,000 in their retirement account.
No one is speaking for those of us who are terrified: not any beltway journalist or elected political figure who peddles influence. The people who do speak up are…well, they are heroes.
And clearly, not everyone is hero material.
Posted by nashville_brook | Sat Dec 29, 2012, 08:42 PM (79 replies)
I know how I'd feel. Betrayed. I'm 45. I've paid into these programs for 27 years. There's a very good chance I'll become too sick to work years before 65. I already have days where I can't move. I have a pretty good idea of what 20 more years is going to do to my body and my ability to work.
To me there's certain things that are sacred, and our American social contract is at the top of that list. Wall Street has been ass-raping the middle class in slow motion since the housing bubble began. They want to dismantle every inch of our social contract: privatizing schools, roads, the military...plundering our pensions, our houses, our communities. When is anyone going to stand up to them?
Betrayed wouldn't quite cover it for me, actually. It would be a tragic loss for civilized society. It would be as heartbreaking, in a complete and total way, as knowing that someone destroyed the Mona Lisa, blew up the Statue of Liberty, or cut down the last redwood.
The social contract is something precious that we'll never get back. If they're allowed to "chip away" at it, you can kiss it goodbye. If it is saved, through the recognition of its importance to our identity, I bet you, it will never be touched again.
It's really THAT important. We either fight and win this one -- or lose, and kiss it all goodbye.
Posted by nashville_brook | Wed Nov 21, 2012, 09:30 PM (258 replies)
Group financed by incoming Speaker Will Weatherford (R) tries to link Castor Dentel (D) with convicted molestor Jerry Sandusky
A group supporting Republican state Rep. Scott Plakon’s re-election bid is sending last-minute advertisements that attempt to link Plakon’s opponent, Democrat Karen Castor Dentel, to convicted child sex predator Jerry Sandusky.
Mailers began arriving Friday at homes in House District 30 in Orange and Seminole counties that on one side depict a grainy image of Castor Dentel, an elementary-school teacher in Maitland. And on the other: the image of a jumpsuit- and handcuff-clad Sandusky, the former Penn State University assistant football coach who in June was found guilty of 45 counts of child sexual abuse, convicted of molesting 10 boys over a 15-year period.
The claim appears to be based on Castor Dentel’s opposition to a measure passed in 2011 by the Republican-controlled Florida Legislature that eliminated tenure for public-school teachers. The measure was fiercely opposed by the Florida Education Association, of which Castor Dentel is a member.
The mailer was paid for by a committee known only as the “Committee to Protect Florida.” But records show the group is being financed in large part by Republican leaders in the Florida House – chiefly by incoming House Speaker Will Weatherford, R-Wesley Chapel...Weatherford has raised his money from an array of business interests. One of his largest contributors is health-insurance giant Blue Cross Blue Shield.
more at link:
Posted by nashville_brook | Sun Nov 4, 2012, 09:22 AM (22 replies)
If you haven't noticed already this election season, small businesses are the babies that every candidate wants to kiss. The National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) exploits this trope with reckless abandon on their "I Built My Business" bus tour through swing states where they campaign exclusively for Republicans like "Taliban" Daniel Webster (who defeated Alan Grayson in 2010). As a matter of fact, when it comes to Republicans, no one is too far right for the NFIB, as they also endorse and donate to Todd "Legitimate Rape" Akin and Richard "Rape is God's Gift" Mourdock.
What's important to know though, is that the NFIB is engaging in identity theft, claiming that they represent small business when in reality they're advocating for policy that isn't in the interest of the vast majority of small business owners. Instead they represent the interests of big money donors like Karl Rove's Crossroads GPS.
The real face of NFIB
And so, Community Business Association of Florida held a counter-event at the NFIB campaign stop in Orlando today with throngs of rowdy protesters holding Karl Rove masks chanting "Who fibs? N-FIB!" And, "when the workers who built this are under attack, what do we do? Stand up, fight back!"
Here's a pic from the protest -- Orlando stepped up to the plate in a big way with the ONLY counter-protest so far along the whole NFIB tour.
Community Business Association came to tell NFIB that Halloween is over, and it's time to take off the mask. The NFIB calls itself “the voice of small business.” But the facts run counter to this claim. As documented by the Center for Media and Democracy at NFIBexposed.org, NFIB is intensely partisan, takes millions in hidden donations and is under a congressional investigation and an IRS inquiry.
• NFIB is a partisan political group: A 2009 survey of small business owners found that “33 percent of the respondents identified themselves as Republicans and 32 percent called themselves Democrats. Twenty-nine percent said they were independent or claimed no party affiliation.” However, OpenSecrets.org data shows that in the 2012 election cycle, 98 percent of NFIB’s PAC contributions have gone to Republican candidates.
• NFIB is a conduit for big secret donors: In 2010, Karl Rove’s Crossroads GPS made a $3.7 million grant to NFIB. That same year, NFIB reported spending $3.1 million on ads through Crossroads Media, LLC (Crossroads GPS’s main media firm). In early 2012, NFIB established a new entity, “NFIB, The Voice of Free Enterprise,” to accept donations from people and groups who are not small business owners. Of NFIB’s $3.3 million in outside spending in the 2012 cycle so far, $1.9 million is through this new entity funded by non-small business owners.
• NFIB has come under congressional investigation: Earlier this year, NFIB came under scrutiny from Congress for the millions of dollars in hidden money it was receiving. Leaders in Congress demanded that NFIB disclose its donors and membership size, which had been inflated in years past. NFIB refused and Congressman Raul Grijalva sent a letter to the IRS questioning the group’s tax-exempt status.
• NFIB endorses Todd Akin while touting support for women small business owners: NFIB’s website highlights its “PowHER” campaign to recruit women business owners to join the organization, advertising that a portion of their dues will support breast cancer awareness. However, a portion of these dues also support the election of Todd “legitimate rape” Akin in the Missouri Senate race. NFIB endorsed Akin on October 22, even as many mainstream GOP groups continue to stay out of the race after his remarks about rape.
Learn more at http://nfibexposed.org/
Posted by nashville_brook | Fri Nov 2, 2012, 08:44 PM (6 replies)
How long before RW extremists shoot people in your city? Or, is "now not the time" to discuss this..
The culture war has been threatening to turn violent for many years. Hate radio has manufactured thousands of sad nutters who want "to water the tree of Liberty" with the blood of people like us; people not like them.
The act of domestic terrorism at the Sikh Temple in Wisconsin today, along with the Unitarian murders in Knoxville, the attack on Gabby Giffords (actually 2 attacks if you count the one to her office), the guy who tried to bomb the MLK parade in Spokane, and the American Front skinheads arrested here in Florida planning to start a "race war," were all acts intended to terrorize...us.
Following Facebook and Twitter today I see no one is terrified by these acts. We're repulsed and saddened that these people who are enabled by the Michele Bachmanns and the Sharon Angles who're calling out "foreigners" and screeching for "second amendment remedies."
We're not terrified. Instead we're sickened that our leaders have been so cowed and corrupted by the NRA that our communities are now supplied with enough arms and ammunition to sustain a violent revolution. We're tired of the excuses for not reigning in this madness.
And we're likely to see more of it, closer to home, because nothing...ever...changes. Because "now's not the time" to have the talk about guns. Because "now's not the time" to reflect on the political dimensions of these killings.
Because "now" is just too damn inconvenient...
Posted by nashville_brook | Sun Aug 5, 2012, 10:12 PM (87 replies)
I'm supporting our local Earned Sick Time campaign here in Orlando, and I'm being asked a lot about why I think employers would oppose such a common sense measure. Ostensibly it makes sense to allow workers to earn 1 hour of sick time for every 37 hours worked (up to 56 hours a year). Who wants to be served food by someone with the flu?
In talking to elected officials who're campaigning for re-election, the talking point I'm hearing a lot is "no one should butt-in on the employer-employee relationship." As if your employer is a priest or doctor (while they've got no problem with telling your gynecologist how to practice her business).
By and large big business wants you to be threatened, insecure and unable to do anything about it. They want indentured servants -- prisoners, in effect. And as you'll see below in this blog post from Tiny Revolution, they aren't even ashamed to say so.
One of the positive things about our giant economic collapse has been an outbreak of honesty among the billionaires who run America. Now they seem to feel free to express how they truly feel about the rest of us.
Here are the views of David Siegel, timeshare mogul and star of the new documentary Queen of Versailles. He and his wife Jackie first got national attention for their attempt to build the largest house in America, a 90,000-square foot Versailles replica:
David and Jackie have been surprised by the criticism of their lifestyle. “So much negativity. You would think they would be happy for someone living the American dream,” Jackie says. … As for the notion that the divide between the wealthy and everyone else is grotesquely wide, David says: “There’s always been rich and poor, the 1 percent and the 99 percent.” And then he adds, “It’s like a prison. If you only have prisoners and no guards, you’d have chaos.”
So that's pretty straightforward: America is like a prison, and all non-billionaires are the prisoners.
More here -- including how Siegel says he "won the election for George W. Bush"
Posted by nashville_brook | Sat Aug 4, 2012, 09:03 PM (82 replies)