John Kiriakou - Whistle Blower or Criminal? and Debra Saunders - Conservative Tool

Debra Saunders in her latest San Francisco Chronicle blog John Kiriakou, ex-spy and media darling- facilely argues that the charges against John Kiriakou are not for revealing agents who engaged in torture, but rather for revealing their names and compromising intelligence agents, thus dismissing as irrelevant the intent behind the deed.  




Her actions collaborate in the worst way with the administration's attempts to defend itself from accusations of illegal activities through narrowly framed assaults on whistleblowers, and confirms her preeminent status of conservative tool for the Chronicle.


The government's and Saunders' arguments are interesting, if some what ingenuous.   Here we have a whistle-blower who is revealing what he sees to be a gross violation of human rights and the law, and rather than discuss this, and the validity of these actions, Debra focuses on the narrowly defined governmental accusations transparently tailored to avoid the key issue - if a crime has been committed what are the duties, obligations and rights of the whistleblower to expose such crimes, and what is the administration's obligation to consider them.  Rather than consider the merits of the actions, the assail the actions themselves.


Seriously, if CIA operatives engaged in torture (I know that the definition of "torture" is  a tricky question right up there with "what is sex?," or "what's the difference between a 'contribution' and a 'bribe'?"or what is earned income?" for most politicians), and we have a government that is not at all interested in discussing, clarifying, or bringing to the public light the issue, hiding every action behind a facade of "National Security", then how are We the People supposed to understand what is going on here if a few brave souls don't step forward and expose them?


And where is the accountability for the actions of the shadow figures that engage in torture if they hide behind questionable National Security filings and findings?  Where is the public's right to know and understand what crimes against individuals and humanity our leaders and government have, are, and are planning to commit?  Where is the role of the justice department in holding our leaders and their agents accountable for their actions?  Where are the rights of the individual who has been violated and tortured?  Do we want to live in a nation where torture is sanctioned and practiced?


No, I'm sorry, Debra's argument that revealing names is wrong in this case is not only wrong, but collaborates with the very torturers themselves in its intent.  Just because you are an intelligence agent, doesn't mean you have immunity for your actions. 


If we have defined systematic torture as part of our national defense strategy, then those engaged in it should be exposed and jailed; so too should those who either authorized or turned a blind eye to it in their managerial and executive capacities.


To discover this, and put it in the public's eye for condemnation will break a few eggs to be sure, but is required to keep this the land of the free.

Now those who argue (as the government's affidavit does) that Mr. Kiriakou signed documents recognizing that he had access to classified information and was required to maintain the secrecy of that information have learned nothing from history.  Our own prosecutors held during the Nuremberg trials that "just following orders" is not a defense when violating human rights - we hung people for this crime - remember?  So if someone in our government is aware of these crimes - say the fabrication of the reason to go to war against a foreign state in violation of law, or the torturing of people in this example, then they are beholden not just to not engage in the activity, but to escalate concerns about it internally; and if no action is taken (as is presumptively the case here) then to go public with the case.


As usual Debra Saunders reveals through her op-eds the degree to which she is a tool of the conservative edge of this nation that would repeal our freedoms and rights to earn some modicum of security.  








As Benjamin Franklin once said - "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." 

Who Increased the Debt? Indeed

There's a graph making its way through social media purporting to show the "real" speeding by Presidents over the past three decades:

Not that I don't agree with the graph, but let's recognize where and how it is misleading, and how others might draw other conclusions.

First


Most of the Conservative argument against running deficits is based on analogies to households that cannot run a deficit, and cannot raise money in the equities and debt market. 

I would propose that the US government is closer to a corporation, and we all know that corporations make a business of "leveraging" other peoples money to earn a return for their shareholders. 

In here, the leverage is public debt, and the return is presumably greater security and higher standards of living for the US Citizens who are the "shareholders". So with a low debt to equity ratio we are not being an efficient corporation turning equity into profit - Reagan simply adjusted that ratio to a better return ratio for all Americans. 

He was a fiscal genius and a Saint.

To question that is an act of heresy.

Second


Somehow (don't ask how because it makes Conservatives uncomfortable, but rest assured it is because of those demon-Democrats and their Socialist-Communist economic policies that reward lazy good for nothings with fancy lifestyles and goods above their pathetic means, all on the backs of us hard working trust-fund babies), by the time Obama got to office we were just at the PERFECT debt ratio. 

Under the keen stewardship of George the Younger we adjusted our tax rates to the optimal economic engine driving levels, and made investments in Military Interventions to keep us all safe from godless or at least Islamic terrorists. 

All was good. 

Then for no reason (please forget the Market crash brought on by conservative de-regulation and lack of oversight of our financial sectors because we all KNOW that laissez-faire economics is what that genius economist of the agrarian era Adam Smith would have called for) Obama has pushed the debt to unfathomable levels through his rash and extremely Socialist-Communist spending on crazy things like economic stabilization and jobs creations. 

What the graph doesn't show is that his 16% is on a high base that really means that he has spent more on these misguided strategies than the previous 4 presidents. No, actually more than the rest of the Presidents combined. No wait! More than everyone who ever lived before us for all history. He just spends and spends and spends. 

Since we know this to be truth, the graph must be flawed, or worse, slanted by the evil liberal media that is taking over our society.  


Did I point out the liberal media?  


Good.

Lastly


Conservatives understand that we're in an economic transition period that will have some transition costs for some socio-economic sectors (just not the leadership of our efforts, but fortunately our base supporters are either too dense or to indoctrinated to understand this). For Obama to make is Socialist-Communist spending so high to avoid or soften the inevitable downturn is misguided and Socialist-Communist. Did I say Socialist Communist? Just making sure you heard me.

No, we Conservatives believe in Mitt Romney's Laissez-faire (note the nod to Adam Smith to ensure we're on message) destructive-constructive capitalism where it is often more efficient, economically speaking, to tear something down and feed its rotting remains to the vultures, than to try and nurture it back to health.

Thank you for listening to why this graph makes absolutely NO SENSE.

Yellow Journalism in Action

This video article by MSNBC (The Dylan Ratigan Show) is more complex than the soundbites would have you believe.  Watch before you read.


First, the American Steel industry hasn't been competitive globally since the 1950s or so, with the exception of mini-mills that have really learned how to use recycled steel efficiently. Many of the larger companies went out of business (I remember working the LTC Steel bankruptcy around 1991) and have left the detritus of a once proud industry to compete in a viscously competitive market.

Second, the show presents a cursory discussion on the decision to outsource the steel to China. The cost benefit was huge at the time, saving as they pointed out $400 MM in project costs, a not insubstantial sum that the taxpayers would have picked up as what, a subsidy to a non-competitive sector of industry? Not saying that we shouldn't do this, maybe it's the only way to recreate a competitive industrial sector, but there should be a discussion on this particular topic before we rush down the road with legislation like this.

Third, the reporting itself is incendiary - they make it sound like the entire bridge was made in China when from a value add $400MM / 7,200MM, or roughly 5% of the project was.  That means 95% of the project value wasn't in this issue.  I'm not saying that it was all American made (I don't know), but I do know that Mare Island has had enormous stockpiles of pilings and fittings for years which are ferried by presumably American ferries to the construction point 20 miles away, and that the concrete forms that make up the bridge are manufactured up the American River 30 or 40 miles away and once again ferried down to the bridge site.  Oh, And I'm fairly certain that the hundreds of construction workers that cover the evolving structure like ants haven't been shipped in from China.

Fourth, by international treaty (which trumps US law if we bother to read the constitution and understand international law, hence all the "Black Helicopter" nut cases out there), we cannot erect trade barriers without cause - Chinese subsidization of their industry, currency manipulation, or even failing to incorporate negative externalities such as the use of slave labor or pollution would qualify, but we have to make a case for this, and with China holding, what, $1 Trillion in US debt, that's a tough case to want to make.

Not that I'm against American jobs bills. 


I think we need to focus on eliminating the trade treaties we have that prompt flow of capital and goods, with 

1. no regard to negative externalities such as pollution, use of child or slave labor, or foreign subsidization of industry (look to China's $1 Trillion subsidization of the Solar Power industry if you'd like to understand how we're screwed before we start in green), 
2. no regard to trade practices others practice save the most public and egregious, and 
3. no consideration for the plight of labor under these laws. 

I just hate poor journalism, and pithy, simple explanations of complex situations to the American people. 


It's demeaning to the people, and perpetuates the bullet point dummying down of complex issues relieving us of our obligation to be informed and considered in our opinions. 


It's one of the major reasons we're headed down the path to a totalitarian fascist state in my mind - read your Orwell if you need context - and needs to stop.


As an American I believe you have an obligation to be and remain informed.  You need to question the simplistic sound bites that all sides bombard you with.  At the most basic level, we all need to ask the one simple question that lawyers and police have asked forever:


"Who benefits"


So who benefits from shoddy journalism?


You, the viewer?  It may feel good, it may be entertaining, but that doesn't make it journalism.  Go watch a "reality show" if you want to be entertained.  If you want to be informed, to understand the world, then demand more of these hacks.


The journalist who through either laziness or other, more sinister reasons, takes neither the time to research their article, nor makes the effort make a balanced presentation of the topic?


The congressman and party that desperately want to make a case for what here appears to be a poorly thought out jobs bill?


Powerful domestic corporate interests that would love to see some trade barriers re-erected to protect a noncompetitive market sector?


Trade Unions that want to create American jobs?


You the American voter that ultimately decide which of these wankers are put into and stay in office?


Ask yourself. 

First murderer, now enslaver?

With Obama's planned signing of the National Defense Authorization Act,we now face the real prospect of Americans being detained without trial, or recourse to legal counsel or even Habeas Corpus.  I personally am not impressed with the tortuous logic that the Executive Branch, and now the Legislative branch have used to justify this heinous abrogation of our civil liberties.


Obama and his advisors are already guilty of the murder, without trial, of an American citizen (Anwar al-Awlaki), so why should a little arbitrary and without due process detention worry him? 


This whole affair reminds me of the Nazi Party implementing "Protective Custody" to incarcerate their undesirables after the burning of the Reichstag .   Then it was Jews, Communists and Socialists, the Mentally Ill and, well just about anyone they wanted to arrest, and ultimately liquidate.  "Good" Germans sat fearfully by, hoping that the terror the Nazis unleashed on their land would go away.  At first they trusted that the aged Hindenburg would stop the madness, and by the time the woke up to the fact he wasn't able to, it was too late.  Literally millions of deaths, a world war, and the complete and utter destruction of their nation (and every adjacent one as well) later, the "good" Germans were able to say they were never against it, and wasn't a shame.


What will it be for us?  As we're in a perpetual and undefined state of war, and the USA is now the battle field, I guess anyone questioning authority and its decisions are aiding and abetting the enemy in a time of war - Treason under Article Three, Section three of the Constitution:  "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court."


No, it's time to end this unconstitutional grab at our liberties.  Time to dust of our sacred documents and remind ourselves that Freedom is never free, is always earned through the blood of Patriots, and that a modern society is based on the consent of the people to be governed.  Our Declaration of Independence stated this, Jefferson held that a society requires a new revolution every 20 years or so, Washington that society need be armed sufficiently to retake power from any government, and Franklin held that those who are willing to give up a few liberties to secure their freedom deserve neither security nor freedom.


So, are you a "good" American?  Or one who understands your duty to resist this newest tyranny?  Will you trust the Judicial branch (bought and paid for by the same corporations that bring you this Congress and President) to protect your rights?  Will you sit idly by, watch your big screen TV and give thanks to the consumer gods for all the useless crap that clutters your life and demeans your existence, or will you pay attention and do something about this?


Time will certainly tell - but remember it only took about 6 months in Germany to solidify the power of the police state.


Tick


Tock


If you're not pissed off by this point, you really haven't been paying attention.

Can we create a police state? Yes we can

Can we create a police state?  Yes we can.

The audacity of totalitarianism - the United States is now officially a fascist totalitarian state with the passing, and presumptive signing, of the National Defense Authorization Act, which defines in Articles 1031 and 1032  that the executive branch can label anyone an enemy combatant, including US citizens in the US, and imprison them indefinitely with no right to habeas corpus, no right to counsel, and no right to trial.

So, out the door goes at least 800 years of legal prior precedence (so much for stare decisis), as the Great Writ of Habeas Corpus precedes the Magna Carta (1215) which states “...no free man shall be taken or imprisoned or disseised or exiled or in any way destroyed except by the lawful judgment of their peers or by the law of the land.”

One can argue that this was the seminal issue with the nobles' revolt and establishment of the Magna Carta.  And with one deft (well, two if you count the nifty predecessor PATRIOT act) stroke of a pen, Obama will attempt to eradicate 800 years of civil liberty, citing the endless and undeclared war on terror as the reason.  I'd say we should push for a constitutional amendment to rectify this, but it strikes me we already have one which is being blatantly ignored.  (The Fourth Amendment for those of you counting)

This is a patently unconstitutional law, and should be vigorously assailed at every turn.  It'd be a great time to join the ACLU if you don't already belong.

Media Matters or why you shouldn't necessarily believe what you see / hear / read in the media

Much of what we base our opinions on is based on what we read or see in the media.  The topics that are covered, the content and tone of the discourse we're exposed to, all this shapes and influences the perception we have of the world around us, where we perceive there to be good, and where we perceive there to be evil or bad.


The media can be either a great source of diversity of thought and transparency of society, business and government, or they can be shamelessly propaganda.


Our open and free society is based on several tenets, one of which is a diverse and active free press.  A free press is one of the fundamental pillars of a democratic society, and our founders we prescient enough to mandate it in the Bill of Rights in the First Amendment.

John Mayer got it right when he sang:

"And when you trust your television 
What you get is what you got 
Cause when they own the information, oh 
They can bend it all they want"

A diverse and locally based free press leads to diversity of opinion, diversity of views presented.  If this diversity is narrowed or abridged, then we will have less of what makes us free.


Over the past 30 years, even as the venues for the media have increased with the advent of the internet, we have seen an unprecedented consolidation of the channels of information that keep us informed, and keep us free.  The chart below shows concentration of media over an 11 year period from 1993 to 2004, increasing from 50 companies owning 90% of the news and information outlets in the US in 1993, to just 5 in 2004.

Media Reform Information Center

Just what these five mega corporation own is outlined in the chart below - an astounding concentration of power in a few companies. 

Media Literacy, Section 001, Fall 2011, at the University of Minnesota

Links to the media holding of each of these companies can be found here: Media Ownership


With less diversity, and the consolidation of news desks from local offices to regional and then national news desks represents has led to less reporting on local issues, and hence less transparency in government and governmental agencies on a state and local level, as well as to a consolidation of media point of view to a very few individuals.  Not to be a conspiracy theorist, but this means that the leadership of these five companies control what the majority of Americans see of the world - the very information they use to form their world views and determine how they interact with each other and society.


Think about the level of discourse you've personally experienced on TV, or the Radio and how this has changed in your lifetime.  I remember the statesmanly Walter Cronkite, the humorous and irreverent Andy Rooney, the insightful yet acerbic William F. Buckley.  Where have these men and their ilk gone?  They no longer exist, having been replaced by charlatans like Rush Limbaugh and sensationalists like Ann Coulter.  Increasingly, young Americans are relying on comedians for their information from Jon Stewart who professes to NOT be a journalist.


Increasingly what is called news contains shameless product placements and corporate press releases, unedited and unchallenged by increasingly complacent news desks.  With no budgets and pressure from corporate to conform with policies and mandates, even the most committed journalist will be beaten into submittal within a few years, or leave the field with no place to go to.


So when you see the latest images on TV with the corporate narrative behind it, remember that you're being fed what the corporations want you to hear.   And they've increasingly gotten unashamedly blatant about twisting or down right misrepresenting the facts - going as far as to fabricate what they present as truth.


Don't settle for this and complacently act on the drivel you're being fed.  Seek out other sources of information.  Read the Canadian or Australian newspapers every now and then.  Try Russia Times for a laugh and a challenging set of perspectives.  Yes, watch the Daily Show for Jon Stewarts humorous and often cutting view on reality.  And armed with multiple perspectives, then decide on your own narrative.  Because you're being fed shite from the mainstream media which, in its arrogance, doesn't even care what you think because they've realized you don't matter.

A Modest Proposal for the 21st Century

Recently there's been a series of articles going around the internet about a couple that lost their home in Tennessee because they didn't pay a $75 annual fee (the firefighters came to the fire, not to put it out, but to make sure it didn't spread to nearby homes that had paid the fee), and more recently about counties in Georgia that are considering using prisoners to augment their fire fighting departments to save money and make vital services more affordable. (On a separate note, where else but the south would they even consider this - I'm looking for the chain gangs of my youth to return in road maintenance projects soon - I sort of dug the striped duds the prisoners wore.)  Of course, ever the realists (unlike administrators who apparently are the dreamers in this situation), The fire fighters complain that having prisoners would break the community trust as homeowners would worry that the combined group would steal from them.  


Which leads me to propose my own Modest Proposal for the 21st of my own (Jonathan Swift watch out!  Newt Gingrich watch out!)


There's any easy fix to both problems, and to addressing scofflaws in society in general.  Eliminate personal bankruptcy completely, and reinstitute debtors' prisons - if you can't pay your credit cards, you go to a debtor institution where you're afforded an opportunity to work off your debt.  The prison would act as a job referral agency, matching scofflaws with value added work in the community, potentially including firefighters.  After paying a modest charge for lodging, security, meals, and administration (say $80 or $90,000 a year), anything the debtor earns above this would be applied to first the accumulating interest on their debt, and then to their debt.  Eventually they would be debt free, and have learned some real market valued skill sets they can apply in the geriatric ward upon their release.


This is a really exciting concept, we could return the concept of legal inter generational debt obligation (as a child of a scofflaw it is your responsibility to pay of the debt as well), and afford the children of debtors the opportunity to learn real, viable, job skills.  None of these namby-pamby liberal arts learnings like music or fine arts (who hires these folks anyways - it's just a poor decision and we should protect them from making it) - no, the children could learn to be janitors like Newt Gingrich is proposing (he's so my hero for this fine, well thought out suggestion, except I worry as a modest proposal it might outshine mine).


The economic benefits of this are astounding.  


First - Debtors have a chance to pay off their debts, rather than living with the crushing reality of never being able to pay for all the stuff they bought with the credit cards they never should have had.


Second - Industry has an opportunity to hire skilled, low cost labor to become competitive with overseas slave societies like China or India. 


Third - the youth of our country could learn real, salable job skills through on the job training.


Fourth - Banks could sell the past due debt to these Debtor prisons, and the individual be incarcerated with I believe only an administrative procedure - no more expensive bankruptcy filings clogging our court systems and draining pubic funds unnecessarily.


I could go on, but you get the point.  The concept is brilliant, timely and resolves many of our deeper societal issues by reinstating accountability for your actions into the equation.


You must admit this is a great idea, - this Modest Proposal for the 21st Century.  Join me in writing your Congressman (chose the one most funded by the prison industry, they'll listen because they know which side of the toast is buttered) to demand a return to debtors prisons as a way to solve our competitive issues and address the lack of moral values that have evolved over the past 40 years.