If you thought we were saving the world, you missed something

Currently I am doing a lot of reading, and obviously not a lot of writing. One of the books I am reading right now I borrowed from my dad. It's called Confessions Of An Economic Hitman. It documents the career of a man, John Perkins, who worked for an international energy company in the 1970's and 80's. His job was to go around the world and basically sucker developing nations into taking enormous loans which they stood no possible chance of repaying. The loans were used to build up the infrastructure of the country, which sounds noble enough. However the contracts to build the infrastructure were exclusively given to American firms, essentially insuring that the money loaned by the US government did not go into the economy of the developing countries, but instead right back into the pockets of some of America's largest and most powerful multinational corporations. Then, when the countries cannot repay, the US takes their natural resources as payment, as well as demanding their cooperation with international foreign policy matters. I won't go into too much detail. It's a good read, and I recommend it to anyone who has the stomach for it.

Excerpt from the first Chapter

Achmed, the little Chemist who could

I don't have time to write much commentary on this one but please just read the articles listed below and ask yourself one question: Who is the real threat in this, as Borat so eloquently put it, "War of Terror"?

Flunky Islamist Jihadist Terrorists get convicted of an impossible crime

Myth Busting a Terrorist Plot

"The United States does not torture"

This is a quote from President Bush that has been repeated many times by himself and his staff, including former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. The original and full quote came from a press conference in 2006 which is on the White House website, "I want to be absolutely clear with our people, and the world: The United States does not torture. It's against our laws, and it's against our values. I have not authorized it -- and I will not authorize it." That sounds like a pretty definitive statement, and it has been repeated several times over the years by the administration. Yet again though, we are hearing of more proof that he is lying through his teeth. This story broke late yesterday and underlines that these are not isolated incidents perpetrated by a few renegade M.P.'s at the prison. This is a systematic pattern that has served to inflame passions of anti-Americanism around the Muslim world.

Math can preserve your Liberty, if you care to pay attention

Turns out that taking Statistics maybe wasn't such a waste of time after all. Scott, I am poaching this
link. Sorry man, but I do give you full credit.

"You don't get to understand the statistics of rare events by intuition. It's something that has to be learned, through formal and informal instruction. If there's one thing the government and our educational institutions could do to keep us safer, it's this: teach us how statistics works. They should drill it into us with the same vigor with which they approached convincing us that property values would rise forever, make it the subject of reality TV shows and infuse every corner of our news and politics with it. Without an adequate grasp of these concepts, no one can ever tell for sure if he or she is safe."

What we could learn from the Dutch

Alright, so its been awhile since we have heard from the boogey man, but he finally made himself known. Thanks to BBC, who has the balls to publish his missives in full, instead of commentating on fragments of what he says. Anyway, most of his threats this time are directed at several European entities, including the EU, the Pope and Dutch newspapers, for publishing depictions of the Prophet Mohammed which is against Islamic law. Now I don't care to applaud anyone who intentionally inflames international tensions, but there is something inspiring about how the Dutch newspapers have responded to this threat. The author of these cartoons has had his life threatened and the response was to republish the cartoons, basically a big F.U. to terrorists around the world. The Dutch Government responded by saying that the threat of Bin Laden was not going to change anything about their security measures, saying "its nothing new". In general, it appears that Europe is not terribly concerned about this threat, giving America a dose of shame for crapping our pants every time someone tries to sneak a knife onto an airplane. Let's take a look at how to be brave, from those cowardly Europeans who resisted our invasion of Iraq in the first place.

And you thought you could trust your government

Ok, I hate to keep bringing up the same topics over and over, but if Goebbels taught me anything, it's that repetition will pay off eventually. You may or may not remember that about 1 year ago, the FBI underwent an audit that revealed that they were abusing their powers to spy on law-abiding Americans without just cause. The most blatant abuses had to do with so-called National Security Letters. Basically, the FBI is abusing a power that they should not have in the first place, which is to deny American's to face their accusers in a court of law and every American's right to legal representation. These letters reek of Gestapo-esque activity. So we found out that in 2003-2005, the FBI was breaking the law by abusing the spirit of these subpoenas in order to spy on American's who had not been proved to actually have done anything wrong. What's most interesting to me is that this abuse did not take decades to develop; it happened soon after the FBI - an agency charged with enforcing and upholding the law - got these powers in the Patriot Act.

This is not some abstract theory about the proclivities of law enforcement to abuse power, these are concrete examples. And the treatment that FBI Director Robert Mueller received from Congress for his inability to bring this abuse by his agency under control betrays the true attitude of Congress, which is, "We don't care." Indeed Mueller's audacity is revealed in his recent testimony before Congress in which he tried to direct the focus of the hearing to pushing for Bush's demand for immunity for telecom companies who allowed the FBI to break the law by eavesdropping without a FISA warrant. How ironic is that? This guy should be fired if he won't resign. Only in the Government would such incompetence and flouting of the Law be tolerated.

Some Obama vs. Clinton Headlines

My brother's recently created prObama Blog. Hit 'em up.

Why I am supporting Obama (but voting for Ron Paul)

I know the Caucus is over in my state, and for better than half the country the excitement of the Primaries has gone on to other states like Texas and Ohio. But I continue to voice my support for Barack Obama to anyone and everyone who will listen. What is it about Obama that draws me to him like a college student to free food?

Let me start by saying that I disagree with Mr. Obama on about 95% of his political positions. I am anti-abortion, anti-taxes, anti-union, anti-war on terror, pro free trade, pro gun, anti-universal health care, and I happen to also think that his position on the Iraq war - meaning his plan to immediately pull out upon his inauguration - is not the best option. I want that to be clear, because some people I know have taken my support of Obama as meaning that I don't believe what I say I believe.

So how have I come to support a candidate that I am so distant from ideologically? The fire was started when I heard him give a speech to a religious group known as the Sojourners/Call to Renewal Conference back in 2006. The speech is linked here. I can't find any video of the speech at this time, but with a little hard work, I am sure you can.

What I heard in this speech was not just an analysis of the role of religion in American politics. I heard a man who had the ability to think critically about very complex and difficult subjects. I heard a man demonstrate an understanding of the importance of looking at an issue from all sides and arriving at a position that was sound, though not easily defended. He really put himself out on the line with this speech, which is as religious as anything that G.W. said while he was running for president. Obama showed through this speech that he not only knows a lot about religion (for a politician) but he also knows a lot about politics (especially for a Christian) and is willing to treat each issue with respect and honesty. This is the kind of leader that this country needs right now. We are not the most divided that we have ever been, but we are pretty close. The talk about Red states and Blue states dominates most national political discussions, as does a general disdain for the other side of the aisle, depending on how you identify yourself. If Bush is the Decider, then Obama is the Uniter (note Ms. Susan Eisenhower's statement at the end of the article).

While I understand the idealistic and impetuous nature of my support of a politician that I trust, I feel like I am still young enough to risk these kinds of decisions. I admit that I have been %100 sold on Obama's message of, "The audacity of Hope". It's nice to be optimistic for a change. My support for Obama is for the man, who I hope can become a leader at a time when this country desperately needs one. I know this is a risky venture, and a possible waste of my energy as every politician ultimately lets us down at some point. But I am ready for a change in this country, and though every candidate is promising it, Obama is the only one who seems ready to deliver the kind of Change that we need, a change of tone, a change of ethics, a change of character and a change in style.

There is essentially no difference in the campaining platforms of Clinton and Obama, but Clinton does not posses the qualities that I respect in Obama. I see her as coniving, underhanded, unethical, hateful and devisive. She may have experience, but not the kind I value in a person of character and personal integrity. She is has about as much crediblity as the Bush administration in my opinion, which is like saying that shit has all the tasty goodness of a Godiva chocolate bar. Mccain is a little better, and he certainly shares my views on more issues. But he doesn't posses the naive idealism that Obama espouses (Naive Idealism is meant in a positive sense in this isolated situation). I think Mccain would have been a great president 8 years ago, and I think that he would do a decent job at this time. He wouldn't be a bad second choice for an Independent like myself. I would have major problems with some of his positions, particularly on National Security, but who could be worse than Bush?

So I proudly support Barrack Hussein Obama for president, but my vote will go to Ron Paul. Ok, now that you have had a chance to read it twice, I will explain this statement. I believe strongly in the democratic process and the importance of putting your vote in the most effective bubble (or hanging chad) you can. For me in this election, my vote belongs with Ron Paul. He is the only candidate who is brave enough to truly stand up for his convictions, which happen to line up exactly with many of mine. Of course he has no chance of winning, but every vote he recieves adds strength and credibility to his controversial "fringe" views. The man would not make a good president, I don't think. But his positions need more exposure and in this election cycle, one of the most effective ways to accomplish that is to vote for him. Even though Paul said he will not run as a 3rd party candidate, I will write him in, as I imagine many other supporters of him will do.

I recognize the dilema of voting for one candidate while supporting another. What if Obama and Mccain are running against each other? Wouldn't it make more sense to vote for Obama? I feel my vote for Paul will speak louder to the issues that I care about than if Obama wins or losses. This is a difficult position to defend, I will readily admit, but it fits my understanding of my convictions at this time. One caveat, if Clinton gets the nomination, I will be voting for Mccain; I am that scared of her.

In closing, I encourage everyone to take a close look at Obama, especially pre-campaign, to try to get a sense of who he is and what he is about. I don't think many people will be disappointed.

My absence is over....for now

Sorry for the too long hiatus. It was born of many factors, some that I will admit and some that shall remain a mystery. Anyway, on with the show. The latest lie from your government...

Please, this test is for your safety. Remain calm

Interesting that we got pissed at the Chinese almost exactly a year ago for the exact same thing. Only they didn't pretend that it was for the safety of the public.

I Feel Safer Already

As if I needed to continue to point out that “Safety” mantra that our government continues to feed us is an illusion, I have been pointed to several articles in the last few weeks that prove that we are in fact less safe than before this WAR on TERROR. Example #1 : This story from Albany, New York shows us that the highly competent TSA officers can find a water bottle in a piece of carry on luggage, yet they cannot locate a bomb. Interestingly, I read this story right after I returned from a vacation with my family in which we passed through security 4 times at 3 different airports. Interestingly, while passing through with the same luggage each time, we received different results every time from the heroes at the TSA. While they dutifully unpacked our bags for things like a miniature fork, swabbed my video camera for bomb making residue and made sure that my wife’s SQUARE purse was laying properly on its side, they missed the lighters, razor sharp cigar cutter and all the subversive material that I keep on my thumb drive (hopefully you folks can imagine my tongue firmly in my cheek on that last one). The point is this: there is no continuity of standards from one airport to another, and what this works out to is that these “security measures” end up treating everyone like a criminal while not preventing crime. Terrorists have been very good at changing their tactics when needed. Let’s not forget that the weapons used on 9/11 were legal at the time, no amount of extra screening would have stopped them from boarding with those box cutters and pocket knives. We cannot possibly try to imagine and prevent every scenario which they will try to exploit. What we can and should do is look at why they want to come here and kill us. That is a topic for another post, which I may or may not get to!
Example # 2 : As the Department of Homeland (in)Security continues to build massive databases of information from your mother’s maiden name to your favorite brand of breakfast cereal, we are constantly being warned to guard our personal information from identity theft. Why? Well there is the obvious reason; you wouldn’t want people to steal all your money. But what about
terrorists who steal identities to board planes under false names, funnel money to terrorist organizations around the world, purchase illegal weapons and so on? Well, what better place to get this information than from the source that has it all, the Dept. of Homeland Security and the
FBI. That’s right, these two agencies have a terrible track record of controlling the information that they are gleaning from your credit card purchases, surveys of records and databases, etc. Hence the cycle is complete, they gather the information illegally, tell you it’s for your own safety, then passively give it to the very people we are supposed to be scared of. TADA! Now we are less safe than we were before. Is this starting to make sense?

Fascism In 10 Easy Steps, a continuing series

First let me say, apologies to the thousands of readers out there who have been wondering where I have been. Wait, make that the 2 readers. Anyway, I have just been super busy at work and haven't had time to write.

Round three of “Fascist America In 10 Easy Steps” focuses our attention on the state of authority that we interact with on a local level. Without further delay, here is Step 3.

"Step 3. Develop a thug caste
When leaders who seek what I call a "fascist shift" want to close down an open society, they send paramilitary groups of scary young men out to terrorise citizens. The Blackshirts roamed the Italian countryside beating up communists; the Brownshirts staged violent rallies throughout Germany. This paramilitary force is especially important in a democracy: you need citizens to fear thug violence and so you need thugs who are free from prosecution.
The years following 9/11 have proved a bonanza for America's security contractors, with the Bush administration outsourcing areas of work that traditionally fell to the US military. In the process, contracts worth hundreds of millions of dollars have been issued for security work by mercenaries at home and abroad. In Iraq, some of these contract operatives have been accused of involvement in torturing prisoners, harassing journalists and firing on Iraqi civilians. Under Order 17, issued to regulate contractors in Iraq by the one-time US administrator in Baghdad, Paul Bremer, these contractors are immune from prosecution
Yes, but that is in Iraq, you could argue; however, after Hurricane Katrina, the Department of Homeland Security hired and deployed hundreds of armed private security guards in New Orleans. The investigative journalist Jeremy Scahill interviewed one unnamed guard who reported having fired on unarmed civilians in the city. It was a natural disaster that underlay that episode - but the administration's endless war on terror means ongoing scope for what are in effect privately contracted armies to take on crisis and emergency management at home in US cities.
Thugs in America? Groups of angry young Republican men, dressed in identical shirts and trousers, menaced poll workers counting the votes in Florida in 2000. If you are reading history, you can imagine that there can be a need for "public order" on the next election day. Say there are protests, or a threat, on the day of an election; history would not rule out the presence of a private security firm at a polling station "to restore public order". "

The idea of an increased security presence in America, indeed in the Western world is becoming not only accepted as necessary, it is being welcomed as a way to preserve the safety that we are taught to seek from the youngest ages. Obviously, a reckless pattern of living will likely shorten your life span considerably. However the degree to which we cling to our illusion of safety creates an environment that encourages us to accept whatever is presented to us in the name of “Safety” and “Security”. After observing what has transpired in this country in the last 20 or so years, and more pointedly since 9/11, it is has become much easier to imagine a scenario in which an increased military/police presence would be welcomed to help control what is deemed by those who have the most to gain to be a “dangerous situation”. It has become commonplace to see SWAT teams not only being used for extremely dangerous situations such as hostage crisis’, but in routine drug raids and even for unconfirmed suspicious activities. In addition, police forces around the country have become more militarized in a response to threats real and imagined. The US military routinely surpluses its old gear to police departments around the country. We are not just talking bullet proof vests here. We are talking about military weapons and vehicles. Meanwhile, ordinary citizens passively accept these changes as necessary to protect us from external threats, acting as if the threat would never be among us in the form of our own government, carrying out their goal of pacifying the population through police force. We act as though the government and the police are ordained by the God who founded this country and would never take advantage of the citizens, or even opportune situations. That is a naïve view of history. Acceptance of a military presence among us is acceptance of slavery. The Founding Fathers knew this, and that is why they listed garrisoned soldiers living among them as one of their many grievances to King George. I want to be sure to state that it is not my intention to imply that all police are the arm of the corrupt Government. It is my intention to state that the institution of police authority has made a gradual yet significant shift from protecting the citizens from each other to protecting the Establishment from the "threat" of active citizenship and that they have gradually amassed the tools they would need to suppress the citizenship outright.

Fascism in 10 Easy Steps, a continuing series

Here is round 2 of Fascist America in 10 Easy Steps

“Step 2 - Create a gulag

Once you have got everyone scared, the next step is to create a prison system outside the rule of law (as Bush put it, he wanted the American detention centre at Guantánamo Bay to be situated in legal "outer space") - where torture takes place.

At first, the people who are sent there are seen by citizens as outsiders: troublemakers, spies, "enemies of the people" or "criminals". Initially, citizens tend to support the secret prison system; it makes them feel safer and they do not identify with the prisoners. But soon enough, civil society leaders - opposition members, labour activists, clergy and journalists - are arrested and sent there as well.

This process took place in fascist shifts or anti-democracy crackdowns ranging from Italy and Germany in the 1920s and 1930s to the Latin American coups of the 1970s and beyond. It is standard practice for closing down an open society or crushing a pro-democracy uprising.

With its jails in Iraq and Afghanistan, and, of course, Guantánamo in Cuba, where detainees are abused, and kept indefinitely without trial and without access to the due process of the law, America certainly has its gulag now. Bush and his allies in Congress recently announced they would issue no information about the secret CIA "black site" prisons throughout the world, which are used to incarcerate people who have been seized off the street.

Gulags in history tend to metastasise, becoming ever larger and more secretive, ever more deadly and formalised. We know from first-hand accounts, photographs, videos and government documents that people, innocent and guilty, have been tortured in the US-run prisons we are aware of and those we can't investigate adequately.

But Americans still assume this system and detainee abuses involve only scary brown people with whom they don't generally identify. It was brave of the conservative pundit William Safire to quote the anti-Nazi pastor Martin Niemöller, who had been seized as a political prisoner: "First they came for the Jews." Most Americans don't understand yet that the destruction of the rule of law at Guantánamo set a dangerous precedent for them, too.

By the way, the establishment of military tribunals that deny prisoners due process tends to come early on in a fascist shift. Mussolini and Stalin set up such tribunals. On April 24 1934, the Nazis, too, set up the People's Court, which also bypassed the judicial system: prisoners were held indefinitely, often in isolation, and tortured, without being charged with offences, and were subjected to show trials. Eventually, the Special Courts became a parallel system that put pressure on the regular courts to abandon the rule of law in favour of Nazi ideology when making decisions.”

Impossible you say? Well for starters, check out this story featured on Chicago Public Radio’s This American Life (I know it’s long, but it is an amazing read, or you can order a CD of the episode). These are the stories that the government tries to keep from you. I want to know under what circumstances are the American People ok with detaining these people without charge, without evidence, without access to family, without reasonable access to legal representation and ultimately without conviction, more pointedly, without EXPLANATION! ?! If you read the transcript linked above, you will note that many of the detainees at Gitmo were sold to the CIA for bounties. No proof was needed to confirm the detainees status as either Taliban or Al Qeada. This is eerily reminiscent of the methods used in the Spanish Inquisition. And the path that we are going down may not seem dangerous now, as long as we are only jailing brown skinned Muslims. But what happens when national paranoia reaches a level that neighbors are encouraged to spy on each other, and turn each other in for suspected terrorist activities. Oh wait, we are already there? Can you spot a Terrorist?

It's All Fun And Games 'til Someone Dies

The unspeakable tragedy at Virginia Tech warrants and introspective look at America and…..whoa whoa whoa. Hang on just a second. Did I say “unspeakable”? Well what I meant was shamelessly exploited tragedy. And rather than jump on the train that is headed to debate tougher gun laws, campus security, what could have been done and who is at fault, I’d rather talk about this editorial that ran in the Rocky Mountain News. Why is it that when things like this happen, the Nation grieves and laments the state of our nation, while we facilitate these kinds of tragedies every day in Iraq and no one seems to shed a public tear. Take your time to read the editorial. Even if the math is flawed, there is no doubt that the tragedy of Blacksburg does not compare to what is happening in Iraq daily. If you ever needed a solid example of how callous America can be to the suffering of others, this is it. This is not to detract from what happened in VA. No one can doubt the suffering and anguish of the people affected. But take that suffering, that pain, and put yourself in the shoes of
these people. I know this sounds very bleeding heart, but the reality is that this stuff is happening and all we hear about daily is simply body counts and what the “leaders” of this nation and this war are arguing about. You don’t hear about the stories that cut to the heart of what we are really doing over there. There were likely many stories similar to these before March 2003 from people suffering under the rule of Saddam Hussein, but we didn’t seem to care about it then either. But when 32 people are murdered on our soil by one lunatic with a gun, suddenly out come the black mourning clothes. People are people, wherever they live, whatever religion they belong to, whatever flag they salute, whatever color of their skin. Hopefully the good that may come of this tragedy is a little awareness of the world around us. Hopefully, but the cynic in me doesn't think so.

Fascism in 10 fun and easy steps

It has been too long since my last post, sorry to all you out there who wait with baited breath for my every word to appear on your screen.
I ran across this article on Plastic.com and discovered a concise yet poignant missive on what has been happening to our country since September 11, 2001. I am going to do a series of posts on this article, commenting on each step one at a time. There isn’t a lot to add to what I consider a well written argument. So without further ado, let’s get down to business.
“Step 1 - Invoke A Terrifying Internal And External Enemy
After we were hit on September 11 2001, we were in a state of national shock. Less than six weeks later, on October 26 2001, the USA Patriot Act was passed by a Congress that had little chance to debate it; many said that they scarcely had time to read it. We were told we were now on a "war footing"; we were in a "global war" against a "global caliphate" intending to "wipe out civilisation". There have been other times of crisis in which the US accepted limits on civil liberties, such as during the civil war, when Lincoln declared martial law, and the second world war, when thousands of Japanese-American citizens were interned. But this situation, as Bruce Fein of the American Freedom Agenda notes, is unprecedented: all our other wars had an endpoint, so the pendulum was able to swing back toward freedom; this war is defined as open-ended in time and without national boundaries in space - the globe itself is the battlefield. "This time," Fein says, "there will be no defined end."
Creating a terrifying threat - hydra-like, secretive, evil - is an old trick. It can, like Hitler's invocation of a communist threat to the nation's security, be based on actual events (one Wisconsin academic has faced calls for his dismissal because he noted, among other things, that the alleged communist arson, the Reichstag fire of February 1933, was swiftly followed in Nazi Germany by passage of the Enabling Act, which replaced constitutional law with an open-ended state of emergency). Or the terrifying threat can be based, like the National Socialist evocation of the "global conspiracy of world Jewry", on myth.
It is not that global Islamist terrorism is not a severe danger; of course it is. I am arguing rather that the language used to convey the nature of the threat is different in a country such as Spain - which has also suffered violent terrorist attacks - than it is in America. Spanish citizens know that they face a grave security threat; what we as American citizens believe is that we are potentially threatened with the end of civilisation as we know it. Of course, this makes us more willing to accept restrictions on our freedoms.”

The reference to the Enabling Act is an important one. The similarity to the USA Patriot Act is striking, especially considering the timing in regards to how quickly they were both passed after a catastrophic event. The Patriot Act and the Military Commissions Act both essentially gave the Executive branch open ended War Powers. Like the War on Drugs, the War on Terror has no discernible end. Unlike the Cold War, we are not fighting one specific ideology. Terror is a tactic used by groups that lack the resources to fight a direct war. It is also known as guerrilla warfare. How can we have an end to a tactic? And because the War on Terror will never end, neither will the emergency powers that were given to the Executive branch. Step 1 is complete, stay tuned for commentary on Step 2 -"Create a Gulag".

The End Game of Surveillance, a response to a recent Comment

“The standard reply to any example of real world consequences for the innocent is that such instances are rare and they are a small price to pay for security. No one claimed the system was perfect, all we are saying is that checking bags at random for no reason (http://www.silive.com/newsflash/metro/index.ssf?/base/news-21/1175102054303320.xml&storylist=simetro)
is obviously safer than not checking them at all. Unless you are doing something wrong, the only consequence you are likely to suffer is having to leave 5 mins early. How can a rational person be against that?” Anonymous Comment

Anonymous makes an excellent point, one that is very difficult to refute if you place his argument in the paradigm within which America is now living. “Safety at the cost of a few is worth it if it preserves the many.” These are the sacrifices we need to make for safety. How true. However if the paradigm is shifted, the argument falls apart.
First of all, on a practical level, let’s take his comment back to the context of the article. Anonymous says this is a rare occurrence. In the example cited, the problem for the professor began with his name on the “No Fly” list. Let’s forget for a moment how his name even got on that list (which is plausibly explained in the original article) and let’s just focus on the supposed rarity with which this situation occurs for the common law abiding American. Before September 11, there were exactly 16 people on this list. Now, there are over 44,000 with a probable number of 30,000 false positives a year. I would hardly call this rare. And this is just for flying on an airplane.
Second, let’s deconstruct the “Safety vs. Convenience” argument with a simple yet very important shift in the way we think about the nature and role of government in our lives as American Citizens. When you are screened as a passenger on an airplane (or train) to the point that a background check is done on you before you even board the plane, you are being treated as though you are a criminal before you commit the crime. This is inherently contrary to the Constitution. It does not matter that you have not given any indication at all that you are a criminal, terrorist, liability, etc., you are still being treated like one.
But let’s go one step deeper to really define why the “safety” argument is inherently flawed. Let’s go backwards in time more than 60 years. We are in the middle of World War II. We are “fighting evil”. Now we move forward a few years to “victory” and we slowly move towards the Cold War. Paranoia sets in and lunatics like Joe MacCarthy are allowed to run amok. Thankfully for our Country, he was finally disgraced and refuted. But over the next 50 years or so, an attitude of “doing whatever it takes” to fight evil ideologies such as Communism has quietly settled into the American psyche. As long as we are fighting those damned commies, I don’t care about anything else. It was this attitude that was used to build a government that intrudes into people’s lives in the name of preserving liberty. Fast forward to September 11, another evil ideology attacks our nation and we are caught completely off guard (in the same way we were caught off guard by Pearl Harbor). Now the nation rallies behind our fearless President (and you can count me in that number in the first couple years after September 11) and his attitude of win at any cost. The USA Patriot Act is passed, allowing for unprecedented levels of Executive power, government spying and intrusions on constitutional rights such as the Fourth Amendment. These changes in the law were not only accepted, they were applauded as ways to protect the very freedoms that they took away. Here we are at the present day. The government is using their unprecedented power to spy on American citizens who they say are suspected of being tied to terrorists. The groundwork for the laws that allow this kind of action were laid over the last 60 years and accelerated in the last 5 years. While currently the government claims that they are only investigating terrorists, or suspected terrorists, the future looks much darker.
One of the dearest freedoms that Americans enjoy and have defended with their blood is the first amendment right to free speech which translates in our right to dissent. How do you effectively quell free speech - and consequently dissent – when you are the government? You make sure you know what everyone is saying all the time by surveilling email, radio, internet use, telephone calls, written word, public places, etc. And then you put in place laws that allows for secret indictments, secret imprisonment, secret trial and secret conviction. We are handing the government this power like scarred little children saying, “Help us, Keep us safe!” Many people cannot imagine an America where this would happen but look how far we have come. There are several documented cases of local and federal law enforcement spying on legal protests and keeping voluminous secret files on law abiding citizens who are exercising their fundamental rights. How long before legal dissent is squashed under the pressure to keep our nation “Safe”. Safe from what!?! What are we trying to preserve here? We are definitely not preserving freedom.

When the FBI loses your luggage

When I try to raise concern about the implications of the USA Patriot Act, the Military Commissions Act, breeches of free speech, and things of this nature the most common argument I hear from others is that “As long as I am not doing anything wrong, what do I have to worry about?” Since theoretical arguments about the nature of power and government do not seem to penetrate the narrow views of said people, I will focus this post on a real world example of the consequences of letting your liberties slip away. I ran across this post on a blog I read every once in awhile. Read carefully, this is not some REAL ID internet rumor meant to stir up hysteria. This is the real world that we have allowed to develop, and actually encourage and defend as “Safe”. While this is going on, we continue to support leaders who claim they are "Protecting the Homeland" (does anyone else think this phrase drips of 1930’s German facist rhetoric, or cold war era communist propaganda?) without giving any critical thought to what we are giving up in order to retain this elusive idea of safety. If I have to appeal to the utterly American ideal of “me first”, then I will. Let’s say your name matches that of a “known terrorist” and you can't fly to your friend’s wedding, your luggage is “lost” or you are otherwise inconvenienced. Well at least its all for a good cause right? At least I will be safe on that airplane, right? The truth, folks, is that we are not guaranteeing anything for ourselves except the slow bleed of our freedoms and liberties. As we continue to argue about whether or not freedom is making progress in Iraq and Afghanistan, our own freedoms are being plucked away from us. These freedoms were not easily won - if you learned anything in school - and they will be lost at an incalculable cost if people don’t stand up and defend the ideals laid down in the Constitution. “When liberty is taken away by force, it can be restored by force. When it is relinquished voluntarily by default it can never be recovered” – Dorothy Thompson

The Real Roots of Terror

I have been too busy to post in the last few days but I am back. I want to talk about a news article I ran across in TIME magazine about the US government’s involvement with “secret prisons” in Ethiopia. Apparently the US continues to deny any wrongdoing or consequential involvement with the practice of torturing suspected terrorists, even in the face of international evidence to the contrary. This administration continues to flout international and domestic law while hypocritically promoting “democracy” and rule of law in a nation that has proved it doesn’t want it. It’s no wonder we are internationally mistrusted and generally despised. These are the kind of actions and policies that promote a general hatred of this nation by “Islamofacists” (to use a term constantly touted by the White House and political Right) and gives them the propaganda that they use to recruit Jihadists. If it was your son or daughter, father or mother, brother or sister that was kidnapped, beaten and tortured by a foreign government, wouldn’t you be motivated to do what you could to resist this foreign government that is violating your loved ones? Wouldn’t you support someone who was telling you that they could make it stop? I would. One man’s insurgent is another man’s freedom fighter. And this is why the “War on Terror” will never be won, unless we stop promoting our own U.S. brand of Terrorism.

The Pentagon and the Memory Hole

Breaking news, the Pentagon condemns the use of chlorine in Iraq by insurgents! This constitutes chemical warfare in the eyes of the United States. Everyone needs to express their outrage and hate those stinking terrorists even more! Those soulless beasts will do anything to kill and maim! Quoted, “What you have to understand is that chlorine bombs have more of a psychological effect than they do as a killing effect," said the commander, Maj. Gen. W.E. Gaskin. What will be next?!? Killing babies?
What you as an American need to know is that the Pentagon is hoping you don’t do a little research of your own. Do you know what kind of weapon leaves a terrifying wake, just like chlorine gas? How about white phosphorus? Nothing spells “intimidation” like the sight of a body burned to the bone (warning : graphic picture). But America wouldn’t use such a cruel weapon, a weapon that can kill you by burning off all your skin while you are likely still alive! Oh no? Well the US military is using it in Iraq. Not only that, but it appears that the Pentagon has to lie about it because it is internationally unacceptable to use this weapon against targets where there is a possibility of civilian contact. This weapon is as close to hell as you can get anymore, since napalm was banned.
So while the Pentagon tries to drum up more fury and rage against those awful terrorists for their tactics, take a minute to review their modus operandi and ask yourself, “What is the difference between us and them?”

Holy Inflammatory Actions Batman!

I have not written about what is currently going on between Britain and Iran right now, but I have been trying to stay up on the facts. Well we have some new developments and the escalation continues. I ran across what I thought to be an excellent commentary on the context of this current crisis and how we have gotten to this point. Please read this article and ask yourself, "How have our policies on detainment, treatment and interrogation of prisoners in the "War on Terror" affected this current situation? And how can we possibly expect another nation to follow the rules when we have advertised that the rules don't apply to us anymore?" This new kind of war that we have created is only going to hurt us in the long run.

What does a Volvo have in common with the “War on Terror”?

Paul Campos is a columnist for the Rocky Mountain News. Previously I have written to the paper to dispute an article he wrote about the Supreme Court. Neither the letter nor the article are archived, so I can’t show what the arguments were. Anyway, all this to say, I have strongly disagreed with him in the past. He often gets tagged as a Liberal, however if you read his columns with any regularity, you would see he is anything but. He wrote a very insightful piece describing the nature of American attitudes towards risk in general and the “War on Terror”. I totally agree with the premise of his argument and wish more people understood the foundational elements of how and why the US Government has been able to so easily sell this sham of a war to the American Public.