JOTMAN

Mass arrests as Occupy DC takes on K-Street

2011-12-08T11:47:00.001+07:00

Photos of the Occupy DC demonstration Tuesday on K-Street.

Over 70 protesters were arrested in Washington D.C. Tuesday when Occupy DC took over a section of K-Street around noon. Protesters blocked intersections with tables, newspaper vending boxes, and their own bodies. Mass arrests took place in the early afternoon.

Traffic was snarled in the capital both on account of the protest on K-Street and the fact many roads had been blocked of as a security measure for a political event at a nearby hotel.

The police had the decency not to show up in riot gear or send any military trucks.

"I'll be out in time for the General Assembly tonight. I'm not going to miss that," a protester said.

I asked onlookers how many protesters lay on the street. Estimates ranged from thirty to forty.

Video of Obama speech in Osawatomie, Kansas

2011-12-07T16:31:00.001+07:00

I had the hardest time finding the video so thought someone should post it.

Tuesday, Dec. 6, 2011, President Barack Obama called for a renewal of the "New Nationalism" at the core of the Progressive agenda outlined by former president Theodore Roosevelt in 1910. Obama, like Roosevelt, gave the speech (transcript) in the small town of Osawatomie, Kansas.

Photos: Parks police pull Occupy DC winter shelter

2011-12-06T00:56:00.001+07:00

U.S. Parks police arrested 31 people Sunday at Occupy D.C. in McPherson Park after some members of Occupy D.C. raised a barn. Washington Post:

Occupy D.C. participants said Sunday that the structure’s only purpose was to provide a warm gathering place for protesters as winter weather sets in and that it had been designed by volunteer architects to comply with federal park regulations, which require any structure to be temporary and easy to move. It was built on stilts with no foundation.

Jotman took some pictures:

NYPD kills journalism and that's not news

2011-11-16T16:20:00.001+07:00

UPDATED

There's a story missing here:

Where's the story about how they weren't allowed to report the story?

But throughout the day Tuesday mainstream media reports had nothing much to say about this development.

UPDATE #1
In the early hours of Tuesday morning, New York City reporters described 1) feeling too intimidated to report what the police were doing; and 2) incidents in which police physically prevented the press from doing its job--two characteristics of a police state. A third characteristic of a police state is when news organizations conceal the fact that their reporters are not free to report stories.

In a police state, news editors direct their scribes to collect quotations from official government sources. The journalist is but a cog in the state propaganda machine. There's no place for reporters in a police state.

Increasingly, journalism in the U.S. amounts to distributing excerpts of interviews with public officials or members of Washington's "revolving door class." Think CNN correspondent Barbara Starr telling viewers what the Pentagon and its corporate partners wants them to hear. Or a retired general tasked by CNN to explain the true meaning of a video the Pentagon has been covering-up. In important respects, U.S. media coverage of police campaigns against citizen protesters has come to resemble the media's coverage of military operations abroad. Nine times out of ten, Americans hear only their own government's perspective on a drone campaign against "terrorists." Needless to say, the militarization of domestic journalism is happening at the precise historical moment when Americans are waking up to the militarization of their local police.

On more than one occasion I have noticed national broadcast media is conspicuously late to the scene after word of an impending crackdown on an Occupation has been announced. Concerning coverage of the dispersal of Occupy Portland, I tweeted:

In the case of the police operation against OWS, CNN did not go live until three and a half hours after the paramilitary operation against OWS was underway. This was New York City, not a remote and inaccessible frontier settlement like Portland, Oregon. And it is not as if OWS wasn't already one of the big political stories of the year in the U.S..

The OWS movement is ostensibly leaderless. But this fact provides no justification for the media to behave as if there is only one authoritative side to an OWS story. Given that seeking out OWS friendly viewpoints is actually not that difficult, it appears the news media is finding it convenient not to make the effort. For example, a CNN story about the Occupy Wall Street movement --the top story on the CNN homepage for some time Monday--quoted thirteen sources, only two (2) which were not government officials (one was a broadcaster, the other an official who had recently resigned).

Tuesday, the New York Times and the Washington Post both published accounts of how city officials masterfully orchestrated raids on Occupy Wall Street camps from coast to coast. A story titled "Mayors, police chiefs talk about ways to deal with Occupy Wall Street protests, tent camps," published in the Washington Post, quotes seven government officials. However, only one supporter of the OWS movement is given a voice in the article:

One protester says he was injured when he fell and police dragged him from the scene.

Under the new paradigm of American journalism, mistreatment of citizens by police is not witnessed, it something alleged by a supposed victim, if it is mentioned at all. The same story also refers to "badly injured" Iraq War vet Scott Olsen, yet the paper does not attempt to describe how he was struck in the head. The reader is led to assume Olsen was merely a victim of "a protest turned violent."

In the WaPo article, increased violence at Occupy Portland is substantiated by this paragraph:

In Portland, for example, protests were initially peaceful gatherings. Then the city’s large number of homeless people moved in, transforming the camp into an open-air treatment center for drug addiction and mental illness.

Since when was the establishment of "a treatment center" an example of a project turned against peace?

Equally deplorable is a story published in the NY Times entitled, "After an Earlier Misstep, a Minutely Planned Raid." This article quotes only four sources, all of which are government or police (one of which is kept anonymous). The 12th paragraph of the story is both an example of "burying the lede" and lazy fact-checking:

Reporters in the park were forced to leave. Paul J. Browne, the Police Department’s chief spokesman, said it was for their safety. But many journalists said that they had been prevented from seeing the police take action in the park, and that they had been roughly handled by officers. Mr. Browne said television camera trucks on Church Street, along the park’s western border, were able to capture images.

The authority quoted by the NY Times on the subject of television camera placement is a "a police spokesman." One would think the "newspaper of record" would have sought the opinion of a television cameraman.

It's clear the New York Times cannot tell us what happened in parts of Lower Manhattan during and for some time after the crackdown. Even devoting half of the front page to an event does not change the fact the NYPD prevented the paper's own reporters from covering the story. This paragraph sums up the problem with the newspaper's reporting of the whole event:

No arrests were made in the park until about 3:30 a.m., Mr. Kelly said. The clearing operation was complete about 75 minutes later, the police said.

That's it. The police told the NY Times what happened in the park, the newspaper printed it.

Reading these stories, the diligent reader asks: to what extent might the FBI and Homeland Security have been involved in coordinating moves against the protesters? Yet this reasonable question is not raised in mainstream news stories chalk full of quotes from every variety of police and government official. These questions--the answers to which could have disastrous consequences for the Obama administration--are left for tweeps and bloggers to explore.

UPDATE #2
It is an amazing commentary on the times that for aggressive broadcast journalism, Americans have few alternative apart from Russia's RT:

OccupyDC in photos

2011-11-14T05:23:00.001+07:00

Some photos of OccupyDC at McPherson Square (15th and K Streets) in Washington D.C..

The permit.

The tents.

The kitchen.

The fountain.

The flag.

The General Assembly.

Tweeps react to Twitter's creepy new "Activities" feature

2011-11-11T15:26:00.001+07:00

After the jump you can see what my Twitter "Activities" feed was showing two minutes ago.

My apologies to Moya and Josh. However, it's public information. Twitter's new "Activities" feature provides every user with such detailed real-time information about every person they are following--whether or not these people happen to follow you.

What do tweeps think about this?

Protesters to Obama: Stop the Keystone XL Pipeline!

2011-11-08T13:41:00.002+07:00

On Sunday afternoon Washington D.C. saw a remarkably large turnout for a protest against the planned Keystone XL Pipeline. The pipeline would carry crude oil from the tar sands of northern Alberta to a refinery in Texas. President Obama was expected to make a decision on the pipeline by December of 2011.

However, it is becoming apparent that any decision by the president to go forward with the pipeline will be perceived as poke in the eye by important constituencies of the Democratic Party. Obama sided against environmentalists on smog regulation in September. In order to understand the depth of outrage environmentalists feel about the planned pipeline, it helps to consider the issue within the context of the overall track record of the Obama administration on climate change and environmental issues. There is growing speculation that Obama will delay disappointing environmentalists until after the 2012 election.

Little noted in the mainstream media, twelve hundred pipeline protesters were arrested outside the White House over the course of two weeks in early September. Although there were no arrests Sunday, attendance far exceeded that of any previous demonstration against the pipeline.

The recent protest got some mainstream media coverage. Wikipedia has background on Keystone XL Pipeline controversy.

Photos of "Occupy DC" protest of Sat. Oct. 8

2011-10-09T13:25:00.000+07:00

OWS takes on the US Chamber of Commerce

2011-10-07T13:25:00.000+07:00

Protesters brought their own letters.

A large number of anti-war protesters and Occupy Wall Street (OWS) supporters joined forces in a march through downtown Washington D.C. Thursday. The event kicked off "Occupy Washington D.C."

The protesters marched from Freedom Plaza (HQ for Occupy Washington) past the US Treasury building to the White House. They then made their way across Lafayette Park to the United States Chamber of Commerce building.

There they stopped.

The Chamber of Commerce lobbies hard for deregulation on behalf of the country's largest corporations. On the front side of the building facing the White House are massive signs that spell out the word "JOBS."

US Chamber, meet Anonymous.

Packed together tightly on the street, the protesters shouted: "Where are the jobs?"

The sign had been up there two years. It was a very good question.

Members of the US Chamber of Commerce have plenty of cash, but they aren't hiring American workers.

For years, the US Chamber of Commerce has lobbied hard for laws that make it easy for companies to outsource American jobs and bring in low-paid temporary workers from overseas.

President Obama's easiest betrayal was his worst

2011-09-29T06:10:00.002+07:00

Melissa Harris-Perry, a Princeton professor and MSNBC commentator, recently proposed a hypothesis to explain Obama's declining poll numbers. Even though the professor's explanation is familiar, it may come as a surprise:

President Obama has experienced a swift and steep decline in support among white Americans—from 61 percent in 2009 to 33 percent now. I believe much of that decline can be attributed to their disappointment that choosing a black man for president did not prove to be salvific for them or the nation. His record is, at the very least, comparable to that of President Clinton, who was enthusiastically re-elected. The 2012 election is a test of whether Obama will be held to standards never before imposed on an incumbent. If he is, it may be possible to read that result as the triumph of a more subtle form of racism.

She writes, "His re-election bid, however, may indicate that a more insidious form of racism has come to replace it." Harris-Perry claims Obama's poll numbers are falling on account of white racism. By way of evidence, the professor suggests Obama is doing no worse job than Bill Clinton.   Needless to say, the evidence on this score is not at all convincing.    More people are unemployed and more suffer civil rights abuses under Obama than Clinton. As a blogger wrote in response to the Harris-Perry article, "Saying that Barack Obama is 'just as competent' as Clinton is like saying that an ostrich can fly just as well as an eagle." The new Obama biography by Ron Suskind comes to the same conclusion in more words.

As for the explanation for Obama's declining poll numbers, I'm not impressed when someone hangs their credentials on an untested hypothesis.   People should be less interested in Harris-Perry explanation's for the Obama poll numbers than the larger tragedy her whole argument overlooks.

President Obama hasn't done enough improve the economic situation for poor and middle class Americans generally, and the African American community in particular. The numbers tell us so. Blacks face astoundingly high unemployment, and the demographic was dealt a serious blow by a housing crisis for which there has been scant relief at the bottom.

The Obama administration has acted as if it can take black voters for granted. Of course, other groups in the Democratic Party "base" have likewise been ignored: unionized workers, environmentalists, civil libertarians, etc.   To the extent it fills the hearts of many African Americans with pride to see a black man in the White House, Obama may enjoy considerable leeway with the demographic. That's simply human nature and the politics of identity. For example, to some extent JFK could take the Irish-Catholic vote for granted.

But just because a particular leader can take a particular demographic for granted doesn't make the practice acceptable. Absolutely, it should be condemned whenever the demographic in question faces greatly diminished prospects, as has been the case with blacks under President Obama.

Rather than making excuses, I think Harris-Perry would be doing many African Americans--along with the vast majority of Americans--a far greater service if she focused on holding the Obama administration accountable for its spectacular ideological capitulation to the right.

UPDATE
African-American support for the president appears to be slipping. WaPo reports:

New cracks have begun to show in President Obama’s support amongst African Americans, who have been his strongest supporters. Five months ago, 83 percent of African Americans held “strongly favorable” views of Obama, but in a new Washington Post-ABC news poll that number has dropped to 58 percent. That drop is similar to slipping support for Obama among all groups.

Assuming the poll is correct, and blacks are losing confidence in Obama at the same rate as whites, this fact would seem to destroy Harris-Perry's hypothesis that white racism explains the drop in support for Obama among white voters. Support for Obama among blacks has long been higher. It seems Obama is increasingly perceived as a failed leader across all demographic groups.

In one act, Obama could yet prove himself the world-historical leader we need him to be. And he could fulfill his 2008 campaign promises of "hope and change." Obama need only withdraw from the 2012 presidential contest. That would restore our hope -- at least for a time.

Hope. Anybody remember what that felt like?

US Embassy asked Vatican about Iraq in Sept. 2011

2011-08-25T22:52:00.000+07:00

This WikiLeaks cable is interesting for two reasons.

First, as Will Shields (@sliceouttaluck) pointed out on Twitter, the cable indicates how some members of the Vatican responded to the question of military retaliation in the wake of 9/11. The cable suggests that it wasn't religious ethics, but "geo-political concerns" that weighed most heavily in the Vatican's deliberations.

Second, as I later tweeted, I think the most interesting thing about the cable is that it strongly suggests the Vatican had been asked to give an opinion on retaliation against Iraq for the attacks of 9/11 as early as 9/26/11. This cable is evidence that the Bush administration seriously contemplated the invasion of Iraq in the immediate aftermath of 9/11. Here the key passage from the cable:

C O N F I D E N T I A L VATICAN 005095
SIPDIS
DEPT. FOR EUR/WE (MENNUTI), S FOR CRAIG KELLY
FROM EMBASSY VATICAN/MESSAGE NO. 164/01
E.O. 12958: DECL: 9/26/11
TAGS: PREF PREL VT

SUBJECT: TFUS01: VATICAN POSITION ON RETALIATION AGAINST TERRORISTS

REF: (99) ROME 2196

CONFIDENTIAL

PAGE 02 VATICA 05095 281347Z
(U) CLASSIFIED BY DCM MERANTE FOR REASONS 1.5 (B) AND (D).

Â¶4. (C) HOWEVER, UNCONDITIONAL SUPPORT FOR POSSIBLE U.S. MILITARY ACTION IS NOT UNANIMOUS IN THE VATICAN AND WOULD NOT BE. EMBASSY HAS LEARNED THAT DEPUTY FOREIGN MINISTER (WHO IS NOTED FOR HIS PRO AMERICAN POSITIONS) HAS SAID PRIVATELY THAT NAVARRO-VALLES WENT ""TOO FAR"" IN HIS STATEMENTS. YET, FOREIGN MINISTER TAURAN IN PRIVATE CONVERSATION WITH AMBASSADOR RECENTLY HAS IMPLIED A RESIGNATION THAT HE BELIEVES THE U.S. WILL BE TAKING MILITARY ACTION SOON. ALTHOUGH MOST MEMBERS OF THE VATICAN FOREIGN MINISTRY WOULD BE PERSONALLY SUPPORTIVE OF AGGRESSIVE RETALIATION, OFFICIAL VATICAN POSITIONS WILL BE BASED ON VATICAN GEO-POLITICAL CONCERNS. IN THIS SPECIFIC CONFLICT, IRAQ IS FOREMOST IN THEIR CALCULATIONS. ANY RETALIATION WHICH MIGHT INCLUDE IRAQ WOULD LESSEN THE VATICAN'S POSITIVE NEUTRALITY. THE VATICAN IS FIRMLY CONVINCED THAT ANY REGIME WHICH REPLACES THE CURRENT ONE WILL NOT BE AS SUPPORTIVE OF THE LARGE IRAQI CATHOLIC POPULATION. IN ADDITION, EVEN IF POSSIBLE MILITARY ACTION IS DIRECTED ONLY AGAINST AFGHANISTAN, THE VATICAN IS GREATLY CONCERNED WITH A BACKLASH AGAINST CATHOLICS (AND OTHER CHRISTIANS) LIVING IN EGYPT, SYRIA, IRAQ, PALESTINIAN TERRITORIES, AND LEBANON.

The phrasing, "even if possible military action is directed only against Afghanistan," suggests that the possibility of a broad program of retaliation for the attacks of 9/11 -- most likely to include Iraq -- was foremost in the minds of some US diplomats in September 2011.

Leaning Tower of Washington?

2011-08-24T12:45:00.002+07:00

Jotman's photo of the Washington Monument taken 4pm Tue.

I've posted a brief report on the health of the Washington Monument in the aftermath of the earthquake.

Mystery of S&P downgrade of US explained?

2011-08-18T11:43:00.006+07:00

"The US downgrade by S&P is so bizarre and unwarranted" - Robert Reich

The S&P downgrade of the United States never made sense to me. I wasn't the only one confused. Usually when something is downgraded, investors don't rush to by it. But that was how international investors responded to the downgrade. Demand for US debt actually rose. As if deaf to S&P, investors worldwide continued to regard US treasury bonds as safe -- extremely safe.

We had a mystery on our hands: Why the unwarranted downgrade? It seemed as if S&P was behaving politically. But why would any corporation enter the political arena at the invariable cost of further degrading its already tarnished reputation? It just didn't add up.

However, there could be another explanation. Today the NY Times reports:

The Justice Department is investigating whether Standard & Poor’s rated mortgage securities improperly leading up to the financial crisis...

Our natural reaction to reading this news is to question the timing of the investigation. It sure looks like a retaliatory move by the Obama Administration against S&P. Many commenting on the story agree.

But one sentence in the article seemed to dispel that theory (whilst planting the seed of another):

The people with knowledge of the investigation said it had picked up steam early this summer, well before the debt rating issue reached a high pitch in Washington.

S&P and other ratings agencies deserve to be investigated by the Justice Department for their key role in propping up worthless mortgage-backed securities. What really cannot be easily explained is not the timing of any investigation of S&P, but one rating agency's decision to downgrade of the world's biggest economy.

Why did S&P downgrade Uncle Sam? Might its intent have been to politicize a looming Justice Department investigation?

Bleary eyed sense

2011-07-30T22:37:00.163+07:00

One morning this week I opened the Washington Post to its op-ed page and as I read, to my astonishment, it all made sense. A columnist had written:

[T]he country is ruled by a cabal... democracy is a sham... politicians and the... newspapers are tools of... financial interests.... The entire system deserves to be overthrown...

American newspapers seldom present this perspective. I was still only half awake though. I rubbed my eyes, took another sip of coffee and examined the passage more carefully:

In contemporary America, we also have people who are — and I am inventing this word here — illegitimists: They believe that the president of the United States is illegitimately elected, or that the country is ruled by a cabal that is in turn controlled by some other sinister force or forces. In the past, left-wing illegitimists were quite common, and in fact Marxism is a classic, paranoid version of this creed. The illegitimist Marxist argument goes like this: Bourgeois democracy is a sham; bourgeois politicians and the bourgeois newspapers are tools of shadowy financial interests. The entire system deserves to be overthrown — and if a few people die in the course of the revolution, it’s all for a good cause.

I had overlooked considerable verbiage, words and phrases such as: "sinister force or forces," "Marxist," "bourgeois" this and "bourgeois" that, "die" and "revolution." I saw that the idea that had first jumped off the page at me was, in fact, almost completely buried under prolixitous grandiloquence.

I saw that in the next paragraph, the columnist proceeded to compare the original argument to the toxic fruits of America's right-wing lunatic asylum:

There is also a right-wing version of this argument, one that has been honed to perfection by novelist Charles McCarry (in Lucky Bastard, he imagines that the Bill Clinton-like American president is a Communist agent and his Hillary-like wife is his controller). More recently, right-wing illegitimism has taken the form of birtherism. The attempt to prove that Barack Obama isn’t American-born was, at base, an attempt to prove that he is illegitimate and that he therefore deserves to be removed from power — somehow. Birtherism is also linked to other forms of illegitimism, such as the belief that Obama is a Muslim,...

Straightforward hypothesis: America is not in the hands of its people, but powerful financial interests. That hardly seems like an outrageous claim to make in late July 2011.

But if your boss is the corporate media, first you cloak reasonable suspicion in the jargon of Karl Marx. Second, you juxtapose it with the insane rants and racist conspiracy theories of the far right. Some days I wonder why I still buy newspapers.

UPDATE: Last week a columnist for the Independent had a crisis of faith.

A short visit to the heart of the beast

2011-07-29T13:36:00.010+07:00

I paid a visit to the gallery of the US House of Representatives Wednesday evening. Congress was debating a GOP-tabled bill to defund the Endangered Species Act. You're probably wondering what wild animals have to do with the debt ceiling crisis.

Breaking protocol to address the CSPAN television audience, a Democratic Congresswoman asked: "Why are the Republicans forcing us to spend the next 140 hours to debate a pointless and very destructive interior bill at this time? The country is at imminent risk of default on the debt because of the intransigence of Republicans."

The debate that followed was quite astounding. The Republicans were looking for ways to defund parks, forests, and clean water. A Democratic Congresswomen said, "Republicans want to destroy the program that has protected the bald eagle -- the symbol of our great country!" At first it appeared as if the Republicans were willing to cut anything at any long-term cost to reduce the deficit. That's what I thought until the last twenty minutes of my visit. The truth is more disturbing.

The Republicans tabled amendment after amendment intended to rescind funding from federal programs intended to protect species, municipal water supplies, and ecosystems. Anything that wasn’t about fighting forest-fires was fair game. The Democrats were fighting back.

A GOP instigated House rule stipulates that any increase in the budget in one area requires a specified budget cut somewhere else. Members of Congress trying to fund clean water for towns in Oregon or support wetland preservation in Florida have to propose an equal cut in funding for another program. In reply to a Congresswoman from Hawaii, a Congressman from Idaho said, “As much as I would like to fund preservation of your beautiful tropical ecosystem in Kawaii [annual rainfall 180 inches], I believe the best way to save forests is to preserve the budget for fighting forest-fires.”

After a long while, a Republican Congressman from Kansas stood up to propose an amendment to increase spending. I leaned forward in my gallery seat. I wanted to catch every word of this.

The GOP Congressman's argument was the best way to fight forest fires is to reduce opportunities for them to happen. He said that taxpayers can save having to pay for fighting forest fires by reducing the size of the forests. The phrase he used to describe his proposal was “forest restoration” (i.e. logging). This Republican congressman wanted to increase spending to pay corporations to cut down the forests.

Republicans claim the United States is going broke. Yet they are not content to sell-off America's assets for peanuts, they use tax dollars to pay their friends to take them.

It doubt the ridiculousbill they were debating has any chance of become law during this Congress. But the spectacle suggested to me that the difference between Republicans and Democrats has never been starker. A widening gap of sensibility between parties coincides with a presidency that downplays differences in the never-ending pursuit of “bipartisanship." Something is deeply amiss.

Loyal servants of oligarchs

2011-07-26T23:57:00.013+07:00

Economist Jeffrey Sachs writes:

Who runs America today? The rich and the multinational corporations. Who runs the White House? David Plouffe, whose job it is to make sure that ever word, every action of the president is calculated for electoral gain rather than the country's needs. Who runs the Congress, on both sides of the aisle? The lobbyists, who win in every negotiation. And who loses? The American people, who have said repeatedly that they want a budget that sharply cuts the military, ends the wars, raises taxes on the rich, protects the poor and the middle class, and invests in America's future not just in Obama's speeches but in fact.

Sach's short essay is worth reading. It sums up my overall reaction to listening to President Obama and Speaker Boehner on national television last night.

Update: To fully appreciate the mentality of the Republican House caucus members who hold the world economy in their hands, this story is must-read.

Obama speech written by GOP, S&P, FoxNews?

2011-07-26T10:12:00.010+07:00

I just watched Obama's "speech to the nation" on the debit ceiling impasse. He said very little I had not heard him say before.

However, I was particularly disappointed by something I couldn't recall having heard Obama say before. I tweeted my reaction:

Had I heard Obama correctly? Reuters has posted the text of the speech and I've highlighted the part of the speech I mention in the tweet:

Defaulting on our obligations is a reckless and irresponsible outcome to this debate. And Republican leaders say that they agree we must avoid default. But the new approach that Speaker Boehner unveiled today, which would temporarily extend the debt ceiling in exchange for spending cuts, would force us to once again face the threat of default just six months from now. In other words, it doesn't solve the problem.

First of all, a six-month extension of the debt ceiling might not be enough to avoid a credit downgrade and the higher interest rates that all Americans would have to pay as a result. We know what we have to do to reduce our deficits; there's no point in putting the economy at risk by kicking the can further down the road.

Originally, it was Republicans who came up with this argument. The unemployed be damned, the GOP claimed that any failure to significantly reduce the federal debt in short order would lead to economic catastrophe. According to the right-wingers, if nothing was done about the debt then so-called "bond vigilantes" would start dumping Treasury bills, wreaking havoc on the economy. The GOP threatened only to lift the debt ceiling if the White House negotiated a deal to reduce the debt.

Obama has since taken the Republicans up on the idea of using the debt-ceiling deadline as an opportunity to negotiate major cuts to the national debt. However, until tonight, I had never heard Obama echo the Republican assertion that America's Triple-A credit rating was at imminent risk if an agreement was not reached to slash the debt.* The assertion struck me as spurious and corrupt when the Republicans made it, and hearing Obama say it does not make it any less so.

In mid-April the GOP found support for its prediction from Standard & Poors. S&P, of course, is one of the Wall Street ratings agencies that falsely accredited worthless home mortgages; it was instrumental in blowing up the economy in 2008.

Tonight we had President Barack Obama echoing a GOP talking point that was later affirmed by S&P and championed by FoxNews. Something to think about.

__
* The notion that the credit rating of the US is in jeopardy if the government fails to lift the debt ceiling goes without saying. But Obama wasn't making that point in the above passage.

As I blogged the other day, I find the entire trajectory of Obama's economic policy disappointing.

Obama's fateful choice

2011-07-13T03:52:00.019+07:00

Two roads diverged in a wood, and I—
I took the one less traveled by,
And that has made all the difference.
- Robert Frost

No sooner did the economy show signs of starting to recover from the Great Recession than President Obama came to a fork in the woods where two roads diverged. The sign by the well-trodden path to his right read "Austerity." The sign by the overgrown trail to his left read, "Invest in Our Future." Obama chose the path on the right. The choice was made months ago, and it was a fateful decision.

The path Obama selected had been hacked out of the forest by Herbert Hoover's administration; it's the path that led to the Great Depression of the 1930s. Recently the path has been popularized by conservatives and their allies in the corporate media. It's the path championed by Sarah Palin, Wall Street banks, FoxNews, network news commentators and newspaper columnists, and every presidential contender in the Republican Party. The path leads to continued high unemployment and low wages as far as anyone who understands the basic principles of economics can see. Obama chose the path of continued high unemployment.

At least 7% of America's assets is up for grabs

But the path on the right is not bad for everyone. The catch is that you have to have a lot of money saved up to make the journey worthwhile. The super rich are crazy about the path, because it's deflationary. By further reducing demand, it makes things cheaper to buy. The effect of traveling it makes investment dollars go farther. The path makes it more affordable for the rich to buy up the property, meager stock portfolios, and other assets of the unemployed and struggling worker. As you can see by the red slice in the chart at right, at least seven percent of the country's total wealth will be up for grabs.

Republicans may have built the road, but Obama claims he's a better driver. In the interest of "fairness," the president tells us he will close some loopholes in the tax code, raise some taxes. It's true this will help to pay for the journey. But as long as Obama leads the country down Austerity Road, raising taxes on the rich won't change the destination. At best, an overall decrease in government spending that includes a tax increase will spare some jobs.   It means Obama won't need to travel so far down Austerity Road to achieve a given level of deficit reduction. It doesn't mean the unemployment level will subside.

In a year, some brilliant pundit will look at Obama's dismal poll numbers and say "it's the high unemployment stupid." Because by 2012 the jobs situation is unlikely to have improved. It could be worse -- even a lot worse.   Obama won't be able to claim to have been dragged kicking and screaming down the wrong road. The crux of Obama's problem is that no matter how far Obama travels down the "slash spending" road, he'll be blamed for not having traveled it far enough. However far he agrees to go, they'll say he didn't go the distance.    For example, supposing Obama negotiates a tax increase, this fact will later be used against him. "Your tax increases slowed our journey down Austerity Road," his Republican opponent will say. To the typical under-informed voter, the attack will seem reasonable, as Obama approved the destination and route.

Obama took the road well-traveled. By election time, that will have made all the difference.

Are the banks urging Thailand to drink the Kool-Aid?

2011-07-05T21:01:00.005+07:00

Somebody call a physician. Economists at some of Asia's leading financial institutions are suffering amnesia. Or worse.

First, some background. For a long time, economists have been urging leaders of emerging countries in Asia to shift from export-led growth strategies to domestic investment. They have preached spending on infrastructure and the stimulation of local demand. Here's an article dated May 2009:

ASEAN: ADB urges Asia to increase domestic spending

The Asian Development Bank (ADB) President Haruhiko Kuroda told ASEAN, East Asian and South Asian officials at the ADB’s annual meeting in Bali, Indonesia that Asia must boost domestic consumption and end its dependence on exports as external demand plunges in the world economic slump....

Although Asian governments have embarked on economic stimulus packages, Kuroda said such measures would not be enough without structural reform to end the region's dependency on demand from rich countries.

Over the longer term, developing Asia is starting the process of rebalancing growth from excessive dependence on external demand to greater resilience on both consumption and investment," he said.

What was good advice in 2009 ought to be good advice in 2011. This year, nobody expects consumer demand in the US or Europe--regions plagued by unemployment--to rebound anytime soon. The insatiable appetite of Western leaders for draconian fiscal austerity is reducing consumer demand, and may push the world's richest economies back into recession soon. Thus, if Asian economies are to prosper, their leaders have never had more reason to focus on stimulating local demand.

Or so one would think. Today the Wall Street Journal reports that the Bank of Thailand and various international banks are warning that if the incoming government of Yingluck Shinawatra follows through on its plans to increase domestic spending, this will have harmful consequences. They are sounding alarm bells about a rise in Thailand's national debt and an increase in the rate of inflation:

New Populist Policies Could Harm Thai Economy

BANGKOK—A sweeping electoral victory for Yingluck Shinawatra has allowed Thailand to avoid the immediate risk of social unrest or military intervention, but the incoming government's populist policies may threaten the vibrancy of Southeast Asia's second-largest economy.

The sister of exiled former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra wooed voters not only with her charisma, but with an array of vote-grabbing promises: an increase of 36%-89% in the minimum wage, guaranteed rice prices for farmers, starting salaries of at least 15,000 baht ($492) for university graduates, tablet PCs for students, and high-speed trains across the country.

"Even if they only deliver a fraction of what they promise (on wages), the impact will be significant" on inflation, said Santitarn Sathirathai, an economist with Credit Suisse in Singapore.

A few days before the election—with both parties promising to raise the minimum wage—Mr. Santitarn raised his average inflation target for 2012 to 3.7% from 3.5%.

The way the government implements any minimum-wage increase will be crucial: An across-the-board increase "will be very inflationary," Mr. Santitarn said, but a varied introduction across sectors would limit the impact on inflation, which rose 4.06% in June from a year earlier.

The Bank of Thailand has warned that inflation poses the biggest threat to economic growth this year. Gov. Prasarn Trairatvorakul said during the election campaign that the next government needs to maintain fiscal discipline and that increasing the budget deficit could threaten fiscal stability.

Standard Chartered Bank wrote in a research note that the For Thais party had indicated its economic policies would cost around 1.85 trillion baht over the next five years, a level of spending that could push back plans to achieve a balanced budget by two years, to fiscal 2018.

Although Thailand's public debt of about 45% of GDP "is not yet at alarming levels, the big-ticket investment could imply larger demand for public borrowing over the coming years than markets had expected," Standard Chartered said.

Despite the calls for fiscal discipline, the new government will face enormous pressure to make good on its promises...

Let's hope that Thailand's new government ignores the fear-mongering of international bankers and the Bank of Thailand governor. Even a substantial increase in a national debt that, as a percentage of GDP, is only half that of the United States, will not spell ruin for Thailand. Moreover, modest inflation can discourage hoarding and stimulate productive investment.

Thailand may well be on the verge of pursuing an economic growth strategy that would not only be advantageous for poor and middle class Thais, but good for the world economy. Thailand might set an example for other countries.

I would tend to chalk up the Wall Street Journal article as a reflection of the present global hysteria for "fiscal discipline now at any price." This economic dogma has been demonstrated to serve bond-holders at the expense of workers.

Incidentally, I found another version of the comments made by Gov. Prasarn Trairatvorakul, cited above, at MSNBC:

Thailand risks slipping into a fiscal crisis as in Western economies, eroding consumer power if the new government substantially expands fiscal spending as many parties are promising, warns Bank of Thailand governor Prasarn Trairatvorakul.

If Gov. Trairatvorakul actually believes that Western economies are suffering from "a fiscal crisis" as opposed to crisis of consumer demand and unemployment, then we can be quite certain he's drinking the Kool-Aid.

Why Obama's offer to Egypt isn't good enough

2011-05-20T00:54:00.026+07:00

What did Obama say about Egypt in his Middle East speech? Here's an excerpt from the full text of Obama's speech:

After all, politics alone has not put protesters into the streets. The tipping point for so many people is the more constant concern of putting food on the table and providing for a family. Too many in the region wake up with few expectations other than making it through the day, and perhaps the hope that their luck will change. Throughout the region, many young people have a solid education, but closed economies leave them unable to find a job. Entrepreneurs are brimming with ideas, but corruption leaves them unable to profit from them.

The greatest untapped resource in the Middle East and North Africa is the talent of its people. In the recent protests, we see that talent on display, as people harness technology to move the world. It’s no coincidence that one of the leaders of Tahrir Square was an executive for Google. That energy now needs to be channeled, in country after country, so that economic growth can solidify the accomplishments of the street. Just as democratic revolutions can be triggered by a lack of individual opportunity, successful democratic transitions depend upon an expansion of growth and broad-based prosperity.

This is all true, and Obama has said it well. But the big question is how the outside world can help these economies. How can these countries put millions of unemployed youth to work? What is Obama offering to do for them? And can it work? Obama continued:

Drawing from what we’ve learned around the world, we think it’s important to focus on trade, not just aid; and investment, not just assistance. The goal must be a model in which protectionism gives way to openness; the reigns of commerce pass from the few to the many, and the economy generates jobs for the young. America’s support for democracy will therefore be based on ensuring financial stability; promoting reform; and integrating competitive markets with each other and the global economy – starting with Tunisia and Egypt.

Obama talks about the need for Egypt to end "protectionism," yet does not offer to eliminate US cotton subsidies. Obama does not mention that under Hosni Mubarak, Egypt liberalized its markets substantially (see this post) yet widespread economic misery persists. Obama continued:

First, we have asked the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund to present a plan at next week’s G-8 summit for what needs to be done to stabilize and modernize the economies of Tunisia and Egypt. Together, we must help them recover from the disruption of their democratic upheaval, and support the governments that will be elected later this year. And we are urging other countries to help Egypt and Tunisia meet its near-term financial needs.

Second, we do not want a democratic Egypt to be saddled by the debts of its past. So we will relieve a democratic Egypt of up to $1 billion in debt, and work with our Egyptian partners to invest these resources to foster growth and entrepreneurship. We will help Egypt regain access to markets by guaranteeing $1 billion in borrowing that is needed to finance infrastructure and job creation. And we will help newly democratic governments recover assets that were stolen.

Third, we are working with Congress to create Enterprise Funds to invest in Tunisia and Egypt. These will be modeled on funds that supported the transitions in Eastern Europe after the fall of the Berlin Wall. OPIC will soon launch a $2 billion facility to support private investment across the region. And we will work with allies to refocus the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development so that it provides the same support for democratic transitions and economic modernization in the Middle East and North Africa as it has in Europe.

Fourth, the United States will launch a comprehensive Trade and Investment Partnership Initiative in the Middle East and North Africa. If you take out oil exports, this region of over 400 million people exports roughly the same amount as Switzerland. So we will work with the EU to facilitate more trade within the region, build on existing agreements to promote integration with U.S. and European markets, and open the door for those countries who adopt high standards of reform and trade liberalization to construct a regional trade arrangement. Just as EU membership served as an incentive for reform in Europe, so should the vision of a modern and prosperous economy create a powerful force for reform in the Middle East and North Africa.

Spoken like a Republican: Obama speaks of "trade liberalization" as if it is the tried and proven panacea for economies of the developing world. Yet how well has that worked out for Iraq so far? Many of the most successful industries in today's economic powerhouses were nurtured on protectionist trade policies. Think South Korea or Japan. Obama continued:

Prosperity also requires tearing down walls that stand in the way of progress – the corruption of elites who steal from their people; the red tape that stops an idea from becoming a business; the patronage that distributes wealth based on tribe or sect. We will help governments meet international obligations, and invest efforts anti-corruption; by working with parliamentarians who are developing reforms, and activists who use technology to hold government accountable.

Egytians need to examine the details before accepting any foreign offers of economic assistance. Are they sincere? Or are they just a ploy to get Egypt to open-up its market to foreign-branded goods and services? What's good for US-based multinationals (Monsanto, Pfizer, GE, etc.) or Apple Computer and its Chinese factory workers is not necessarily what's best for the people of Egypt.

Governments in the Middle East face the same problem that confronts Barack Obama at home: how to create jobs for millions of people -- especially young people. Given that the economic system of the United States, its political leadership, its most vocal ideologues, and even its media have failed to address America's own unemployment crisis, Egyptians should be careful about taking economic advice from Americans.

* * * * *

In post-Mubarak Egypt, protesters are often beaten by thugs.

There's another thing Obama ought to have said but did not. Obama should have promised that the US would hold the leadership of the Egyptian Army accountable for their actions during Egypt's transition to democracy. Obama should have said that attacks against peaceful protesters by thugs working in conjunction with soldiers are reprehensible, and that torturing protesters, virginity-testing them, and subjecting them to military trials is unacceptable. Obama should have made clear that future US military assistance to Egypt's army will contingent upon its adherence to basic principles of human rights and the rule of law.

What did Obama say about Bahrain in his Middle East speech?

2011-05-20T00:23:00.001+07:00

What did Obama say about Bahrain? Here's an excerpt from the full text of Obama's speech:

...And we will continue to insist that the Iranian people deserve their universal rights, and a government that does not smother their aspirations.

Our opposition to Iran’s intolerance – as well as its illicit nuclear program, and its sponsorship of terror – is well known. But if America is to be credible, we must acknowledge that our friends in the region have not all reacted to the demands for change consistent with the principles that I have outlined today. That is true in Yemen, where President Saleh needs to follow through on his commitment to transfer power. And that is true, today, in Bahrain.

Bahrain is a long-standing partner, and we are committed to its security. We recognize that Iran has tried to take advantage of the turmoil there, and that the Bahraini government has a legitimate interest in the rule of law. Nevertheless, we have insisted publically and privately that mass arrests and brute force are at odds with the universal rights of Bahrain’s citizens, and will not make legitimate calls for reform go away. The only way forward is for the government and opposition to engage in a dialogue, and you can’t have a real dialogue when parts of the peaceful opposition are in jail. The government must create the conditions for dialogue, and the opposition must participate to forge a just future for all Bahrainis.

Indeed, one of the broader lessons to be drawn from this period is that sectarian divides need not lead to conflict. In Iraq...

These days whatever the industry, the scams look alike

2011-05-10T01:45:00.005+07:00

Paul Krugman on the Washington Post's misleading coverage of the healthcare and budget deficit cutting debate:

As Jonathan Chait and Jamelle Bouie note, today was another VSP day at the Washington Post, with both the editorial page and the fact-checker tut-tutting at Democrats who insist on describing the Republican plan to dismantle Medicare as a plan to dismantle Medicare.

Because it is, you know, a plan to dismantle Medicare. When you transform a program that pays seniors’ medical bills into a program that gives them a voucher that almost certainly isn’t enough to buy adequate insurance, you can call the new scheme Medicare, but it isn’t the same program.

What the Post fact-checker seems to want, nonetheless, is for Democrats to talk about what Republicans are proposing only in big words and complicated sentences, so that the public doesn’t understand what they’re saying.

It's important to keep in mind that the Washington Post Company is essentially a for-profit education firm--one of the industry's leaders. American kids take out student loans and -- with increasing frequency -- they spend these loans on obtaining degrees from overpriced for-profit universities and vocational colleges. American kids go into debt -- with the help of the government --paying exorbitant tuitions at for-profit institutions for poorly recognized credentials.

A simple parallel can help to explain the appearance of so many misleading WaPo (Kaplan) editorials about health-care. Think of health care vouchers as the medical equivalent of student loans: If the government were to give elderly people "vouchers" to spend on for-profit health insurance that would be analogous to the government doling out "loans" that students are free to spend on for-profit education.

Just as it's misleading to equate patients with consumers, it is also misleading to equate students with consumers. Most members of both groups lack sufficient information to make discriminating choices. Government-backed loans or vouchers allow savvy corporations to profit at the expense of taxpayers.

Ideologically, America's for-profit higher education industry mirrors the US health insurance industry. This holds true to the extent that in both industries the profits are taxpayer-subsidized and tend to be at once more costly and less efficient than not-for-profit or public alternatives. The ideological foundation of one scam is the foundation for the other.

The big difference is that in American higher education, there's a public option. Perhaps with the drastic cuts being made to state budgets that will change.

Pseudo-patriotism in American journalism

2011-05-04T03:37:00.017+07:00

In an article entitled "Bin Laden Couldn't Change US Character," posted at the website of CNN, journalist Bob Greene writes:

Sometimes over the years we complained about the long security lines at airports, and about the body searches that were becoming increasingly intrusive -- so, yes, bin Laden was able to add to daily frustrations and irritations that way. Sometimes we raised our eyebrows and joked a little about the color-coded security-alert levels, wondering aloud whether the system was really helping anything. They wouldn't have been there were it not for bin Laden.

Yet very few among us did not understand the need for the stepped-up procedures, and, in the end, although everyday living felt a little different from before, for most there were few genuine hardships. The stores were still full of merchandise, the sports leagues continued to operate as always, new movies arrived in theaters every week, the television networks did their standard best to provide entertainment that would amuse us. In almost every way, ours did not feel like a nation under siege.

Except for those who were overseas in uniform, or preparing to go there, and except for the grieving families of those lost on that September day...

At first I thought: what a logically deficient, utterly vapid article! Then I realized it was satire. The writer, Bob Greene, was making fun of the kind of mindless drivel that Americans are fed on a daily basis by their news media.

"They wouldn't have been there were it not for bin Laden," Greene writes of the various post-9/11 security measures. Since when did TSA officials or US Air Force generals take their orders from Osama bin Laden? You can blame bin Laden for the worst terrorist attack in US history, but not for how America reacted to it. (This ludicrous statement tipped me to the realize the article was intended as a parody.)

By the same token, the title of the article, "Bin Laden Couldn't Change US Character," is not a false declaration. Bin Laden could not have changed it. A change in US character is something that Americans could only have done to themselves.

What anyone who has given serious thought to the matter can see is that Osama bin Laden gave free reign to the worst elements in American business and politics to pillage America. Since 9/11 the American government has stripped the people of precious freedoms (such as the right to private phone conversations), reinvented the security state (the country now has 17 intelligence agencies), asked young members of the military to give their lives while the rich got tax cuts and the middle class raked up mortgage debts, invited companies to offshore to China what little remained of America's manufacturing base, and encouraged Americans to live in a state of fear (through such tools as pointless multicolored "Terror Alert" warnings).

Greene is making fun of the worst, most insipid type of American journalism. He's mocking that which seeks to obscure historical travesty; a kind of journalism that has had the audacity to overlook an unmitigated financial, moral, and institutional tragedy borne of the inept, farcical, and self-interested execution of the so-called Global War on Terror. Given the extent to which the American public has been exploited in the name chasing bin Laden, what could possibly justify the brand of "feel good" pseudo-patriotic journalism Greene parodies? Ultimately, it serves to defend those who have lined their own pockets at the expense of their countrymen. It nudges the public to turn a blind eye to the systematic degradation of the quality of American institutions, values, and lived experience.

Washington DC celebrates death of Osama bin Laden

2011-05-02T21:26:00.009+07:00

Here's a short video I shot on the street outside the White House last night.

Some photos of the scene near the White House:

If NYT readers are this ignorant about Muslim countries...

2011-04-12T07:52:00.029+07:00

On a March evening three Egyptian women
talk on a Cairo street. Photo by Jotman.

It's probably fair to assume that readers of the New York Times are better informed about the Muslim world than your average American. That's a scary thought.

A comment caught my attention today. It concerned an article that appeared on the front page of Monday's New York Times concerning the controversial decision by the government of France to outlaw the wearing of full-face veils in public. What astounded me was not the comment itself, but the fact this particular comment was the most recommended comment of all. Some 492 Times readers recommended it (click to enlarge):

Scott, the reader who left the popular comment began, "I don't understand why the Muslims are outraged. In Muslim countries Western women are bound by Muslim laws that force them to wear a veil." Scott concluded, "We're only asking the same courtesy the Muslims ask of us when we are in their countries." The NY Times reader's comment is predicated on falsehoods. Western women visiting most of the world's Muslim countries are not bound by any dress code laws. Nor are local Muslim women in most of the world's 47 Muslim-majority countries compelled to adhere to dress code laws. Saudi Arabia is not reflective of the Muslim world as a whole.

Do the editors of the Times know any better than their readers? The newspaper's editors chose to "highlight" the opinion of a reader who strongly agreed with the most popular comment (click to enlarge):

A woman in Istanbul, Turkey. Photo by Jotman.

Andrey, who left the hightlighted comment, wrote, "Like post #1 said, when a western woman visits the middle East, she's frowned upon and faces restrictions for not wearing a hajib. It's hypocritical of middle Eastern women to express outrage when similar barriers are enacted elsewhere." Of course, Audrey is merely repeating misinformation. Nevertheless an editor at the New York Times highlighted her comment for being particularly "interesting and thoughtful."

France has passed a law for which there are few parallels. It is conceivable that in the future a political leader in the Middle East will cite the new French law as justification for legislating a code of dress for women.

Oil Spill threatens Rockhopper Penguins

2011-03-29T14:19:00.042+07:00


Rockhoppers on Nightengale Is. Used with permission (photographer@penguinity.com).

It is among the most ecologically unspoiled spots on the planet, teaming with wildlife. But while the attention world is directed elsewhere, this oceanic Eden could be lost forever.

In the early hours of March 16, the MS Olivia, a Malta-flagged 250 meter Greek freighter, en route from Brazil to Singapore, rammed headlong into an island at high velocity. Over the past two weeks, the cargo vessel has been spilling its contents -- 60,000 tonnes of soybean oil and up to 12,000 tonnes of heavy crude oil-- into the pristine waters of Tristan da Cunha, a remote group of volcanic islands in the South Atlantic. Pictures of the wreck are posted here. The islands, situated almost midway between South America and the Horn of Africa are home to a variety of endangered species, including the albatross and tens of thousands of rockhopper penguins.

Thirteen known species of seabird breed on the islands. Tristan and Gough Islands are the only known breeding sites in the world for the Atlantic petrel. One of the big worries is that rats may have escaped onto island from the sinking ship. If rats ever made it onto the island they could multiply and wipe out the seabird population in a very short time.

Arrow points to Tristan da Cunha. It is a British
dependentterritory claimed 1653. Administratively,
its part of St. Helena and the Dependencies.

There are three main islands in the group: Tristan da Cunha, Nightengale, and Inaccessible. The ship ran aground on the north side of Nightengale Is, and the currents have carried the oil to Inaccessible Is. Tristan de Cunha, the only inhabited island in the group, is home to about 300 people. All the families farm, and all land is owned communally. The islanders' main source of income is fishing and harvesting lobsters. The fisheries have been closed since the disaster.

At this time thousands of rockhopper penguins are covered with oil and in desperate need of rescue. A rescue operation is being organized from Cape Town, the closest city. In the meantime the islanders are using what few supplies they have to clean as many of the thousands of oil soaked penguins as possible, and coral the young molting penguins behind a fence to prevent them from going into the water.

Now let's take a look at two videos: one taken just after the disaster last week, followed by a video taken previous to the disaster.

After
Andrew Evans, an outstanding citizen journalist, happened onto the scene a few days after the MS Olivia broke apart. The traveler paints a devastating picture of what has happened in this heartbreaking video:

Andrew Evans has also written a blog post at National Geographic detailing what he encountered.

Before
Here is another video of Tristan da Cunha rockhoppers or "pinamin" as they are known locally. Taken two summers ago, this video features members of the penguin colony on Inaccessible Is.

How to help?
The island's website is the best place to start. When I find out more I will let you know. As the website explains, volunteers can't be flown in because there is no airport. The islands are a four days journey by ship out of Cape Town.

Update 1: It may be possible to donate online to SANCCOB (The Southern African Foundation for the Conservation of Coastal Birds). Apparently they are sending a ship to Tristan.

Update 2: From an email passed along to Jotman: "SANCCOB has been requested to prepare an oiled seabird rescue and have departed to take the team and equipment to the island. It takes about 5 – 7 days to get there, depending on the weather." This is good news.

Update 3: The Tristan da Cunha website reports that stormy seas have hampered the rescue efforts and that oil has reached the island of Tristan where one rockhopper penguin was found on the beach covered in oil. The report includes an update on rockhopper rehabilitation efforts as of 29 March: "In the rehab shed the team are doing really well and fed every single penguin, 1593 penguins in total. More of the cleaner penguins were moved out to the swimming pool, making 282 now in the pool. There are approx 500 penguins left in the shed which gives us room for up to 600 possible new arrivals, as the rest were all strong enough to go outside. It also provides an opportunity to put down a fresh layer of volcanic sand. Nightingale is still holding approximately 600 penguins which it is hoped can be collected soon."

On the website you will find view photos that document the rockhopper penguin rehabilitation process. A number of penguins in the ICU have died.

Meanwhile, at Inacessible Is. over a hundred oiled rockhopper penguins have had to be released due to the stormy conditions. The rescue crew is focusing all its efforts on protecting some 1500 penguins that have not been exposed to any oil.

Update 4: On March 31st the Tristan da Cunha website reported: "There are now approximately 2400 oiled penguins in the rehabilitation centre divided between the shed, ICU, outside pens and the swimming pool. More of the cleaner penguins (less than 20% oiled) were transferred to the pool today, making 544 penguins there in total. Justin Green, one of those feeding the penguins at the pool, reported that there are now thirty penguins taking fish strips by hand. Each penguin is given up to 15 strips and some of the penguins are then pecking at the feeders' boots for more. Penguins in the 'thin' penguin pen are being fed twice a day. This means that we currently need over 450kg of fish (raw meat) each day to feed all the penguins. The rehab team on Tristan are on standby to receive 539 penguins to be transported there this evening, bringing the total on the main island close to 3000."

Ralph Nader: When does activism lead to policy change?

2011-03-21T10:48:00.004+07:00

Ralph Nader at the Veterans for Peace Rally
in Washington, D.C.. Jotman photo.

Ralph Nader gave a short speech outside the White House Saturday afternoon, touching on themes that have been close to his heart for years, but for which evidence is more readily visible today.

“What Bush did, Obama is doing with better rhetoric,” Ralph Nader said, condemning the “two party dictatorship.” Nader talked about the need to fight the “Military Industrial Congressional Complex.” Congressional? Nader explained that in an early draft of the speech, Eisenhower inserted the word ‘Congressional’ but some aids convinced him to remove the word.

The rally had been organized by “Veterans for Peace.” Nader asked how it was that the most powerful military in the world had been held down by only twenty or thirty thousand Taliban fighters. “How is that possible? Because their cause is to expel the invader.” Perhaps alluding to the US attack on Libya, which was just beginning, Nader added that the appeal of the call to ‘expel the invader,’ is something that Americans need to consider in relation to any future US military actions. Nader reminded the crowd of a recent comment by SecDef Robert Gates. Gates had said that any future US defense secretary who supports a major land invasion would “need to have his head examined.”

What should concerned citizens do? Nader spoke of the unprecedented influence of AIPAC, the Israeli lobby group. “Although today the group enjoys 95% support today on the issues it is most concerned about, they didn’t always have it so good.” Nader said it was time for democratic activists to emulate AIPAC’s tactics. Nader described AIPAC’s “lazer-like focus on members of Congress," adding, "AIPAC has the power to absorb the time of members of Congress.” Nader said that AIPAC is so persistent that members of Congress will ask what they have to do just to get the organization off their backs. Nader suggested that civil society activists need to show this kind of persistence. “Get the names of friends and family of members of Congress. Call them, meet with them.... You have to zero-in your energy on members of Congress.”

Marching on the White House to stop occupations and torture. Jotman photo.

After the speeches, anti-war protesters marched. Over a hundred were later arrested. Jotman photo.

Central to Nader’s message was that the peace movement already has public opinion on its side: public support for the war in Afghanistan is low. The challenge is to make the politicians pay attention to the people.

Nader spoke about the need for the democratic resistance to hire paid organizers. “Full time paid organizers are necessary, every successful movement in history had them from Abolition to Cvil Rights.” Nader pulled some bills from his wallet and put them in a black bag. He said, “You’ve got to start raising money. I see $10,000 that could be raised right here, among this group standing here.” Nader then spoke about the importance of getting in touch with rich people, asking them to help fund a peoples’ movement. He said the rich want to leave a legacy; that some rich people would like to be remembered for having funded a noble cause. All you have to do is ask.

Ralph Nader takes questions after delivering a speech. Jotman photo.

Nader took questions after his speech. Someone pointed to Egypt’s revolution as an example of a movement that did not appear to have any full-time paid organizers or to have raised a lot of money, yet had been wildly successful.

Having just returned from Egypt, I thought it rather too soon to call the Egyptian revolution a success. It remains an open question whether part time, informal activist networking can be translated into lasting policy reforms or democratization. The destruction of the Tahrir campsite by thugs working in coordination with Egyptian soldiers -- which I witnessed -- could be viewed as an attempt by Egypt’s political establishment to undermine the roots of better funded, professionally organized, sustainable modes of political activism.

Japan's information blackout and the revolution to come

2011-03-18T21:02:00.016+07:00

Japanese tomatoes will resemble basketballs before anyone in a position of authority admits how bad things are.

I lived in Japan for several years, studied the history, and speak the language. That's why, six days ago, my first reaction to news of serious problems at the Fukushima nuclear plant was to tweet:

I am not the least bit surprised by everything that has happened so far, including statements by the US government that totally contradict reassurances given by the Japanese authorities.

I came across a video in which a Frenchman holding out in a Tokyo apartment explains the extent to which the Japanese government is not keeping the people informed about the situation.

"We don't want the fucking TV show with people smiling and laughing. We don't want the TV show, we want the truth here in Japan. We want to know the risk," he says.

The Frenchman who made the video and anyone else in the vicinity should either prepare to hunker down in a basement or pick up and leave. The Japanese authorities are not about to change their tune. Japanese tomatoes will be the size of basketballs and Tokyo cats will glow before anyone in a position of authority admits how bad things are.

Furthermore, anyone on the Japanese island of Honshu -- foreigners and Japanese alike -- would be well advised to rely on international monitors for information about radiation risk. It's incumbent upon American scientists and the military to make every effort distribute their own data and help the general public interpret it. They have made a good start, but their information must flow. Likewise the governments of Europe, Russia, China, and South Korea need to share whatever data they are collecting.

Although it may seem early to raise this subject, I think we should recognize that events in Japan will likely have profound geopolitical consequences. In the aftermath of the earthquake and tsunami, the Japanese people have been characterized in the media as patient, mild-mannered, and accepting of their fate.

But this calm will not last. It cannot last.

A Bloomberg article explains the context of the nuclear plant disaster. Politically explosive facts are coming to light:

The unfolding disaster at the Fukushima nuclear plant follows decades of falsified safety reports, fatal accidents and underestimated earthquake risk in Japan’s atomic power industry....

Nuclear engineers and academics who have worked in Japan’s atomic power industry spoke in interviews of a history of accidents, faked reports and inaction by a succession of Liberal Democratic Party governments that ran Japan for nearly all of the postwar period.

Katsuhiko Ishibashi, a seismology professor at Kobe University, has said Japan’s history of nuclear accidents stems from an overconfidence in plant engineering. In 2006, he resigned from a government panel on reactor safety, saying the review process was rigged and “unscientific.”

... Tokyo Electric in 2002 admitted it had falsified repair reports at nuclear plants for more than two decades. Chairman Hiroshi Araki and President Nobuyama Minami resigned to take responsibility for hundred of occasions on which the company had submitted false data to the regulator.

Then in 2007, the utility said it hadn’t come entirely clean five years earlier. It had concealed at least six emergency stoppages at its Fukushima Dai-Ichi power station and a “critical” reaction at the plant’s No. 3 unit that lasted for seven hours.

Japanese history provides some indication of what lies ahead. The Japanese establishment's present attempts to conceal the facts about the radiation leaks, its cover-ups, point to a political firestorm not unlike something the Japanese have experienced before.

From the 1960s to the 1970s the Japanese government was caught attempting to cover-up the environmental poisoning of the town of Minamata in Kumamoto Prefecture. A mine released mercury into the food chain which poisoned thousands of Japanese. It was caused by the release of methylmercury in the industrial wastewater of a chemical factory from 1932 to 1968. The surrounding sea was poisoned by the highly toxic chemical, resulting in the deadly accumulation of poison in the bodies of people and animals. Wikipedia:

According to Timothy S. George, the environmental protests that surrounded the disease appeared to aid in the democratization of Japan. When the first cases were reported and subsequently suppressed, the rights of the victims were not recognised, and they were given no compensation. Instead, the afflicted were ostracised from their community due to ignorance about the disease, as people were afraid that it was contagious. The people directly impacted by the pollution of Minamata Bay were not originally allowed to participate in actions that would affect their future. Disease victims, fishing families, and company employees were excluded from the debate.. Progress occurred when Minamata victims were finally allowed to come to a meeting to discuss the issue. As a result, postwar Japan took a small step towards democracy. Through the evolution of public sentiments, the victims and environmental protesters were able to acquire standing and proceed more effectively in their cause. The involvement of the press also aided the process of democratization because it caused more people to become aware of the facts of Minamata disease and the pollution that caused it.

Although the environmental protests did result in Japan becoming more democratized, it did not completely rid Japan of the system that first suppressed the fishermen and victims of Minamata disease.

The protest movement that followed disease outbreak at Minamata contributed significantly to the democratization of Japan.

Will the present crisis lead to reforms that finally rid the Japanese of the corrupt and undemocratic system that the Minamata crisis first exposed? We should hope so. A democratic awakening in Japan could have significant implications for China, other countries of Asia, and the West.

As the full extent of the corruption and lies of the Japanese establishment become more widely known, major street demonstrations are inevitable. Any and every manifestation of significant political upheaval is likely. Protests may well shake the Japanese state to its foundations in the months ahead. As I tweeted today: expect the Japanese to resemble Egyptians--only angrier.

Following the example of the Frenchman who made the above video, we must stand shoulder to shoulder with the people of Japan in their fight for transparency and openness.

Renewed violence against supporters of Egyptian revolution

2011-03-06T19:56:00.008+07:00

At least since I arrived in Cairo five days ago, nothing like this has happened. In fact, it may well have been the first such incident at Tahrir Square since the revolution.

Around 9:30pm Saturday at Tahrir Square in Cairo, many people on the traffic island encampment suddenly rushed into the traffic. They had received word that some thugs were beating up supporters of the Egyptian revolution.

People rushed in between cars to cross the street. They were headed up the street on which the American University is situated.

It was a confusing situation. I snapped a picture of a seated woman who appeared very shaken.

I saw two people who had been injured carried onto the Tahrir Square encampment.

I was having some camera problems, so I didn't get a picture of the first -- more seriously-- injured person. But I saw the badly injured man carried to the medical tent by four men. A few minutes later I saw him lying flat on the ground outside the medical tent. Many people were crowding the small space so I left. When I returned to the medical tent, I was informed that that the man who had been lying on the ground had already been taken to a local hospital.

The other injured person -- pictured in the photo below -- was carried to the tent shortly after the first. When I took this picture I was told he had bruises from being "hit with a stick."

Shortly after I took this picture a person dressed head-to-toe in a black face-veil outfit tried to pull the Egyptian flag from the roof of the medical tent. There was a bit of a scuffle. My camera jammed again, so I didn't get a picture of that bizarre spectacle.

Oddly, one person on the scene told me that "nothing" had just happened and that "people are just spreading rumors." Given the inconsistency of this person's inane statement with what we were presently witnessing, my interpreter suggested this person might be working for the police.

In this brief video clip, an Egyptian journalist explains his theory about what happened last night. Other Egyptian protesters at Tahrir Square shared this journalist's interpretation of the incident.

Tahrir Square Friday

2011-03-05T21:17:00.003+07:00

I was out on Cairo's Tahrir Square between noon and 3:00pm Friday. I went out again in the evening. The place was full of hundreds of thousands of people, many carrying flags. The people were celebrating the fact they have a new prime minister.

"Freedom!" shouted two young men I passed. That summed it up. Above all else, the day was a celebration of the new freedom of the Egyptian people.

I stopped to watch a puppet show. Hosni Mubarak danced around the stage. He wore a star on his lapel, implying the deposed Egyptian leader had been a puppet of Israel. Funniest was a comedian who did an imitation of Gaddafy. Everyone laughed at that.

Earlier I had passed a young couple carrying signs, one in English, the other in Arabic. It read: America keep your hands off Libya!

The man said, "We don't want another American occupied country on our doorstep. If they get involved, then we can't be sure they won't stay. We can't trust them."

"Don't you want to see them enforce a no-fly zone? Qadafy is bombing the cities," I said.

"The Libyans should be left to work this out for themselves."

The streets around Tahrir Square were more crowded than the traffic island where the tents are set up -- the permanent encampment.

Past the Egyptian Museum, I came to a line of tanks. Small children were seated on the armored vehicles having their pictures taken with the soldiers.

The army remains popular. The big question is what to do about the police and security services. I have more to report about that.

Night at Tahrir Square, Cairo

2011-03-02T19:38:00.002+07:00

The revolution continues: Several of the many tents at Tahrir Square in Cairo,
which continues to be occupied by thousands of demonstrators.

"You have arrived a little late, haven't you?"

With these words, Q welcomed Jotman to the encampment at the center of Tahrir Square in Cairo. This is where would he would spend the night.

Half an hour earlier, I had emerged from Sadat Station. In the underground walkway I had passed a boy carrying an Egyptian flag. He was accompanied by his parents.

Surfacing, I saw a friendly looking Egyptian student. "What's the situation here now?" I asked him.

Islam, which was the student's name, told me there was no trouble, everyone was being left alone. He emphasized that the army was their friend, and Egyptians were unified. Except for one problem: Ahmed Schafik, the prime minister. Schafik had to go.

While we were talking, various people stopped by to welcome me. Mahmoud, a forty-something year old art curator introduced himself. "Behind where we're standing now were the hospital tents," he said.

On hearing Mahmoud express doubt about whether future support for the revolution would be forthcoming from the army, Islam spoke up. Islam almost seemed to be reprimanding Mahmoud. "The army is on the side of the people," Islam corrected Mahmoud. They exchanged some words in Arabic.

We stood beside a railing that lines the usually busy road that circles the grassy island at the center of Tahrir square. There were no cars, giving the four-lane road the false appearance of a no-man's land. Across the road, on the island, was the tent city. You could see people milling about around the tents.

Headed across the street, several students approached us carrying a large road sign (photo).

The activists were carrying a large road sign.

Next a man approached us, having crossed the street from the tent city. The young man, I will call him Q, had an urgent message for me. "The curfew is about to begin. The streets will not be safe. I suggest you either get to your hotel. Otherwise you might want to stay here for the night."

"Do you expect it will be safe? What about the army?" I asked.

"The police have disappeared. The army doesn't come here. They leave us alone."

"Where is the army?"

"Some soldiers are stationed at road blocks down the streets."

I had in mind the idea of heading to a hotel down one of those streets. But Q quickly put this idea to rest, "Any hotel in that direction is probably closed. I don't suggest you head that way."

We discussed the question of me sleeping in the square, whether I was eligible or qualified.

"I'll have to see if there's tent space available. But it shouldn't be a problem; in fact, I'd encourage you to spend the night here."

Q went back to check, "I found you a tent."

Once I had made it onto the empty street, Q said, "Do you have your passport? You're going to be asked for it. We have our own security people who try to make sure they don't send people here to make trouble."

No sooner was I halfway across the road when a short round man approach us. "May I see your passport, sir?"

I showed the jolly little guy my passport.

Satisfied, he said, "Look at my passport. I work for the Egyptian Ministry of Foreign Affairs. See, it says so in my passport."

Sure enough, that's what it said.

Has the Egyptian Revolution only just begun?

2011-03-02T19:10:00.004+07:00

Activists in Cairo's Tahrir Square attach a banner listing the demands of the Youth Movement.

I have not been in Cairo 48 hours, but it feels like a week-- or two. I spoke with the several of revolution's young leaders (there are many leaders). One gets the impression the Egyptian revolution has been led by the country's 'best and brightest.' Out in the square I met employees of Oracle and other big companies, Bank of Egypt, the Dept. Foreign Affairs, also physicians, and any number of university students. Such similarities to the Beijing movement of 1989 are apparent. As in Beijing, I'm told that in Cairo other social classes came out later.

Today, people of all social classes mix in Tahir square. For example, in my Tahrir tent the other night, there was an aircraft mechanic, an unemployed ceramics artisan, a pharmacist, and a bank employee. As a fellow occupant of my tent put it, "We're all friends in here, yet we're all complete strangers!" Some sleep at Tahrir, going to work in the mornings.

Tahrir Square is occupied territory of the Youth Movement, and the army keeps its distance. Needless to say, there is no uniformed police presence. I'm told that there are no (visible) police in Cairo, and the neighborhoods are self-policed. There is a curfew from 12pm to 6am, nominally enforced by the army. Among activists, there is debate about whether having some police return to the streets would be desirable or not.

P, a demonstrator told me, "In the West, the police are called 'civil servants.' In Egypt police are called 'masters.' Over the years, normal Egyptian people have been pulverized by the police." P told me that before coming out to demonstrate on Jan 25, his mother warned him that if was caught by the police he would likely be raped.

Public opinion of the army remains favorable, but the students want to army leadership to transfer power to a joint civilian-military led interim government.

I photographed several activists putting up a large banner, listing the demands of their group. I asked P to translate the main points.

"There have been many such banners, pictures of them are everywhere on Facebook. I have my own list, of course. I'll tell you how how the points on this poster compare."

Seeming quite satisfied with the priorities outlined on poster, P proceeded to describe the four main demands of demonstrators.

1. A Presidential Council established consisting of two civilians and one representative of the military.

2. The current cabinet, having been established by Mubarak, has to go. In particular, the protesters can't tolerate the presence of Prime Minister Ahmed Schafik. The Minister of Justice and the Minister of the Interior also have to go.

3. The Emergency Law dating back to the beginning of the Mubarak era, has to be lifted. P said, "Mohammed Hassanain Heikal, an intellectual, summed it up nicely: 'we're not dealing with the corruption of a state, but a state of corruption."

4. Political prisoners have to be freed. When I asked how many there were, P. replied, "We don't know."

P regarded the authors of the original Facebook page, particularly Wael Ghonim, the Egyptian Google employee who spent a week in jail -- he's married to an American -- as one person at the front of the movement. P and all the activists I spoke with were quick to say nobody is in charge.

Last night, on a Cairo street, a man approached me. He wanted me to know that he condemned Obama for his slow support for the ouster of Mubarak, before proceeding to castigate the country for its other sins. Obama wages "war." America wants "petroleum." The man added, the expression on his face contorted into one of disgust: "Britannia same as America!" Before walking off he said, "Egypt is a country of peace."

I didn't mention Egypt's costly military intervention in Yemen throughout the 1960s or the 1973 Arab-Israeli War, but had he stuck around, I might have brought these up.

An employee of an American company told me that America had better realize "that Egyptians know its game, and the game is up." His tone was severe.

Respect for the army as an institution remains high. For example, even activists seem to respect that soldiers have a right not to have their picture taken when at their posts.

There's a propaganda war happening as to who owns the revolution. I was told the Egyptian press wasn't covering the ongoing vigil at Tahrir Square.

There is speculation on the square that a coup within the army leadership is the people's' best hope for a successful transition to democracy. I don't know why anyone would be optimistic that this might happen, but two guys I spoke with seemed to think this a very real possibility.

To sum things up:

1. The army is running the state, but for the time being at least, "the people" remain the force to be reckoned with in the new Egypt.

2. In meetings with the generals, representatives of the Youth Movement have demanded that their main points -- most important of which is the resignation of the prime minister and the appointment of a new cabinet -- occur by their deadline, which is tomorrow.

Egyptian military police confront protesters outside Cairo office building

2011-03-01T21:34:00.016+07:00

Shots fired. Army called in.

I took this picture a few seconds after military police fired shots into the air.

I witnessed Egyptian military police fire shots outside an Egyptian office building near Ramses Station in Cairo, Egypt. The allegedly corrupt head of an Egyptian newspaper firm seems to be trapped inside the building. The protesters want him to resign.

I was told by a local businessman that protesters claim that Mohasn Mahmod Bahgat, the head of Kawmea-Tawzee, a national newspaper or magazine company is collecting a wildly excessive salary and abusing workers. I'm told this is a government-owned media company. One observer claimed the chief Bahgat's salary amounts to as much as US$200,000 a month. Another observer -- a businessman who works in the building next door -- told me that Bahgat fires workers at will and there is no job security. Other onlookers suggested to me that Bahgat's money was going to "Switzerland."

I woke up to the sound of protesters marching this morning.

Protesters march prior to office building stand-off.

From the roof of a distant building, I watched demonstrators gather on a street outside the steps to an office building.

This crowd would grow considerably.

In the afternoon I went out to check on the protest. Standing among hundreds of other onlookers, I stood directly across from where I had watched the protesters gather in the morning.

The protesters were shouting loudly, some waving flags, others holding signs. I saw that military police, wearing red caps and armed with rifles were guarding the building.

The situation deteriorated suddenly. I saw that the military police, who stood guard on the top steps, were being pushed up against the glass doors of the building by the pressure of the protesters below. In response, the military police pushed back, and protesters were pushed back down the stairs. The crowd became angry and pushed back against the military police.

Suddenly, the military police fired several shots. I hit the ground. An onlooker informed me that the police had fired the shots into the air. I watched military police holding rifles move onto the roadway, stopping traffic.

About twenty minutes later the army showed up: two armored personnel carriers arrived carrying a dozen soldiers. When these vehicles pulled up in front of the office building, I heard cheers. It sounded to me like the cheers had come from ranks of the protesters.

At this time (4:22pm in Cairo), the standoff continues. It may be that the head of the newspaper company is (still) trapped in the building.

___
Photos copyrighted. If your organization is interested in purchasing photos, contact JOTMAN.COM. The email address is on the sidebar.

Headed for the Egypt-Libya border at Salloum?

2011-02-22T22:06:00.007+07:00

At this moment, foreign correspondents from around the word are headed for the town of Salloum (sometimes spelt Saloum or Salloom). Apparently, at this hour, the Libyans have abandoned checkpoints on the other side of Egypt's Salloum border check point, and anyone can enter the country.

A little over a year ago, I made a journey to this outpost in the Sahara desert. I'm posting an exerpt from my travel journal and some photos I took. One thing that anyone headed for Libya by way of Egypt needs to keep in mind is that the border is heavily mined. So if you don't pass into Libya via the checkpoint at Salloum, you may be taking a very big risk.

First entry in Jotman's journal:

Few things depress me more than the sight of new seaside holiday resort towns on the coast of the Mediterranian. The coast of Egypt is one private resort after another. Blocks of 16 unit towers, names like Maadii, Marassi, Al-Karma, Emirate Hights. A resort called "Marina" stretched for miles and miles. One of the classiest resorts was called "Armed forces resort."

Here's my photo of the Armed Forces Resort. It gives you an indication of the power of the army in Egyptian society, something that Egypt's pro-democracy movement may yet have to confront.

This Egyptian Armed Forces resort appeared the most luxurious of the many resorts I passed.

My travel diary continued:

"Saloom" read a sign by the road. We arrived at a checkpoint. They asked for passports.

"Do you speak Arabic?"

"No, sorry."

"Why are you in Saloom?"

I was wondering if they would understand the truth: would they understand if I said I just wanted to see what's here? Probably not.

"I heard it is a beautiful place."

"No it is not." Both the guards were shaking their heads.

They escorted me off the bus into a room under the gateway. One man was seated at a desk. I walked in and shook his hand.

"Where from?"

"I came from Cairo."

I took out guidebooks, showed them on the map. Back on the bus, the beduin gathered around. No longer was I the anonymous foreigner. I took a photo of one of the men. Another made a long face. So I took a picture of him too. Smiles.

There's one hotel in the town. Simple, but clean. Overpriced, but given the lack of choice, that was to be expected. Someone on the bus showed me to it.

The border checkpoints are up on the ridge. Somewhere offshore lies a sunken Italian submarine.

Libya lies on the other side of the ridge.

My travel journal continued:

Rising shortly before sunrise, I walked aroudn Salloum. My guidebook had said that the town of Salloum is located on top of the ridge. It is not. The border station is on a point above a small harbor where a navy frigate was docked. The border installation was large. The border runs along a ridge high above the seaside town, extending into the desert. The desert along the border is said to be mined. I drank coffee waiting for the 9am bus back to Marsa Matruth.

The only taxis in Salloum are donkey-carts. This photo depicts my early morning dash through town to the bus station.

Eco-friendly Salloum taxi service.

Back on the bus...

Good Bye read the sign on the border gate I had passed through late at night. Another reception party at the checkpoint: a group of plain clothed guards. I was escorted off the bus. Examining my passport, they asked "where is your stamp from Libya?"

"I didn't go to Libya."

"Just Salloum?!"

Only WikiLeaks can save us

2011-02-22T18:56:00.003+07:00

On the evening of the Egyptian revolution I found myself in the capital of another far-flung and potentially unstable outpost of the Empire.

As dusk approached, I walked past the country's yellow-brick parliament building. It was flanked by two flags, one of which was the flag of the European Union. The other, that of the Democratic Republic of Georgia.

A large number of policemen were assembling at this Tbilisi street corner. Police already lined an adjacent street.

Meanwhile, in front of parliament, a line of ordinary men and women was forming. Facing the street, many members of this predominantly middle-aged group of demonstrators held signs. With ten minutes, about two dozen protesters would appear.

Walking down the line, I inquired of the protesters if any spoke English. None said they did. A television camera began filming them. I took a few pictures.

The signs were all in Georgian. What could this be about? I asked two young passers by -- they looked liked they might be students -- if they could help me understand what was going on.

"They are protesting President Mikheil Saakashvili. They blame him for losing South Ossetia. They say he started the war with Russia."

I asked the students, Sue, an English literature major, and Alice, a sociology major, what they thought of the protests.

Sue replied, "I am apolitical."

Only later would the meaning Sue's comment become clear. The students were by no means disinterested in politics. Sue would do most of the talking with Alice listening carefully to our exchange.

I asked if Georgia was a democracy.

"No!" said Sue. Alice shook her head.

"Would you call Saakashvili, your president, a dictator?"

"Personally, I wouldn't go so far as to call him that," said Sue. "But that sign over there describes him as a 'totalitarian.'" She mentioned that another protester's sign called Saakashvili "a killer."

"You chose a bad time to visit Georgia," said Alice.

I asked why.

"This sort of thing," said Sue, nodding in the direction of the protesters. Sue spoke of the economic situation: "Food is too expensive to buy. People don't earn high enough. Low salaries."

Alice blurted out, "Low salaries? Sue, tell him it's not that we don't earn adequate salaries, it's that people can't get jobs!"

Georgia's official rate of unemployment for 2009 was 16.4%.

The students suggested that Georgia's most pressing problem was that the 2008 confrontation with Russia had cost Georgia access to it's major trading partner. The border with Russia had remained closed. Armenia, another of Georgia's neighbors, was a client-state of Russia. Georgia's only friendly neighbors were Azerbaijan and Turkey, now its largest trading partner.

We talked about Georgia's relationship with America. Sue saw no evidence that Georgia's friendship with America had made life better for ordinary Georgians: "If the cost of being too close to America is alienating Russia, then it's not worth it for us. Georgia needs trade and good relations with Russia. We should not side with America or Russia, but stay in the middle."

I asked what they hoped might help save Georgia.

"Wikileaks!" said Sue. Alice agreed.

Their sense of conviction on this point startled me. "How can Wikileaks help Georgia?"

"The media is biased. We need Wikileaks to expose the corruption in government, what's really happening. The public needs the facts."

Sue said the opposition party in parliament was small and seemed to side with the government on many issues. The nation's main media sources, Sue added, were controlled either by the government or the opposition party.

"If you watch our television, you'll see there's seldom any bad news. Stories critical of the government simply don't get told."

I asked Sue and Alice if the protests in Egypt would inspire the Georgians.

"Nobody would support us if we protested" replied Sue.

"You're saying protests like those taking place in Egypt could not happen here in Georgia?"

"Well, the revolution in Egypt is failing" said Sue.

Today, in Egypt, the Army had just announced that it supported Egyptian president Mubarak. Sue's pessimism mirrored that of most observers at this hour. Although within the next three hours, Hosni Mubarak would step down, few dared conceive this was just about to happen. For anyone closely following the situation in Egypt, this was one of the darkest, least hopeful hours of the eighteen-day-long Egyptian struggle.

"People here are afraid to protest," Sue said. I asked why.

"They go to jail."

Sue explained that in 2010 some students had held a protest and they had yet to be released.

"Some Georgian protesters are still in jail?"

"Yes."

When I asked the two students if they would consider joining a protest, Sue said protesting would be pointless because "the opposition party is just as bad."

Night was falling, and the protesters were dispersing, but I had one more question: "What's with the European Union flag?"

They giggled.

"Yes, our government is strange!"
__
Note: The protest described here was not reported in any English language news source but for one Russian publication which provided background about the rally's organizers and motives. The protest coincided with an important speech to parliament by the Georgian president.

The names of the two students were changed to protect their identities.

Russia has a new hero

2011-02-18T01:00:00.000+07:00

Combing Russian language media sources, JOTMAN.COM contributor Sanjuro reports:

One of the most discussed topics of the last 1-2 days (655 comments and growing on Gazeta.ru - usually over 100 is considered popular) is an interview with a Russian court official, an aide to the Judge Viktor Danilkin who recently announced the latest verdicts for Mikhail Khodorkovsky and Platon Lebedev. The interviewed official who now fears being fired (and more) says there was tremendous pressure on Mr Danilkin from his superiors at the Moscow City Court (Mosgorsud) who literally controlled his every move to ensure the right verdict for Messrs Khodorkovsky and Mr Lebedev.

Looks like Natalya Vasilyeva, the interviewed official, has become an overnight celebrity in the Russian internet. Most readers praise her courage in coming out and speaking to the media. Many also suspect it's part of some scheme e.g. Medvedev faction vs Putin faction, or whatever one may imagine.

Egyptian Police clear Tahrir Square protesters

2011-01-26T16:41:00.001+07:00

According to a text accompanying the above video which is posted at the Arabic edition of Al Masry Al-Youm: "In just 10 minutes, the security services in Cairo ended protest demonstrations in Tahrir Square." The editors add, "Central Security forces numbered more than 10 thousand recruits and officers. They used armored vehicles and tear gas."

After viewing this video, NihalFares commented on Twitter: "This is how police treat demonstrators in Egypt."

Hillary Clinton's remarks on 25 Jan protests in Egypt

2011-01-26T07:04:00.007+07:00

Appropriate?

QUESTION: Madam Secretary ... in our tradition of two-parters, there are some major demonstrations in Egypt today, and I’m wondering if there is concern in Washington about the stability of the Egyptian Government, of course, a very valuable ally of the United States?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, David ... With respect to Egypt, which, as your question implied, like many countries in the region, has been experiencing demonstrations. We know that they’ve occurred not only in Cairo but around the country, and we’re monitoring that very closely. We support the fundamental right of expression and assembly for all people, and we urge that all parties exercise restraint and refrain from violence. But our assessment is that the Egyptian Government is stable and is looking for ways to respond to the legitimate needs and interests of the Egyptian people.

State Department

Egypt's Tank Man

2011-01-26T06:14:00.009+07:00

China and Egypt are two of the oldest countries in the world. They have something else in common.

Beijing, China, 1989

Cairo, Egypt, 2011

To appreciate the connection, note what happens in the second video around the 1:22 mark (Hat-tip to TenPercent, sunny_hundal, b3nb3ach).

Jan 25 Protests in Egypt (Police Day)

2011-01-26T01:16:00.019+07:00

UPDATE: Video of protesters in Alexandria tearing down portrait of Hosni Mubarak on Jan 25. (I suspect this video shows the incident described by Hossam on Twitter. If so, the exact location is Raml Station).

UPDATE: Destruction at Mubarak's National Democratic Party headquarters in Mansoura on January 25

NEW UPDATE: Another video from Mansoura, a city on the Nile Delta (population 420,000). Mansoura was the scene of a rare outpouring of political enthusiasm in April 2010 when El Baradei visited a local mosque (as reported by a blogger here, here, and here). The roar of the crowd in this video will make your laptop shake:

UPDATE: Protests continued into the night. This video is quite spectacular.

UPDATE: This is a remarkable video of a crowd denouncing Hosni Mubarak in Cairo's Tahrir Square. Towards the end of the video, the Egyptian police confront the person holding the camera.

Protesters denouncing Egyptian dictator Muhammad Hosni Sayyid Mubarak in Cairo:

Aerial of water-canon fired at protesters in Cairo. Around the 1:22 mark you'll see something that seems an echo of Tank Man (a hero of the Tiananmen Square protests of 1989).

Inspired by the revolution in Tunisia, protests planned by Egyptian activists have turned out in large numbers on the streets of Cairo and Alexandria. An estimated 20,000 protesters have taken to the streets of Alexandria. Thousands will protesting through the night at Tahrir Square in Cairo.

Twitter is the great resource both for protesters and anyone trying to stay up to date. Although the Egyptian government blocked Twitter about 16:00 Egypt time, some have been able to post via proxy servers or platforms like HootSuite.

Update 1: Jacob Appelbaum, an expert, tweets:

If you want to bypass censorship in Egypt - Tor works to bypass TE Data filtering: https://www.torproject.org/download/download.html #jan25
The censors at TE Data failed to block 128.121.243.237 and 168.143.161.29 for Twitter. You can use those without a proxy directly

Update 2: I've linked to some resources for keeping up with events at ThereLive.

Who is Bradley Manning?

2011-01-19T17:23:00.002+07:00

More at ThereLive.

Censorship jujitsu: the literary canon for global citizens

2011-01-05T16:51:00.091+07:00

Raw Story today:

... a Twain scholar from Auburn University in Alabama believes he has found a way to teach Huck Finn without all the controversy about race and language: Alan Gribben is editing a new version of the classic novel that will remove all 219 instances of the "n-word," replacing it with the word "slave." The book will also replace the word "Injun."

Reuters two years ago:

“A Coup for the Rich”, by political scientist Giles Ungphakorn, was ordered off the shelves at Thammasat University’s bookstore last week, the only shop in Thailand that sold the 144-page book.

Censorship, or at least the motivation to censor, is a fact of human existence. It's been that way ever since the very first illiterate philistine hacked the face off a statue depicting whatever god his illiterate king no longer worshiped.

How should freedom-loving people respond to it? Censorship may still be a fact of life, but the environment in which censorship occurs is distinctive. First, on account of the growing competition for attention in an increasingly online world, many worthwhile works of history and literature face appalling neglect. That is to say that censorship is by no means the only threat to books these days. In today's multimedia environment, good literature stands in dire need of a major marketing initiative. Second, censorship remains pervasive. Reading materials most readily accessible to students around the world continue to restricted for political or cultural reasons. Third, technology has finally reached the stage where any censorship ought to be viewed as an opportunity to address the first two issues.

So here's a plan -- one that involves a dash of marketing and a jot of jujitsu.

Phase I
We encourage illiberal elements to propose that lists of censored books be widely distributed to schools. We agree that such lists ought to be framed and hung in every classroom. Are you listening Sarah Palin, you who allegedly banned certain books from the Wasilla Public Library?

We get behind Palin or any other paleoconservative nitwit to whom the idea of promoting such lists strongly appeals. At the behest of President Palin, the US government might decide to distribute these lists; at the urging of countries like Thailand and Iran, perhaps UNESCO could be convinced to fund the distribution of lists of banned books to schools throughout the entire world. That should be fine by us.

Such lists brand books as "interesting," providing motivation for exploration and learning. Ultimately censors and bowdlerizers are doing society a favor, casting spotlights upon important works of literature. The brighter their spotlights, the better.

Phase II
By the same token, it's questionable whether literary or historical works that no powerful group has ever tried to get banned are of monumental value to a society. This could prove a useful observation, because global culture desperately needs a new way to sort the wheat from the chaff. Modern societies are drowning in content, much of it of little discernible value. Today's students lack awareness of a canon -- a recognized core curriculum that could serve both as the foundation for the development of their thinking as human beings and a starting point for dialogue across cultures. A designated canon could lay a solid foundation for global citizenship. Yet, deciding what books to include in a canon always leads to heated disputes. What ought to bring people together, only ends up dividing them.

But what if "the canon" were to consist only of works that powerful organizations have struggled most fiercely to ban, bowdlerize, or burn? Present and past lists of "most censored books" might define the boundaries of a global canon. The first question would be: has this or that work been censored frequently and strongly enough to merit inclusion in the canon? The merit of this approach is that instead of having to prove that a book is sufficiently "great," proponents of a work first have to demonstrate that it is -- or has been -- sufficiently "despised." Scholars and artists should have a voice in the process, but the latter criteria provides the more objective starting point.

But how to distribute content? Just as recently happened with regards to WikiLeaks, a digitally minded activist-publisher might promote a network of internet mirrors for the distribution of the new global literary canon to every corner of the planet. Alternatively, this canon could be stored on memory cards. Millions of these could be manufactured at low cost, the data accessed by way of tomorrow's cheap smart phones.

Summary
Literature could use a marketing boost. Promotion of books should be funded by those groups most opposed to them. To some extent, this happens anyway. To make the most of such "free" marketing, lists of censored books should be 1) widely distributed and prominently displayed; and 2) used as criteria for inclusion in an internationally recognized literary canon. At the very least, popularization of "the canon" ought to give many organizations reason to pause before they attempt to censor anything.

Reporting Manning and WikiLeaks, new media trumps old

2010-12-28T07:11:00.010+07:00

Who would have thought that the biggest story of 2010 would turn out not to have been broken by "the newspaper of record," but a motley assortment of new media outlets? Who would have thought that online publications would be spearheading the lion's share of the real investigative journalism concerning WikiLeaks?

The big question of 2010 is how WikiLeaks obtained 250,000 diplomatic cables. Today, the US government apparently wants to show that Julian Assange conspired with Private First Class Bradley Manning to obtain the cables.   And where must a reader turn for investigative journalism on this story? You will want to start with Salon (here and here), BoingBoing, Gawker, CNET (here, here, and here), and Fire Dog Lake (here, documentation here, here, and here).

Ironically, concerning the matter of WikiLeaks' relation to Private First Class Manning, presumed "leaker" of 250,000 diplomatic cables, the role of the New York Times and Wired is more reminiscent of how WikiLeaks operates than any classic model of investigative reporting (WikiLeaks being a journalistic organization that publishes material devoid of context or accompanying analysis).

Yet, certainly with respect to one of the most important stories of 2010, comparing the NYT and Wired to WikiLeaks is grossly unfair to WikiLeaks. WikiLeaks provides us with entire source documents (example). This means that in so far as information consistently gets redacted from the cables to protect innocent parties, readers of WikiLeaks cables can at least see how much info has been removed, and where.

On the other hand, Wired's approach to the story has been to relay a few excerpts of an extended online chat between Manning and Lamo, the former hacker who "outed" Bradly Manning. To this day, Wired is sitting on vast portions of unpublished conversation logs between Manning and Lamo absolutely relevant to story of how WikiLeaks obtained the cables.   Nor has Wired released transcripts merely showing where a determination had been made that content of a private nature had to have been redacted. Wired is silent. The New York Times might have provided necessary context when its own reporter interviewed Lamo, but did not. For example, Times readers were not informed that Lamo, its source for the its Dec. 15 article on Manning, had a criminal record and had recently been consigned to involuntary psychiatric care.   Jane Hamsher of FDL writes, "There are many inconsistencies in Lamo’s many stories, as Marcy Wheeler has documented, yet the normally excellent Charlie Savage lets Lamo serve as sole source for a highly dubious story in the pages of the New York Times." The paper's only recent investigate article on the WikiLeaks-Manning connection is an example of context-deficient reporting, largely devoid of analysis.

If Watergate happened today, its all too easy to imagine where we wouldn't read about it first.

Alleged

2010-12-23T04:40:00.048+07:00

al·leged adj \ə-ˈlejd, -ˈle-jəd\ 1 : asserted to be true or to exist 2 : questionably true or of a specified kind : supposed, so-called 3 : accused but not proven or convicted

The Washington Post explains its support for the administration's position that it has the right to order targeted killings of American citizens abroad:

Executive decisions

Wednesday, December 22, 2010

The Obama administration has a federal judge to thank for ensuring that executive branch and congressional leaders and not those in judicial robes will, at least for now, continue to call the shots on targeted killings.

That determination was made in a case involving Anwar al-Aulaqi, the U.S.-born Yemeni cleric and al-Qaeda operative designated as a terrorist by the United States this year. Mr. Aulaqi is reportedly on a "kill list" of terrorism suspects for his alleged roles in the Fort Hood massacre and the attempted downing of a U.S. airliner by the would-be underwear bomber. Mr. Aulaqi's father filed suit to stop the administration from carrying out a strike against his son....

Here's another editorial published in the same newspaper, seven years ago:

Irrefutable

Thursday, February 6, 2003; Page A36

AFTER SECRETARY OF STATE Colin L. Powell's presentation to the United Nations Security Council yesterday, it is hard to imagine how anyone could doubt that Iraq possesses weapons of mass destruction. Mr. Powell left no room to argue seriously that Iraq has accepted the Security Council's offer of a "final opportunity" to disarm. And he offered a powerful new case that Saddam Hussein's regime is cooperating with a branch of the al Qaeda organization that is trying to acquire chemical weapons and stage attacks in Europe. Mr. Powell's evidence, including satellite photographs, audio recordings and reports from detainees and other informants, was overwhelming. Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr., the senior Democrat on the Foreign Relations Committee, called it "powerful and irrefutable."

Amnesia?

Obama Administration's new definition of a "court"

2010-12-23T02:20:00.009+07:00

The lede to "Detainee Review Proposal Is Prepared for President," a New York Times article:

President Obama’s advisers have been drafting an executive order that would set up a system for periodically reviewing the cases of Guantánamo prisoners whom courts have approved for detention without trial, officials said.

Courts. Naturally I assume "courts" means actual courts of law with real judges. But how do courts approve detention without trial? We'll get to that. Another statement from the article:

Currently 174 prisoners remain at the base, 48 of whom the administration has decided to keep holding indefinitely without trial. Several dozen more are Yemenis who have been deemed eligible for eventual repatriation if and when security conditions improve in their country.

Presently, the administration decides which prisoners to detain without trail. But in the future, the courts will decide? The Times describes the Administration plan:

The Obama proposal ... would establish a “periodic review board” drawn from many agencies, not just the military, and modeled on a parole board, one official said. Detainees would be represented by lawyers and would have greater access to some of the evidence against them....

The Obama administration’s proposal ... would supplement such habeas corpushearings in court. While judges would determine whether it was lawful to hold someone as a wartime detainee — because he is part of Al Qaeda or the Taliban — the review boards would determine whether it was necessary to do so, one official explained.

It looks to me as if the Obama Administration is pretending that if real judges and "review boards" meet together in the same room (i.e. "in court") then they can claim that a "court" has approved detention without trial. Yet if you were a prisoner caught in this system, your future would ultimately depend not on court judges and their assessment of "lawful," but some review board's definition of "necessary."

Some court.

Apple removes WikiLeaks from App Store

2010-12-21T15:28:00.031+07:00

Apple has removed the WikiLeaks App for the iphone from its App Store. According to The New York Times Trudy Muller, an Apple spokeswoman, said the company had removed the app "because it violated our developer guidelines. Muller added, "Apps must comply with all local laws and may not put an individual or group in harm’s way."   Plain and simple, removing WikiLeaks from a store is an act of political censorship. On one hand, the move appears to put Apple in a similar category as PayPal, Amazon, MasterCard, Amex, and Visa -- corporate saboteurs of WikiLeaks doing the US government's bidding.    On the other hand, Apple's move would not appear likely to cause comparable damage to WikiLeaks.

Actually, there's no comparison. Apple's move, though largely symbolic, is utterly soul-wrenching. Partly that's on account of the nature of Apple's decision: overt political censorship. Yet the stench is worse because it evokes deep hypocrisy. I dare say spiritual corruption. Such a deed as this, at such a time as this, from this company!

The global dominance of the Apple brand today rests upon a wildly successful marketing campaign launched by a legendary 1984 Super Bowl television commercial. The sixty-second spot is to be counted among the most famous advertisements of all time. In the ad, Apple promised that "1984 won't be like 1984." The commercial alluded to 1984, George Orwell's classic 1949 novel about daily life in an authoritarian global society set in the future. On a practical level, Apple was declaring to the world that it's vision of personal computing (the Macintosh) represented a liberating alternative to the soul-destroying hyper-conformist business mentality embodied by then-dominant IBM.   Ever since, Apple Computer's ad campaigns have remained true to this brand image, continually reminding the public that Apple is forever on the side of society's non-conformists, humanistic creative pioneers like Gandhi or Einstein, individuals who "Think Different."   Jullian Assange would not have looked out of place on one of those Apple posters.

Arguably, in the late fall of 2010, not only the United States, but also the UK, Sweden, and the entire global community, appeared to have arrived at a particularly dangerous juncture in its history. As I tweeted Monday, "The real threat isn't WikiLeaks, it's governments using the leaks as an excuse to take away freedom of speech/press."   This threat, according to the expert witnesses I heard speak at a Justice Committee hearing of the US Congress last week, seems all too real. There is a growing sense that the success of the government-sponsored attacks on WikiLeaks could be a precursor to a global civilization characterized by more censorship and less free speech.

At a time when the WikiLeaks affair has alerted a number of people to the risks, it would be shocking to think that Apple has already chosen sides. It would be just like 1984.

Essential WikiLeaks reading

2010-12-20T13:31:00.018+07:00

At the House Judiciary Committee meeting on WikiLeaks and the First Amendment, consumer advocate Ralph Nader asked that four statements by distinguished persons be placed on the official record.

Actually, I would recommend these brief statements to anyone concerned with understanding the potential ramifications of the attacks against WikiLeaks. These items, authored by persons from different ends of the political spectrum, show us what's at stake. Their message is that whatever concerns you or I may have about persons associated with WikiLeaks, treating them as potential criminals poses dangers of an altogether greater magnitude than the leaks themselves.

A statement by Jack Goldsmith, a conservative Republican who served in the Department of Justice during the Bush Administration.
Forbes interview with Julian Assange. Assange announces a forthcoming release by WikiLeaks that will show a corporate cover-up by the banking industry.
A 'Letter to the America' signed by 93,000 Australians published as a full-page ad in Thursday's New York Times. The ad was sponsored by GetUp.org.au." See above, PdF here.
Ron Paul statement on the House floor on "lying us into war." The statement includes 10 questions to consider. I've posted the video below.

Other statements
To Ralph Nader's list, I would add

5. "Getting to Assange through Manning," by constitutional lawyer Glenn Greenwald. It's a response to the specific legal arguments that the US government is said to be planning to use against WikiLeaks as first reported in the New York Times on the day of the hearing.

Thai media coverage of WikiLeaks revelations

2010-12-19T02:59:00.004+07:00

Video hat-tip New Mandala. In case you haven't been following the WikiLeaks revelations concerning Thailand, the website is a good place to start.

On a related note, on Thursday I heard Thomas Blanton, director of the National Security Archive at GWU, tell the House Judiciary Committee, “In the long run it is in the interest of US national security to have foreign governments more accountable.” Ralph Nader elaborated further on this much-overlooked but crucial point.

The Economist betrays its core principles

2010-12-19T00:28:00.007+07:00

Not long ago, The Economist was an interesting magazine. These days, its opinions are indistinguishable from Wall Street Journal op-eds, it's capacity for reasoned argument similarly stunted. It's as if the Economist is lost. As a reader today, I get the uneasy feeling the journal is pandering to the perceived prejudices of its growing American subscription base. I think they're making a mistake, because if I wanted to read an issue of Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post, or Commentary, I'd have bought one.

WikiLeaks, a fellow publisher, is under attack from big government. What is the response of The Economist?

BIG crimes deserve tough responses. In any country the theft and publication of 250,000 secret government documents would deserve punishment. If the leak costs lives, let alone the careers and trust that have already perished amid the WikiLeaks disclosures, the case for action is even stronger.

At this point, under 2,000 cables have been published. And every single cable WikiLeaks has published to date has been published in conjunction with a widely respected newspaper. Furthermore, only a small fraction of the cables WikiLeaks claims to possess are classified as "secret" (hundreds of thousands of Americans have access to secret-level classification). Punishment? It's not even clear that laws were broken. If the publication of the diplomatic cables warrants punishment, writers and editors at the New York Times and other many other newspapers face prison sentences. What will this mean for freedom of the press? The Economist claims to want a "tough response" but is conspicuously silent on all the "tough" questions.

"If the leaks cost lives... the case for action is even stronger." One thing that distinguishes Anglo-American law from say, a state of lawlessness, is that law considers "intent." Did WikiLeaks and its newspaper co-publishers intend to cause harm?

... Removing illicit material from the internet is hard. But governments spend a lot of money, rightly, on chasing child pornography, bomb-making techniques and copyright breaches to the internet’s margins....

It looks to me as if the Economist is in a race to the bottom with CNN regarding its choice of metaphors. Recall that CNN compared WikiLeaks to cop killers, a serial bank-robber, and a fugitive "Pot King."

Does the Economist have the courage to defend economic liberalism, the free market?

Businesses will go their own way. Some, such as PayPal, Visa and MasterCard, which handled donations to WikiLeaks, and Amazon, which provided web-hosting services, have dumped it as a customer in response to American outrage. More may follow. They risk attacks from its fans, just as those that refuse face hostility from their customers in America. Too bad: business is full of hard choices.

Except that's not how it happened. The fact of the matter is that government officials pressured private companies not to do business with WikiLeaks, obstructing commerce. For example, see "Amazon drops WikiLeaks under political pressure" (AFP) or "Cables visualization pulled after pressure from Joe Lieberman" (Guardian). The government conspired to interfere with the marketplace in a way that ought to be abhorrent to any publication that sees itself as an advocate for economic liberalism. There was a time when The Economist had strong convictions. The Economist once maintained that consumers, not government officials, should decide what private organizations or publishers they wished to support. Sadly, the magazine has become just another mouthpiece for big government.

For the American government, prosecution, not persecution, offers the best chance of limiting the damage... The blustering calls for the assassination of Julian Assange .... look both weak and repellent. If Assange has broken American law, it is there that he should stand trial....

First of all, it's not clear that Julian Assange has broken any American law that has been held constitutional. Secondly, a foreigner is not subject to another country's laws unless a foreigner commits a crime on another country's territory. It's difficult to imagine the circumstances under which a foreigner who has been residing in foreign countries should be subject to American law. Would China ever presume to put Americans on trial for breaking Chinese laws while they are living in the United States? Is the Economist prepared to say that China should have that right? Should the editors of the Economist, a London-based publisher, face prosecution if its editors have broken the laws, say, of Thailand?

If America sticks to those standards now it will display a strength and sanity that contrasts with the shrill absolutism and cyber-vandalism of the WikiLeaks partisans.

Sorry, there's no contest. Calls for assassination are as shrill and absolutist as it gets. At a time when people are calling for the assassination of a publisher, there is nothing "absolutist" about steadfastly defending him. Cyber-vandalism? The attacks that have blocked the WikiLeaks website represented the first, most damaging, and most massive act of cyber-vandalism since the first cable was released. Why is the US government not investigating this cyber-vandalism?

WikiLeaks has published the cables in collaboration with the Guardian, New York Times, and other respected newspapers. Unlike those publishers and many others organizations around the world from Reporters Without Borders to Human Rights Watch, the Economist lacks the strength, moral clarity, and sanity to defend freedom of the speech and a free press.

Cowards.

Early WikiLeaks censors had ties to CitiGroup

2010-12-18T06:30:00.039+07:00

I began looking into the attacks on WikiLeaks back in April. Since then I have found it interesting to examine the situation not only by focusing on particularly hostile institutions (CNN, the Pentagon, Amazon, etc.), but also with reference to influential individuals. Today I want to focus on the decision makers at two organizations which led initial attacks on WikiLeaks after the first cables were made available.

Arguably the two most powerful initiatives aimed against WikiLeaks were 1) the decision by MasterCard to block payments to WikiLeaks that was soon followed by Visa and Amex, depriving the organization of funding; and 2) the decision by the White House Office of Management and the Budget (OMB) to censor viewing of WikiLeaks documents by employees of the federal government. This fear campaign targets three million Americans and extends as far as Antarctica.

I. MasterCard
MasterCard was the first major credit card to block WikiLeaks. At the time I blogged:

In April 2010, Ajay Banga became MasterCard's new CEO. The previous year, when Americans were losing jobs in vast numbers and houses were being shuttered, Banga had brought home $13.5 million working for CitiGroup. This payment included "a large sign-on bonus" and a stock award to make up for compensation he was "giving up" by leaving Citigroup.

As I discussed in a previous post, MasterCard's pioneering decision was justified on the basis of a totally unsubstantiated assertion (that WikiLeaks had done something illegal).

II. Office of Management and the Budget (OMB)
In the United States the most overt act of censorship against WikiLeaks was a threat issued by the Office of Management and the Budget (OMB) against federal civil servants. The threat letter, signed by the OMB director, warned federal employees not to access WikiLeaks cables (despite these being available to the public). It was one of the first executive decisions by director Jacob Lew, who had only been confirmed to head the OMB on Nov. 18. According to the Washignton Times:

President Obama's choice to be the government's chief budget officer received a bonus of more than $900,000 from Citigroup Inc. last year -- after the Wall Street firm for which he worked received a massive taxpayer bailout.

When asked at yesterday's House Judiciary Committee meeting about the wisdom of censoring federal employee access to the already-public leaks, Ralph Nader called OMB's actions "chilling." He pointed out that treating federal empoyees this way is not the way to "induce a conscientious kind of employee."

Speaking of conscientious behavior, as the new CitiGroup-enriched director of the OMB was telling federal employees what they couldn't read, the previous director of the OMB, Peter Orszag announced that he would be moving to CitiGroup. James Fallows believes the move is inappropriate:

Over the past two-plus years, Obama (and GW Bush) policies played a crucial role in saving Citi -- and in not holding its executives (or other senior financial-world figures) accountable for polices that brought on the world financial crisis or reining in top-end pay as profitability has returned. Now a senior member of the Obama team -- Orszag was budget director -- was going straight to one of those top-end jobs, even as his former colleagues in the administration have their hands full fighting the social, economic, and political effects of the crisis on "ordinary" Americans who can't find jobs or are losing their homes.

If not from the Washington press corps (ABC News, etc), Fallows has certainly garnered strong support for his critique of Peter Orszag's behavior from the country's military veterans.

So what?
I think it's interesting that two people at the receiving end of the largest federal bank bailout in history stand at the leading edge of coordinated efforts to silence WikiLeaks. My examples illustrate how difficult it is to determine where corporate America ends and the federal government begins. They prove nothing beyond that. Still...

During an interview with Forbes Magazine, Julian Assange announced that early in 2011 WikiLeaks will release a damaging leak concerning a large US bank. Conventional wisdom says it's Bank of America. But if we have learned anything these past few years, it's that conventional wisdom is often wrong. I'm with Mahi Joe on this one.

Leaks open up world’s corrupt governments

2010-12-17T16:29:00.019+07:00

Ralph Nader confronts neocon Gabriel Schoenfeld. Thomas Blanton faces the camera. Photo by Jotman.

Lately, the American air waves have been filled with speculation about how the release of the WikiLeaks cables will damage vital American interests. At the recent House Judiciary Committee hearing on WikiLeaks, Geoffrey Stone, a University of Chicago law professor, urged American lawmakers “not to get fixated on whether WikiLeaks causes harm.” He said, “All speech causes harm.” As an example of this principle, Stone noted that the publication of the Pentagon Papers had meant that some government systems had to be changed.

This obsession with harm is made worse when American leaders decry the impact of the release of the cables on various American institutions, rather than ask how the release will effect the ends towards which these institutions were established. This myopic perspective is magnified exponentially by the stenographic propensity of the mainstream American media. A Pew public opinion poll revealed that 60% of Americans believe that the WikiLeaks cables will likely “harm the public interest.” Back in August, in the wake of the Afghan war documents dump, only 47% thought WikiLeaks harmful. (Interestingly, the two panelists at the hearing who pressed for legal action against WikiLeaks claimed that the Afghan war documents had been the more harmful.)

It's abundantly clear that the “impact” of the release of cables on American foreign policy cannot be measured on the basis of the efficiency of sixty thousand State Department employees over the next eighteen months. The cables are already having a political impact on the national politics of various countries around the world -- Turkey, South Korea, France, Brazil, the list goes on.

“In the long run,” Thomas Blanton, director of the National Security Archive, told the House Judiciary Committee, “it is in the interest of US national security to have foreign governments more accountable.”

Ralph Nader elaborated on this point. “I think we also have to consider the positive effects the leaks have had internationally. People in places like Kenya, Iceland, and Saudi Arabia -- among other countries -- have benefited from discovery of rampant corruption.” Ralph Nader said that by way of WikiLeaks, people in Saudi Arabia are for the first time coming to know their king’s position on various issues. Elsewhere, other secretive ruling elites have been exposed.

Given that openness and transparency have been shown to produce better governance, future historians are likely to view the leaks quite favorably.

Panel says problem isn't WikiLeaks, but over-classification

2010-12-17T04:12:00.015+07:00


Testifying on WikiLeaks: Abbe Lowell (left), Ralph Nader (center), and Thomas Blanton (right).

Today, on a snowy Capitol Hill in Washington D.C., Jotman observed the House Judiciary Committee hearing on “the Espionage Act and the Legal and Constitutional Issues Raised by WikiLeaks.” A common thread ran through the discussion. Seven panelists and several Congressmen spoke at length about an urgent problem confronting the United States, one that must be addressed.   And it wasn’t WikiLeaks.

Massachusetts Congressman Bill Delahunt set the tone: “I view this hearing in a larger context.   This is a moment in history when there is too much classification. We have to examine our classification procedures. There is far too much classification within the executive branch and that puts democracy at risk. Throughout history we can see that secrecy is a trademark of totalitarianism; openness the hallmark of democracy.”

Gabriel Schoenfeld of the Hudson Institute, a neoconservative think tank, stated outright, “There is too much over-classification.”

“The real problem is not too little secrecy, but too much,” said House Justice Committee Chairman John Conyers Jr..   “Over-classification” he continued, “means many foreign service officers need access to classified material, so it’s hard to protect any of it. Instead of low fences around vast fields we need to build high fences around graveyards.”

Thomas Blanton, the director of the National Security Archive at George Washington University, said “I would estimate that between 50% and 90% of government documents are over-classified.”   Blanton added, “Tom Cain, chair of the 9/11 Commission said that 75% of classified material they had seen should not have been classified. The 9/11 Commission found that more openness would have made us more secure.”   Blanton concluded that “the government has a responsibility to share information with the American people.”

Ralph Nader said over-classification impeded the operation of government -- Congress in particular. Nader said, “Daniel Patrick Moynihan wrote a book in which he explained that Congress has been repeatedly prevented from getting the information it needs to do its job. Deprivation of information weakens the most powerful branch of government.”   Nader said “the benefits of disclosure vastly outweigh the disadvantages.” Nader cited examples where more disclosure of information could have prevented wars. His list included the Spanish American War, World War II, the Gulf of Tonkin incident (Vietnam War), and the Iraq War.   Nader said, “The suppression of information has led to more loss of life than WikiLeaks. One million Iraqi lives, five thousand US servicemen, hundreds of thousands of injured Americans.”

Prior to the hearing, Jotman had not realized that a US Congressman typically has no more access to classified information than an ordinary American citizen.    Thomas Blanton explained that “Only the chairs of committees have the right to see confidential documents. Other committee members are treated like the general public.”

Texas Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee said, “I’m concerned that if we freeze down on WikiLeaks, we are freezing down on information that could help us win the War on Terror.”    Responding to a question from Congresswoman Lee, Ralph Nader affirmed that it's important to acknowledge "how disclosures can help national security.”

Geoffrey Stone, a University of Chicago Law School professor, put it bluntly. “The starting point should be reforming the process and standards of classifications. We’ve run amok with secrecy.”
__
Members of the hearing raised several other interesting points, which I'll describe shortly in another post. For some background and an introduction to today's hearing of the House Judiciary Committee, see this post.

House Judiciary Committee hearing on WikiLeaks, Espionage Act, and First Amendment

2010-12-16T14:43:00.009+07:00

SEE UPDATE

"(The Justice) department appeared to be attracted to the possibility of prosecuting Mr. Assange as a co-conspirator to the leaking because it is under intense pressure to make an example of him...." (NY Times) Map of Press Freedom (Reporters Without Borders 2007)

A committee of the US House of Representatives will hold a hearing on WikiLeaks on Thurday. The first Congressional hearing on Wikileaks could be the last of its kind. In January the Republicans take control of House committees. With the US government itching to prosecute WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, mainstream media outlets doing their best to smear WikiLeaks (here, here, here), and -- not surprisingly given the media coverage -- US public opinion turning against the online publisher (chart) the stakes are high.

As of December 16, here is a list of recent legislative and judicial threats to the First Amendment (freedom of speech, a free press) originating from United States lawmakers:

Last week, Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. said he had just authorized investigators to take 'significant' steps against WikiLeaks and Julian Assange, declining to specify them. (NY Times)
"Julian Assange's British attorney, Mark Stephens, said Monday a secret US grand jury had been set up in Virginia, just outside Washington, to work on charges that could be filed against the WikiLeaks founder. (AFP)
Thursday the NY Times reported that "Federal prosecutors... are looking for evidence of any collusion in his early contacts with an Army intelligence analyst suspected of leaking the information. Justice Department officials are trying to find out whether Mr. Assange encouraged or even helped the analyst, Pfc. Bradley Manning, to extract classified military and State Department files from a government computer system. If he did so, they believe they could charge him as a conspirator in the leak, not just as a passive recipient of the documents who then published them." The advantage of this approach, explains the Times, is that that the government could prosecute WikiLeaks for a crime that would not also implicate the newspapers. (NY Times)
"Lieberman ... joined his colleagues in introducing a bill dubbed the SHIELD Act in both chambers." (Hill) Specifically, the SHIELD Act, S.4004, is a "A bill to amend section 798 of title 18, United States Code, to provide penalties for disclosure of classified information related to certain intelligence activities and for other purposes."

In addition to strictly legislative or judicial action, lawmakers have exerted pressure on companies and media organizations. This brings us to Thurday's hearings. The Hill reports:

The House Judiciary Committee has released the witness list for Thursday's hearing on "the Espionage Act and the Legal and Constitutional Issues Raised by WikiLeaks," which features former Green Party presidential candidate and consumer advocate Ralph Nader.

Looking at the House Judiciary Committee website, it's clear that this committee, under the leadership of Congressman John Conyers Jr. (D) has probably done at least as much as any organ of the federal government to advance civil liberties (that's not saying much, of course). Not only has the committee held hearings on torture and the establishment of "black sites" under President Bush, Chairman Conyers has voiced strong criticism of the Obama Administration's record on civil rights, noting "progress has been not nearly enough, and ... positives steps are in many ways undermined by other disappointments."

One question on the minds of civil libertarians is whether any US Congressmen will stand up for the First Amendment at Thusday's hearing by denouncing calls to prosecute Assange and WikiLeaks. So far on Capitol Hill, only Congressman Ron Paul, the libertarian Republican, has been outspoken in defense of WikiLeaks. Many others have threatened it:

The same day of Assange's arrest Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) penned an op-ed arguing WikiLeaks had violated the Espionage Act by possessing or transmitting information that could endanger national security. The Act also makes it a felony not to return such information to the federal government. Feinstein's stance was echoed by Sens. Kit Bond (R-Mo.) and Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.)

I've heard that the hearing will mark the first time in years that Ralph Nader -- once a force on Capital Hill -- has been invited to give testimony. The original Hill article continues:

The panel is composed mainly of legal scholars and attorneys who may be able to discuss the implications of prosecuting WikiLeaks and founder Julian Assange for publishing classified diplomatic cables and other materials leaked to the organization.

Free-speech advocates fear the same legal arguments could be used to prosecute news organizations that publish information in defiance of the government.

The Obama administration has responded by arguing WikiLeaks is not a journalistic organization and doesn't merit the same protections as traditional media organizations. The government has also reportedly pressured companies to cut off their business relationships with WikiLeaks.

Here's a list of speakers invited to the committee hearing (with comments):

Abbe Lowell, partner at McDermott, Will and Emery.
Geoffrey Stone, professor of law and former dean, University of Chicago Law School.
Thomas Blanton, director, National Security Archive, George Washington University.
Kenneth Wainstein, partner at O’Melveny and Myers (Wainstein was appointed Homeland Security Advisor by President George W. Bush on March 30, 2008).
Gabriel Schoenfeld, Hudson Institute (From 1994 to 2008 served as senior editor of the neoconservative magazine Commentary).
Steve Vladeck, professor of law, American University (was interviewed about WikiLeaks here, Vladeck spoke at a previous hearing on the Espionage Act, presenting this paper).
Ralph Nader, legal advocate and author (An Unreasonable Man).

UPDATE: Jotman's first report on Thurs. the House Judiciary Committee Hearing.

Evidence the incarceration of Bradley Manning is torture

2010-12-16T04:55:00.004+07:00

Is 23 year-old Bradley Manning, not convicted of any crime, being tortured by the US government?

Glenn Greenwald describes the incarceration of Bradley Manning, a dual citizen of the US and UK who is a whistle-blower and the presumed leaker of most of the material that WikiLeaks released in 2010:

From the beginning of his detention, Manning has been held in intensive solitary confinement. For 23 out of 24 hours every day -- for seven straight months and counting -- he sits completely alone in his cell. Even inside his cell, his activities are heavily restricted; he's barred even from exercising and is under constant surveillance to enforce those restrictions. For reasons that appear completely punitive, he's being denied many of the most basic attributes of civilized imprisonment, including even a pillow or sheets for his bed (he is not and never has been on suicide watch)...

In sum, Manning has been subjected for many months without pause to inhumane, personality-erasing, soul-destroying, insanity-inducing conditions of isolation similar to those perfected at America's Supermax prison in Florence, Colorado: all without so much as having been convicted of anything. And as is true of many prisoners subjected to warped treatment of this sort, the brig's medical personnel now administer regular doses of anti-depressants to Manning to prevent his brain from snapping from the effects of this isolation.

Is Bradley Manning being tortured? This is how I see it: if the administration of drugs would routinely be considered necessary under the circumstances of Manning's confinement, then the prisoner is quite clearly being tortured.

Administering drugs in attempt to shift the threshold of human endurance is not legal in sports. Likewise, it should not be legal when it comes to incarceration. I think any medical personnel associated with drugging prisoners in order that they may withstand higher thresholds of physical or mental deprivation than would otherwise tend to be endurable are engaged in something unethical that must surely be illegal. I believe that such medical professionals are accomplices to torture.

Otherwise, the Western legal system crumbles. States could justify various torture techniques on the basis that a drugged and abused prisoner did not experience much pain. Or the government might administer an otherwise "cruel and unusual punishment," justified on the basis that a convicted man "didn't feel anything" (so the punishment wasn't cruel). To conserve prison space, the state might decide that it's convenient to administer drugs that render inmates comatose (easier to store them that way). Look at what appears to have already happened to Bradley Manning -- who hasn't even been convicted of anything --and none of these scenarios is particularly far-fetched.

In addition to the Obama administration, medical personnel at the U.S. Marine brig in Quantico, Virginia must be held to account for the conditions of Bradley Manning's incarceration.
To donate to Manning's legal defense fund, visit the Bradley Manning Support Network.

Jotman's Fox News Award goes to CNN for its coverage of WikiLeaks

2010-12-13T12:10:00.034+07:00

CNN says Bonnie and Clyde once inspired fans for the same reasons Assange motivates supporters today.

This week, Jotman's Fox News Award* goes to CNN for its coverage of Julian Assange and WikiLeaks.

It would appear that CNN had it in for WikiLeaks ever since the organization entered the national spotlight back in April. That's when I posted my first blog reports (here and here) on CNN's atrocious coverage of WikiLeaks. Well, CNN is still at it.

A CNN story about WikiLeaks shown Sunday was interesting on two counts. First, the broadcast was not only a brazen hit-job on WikiLeaks founder Julian Asasnge, it also attempted to portray his supporters as naive nitwits. For the purpose of reviewing it here, I transcribed a portion of the segment. Susan Candiotti, CNN's national political correspondent, began:

For fans of WikiLeak's Julian Assange, his arrest has made him even more of a cult hero.... A pro-Assange rally in NY is one of many being held around the world. Applauding him for leaking classified government documents, some fans are avenging his treatment, attacking the websites of MasterCard and Visa who they blame for cutting off his financing....

It's a fact that Visa, MasterCard and PayPal decided to cut funding for WikiLeaks, depriving the organization of of financing while WikiLeaks was trying to raise money for its legal defense. The banks' withdrawal of essential financial services coincided with a massive and illegal DoS attack against WikiLeaks. Susan Candiotti continued:

A former FBI profiler says that for some Assange is a modern day hero... Routing for the notorious is nothing new. At first real life bank-robbers Bonnie and Clyde captivated the public and Hollywood glamarized the crime spree... But the fan based dried-up when robbery victims started dying. The so-called Barefoot Bandit created a fan base without killing anybody... Fugitive John Robert Boon could pass for Santa Clause is a legendary Kentucky pot farmer. Authorities say supporters won't give him up and have sold "run Johnny run" T-shirts.

Assange's peer group is a pair of bank-robbers who killed nine police officers, a kid who burglarized 100 homes, and a fugitive pot farmer. Clearly Assange is guilty by association. Susan Candiotti's message couldn't be more clear: Jullian Assange, who has been charged with no crime, and according to most legal experts has broken no US law, is to be counted among history's most notorious criminals. (Fed this kind of nonsense by the mainstream news media, is it any wonder that Americans have begun to fear WikiLeaks?) Candiotti concludes her segment by denigrating supporters of WikiLeaks, going so far as to imply that they are obstructing justice:

"This is just a variation on rooting for the underdog, this is just a twist on that." (expert) A fan base can boost an ego or provide encouragement, but it can also get in the way of trying to stop someone accused of breaking the law." Susan Candiotti, CNN, New York.

In Susan Candiotti's CNN report, supporters of WikiLeaks are Assange "fans." There's no suggestion by CNN's Candiotti that WikiLeaks supporters are motivated by anything more than a desire to "root for the underdog." Candiotti did not bother to inform CNN viewers that many WikiLeaks supporters are motivated by the very principles on which the United States was founded; that among the values that have led people from all over the world to support Assange and WikiLeaks are free speech, belief in the Constitution, net neutrality, human rights, openness and transparency in governance, press freedom, protection of whistle-blowers, and journalistic ethics.

In case any doubts remained in the minds of viewers, in the tradition of Pravda and the People's Daily, CNN anchor Don Lemon then announced the government's position:

In spite of public protest it is clear many leaders in American government think the founders of WikiLeaks is a criminal. "I hope the justice department will soon indite him and that we will be able to extradite him from the United Kindom and bring him to stand trial in the United States." (Joseph Lieberman) "I think that the release of this information has put at risk American national security." (Attorney General Eric Holder)

Not quoted by CNN was Secretary of Defense Robert Gates who told reporters, "Is this embarrassing? Yes. Is it awkward? Yes. Consequences for U.S. foreign policy? I think fairly modest."

I said the report was interesting for two reasons. The second reason? The interview exchange that followed between Don Lemon and former CIA operative Ray McGovern. That's when viewers were witness to the bizarre spectacle of a former intelligence agency man lecturing a CNN journalist about journalistic ethics. This part of the broadcast (from the 3 minute mark) has to be seen to be believed:

____
*The Fox News Award is a feature at Jotman.com that began early 2008. It goes to a media organization that has gone the extra mile during the course of the week to make the public more stupid. (Otherwise corrupting the ethic of creativity and global citizenship.) Some past winners.

Soccer riots in Moscow? Blogger reports call media into question

2010-12-13T01:48:00.004+07:00

Surveying Western media reports of the deadly riots in downtown Moscow Saturday, I'm struck by the fact that 1) you could count on one hand the number of Western media outlets that covered the events; 2) the few Western news organizations that bothered to report the story emphasized "football."

All these headlines are misleading at best:

BBC: Spartak Moscow fans clash with police
CNN: Soccer fans clash with police in Moscow
Al Jazeera: Soccer riots cloud Russia as host.
Bloomberg: Russian President Medvedev Backs Police Action to Quell Football Fan Riots

Russian bloggers who were there live, shooting video, tweeting, and blogging, described a terrible series of events that had almost nothing to do with the sport of football.

Ilya Varlamov's account of a race riot in Moscow

2010-12-12T16:25:00.011+07:00

Photo by Ilya Varlamov shows "Muscovite preparing for the Olympics in Sochi."

Race riots shook Moscow Saturday, leaving 1 or 2 dead and many more injured. We have just posted a translation of blogger Ilya Varlamov's account of the riots, along with several disturbing videos. Ilya's day at the demonstration began quietly enough:

This morning Kronstadt Blvd. in Moscow was closed. Thousands of people in a procession came to a halt near the spot where their comrade Yegor Sviridov had died. Sviridov had been killed in a brawl that took place here on the night of December 6th. Groups of fans continuously replaced each other. All was quiet. There were no slogans, no flags, no disputes with the police.

But within a few hours, all hell had broken loose. Here's but one passage from Yarlamov's shocking account:

"I can not forget old Uzbek man in the subway. He was not beaten, he just sat in a corner shaking and crying, but looked as beat up as the others. "

A picture of a rioter holding a metal pole is captioned:

"Muscovite preparing for the Olympics in Sochi."

The riots come as Russia prepares to host the 2014 Winter Olympic Games in Sochi, a city located on the shore of the Black Sea beneath the snow-capped peaks of the Caucasus Mountains. In Moscow today demonstrators denounced the Caucasians (the Russian term for people from the Caucasus region) before beating them up. It is a tragic commentary on the state of Russia that the people of Sochi -- and various minority regions -- feel completely unwelcome in the capital city of their own country. How long can such a civilization endure?

Complete coverage of the race riots in Moscow at THERE LIVE.

Taiwan news report on WikiLeaks

2010-12-10T04:03:00.012+07:00

I enjoyed watching this news report from Taiwan. Unfortunately it reinforces the notion that WikiLeaks simply dumped thousands of state department cables onto the Internet -- a demonstratively false assertion, yet one which has been repeated in various US news media reports.

But at least in this instance, the distortion has serious entertainment value:

Daniel Ellsberg on WikiLeaks, the Pentagon Papers, and the corruption of the press

2010-12-09T02:21:00.004+07:00

The excerpt below is taken from a news release put out by the Institute for Public Accuracy, co-signed by Daniel Ellsberg, the former United States military analyst who famously leaked the Pentagon Papers:

...Ellsberg strongly rejects the mantra “Pentagon Papers good; WikiLeaks material bad.” He continues: “That’s just a cover for people who don’t want to admit that they oppose any and all exposure of even the most misguided, secretive foreign policy. The truth is that EVERY attack now made on WikiLeaks and Julian Assange was made against me and the release of the Pentagon Papers at the time.”

... with the Pentagon PR man Geoff Morrell and even Attorney General Eric Holder making thinly disguised threats of extrajudicial steps, Assange may be in personal danger.

The media: again, the media is key. No one has said it better than Monseñor Romero of El Salvador, who just before he was assassinated 25 years ago warned, “The corruption of the press is part of our sad reality, and it reveals the complicity of the oligarchy.” Sadly, that is also true of the media situation in America today.

The big question is not whether Americans can “handle the truth.” We believe they can. The challenge is to make the truth available to them in a straightforward way so they can draw their own conclusions — an uphill battle given the dominance of the mainstream media, most of which have mounted a hateful campaign to discredit Assange and WikiLeaks.

So far, the question of whether Americans can “handle the truth” has been an academic rather than an experience-based one, because Americans have had very little access to the truth. Now, however, with the WikiLeaks disclosures, they do. Indeed, the classified messages from the Army and the State Department released by WikiLeaks are, quite literally, “ground truth.”

MasterCard blocks WikiLeaks donations - Part II

2010-12-07T15:15:00.031+07:00

MasterCard defends the political establishment by blocking WikiLeaks.

Monday, MasterCard let it be known that it wants to tell us where our money can go. The world's number two credit card company has decided to prevent anyone from using MasterCard to donate to WikiLeaks. As I discussed in the previous post, this decision was justified by a totally unsubstantiated assertion (that WikiLeaks had done something illegal). I explained that such moves could seriously impede WikiLeaks' ability to defend itself, should governments take WikiLeaks to court. But MasterCard's action Monday was also an attack on you and me; it was a cynical assault on our free speech rights.

The level of hypocrisy here is breathtaking. I did some digging around and discovered that MasterCard has pet causes of its own, highly political "projects" that are no less controversial than WikiLeaks.

For favorable legislation, there's MasterCard.

According to Open Secrets, between 1998 and 2009 MasterCard spent about $20 million dollars exercising free speech, funding a small army of lobbyists. This spending came at a cost to society. By 2009, largely as a result of lobbying by MasterCard and the banks, Americans had very few rights as credit card holders, as financial consumers. The financial crisis that had broken out the previous year could largely be attributed to lobbying by financial institutions such as MasterCard. A milestone along the path to financial catastrophe had been the repeal in 1999 of the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933 (which had been enacted to prevent another depression). The passage of the repeal bill had been anticipated by a record year of lobbying by MasterCard.

This year in a landmark ruling, the US Supreme Court affirmed that all Americans -- people and so-called corporate persons -- have the right to free speech. The court ruled that the act of donating money to a political cause qualifies as protected free speech under the First Amendment. In 2010 MasterCard, already one of the top spenders on lobbyists, increased its donations to lobbyists by 25%. So far this year, MasterCard has spent almost $4 million ($3,990,000.00 to be exact) lobbying Congress. Moreover, this year banking lobbyists filed more reports of lobbying activity for MasterCard than for any other financial institution.

Robert W. Selander, MasterCard's former CEO, retired in April 2010. The NY Times reported on his pay over the course of nine years of intensive federal government lobbying by MasterCard, lobbying which culminating in the financial crisis of 2008:

Mr. Selander, 59, is retiring from MasterCard with a pile of cash. He took home more than $149 million over the last nine years in salary, bonuses and stock he cashed out, according to an analysis of corporate filings conducted by Equilar, a compensation research business. He also has a pension worth $3.7 million and an additional $33.3 million in stock and options.

Selander still sits on the board. In April 2010, Ajay Banga became MasterCard's new CEO. The previous year, when Americans were losing jobs in vast numbers and houses were being shuttered, Banga had brought home $13.5 million working for Citygroup. This payment included "a large sign-on bonus" and a stock award to make up for compensation he was "giving up" by leaving Citigroup. As you may know, over the course of the financial crisis, Citygroup, Banga's former employer, received $45 billion in TARP bail-out funds (a gift from America's political establishment to the banks, paid for by taxpayers).

So far during Banga's short tenure as CEO of MasterCard, the company has jacked-up MaserCard's lobbying efforts by at least 25%, whilst banning cardholders from donating to WikiLeaks. This much is certain: Banga heads a corporation that sees fit to spend freely on the political causes it favors, whilst restricting the ability of citizens to use their own money to have a voice. First the banks took our money, now they've come for our liberty.

MasterCard declares war on WikiLeaks

2010-12-07T07:29:00.030+07:00

Photo by Squeaky Marmot.

CNET

"MasterCard is taking action to ensure that WikiLeaks can no longer accept MasterCard-branded products," a spokesman for MasterCard Worldwide said today.

That further limits the revenue sources for WikiLeaks, which has seen its finances systematically attacked in the last few days, as the Swiss authorities shut down a bank account used by editor Julian Assange, and PayPal permanently restricted the account used by the group. WikiLeaks has responded with an increasing number of fund-raising requests that urge supporters to "KEEP US STRONG."

Assuming that MasterCard blocks payments, the only easy way to donate electronically would be with a Visa credit card through a Web page hosted by Iceland-based DataCell.com [here's a link to donate]. Representatives of Visa did not respond to requests for comment from CNET today. (WikiLeaks also solicits payments sent through the U.S. mail.)

MasterCard said it was cutting off payments because WikiLeaks is engaging in illegal activity. "MasterCard rules prohibit customers from directly or indirectly engaging in or facilitating any action that is illegal," spokesman Chris Monteiro said.

"Illegal activity." Says who? In the countries of Europe and North America, courts of law, not politicians or credit card companies decide if laws have been broken. Neither Julian Assange nor WikiLeaks has been convicted of a crime in any court of law. Legal experts say the legal case against WikiLeaks is weak.

Moreover, this action by MasterCard comes as WikiLeaks is attempting to raise money for the legal defense of Julian Assange. How is Assange supposed to defend himself against the US government -- and sooner or later Wall Street banks -- if he is deprived of the means to raise money for his legal defense?

MasterCard's behavior is not only an assault on justice, but free speech rights. When citizens are not free to support a cause with their credit cards or checkbooks, voices are silenced. Affirming this principle, the Supreme Court of the United States recently ruled that donations are a form of protected free speech.

MasterCard must pay a hefty price for its assault on our liberties.

UPDATE: Part II is now posted.

Why was WikiLeaks not a trending topic on Twitter?

2010-12-07T03:09:00.020+07:00

Trending topics onTwitter, worldwide (Bubbloy)

Twitter has a credibility problem. WikiLeaks has been the top news story in the world, but the organization has only rarely been designated a trending topic on Twitter's "trending topics" panel.

The convenient explanation is that the data -- WikiLeaks-related tweets -- simply don't fit the trending topics algorithm. At least two bloggers have seriously considered this question. Neither can make sense as to why neither WikiLeaks -- nor topics related to WikiLeaks have been designated "trending topics" on Twitter.

Angus Johnston, a historian and advocate of American student organizing, writes at Student Activism blog:

But no. That’s not the weird part. This is the weird part.

This chart tracks Sundays and Wikileaks over the last 180 days, with each term’s volume drawn to scale. The red spires? Wikileaks. The blue dust at the base of those spires? Sundays. The tiny blue uptick in the lower left hand corner of the chart has had Sundays trending for more than twelve hours today, while Wikileaks has been completely dark since August.

What the hell is going on here?

As I said in my last two posts, I don’t care that much about trending topics lists. I’m a big believer in online organizing, but I just don’t think getting your cause to trend is all that important in the grand scheme of things. But this, like I say, is ridiculous.

Update | Twitter staffer Josh Elman responds...

Is Twitter interested in getting to the bottom of the WikiLeaks trending question? Josh Elman, the Twitter staffer, wrote "We are constantly reviewing the trends algorithms but not in particular response to this question...." Elman continued, “There’s no perfect answer here, just that the algorithm is doing what it’s always done, and for whatever reasons wikileaks isn’t rising above to become a top 10 trend.”

It seems that "whatever reasons" isn't a sufficient explanation for many social media watchers. Another blogger, Bubbloy of Safety First, followed up on the investigations of Activist Student, examining more charts. Bubbloy concluded:

The only plausible scenario I can imagine where #Wikileaks does not trend in the top 10 with that sort of behavior is if the other members of the top 10 exhibit even more astounding rises and falls. However, that doesn’t seem to be what’s happened.

Therefore, I am forced to a similar conclusion as Student Activist. It might well be that #Wikileaks is failing to trend simply because of the algorithm failing to pick it up for whatever reason. However, I must say, that would imply that Twitter has written perhaps one of the most abysmal Trend Identification algorithms it could have possibly written. If the goal of the algorithm was to pick up events of importance, popularity or any other meaningful social metric, Twitter would have failed miserably in this aim, and would truly start looking into developing a new one.

What's going on here? I can see two likely explanations for the problem. The one that everyone fears -- outright human manipulation of the trending topics to serve a political agenda -- may well be the less depressing of the two.

The grounds for suspecting Twitter might be suppressing promotion of WikiLeaks is quite strong. During the Iranian election of 2009, Twitter postponed scheduled maintenance of its website at the request of the State Department. Of course, the State Department portrays itself as the major victim of the ongoing WikiLeaks cables leak.

Are we to believe the State Department is willing to pick up the phone to help the Iranians, but not to salvage its own reputation?

What about Twitter? These days, the US government is tight with corporate America -- media companies in particular. Twitter could still be the next Google. For any number of reasons, Twitter might not want to have a messy or complicated relationship with the Obama Administration. Nor does any big technology or media company. We saw that Amazon kicked WikiLeaks off its servers last week, seemingly at the behest of Senator Joseph Lieberman who chairs the Senate Committee on Homeland Security. Also at the behest of the senator, Tableau, another Seattle-based tech company, pulled its WikiLeaks charts.

These days, if senior government officials want a favor from business, it probably only takes a phone call. Perhaps not even that. Even in good times, companies don't want to risk attracting unwanted attention from government regulators or politicians. Particularly when the domestic economy is sluggish, few companies will risk alienating the potential client with the deepest pockets: the federal government of the United States.

Yet, the most likely explanation -- "the algorithms did it!" -- could be even more disturbing in so far as it speaks to the future of social media more generally. Let's put ourselves in the seat of a Twitter executive, looking to take the company through its multi-billion dollar future IPO and beyond: What would make Twitter more attractive commercially: a trending topics algorithm that will A) highlight rising fads related to regional product, service, and entertainment preferences, or B) one designed to reflect important global trends concerning politics, the environment, and the economy?

Social media site executives likely imagine that social media will be profitable to the extent they create communities of consumption. As a consequence, mainstream media values may well be dictating the way Twitter programs its software to behave. In other words, Twitter may already be a slave to a commercial paradigm where human political values are deemed to have little, if any, market value. Other, longstanding ideas about community that don't fit this box are unlikely to be prominently reflected in the architecture of Twitter or any other social media site.

Although television and radio stations are expected to provide public interest programming such as news, social media sites like Twitter have no similar obligations to provide access to public-interest content. This arrangement has to change. Twitter ought to feel obliged to display links to popular topics concerning news and various public interest issues.

If the market has its way, the future of social media will be about reinforcing the habits of global consumers at the expense of issues that really matter to us as global citizens.

Reporters Without Borders statement on WikiLeaks

2010-12-05T02:03:00.004+07:00

Reporters Without Borders (RSF), an international press freedom organization, has issued a statement describing recent attempts by the governments of France and the United States to block WikiLeaks. Their statement includes this observation:

Earlier this week, after the publishing several hundred of the 250.000 cables it says it has in its possession, WikiLeaks had to move its site from its servers in Sweden to servers in the United States controlled by online retailer Amazon. Amazon quickly came under pressure to stop hosting WikiLeaks from the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and its chairman, Sen. Joe Lieberman, in particular.

After being ousted from Amazon, WikiLeaks found a refuge for part of its content with the French Internet company OVH. But French digital economy minister Eric Besson today said the French government was looking at ways to ban hosting of the site. WikiLeaks was also recently dropped by its domain name provider EveryDNS. Meanwhile, several countries well known for for their disregard of freedom of expression and information, including Thailand and China, have blocked access to cablegate.wikileaks.org.

This is the first time we have seen an attempt at the international community level to censor a website dedicated to the principle of transparency. We are shocked to find countries such as France and the United States suddenly bringing their policies on freedom of expression into line with those of China. We point out that in France and the United States, it is up to the courts, not politicians, to decide whether or not a website should be closed.

WikiLeaks' website has gone down from time to time, having been under heavy attack. Fortunately, you can still access everything, all you have to do make your way to a WikiLeaks mirror.

What might Julian Assange, Scott Ritter, and Eliot Spitzer have in common?

2010-12-01T22:36:00.003+07:00

Glenn Greenwald reflects on the timing of the Interpol arrest warrant issued yesterday for Assange's arrest:

I think it's deeply irresponsible either to assume his guilt or to assume his innocence until the case plays out. I genuinely have no opinion of the validity of those allegations, but what I do know -- as John Cole notes-- is this: as soon as Scott Ritter began telling the truth about Iraqi WMDs, he was publicly smeared with allegations of sexual improprieties. As soon as Eliot Spitzer began posing a real threat to Wall Street criminals, a massive and strange federal investigation was launched over nothing more than routine acts of consensual adult prostitution, ending his career (and the threat he posed to oligarchs). And now, the day after Julian Assange is responsible for one of the largest leaks in history, an arrest warrant issues that sharply curtails his movement and makes his detention highly likely. It's unreasonable to view that pattern as evidence that the allegations are part of some conspiracy -- I genuinely do not believe or disbelieve that -- but, particularly in light of that pattern, it's most definitely unreasonable to assume that he's guilty of anything without having those allegations tested and then proven in court.

Back in August, Fabius Maximus did an admirable job of piecing together accounts of the various claims that Swedish women had made against the WikiLeaks founder.

WikiLeaks and the mystery of the Wrangel Island cables

2010-12-01T18:40:00.011+07:00

Wrangel Island - US NOAA photo

Is the United States government preparing to save the inhabitants of Wrangel Island from Russian domination? It looks like we can't rule that out until WikiLeaks releases some more cables.

Wikipedia:

Wrangel Island belongs administratively to the Chukotka Autonomous Okrug of the Russian Federation. This rocky island has a weather station and two permanent Chukchi fishing settlements on the southern side of the island...

According to some US individuals, including the group State Department Watch, eight Arctic islands currently controlled by Russia, including Wrangel Island, are claimed by the United States. However, according to the United States Department of State no such claim exists. The USSR/USA Maritime Boundary Treaty, which has yet to be approved by the Russian Duma, does not address the status of these islands.

However, it was revealed that the island was one of the most frequently-addressed areas in State Department Wikileaks Cablegate leak.

The last line is almost an understatement. Seven thousand US State Department cables obtained by WikiLeaks (6,999 cables, to be precise) are labeled with the topic "Wrangle Island." By contrast, "Afghanistan" was the topic of 7,095 cables. The Wrangle Islands were the topic of as many cables as "Saudi Arabia," "Canada," and "Cuba" put together!

Of course, we contacted Sanjuro, a frequent contributor to JOTMAN.COM who speaks fluent Russian, about Wrangel Island. Sanjuro responded:

That's interesting, to say the least. Control of the Arctic territories is firmly embedded in the national psyche in Russia, and even the slightest mention of US claims would stir even the moderate nationalists like nothing before. Perhaps the Russians feel that losing a significant territory in the Arctic could cause a domino effect - there are many other Arctic territories that Russia claims its own, but currently has little ability to protect. A practical fear that there's something afoot in the Arctic direction is one of the few things that could consolidate (if only for a while) this nation at loss.

Not everybody knows where Wrangel Island is, but surely nearly everyone in Russia has heard of it. The Wrangels were a well-known Russified German aristocratic family, most of all famous for the White Russian general who tried to defend Crimea from the Red Army at the end of the Civil War (1920) - so basically, it's a household name. The Arctic exploration aspect of that famous family was recognized in the Soviet Union - there was a famous children's book "The Adventures of Captain Wrungel" (wrungel being contraption of vrun - liar, someone who makes up things (from v. vrat' to lie, to tell stories) , and the surname Wrangel most likely in reference to the other famous member of that family). Both the book and especially an animated series based on it were wildly popular in the late Soviet Union.

The "Arctic exploration - Civil War" connection is very prominent in the Russian history and in the current discussion. Admiral Alexander Kolchak is the best known figure in that regard, and the theme was revived a couple of years ago when the Russian TV dramatized his life.

If in the US, there was, for instance, an island off Alaska named after a famous American explorer and/or a Civil War hero, and it somehow became a matter of territorial dispute... - well you can imagine it

As it happens, Wrangel Island was recently named a UNESCO World Heritage Site -- a designation that has been known to spark international conflict.

A test of character: Obama's federal pay freeze

2010-11-30T07:28:00.026+07:00

These days it's hard to decide which institution lets down Americans the most, the news media or the White House.

Whether he was back to "negotiating against his own side" or paying homage to the ideology -- if not the courage -- of his hero Ronald Reagan, this afternoon Obama ordered a pay freeze for federal civil servants. Will it help? According to the EPI, "In the context of the deficit, Obama will get chump change from freezing federal pay, and will only enlarge the degree to which federal pay lags that of the private sector." Paul Krugman called it "a transparently cynical policy gesture, trivial in scale but misguided in direction."

How is the US media covering the issue? A NYT journalist turns to the right-wing Cato Institute for the statistics:

Chris Edwards of the Cato Institute referred to federal workers, in a study in June, as “an elite island of secure and high-paid workers, separated from the ocean of average American workers.”

Mr. Edwards found that federal civilian workers had an average annual wage of $81,258 in 2009, compared with $50,464 for the nation’s private-sector workers. Average federal salaries rose 58 percent from 2000 to 2009, compared with 30 percent in the private sector, according to his study.

Union leaders said Mr. Obama was playing politics at workers’ expense. “It’s a panic reaction,” John Gage, president of the American Federation of Government Employees, said in an interview.

More about the NYT coverage in moment.

First, I want to point out that back in August of this year, USA Today turned the Cato institute's misleading statistics into a authoritative looking news story (left). The lede read, "At a time when workers' pay and benefits have stagnated, federal employees' average compensation has grown to more than double what private sector workers earn, a USA TODAY analysis finds."

Halfway through the story, USA Today juxtaposed it's own analysis (actually Cato's analysis?) with an alternative point of view: "Public employee unions say the compensation gap reflects the increasingly high level of skill and education required for most federal jobs and the government contracting out lower-paid jobs to the private sector in recent years."

On one hand there's an authoritative sounding "USA Today analysis," on the other, it's "unions say...." Who is the reader going to believe?

But fundamentally, this is not a "he says, she says" question. One only needs to get a hold of the right statistics -- something neither newspaper bothered to do. Both newspapers seem to believe that following-up misleading figures with a quote from a labor leader (NYT) or a union (USA Today) is the essence of "balanced reporting." The NYT did not even bother to mention -- not even by way of imparting some leftist group's "opinion"-- the fact that differences in education among groups will have a baring on wage levels.

But it's not a matter of opinion. Comparing every American in the "the private sector" to "federal civilian workers" -- a group that includes NASA scientists, NIH researchers, and tens of thousands of attorneys and accountants -- is intuitively disingenuous. But you don't need consult your own common sense intuition or the agenda-driven opinions of union leaders. You just need to look at the data.

The fact is that the average federal civil servant is far more educated than the average private sector employee (sources: US census* and CBO**):

Percent holding a bachelor's degree:

US average = 18% *

Fed. employees = 49% **

Percent holding a graduate degree:

US average= 10% *

Fed. Employees = 17% **

It would be strange if the salaries of federal employees (who are better educated on average) had not risen at a faster rate during the past decade than those of private sector employees overall (who are less educated on average). Data on education and inequality in the US indicate that whereas higher educated workers have benefited from wage increases, the least well-educated Americans have seen their wages decline (chart).

While the trend is disturbing, what's driving it has nothing whatsoever to do with the wages paid to federal civil servants. If it is to function effectively, a government must pay its employees a competitive wage.

North Korea crisis timeline for 2010

2010-11-24T04:14:00.015+07:00

What was the North Korea hoping to gain Tuesday by firing at an inhabited South Korean island? According to the WSJ: "Privately, military officials said they believe the artillery attack on South Korea is likely linked to the North Korean succession and could be another attempt by Kim Jong Il's son, Kim Jong Eun, to shore up support among hardliners in the military." On the other hand, Bloomberg reports: "North Korea’s attack on a South Korean island, along with its disclosure of nuclear advances, is part of a strategy to draw the U.S. back to the negotiating table, analysts in the U.S. and Asia say."

Here's Jotman's timeline of recent events concerning the crisis on the Korean Peninsula.

2008 12 --- - Last Six Party Talks held with North Korea. North Korea pledges to abandon nuclear program.

2009 02 20 - Reports that Kim Jong Un next in line to rule North Korea.
2009 04 --- - North Korea launches rocket, Six Party Talks terminated by US and Japan.

2009 09 11 - South Korea grants wage increase to workers at North Korea's Kaesong Industrial Park

2009 11 10 - North Korean sailor killed in naval skirmish with South (first skirmishes in ten years).

2009 11 18 - Obama, visiting South Korea, will send envoy to North Korea for bilateral talks.

2010 03 10 - KDIC warns North Korean suicide teams might use mini-submarines to attack the South.

2010 03 26 - South Korean patrol ship Cheonan sinks, killing 56 sailors.

2010 03 31 - China supports US call for sanctions against Iran.

2010 05 18 - Seoul blames North Korea for torpedoing of South Korean patrol ship Cheonan.

2010 05 24 - Seoul sanctions North Korea trade, resumes FM broadcasts to North.

2010 05 26 - North Korea cuts naval hotline used to prevent clashes on disputed sea border.
2010 06 --- - UN Security Council resolution backs curbs on loans to North Korea.

2010 06 21 - Clinton and Gates visit South Korea together.

2010 06 22 - Beijing first protests planned US-South Korean naval exercise in Yellow Sea.

2010 07 01 - China stages military exercise in Yellow Sea.

2010 07 22 - US planning to block North Korean elite's banking funds.

2010 07 25 - Joint US-South Korea "indomitable will"military exercise in Yellow Sea.

2010 08 09 - North Korea fires 100 rounds into waters near islands of Byeongryeong and Yeonpyeon

2010 08 16 - U.S. and South Korea hold "Ulchi freedom fighters" exercise.

2010 08 20 - China warns US that joint US-South Korea exercise will anger Chinese, North Korea.

2010 09 06 - North Korea frees 7 detained South Korean fishermen.

2010 09 07 - Kim Jong Un appointed successor in North Korea.

2010 10 26 - Joint US-South Korean naval exercises delayed indefinitely due to "scheduling problems."

2010 11 10 - Obama arrives in South Korea for G20 summit.

2010 11 20 - US scientist Sigfried Hecker returns from tour of new North Korean nuclear facility.

2010 11 23 - North Koreans call South Korea Command, demanding South halt a military exercise.

- - - - - - - - - North Korea fires 200 artillery shells at Yeonpyeon Island, killing two.
- - - - - - - - - South Korea returned fire "almost immediately." Exchange of fire.
- - - - - - - - - North Korean news agency says "South recklessly fired into our sea area."
- - - - - - - - - South Korea says a battery on Byeongryeong (8 miles off coast) fired into sea.

- - - - - - - - - South Korea's leader threatens "massive retaliation" if it faces "further provocations."
- - - - - - - - - Stock markets, metal and oil prices fall on Korea situation, Ireland bailout, Portugal worries.

President Obama: judge, jury and executioner

2010-11-19T04:11:00.012+07:00

A few years back, I blogged about the Jose Padilla trial. Padilla, an American citizen charged with terrorism, was sentenced to long jail term despite scant evidence. With so much fear-mongering in the media about terrorism, it seemed questionable to me whether a terror suspect could have a fair trial in the United States.

In hindsight, we can see that during the presidency of George W. Bush, justice might not have been delivered, but at least the system retained its basic integrity.

Glenn Greenwald writes about the conviction of accused Terrorist Ahmed Ghailani on one count of conspiracy to blow up a government building:

... even had he been acquitted on all counts, the Obama administration had made clear that it would simply continue to imprison him anyway under what it claims is the President's "post-acquittal detention power" --i.e., when an accused Terrorist is wholly acquitted in court, he can still be imprisoned indefinitely by the U.S. Government under the "law of war"even when the factual bases for the claim that he's an "enemy combatant" (i.e. that he blew up the two embassies) are the same ones underlying the crimes for which he was fully acquitted after a full trial. When he banned the testimony of the key witness, Judge Kaplan, somewhat cravenly,alluded to and implicitly endorsed this extraordinary detention theory as a means of assuring the public he had done nothing to endanger them with his ruling (emphasis added):
[Ghailani's] status as an "enemy combatant" probably would permit his detention as something akin to a prisoner of war until hostilities between the United States and Al Qaeda and the Taliban end even if he were found not guilty in this case.
Most news accounts are emphasizing that trying Ghailani in a civilian court was intended by the Obama DOJ to be a "showcase" for how effective trials can be in punishing Terrorists. That's a commendable goal, and Holder's decision to try Ghailani in a real court should be defended by anyone who believes in the rule of law and the Constitution. But given these realities, this was more "show trial" than "showcase" since the Government would simply have imprisoned him, likely forever, even if he had been acquitted on all counts.

"Post-acquittal detention power" makes a mockery of the whole notion of a "justice" process in the United States.

We're looking at kangaroo courts in so far as President Obama's claim to "post-acquittal detention power" goes unchallenged. Kangaroo courts, of course, are spectacles for the masses where the outcome is determined in advance (i.e. continued imprisonment). The trial is merely a matter of going through the motions of justice.

America's debate about military commissions Vs civilian trials appears to be part and parcel of an empty spectacle that gives cable news shows something to debate. If the accused are to remain imprisoned, regardless of the outcome of trials, then the entire process must be considered a sham. A legal system indifferent to the rights of the accused is incapable of delivering justice.

From having claimed the right to assassinate an American citizen, to his claim of "post-acquittal detention power," President Obama, a constitutional lawyer by training, is causing damage to the system of justice itself.

The very bad timing of the Victor Bout extradition

2010-11-17T10:16:00.010+07:00

The Obama administration has worked hard to improve US-Russian relations. And its efforts have born fruit with respect not only the signing of the New START treaty in April of this year (which awaits US Senate ratification), but also by having secured Russia's vote at the UN Security Council for a resolution sanctioning Iran.

Then yesterday the relentless efforts of the US to persuade Thailand to extradite arms dealer Victor Bout-- initiated in 2008 by the Bush Administration--finally paid off. As they say, you should be careful what you wish for. The timing of Bout's arrival in the US couldn't be worse.

Reuters reports:

Samuel Charap, a Russia expert at the Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank, said Washington's determination to bring Bout to trial may sow fresh doubts about the United States' commitment to the broader reset policy.

A bigger worry, however, is continued Senate delay on START, which Obama and Medevedev signed in April, committing to cut deployed nuclear warheads by about 30 percent.

"START is the cornerstone, and it is a demonstration to the Russians on whether Obama can deliver, and whether the U.S. is really interested in pursuing shared interests cooperatively," Charap said.

While both Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton have urged the Senate to ratify the measure during its "lame duck" session in coming weeks, those hopes were hit hard on Tuesday when a key Republican said that did not leave enough time to debate.

The Reuter's article echoes a point I made in August 2009 when Bout's extradition case was tied up in the Thai courts. I blogged:

... surely the last thing the White House needs is a high-profile trial of a semi-retired Russian merchant: a trial sure to create diplomatic trouble with Moscow, complicating Obama's "fresh start" foreign policy agenda...

If the cost was going to be a setback in Russian-US relations, then I would say "getting Bout" was not worth it. Moreover, I think Obama's new approach deserves a fair go and warrants a clean slate.

My point was that the US-Russian relationship is vastly more important than securing justice for Victor Bout. As Oxfam noted at the time, the illegal arms trade demands a systemic global response.

At this juncture, it's useful to look at US-Russia relations from a Russian perspective: Although Russia has gone extra mile to cooperate with President Obama, it appears likely that the US Senate will fail to ratify an important treaty. America is poised to respond to Russia's positive overtures with a blast of indifference. This outcome could prove a severe blow to the Russian liberal faction led by Dmitry Medvedev.

Given what's at stake in the relationship, the Obama Administration ought to have backed-off on its push for Bout's extradition.

Corporations make US troops carry too heavy burden

2010-11-13T00:14:00.031+07:00

CNN recently posted a video about a human "exoskeleton" designed by a major US defense contractor. The contraption, which looks like something out of Iron Man, exponentially increases a soldier's strength. One problem is that it requires a large energy supply. It's also vulnerable to dust.

An American soldier going by the pseudonym krehator commented on the idea:

I am a soldier. Please, for the love of God, stop giving us more junk to carry. We have too much stuff as it is. If I posted my hand receipt on this sound off, you would be shocked. For example, I have 12 sets of eye protection! I only have two eyes!

Each time we get new stuff, the military rarely has us turn in the old stuff. It just keeps stacking up. I have 6 duffel bags full of issued gear. It weighs more than I do, and takes up more room than I do. Do you realize how much money is being spent to transport all this?

Also, the gear is often designed with an original intent, which rarely gets honored by leadership. They favor good looks and uniformity over functionality. Some of the gear we have now was meant to flexible for the individual. However, policies always get put out which negate it. So what is the point?

We wear so much armor and gear in combat it is difficult to move. It slows us down. If forces us the take more breaks. It creates heat risks. That is dangerous! The taxpayers are going to get a surprise in about a decade when all the back injuries start popping up in VA hospitals. Get ready to pay!!!!

Finally, beware of the true motivation behind these new creations. Greedy companies try to act like they care about supporting troops, but in the end, they do it for profit, not patriotism. They will waive any flag that allows them to make money. If we don’t make them money, they’ll just go overseas and make it. They do already.

How might the government be inclined to react to this soldier's observation and insight? See here.

US wars working to China's advantage in Indonesia?

2010-11-10T14:35:00.027+07:00

American actions in the Muslim world complicate US relations with the world's third largest democracy, providing an opening China has been quick to seize.

In 2008 Jotman travelled to Jakarta in search of Obama's "madrasah" (Photo by Jotman).

NYT on the balance of power in Southeast Asia:

American and Chinese officials have been pursuing all 10 countries in the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, but none more aggressively than Indonesia, the world’s fourth most populous nation, spread out across a strategically important, resource-rich archipelago and now led by a democratically elected government impatient to raise the country’s international profile.

The United States will have to contend with challenges, old and new. Despite Indonesia’s enduring suspicion of China, Beijing has been making great inroads here, economically, diplomatically and militarily. And a newly confident Indonesia has been reasserting its independent foreign policy, promoting what it now calls a “dynamic equilibrium” for the region.

At a September US-ASEAN meeting in New York "Mr. Obama was seeking support in pressing China for a resolution to disputes in the South China Sea." But President Yudhoyono didn't show up. How do some Indonesians account for Yudhoyono's absence?

“The Indonesian government felt that the U.S. was putting too much pressure on Indonesia and other Asean nations to choose sides,” said Syamsul Hadi, a political scientist at the University of Indonesia.

How did US-Indonesian relations begin to unravel to such an extent? Although America's strong bond with the Suharto dictatorship had come at a tremendous human cost, today it is US actions in the Muslim world that most complicate its relationship with the world's third largest democracy. A timeline could be helpful...

Timeline of Chinese and American involvement in Indonesia

Here's a timeline of recent Chinese and American involvement in Indonesia. I began building this timeline by throwing in some events mentioned in the NY Times article. I added some other related events from some other sources.

1954 - Eisenhower's "domino theory" speech (if one country in Southeast Asia goes communist, it would set an example for the rest to follow). Serious American involvement in the affairs of Vietnam begins....

1964 - CIA rallies anti-communist groups in Indonesia, helps to disseminate propaganda painting communists as instruments of Chinese imperialism.

1965 - Failed communist coup in Indonesia which gets blamed on China. Indonesia cuts diplomatic ties with China. Obama's stepfather Lolo Soetoro meets Obama's mother in Hawaii. Soetoro would be conscripted to fight the communists and would later work as a government relations consultant for Mobil.
1966 - Half a million Indonesians massacred by the anti-communists from 1965 to 1966, including a large number of ethnic Chinese.

1967 - Sukarno removed. US-backed strongman Suharto assumes presidency. Obama enrolled in Jakarta school.

1970 - Obama's family leaves Jakarta.

1998 - Indonesian revolution. Ethnic Chinese and Chinese shops targeted by rioters in Jakarta.

1989 - Indonesia restores diplomatic relations with China.

2002 - Bali bombing kills 202, injures 240.

2003 - United States invades Iraq. Hundreds of thousands of Indonesians take to the streets of Jakarta in protest.

2004 - Yudhoyono president. His defense minister, Juwono Sudarsono, seeks "strategic space" in US rivalry against China.

2005 - Indonesia signs "Strategic Partnership" agreement with China. High-level military exchanges commence.

2009 - In the five years since the Partnership agreement was signed, trade between Indonesia and China "more than doubles."

2010 - In Sept. the US lifts a ban on cooperating with Kopassus (KPK), an Indonesian special forces unit implicated in various war crimes. President Yudhoyono skips New York meeting between President Obama and ASEAN leaders. In early November, a high-level Chinese delegation wrapped up a three-day official visit to Indonesia by announcing that Beijing would invest $6.6 billion in desperately needed infrastructure improvements. The very next day Air Force One landed for Obama's first visit.

Why Obama, despite giving away influence, pleases so few

2010-11-09T05:34:00.031+07:00

I thought Obama's remarks about the protests in Pittsburgh were misplaced.... The president's brazen insensitivity shocked me. Consider the fact that the protesters in Pittsburgh must have included many of the same young people who worked tirelessly throughout 2008 to get Obama elected in the crucial swing state of Pennsylvania.

- Jotman, Sept. 29, 2009

It would appear as if it's not just volunteers that Obama's staff insults and the president ignores.

I think there are two major reasons people give money to political candidates: One is to feel like they are making a difference, to feel important, to feel a part of something bigger than themselves; the second, to buy influence, to get something they want. I suspect that many donors who seek influence crave respect more than anything else. Put another way: influence can always be negotiated, but a simple "thank you" is expected. I think to the extent that campaign donors are made to feel validated, treated like they matter (#1), many will forgive not having been granted all the influence they might have hoped to get (#2).

Therefore, it seems to me that a principled yet street-smart Democratic president, one who wanted to do his utmost to serve the interests middle class Americans while working within the inherent limitations of today's donor-centric political system, would want to go out of his way to personally validate donors (#1), while being stingy about giving away influence (#2). That is what I think an idealistic yet pragmatic progressive politician would want to do.

Surprisingly, Obama gives the appearance of having gone the opposite route. We know that his administration has cut deals behind closed doors with pharmaceuticals and the insurance industry. We know that Obama has not done a lot to regulate the financial industry. He let the banks off the hook. On the other hand, we are informed by Politico, in an article that quotes a lot of anonymous sources, that Obama refuses to give many donors to his campaign the time of day:

In June, during an East Room reception for top supporters at Ford's Theatre, several of the attendees were disappointed that they didn’t get to shake the president's hand and take a photo, as they had in the past. Instead, Obama greeted a few people down front, reaching over a rope line.

"People thought they were going to a reception with the president, not a campaign event," one attendee recalled.

- One veteran Democrat recalled a group of Obama donors who were chatting at last December’s State Department holiday party, hosted by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. "Half of them were upset because they had not been invited to a White House party," this Democrat recalled. "The (other) half was upset because they had been invited to the White House, and were kept behind a rope line instead of getting to greet the president."

- The president invited Senate chairs and ranking members over for dinner in March 2009, but came in after they were seated and went back to the residence without shaking hands or visiting each table. . . .

Other executives complained that Obama did not do enough outreach, even after the friction became clear. And executives who did get an audience complain that he is too often behind a podium, not doing the off-the-record question-and-answer sessions that would make them feel more involved and maybe promote understanding between the two sides.

In terms of policy, Obama gave away influence by the bucketful (to the big banks, the generals in Afghanistan, big pharma, the insurance companies). Yet, judging by both donations and voter turnout in 2010, the president ended up pleasing neither the business elite nor his core voter constituency. How did he mange a feat like that? Do we see the emergence of a pattern that explains it?

Judging by the evidence, the president may be overly selective about those to whom he shows appreciation. Politically, I think it's not smart. Once Obama's luck runs out, supporters he might have retained will move on.

Burma votes

2010-11-07T14:34:00.005+07:00

I've posted links to sites and bloggers providing coverage of Burma's sham elections at ThereLive.

Live-blogging the "Sanity and/or Fear" rally

2010-10-31T03:25:00.031+07:00

In my live-blog of the Glenn Beck rally, I noted that the yellow "don't tread on me" flag had become the nofficial icon of the Tea Party movement.

Back in late August I blogged the massive Glenn Beck rally of Tea Party supporters. Today, Americans who perceive characters like Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck as more of a problem than a solution participated in a rally of their own. By the tens of thousands they gathered on the Mall in Washington D.C. on Saturday, heeding a call by Viacom-owned Comedy Central's Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert to "Restore Sanity and/or Fear." Jotman was there.

Out with the lawyers!

Although the rally was not scheduled to start until noon, by 10:00am the capital's subway system was jammed to the extent that it was futile to try to board a train at many stations. The sidewalks of the streets leading to the mall were crowded with rally-goers. The scene on the streets resembled inauguration day two years ago.

But unlike inauguration, the planners of this rally had not thought to set up a sufficient number of big screen televisions. Far more people were arriving than rally organizers had thought to accommodate. To make matters worse, the park rangers had closed off grassy areas of the mall adjacent to the area in front of the stage, forcing tens thousands of people to crowd the walkways.

Code Pink

The message Code Pink took to the rally was "restore sanity: end the war." Promoting the rally on his show, Jon Stewart had seemed to equate this colorful anti-war activist group with the extremist politics of the right. This was Code Pink's answer to Jon Stewart.

After 8 years of reckless spending...

A question that the Tea Party has yet to answer: Why now? Where were you when George W. Bush was driving up the deficit, giving away the store to corrupt Wall Street bankers?

Typical Obama supporter according to Fox News.

Fox News sent a van to the rally. I saw that Fox News had parked its van behind a heavily armored military vehicle occupied by a SWAT team.

I thought there was a particularly heavy police presence at this rally. It seemed to me that the police did not have nearly such a visible presence at previous rallies.


Apparently, this man was arrested for having crossed a fence.

When I saw a man in handcuffs being led to a police vehicle, I asked the fellow why he was being arrested. "I crossed a fence," he said. "But I have no idea what I am being charged with," he added. Hearing the man's comment, a passer by exclaimed, "For crossing a fence! Oh come on!"

There were many fences surrounding a rally site that was far too small to accommodate a truly massive crowd.

The rally from Capitol Hill.

CBS News estimates that the crowd numbered 215,000.

Stephan Colbert (left) and Jon Stewart (right).

I was standing far behind the stage when I took the above photo with a telephoto lens. Stephen Colbert had just arrived. Note the massive teleprompter in the background.

They have come to save America.

Not sure who these people were, but there were lots of them, and they seemed to be having a good time.

Unemployed Man attended the rally.

Unemployed Man is a cartoonist who has begun to get a lot of media attention. He has authored a book.

The problem that won't go away.

On the peculiar obsession of the right

2010-10-23T09:31:00.014+07:00

An Englishman watches the British government announce its plan to cut half a million jobs.

Perhaps Margaret Thatcher's best remembered House of Commons quip concerned her perception of the difference between the left and the right. The exchange took place towards the end of her career in 1990. She said that whereas Labour argues over how to divide-up the economic pie, Conservatives want to bake a bigger pie. Thatcher's point was that enlarging the pie requires policies conductive to economic growth.

Ironically, today it is not the left but the right that obsesses about portions.   Politicians on the right have made citizens anxious over who is getting an unfair slice of a frozen national pie. Republicans and Tea Party leaders have followers asking why illegal immigrants should be getting even a meager sliver of American pie. In France, President Sarkozy wants the retired to get a smaller piece of tarte. In Britain, Prime Minister Cameron has made it clear that welfare recipients should be targeted for a smaller cut.

Against the weight of evidence and history, the right maintains that private investors are the only forces capable of creating economic growth. But when the banks aren't lending, when the most profitable corporations are hoarding cash instead of spending it, when many new corporate hires live and work for a pittance overseas, private investment is clearly not about to save the day. It wasn't sufficient to end the Great Depression of the 1930s. It took public spending on a war to turn the economies around. Japan's private sector was unable to pull the Japanese out of the rut they fell into in the early 1990s.

In a stagnant economy, cutbacks in government spending will change how the pie is sliced, but cannot grow the pie.   As things now stand in the US, the slice controlled by the top two percent already comprises over half country's wealth, 54% of the pie.   And as demand stagnates and prices collapse (deflation) those hoarding money will be able to sweep up property and other assets at bargain prices. Untimely acts of fiscal discipline today will lead to a situation in which the share of the pie controlled by the super-rich will grow, even as the national pie shrinks.

At best, it will remain a frozen pie. In the UK, for example, planned cutbacks in public spending will eliminate half a million jobs. Job cuts mean fewer taxpayers and impoverished consumers, meaning less revenue for government and fewer private sector services needed. Where governments cut back on education spending or infrastructure development today, citizens will have fewer resources from which to generate new wealth tomorrow. That's some way to grow a national pie.

Next time you hear someone on the right gripe about how the pie is sliced, take a cue from the Iron Lady: ask them why they have no realistic plan to grow it.

Insanity is doing the same thing over and over

2010-10-22T19:17:00.013+07:00

Looking ahead to the aftermath of the November elections in the US, Bob Beckel, described as a "liberal Democratic strategist," dishes up some advice for Obama:

Obama's best move — politically and practically — would be to meet Republicans somewhere in the middle and be willing to change parts of his agenda. For starters, he could include tort reform as an add-on to the health care law. It's not giving Republicans everything, but it would be a meaningful olive branch and show a willingness to go against the Democrats' trial lawyers base.

This liberal Democratic strategist goes on to say that "Obama has a rare chance to make good on his campaign promise" of "bipartisan civility." He adds that "if both sides made a serious effort to compromise, the voters would reward them." Oddly, the strategist doesn't say what the Democratic Party's natural supporters among the dwindling American middle class are supposed to get in return for seeing Obama push their party yet further to the right. Has not Obama spend the better part of two years pursuing appeasement? Albert Einstein defined insanity as doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

If the Democrats lose Congress in November, it will be because voters question whether the Democrats have principles. "Less" of the other party's prescription does not a conviction make. Yet Democrats continue to offer less -- often only marginally less -- of what the Republicans propose: less tax cuts for the rich, fewer job losses, less war-mongering, fewer uninsured patients, less capitulation to Wall Street. For example, when Bob Beckel speaks of the need for a "Congress that puts the United States on a fiscally sustainable path," he has already conceded the core of the Republican economic agenda, prioritizing fiscal discipline and budget cutting over fiscal stimulus and job creation. Presumably, the Democrats would cut less.

What if Obama and his party began from a position of saying "none" instead of "some" to various corporatist propositions?