Please visit our sponsor!










Bookmark and Share
In This Edition

Julian Assange gives a, "Statement On Verdict In Bradley Manning Court-Martial."

Uri Avnery sees, "The Turkey Under The Table."

Glen Ford concludes, "Obama Supports The Racial Surveillance That Killed Trayvon."

Chris Hedges examines, "The Business Of Mass Incarceration."

Jim Hightower finds the GOP, "Cutting The Poor While Subsidizing Millionaires."

David Swanson foresees, "A Nuclear Free World."

James Donahue reveals, "The Threat Of Critical Mass."

John Nichols declares, "In An Economic Democracy, Stiglitz And Reich Would Be Contenders For Fed Head."

Tom Engelhardt compares and contrasts, "When Extradition Theories Collide: Snowden's Whistleblowing vs. CIA Kidnappings."

Glenn Greenwald discovers, "Major Opinion Shifts, In The US And Congress, On NSA Surveillance And Privacy."

Paul Krugman is, "Stranded By Sprawl."

David Sirota reports, "US Government Argues Drone Strikes Are Above The Law."

Greg Palast writes, "An Open Letter To Trayvon Martin's Father."

The Koch Brothers wins this week's coveted, "Vidkun Quisling Award!"

Robert Reich explains, "Why Republicans Are Disciplined And Democrats Aren't."

Norman Solomon gives, "The Moral Verdict On Bradley Manning."

And finally in the 'Parting Shots' department Andy Borowitz announces,"Weiner Names New Campaign Manager" but first, Uncle Ernie sez we're, "A Nation Of Cowards."

This week we spotlight the cartoons of Dave Granlund, with additional cartoons, photos and videos from Ruben Bolling, Mr. Fish, Robert Shetterly, Juan Cole, Clark Stoeckley, Oll Scarff, Wikimedia Commons, Travel-Studies.Com, Getty Images, The Guardian, Pew, Black Agenda Report, You Tube.Com and Issues & Alibis.Org.

Plus we have all of your favorite Departments...

The Quotable Quote...
The Dead Letter Office...
The Cartoon Corner...
To End On A Happy Note...
Have You Seen This...
Parting Shots...

Welcome one and all to "Uncle Ernie's Issues & Alibis."













Bookmark and Share


A Nation Of Cowards
By Ernest Stewart

"My Administration is committed to creating an unprecedented level of openness in Government. We will work together to ensure the public trust and establish a system of transparency, public participation, and collaboration. Openness will strengthen our democracy and promote efficiency and effectiveness in Government.

"Government should be transparent. Transparency promotes accountability and provides information for citizens about what their Government is doing. Information maintained by the Federal Government is a national asset. My Administration will take appropriate action, consistent with law and policy, to disclose information rapidly in forms that the public can readily find and use. Executive departments and agencies should harness new technologies to put information about their operations and decisions online and readily available to the public. Executive departments and agencies should also solicit public feedback to identify information of greatest use to the public." ~~~ Barack Obama

"There’s absolutely no reason on earth that the state of Michigan couldn't say to Mike Ilitch, 'Sorry, Detroit has more important things to do with its money.' Instead, though, the Governor seems content to let Ilitch cut to the front of the line for public funds, on the grounds that "who doesn't get fired up" about hockey. Even if you limited it to economic development projects, putting money into fixing city schools or restoring streetlights would do far more for Detroit's business prospects than a hockey arena. This just goes to show the problem with carving out shares of tax revenue to go to development authorities-they end up basically serving as slush funds for developers, even when the city treasury is otherwise empty." ~~~ Neal DeMause

Plato, they say, could stick it away;
Half a crate of whiskey every day.
Aristotle, Aristotle was a bugger for the bottle,
Hobbes was fond of his dram,
And Rene Descartes was a drunken fart:
"I drink, therefore I am"
Yes, Socrates, himself, is particularly missed;
A lovely little thinker but a bugger when he's pissed!
The Philosopher's Song ~~~ Monty Python

"I am a firm believer in the people. If given the truth, they can be depended upon to meet any national crisis. The great point is to bring them the real facts." ~~~ Abraham Lincoln


So how did that open government thingie work out for you? Didn't work out too well for those whistleblowers that Barry went after like a shark smelling blood in the water. There is quite a difference you'll agree between what Barry says and what Barry does. Barry was fond of saying things like this quote from his old web site...

"Often the best source of information about waste, fraud, and abuse in government is an existing government employee committed to public integrity and willing to speak out. Such acts of courage and patriotism, which can sometimes save lives and often save taxpayer dollars, should be encouraged rather than stifled. We need to empower federal employees as watchdogs of wrongdoing and partners in performance. Barack Obama will strengthen whistleblower laws to protect federal workers who expose waste, fraud, and abuse of authority in government. Obama will ensure that federal agencies expedite the process for reviewing whistleblower claims and whistleblowers have full access to courts and due process."


Now compare and contrast what happened to whistleblowers in reality, compared to rhetoric. Whistleblowers get hunted down and tortured for daring to tell the people the truth about Barry and his Junta. They get tortured for years, to the point of insanity before getting their day in Kangaroo Court, whether that court is in Cuba or Maryland, the same criminal enterprise is at work, sending a loud and clear message that whistleblowers will not be welcomed, but will be tortured, just like the "worst of the worst" are!

Bradley Manning, who maned up, and stood up, for the people has learned what his fate will be. Colonel Denise Lind was soon to be General Denise Lind, if she didn't screw up her deal by not finding Bradley guilty of aiding the enemy -- the one charge that Barry wanted most of all, a club to hold over future whistleblowers' heads. Still, she found him guilty for the bulk of the remaining charges, including six counts of violating the Espionage Act, five of stealing government property, and one violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. Each carries up to a 10-year sentence. In total, Manning faces up to 136 years in a prison, where he will no doubt continue to be tortured until the day he dies -- a death from torture that will be called a heart attack or some such lie! Remember, America, it's not torture if Big Brother says it's not torture. And he should know, because we are the torture experts; the rest of the world knows this, even if America doesn't. However, cheer up, America; you, too, will soon realize the truth -- right after the train ride to the Happy Camp, it will become crystal clear -- even to the biggest torture deniers! We are sooooooo screwed, America; because you won't do anything about it! We are, what we are -- a nation of cowards!

In Other News

I saw an interesting juxtaposition of headlines in the Detroit neo-Nazi News/Detroit Freeper Press newspaper. Where on one day it ran "Detroit Files Largest Municipal Bankruptcy in History." Then turned around and "Detroit Plans to Pay For New Red Wings Hockey Arena Despite Bankruptcy." Then, of course, proceeded to say why this was a good thing, as the emperor's official mouthpiece in this area; it's wont to do whenever their strings are pulled by Lansing.

In a city where they only do serious police calls, like if a guy is killing people; and it still takes the cops an hour or so to show up. Where they're laying off everyone from police to firemen to ambulance drivers, to, well, you name it, and they're laying them off. Where they soon will be going after peoples' retirement checks that were all under $20,000 to begin with for 30 or 40 years of hard work. Where they're making plans to sell off one of the top art collections in the world; did I mention where everyone in a three-county area is paying property taxes to support the DIA and hence has an investment in it, (but no say, of course). Where more than half the city is in total darkness; where most of the fire hydrants don't work, or sewers! I could keep on going on; but life is short; but I'm guessing you get the picture? The same broke city that's being raided to pay a bunch a 1% c-cksuckers will now have to pay about a third of a billion dollars so some spoiled, rotten, multi-billionaire Pizza baron, Little Caesars' Mike Ilitch doesn't have to pay for it himself.

I'm going to repeat that again for those of you on drugs...

Governor Snyder is stealing pensions from retirees and giving them to fellow rich guy Mike Ilitch!


Trouble is, these same city workers will no doubt vote to keep Snyder in power, just like the Sheeple did in Wisconsin when they had the chance to get rid of another Koch Brothers puppet : Scott Walker; and, no doubt, will go beyond even that and keep on ordering Little Caesars' products until they go under!

In case you were wondering, here's the current spin by various Snyder spokes-weasels!

"This is part of investing in Detroit's future. That's the message we need to get across.... As we stabilize the city government's finances, as we address those issues and improve services, Detroit moves from a place where people might have had a negative impression... to being a place that will be recognized across the world as a place of great value and a place to invest." ~~~ Rick Snyder


For those of you who say, so what, remember, this is just a test case for the systematic destruction of other major cities -- no doubt coming to one near you. Oh, and if you think the US economy is bad now, just wait and see what happens next spring when this hits the fan in court. If they can steal the pensions in Detroit, they can steal them anywhere; and have not the slightest doubt, America, they will!

And Finally

From our, "It's Always Something" department comes the strange tale of Alan John Miller and Mary Suzanne Luck, both from way down under; but maybe coming to an auditorium or concert venue near you. You see, Alan and Mary have announced to their Sheeple followers that they are in reality Jesus Christ and his wife Mary Magdalene come again to save us all; so get out your check books, ya'll! I wish I had a nickel for...

Not since Waco or Jonestown or Heaven's Gate or... fill in the blank, have we seen such potential of getting rid of that section of the populace that are way too stupid to live. Hey, it certainly helps the gene pool; does it not?

Here's the gospel of Alan pulled directly from the his site "The Divine Truth" and my reply; you did know I'd write him a little note did you not? Here's what it says at Alan's...

Welcome to the Divine Truth website! My name is Alan John Miller, and many of my friends call me AJ. The beautiful woman you see with me is Mary Suzanne Luck. Just a little over 2000 years ago, we arrived on the earth for the first time. My name then was Yeshua ben Yosef, or the Jesus of the Bible, the son of Joseph and Mary. Mary's name then was Mary of Magdala, the woman identified in the Bible as Mary Magdalene. Mary was my wife then, and the first person I appeared to after I was crucified.

Because of my personal desire and passion for God, as I grew, I recognized not only that I was the Messiah that was foretold by ancient prophets, but also that I was in a process designed by God that all humans could follow, if they so desired.

I called this process becoming "Born Again". It is the process of the human soul being transformed into the Divine, the process of becoming At-One with God. Many persons who were connected with me in the 1st century came to know and follow this path while on earth, the most notable person being Mary Magdalene, who is my soulmate, and who was actually married to me in the 1st century, and was pregnant with our daughter when I died.

*****

Yo Alan,

Could I buy some drugs from? I mean, only mighty Zeus knows I've never been that high, try as I might. Why do you looney tunes always turn out to be followers of Yahweh, the bronze age god of wandering, barbarian, syphilitic, sheep herders? Yes, of the 2500 gods we've created, the three cults that follow this mythology are the strangest, most violent of the lot. So, you've turned into someone who never existed in history, imagine that! Just to get things straights, let's review...

So, it's your belief that you're some sort of cosmic Jewish Zombie who was his own father and was sired by himself and his virgin mother and can make me live forever if I symbolically eat your flesh, drink your blood and telepathically tell you that we accept you as our master. So that you can remove an evil force from our souls that is present in all humanity, because a woman made out of a rib and some dust was convinced by a talking snake to eat some fruit from a magical tree. And furthermore, your father that loves us will show his love by torturing us for eternity if we don't buy that BS. Do they know that you've gotten out of your padded cell and straight jacket and are now on the loose, Alan? I wonder what your dad thinks about not being your dad, and does he believe your mom when she says a god is your father? Must put a strain on their marriage, huh?

I actually wish it was true, and you'd soon be removing all the lunatic Christians from the planet, what a happy place this would be if it were only true. Pity you're just another scam artist trying to make a fortune off the Sheeple. Just one question, Alan. "How do you look in the mirror without cutting your worthless throat?" I'll just kind of sit here and watch over you until those nice young men, in their clean white coats come around to collect you. I wouldn't want you to hurt yourself or others before they do!

Sincerely,
Your Atheist pal
Ernest Stewart
Managing Editor
Issues & Alibis Magazine

If you have any thoughts for Alan and Mary, you can send them to:

enquiry@divinetruth.com or office@divinetruth.com

Tell 'em Uncle Ernie sent ya!

So, Alan and Mary win this week's Vidkun Quisling Award! They're only the second non-Americans to do so (the other one was a Canadian). I bet'cha they're real proud of Alan and Mary down in the Philosophy Department of the University of Woolloomooloo!

Keepin' On

I have said that this is my second favorite thing to do every week, to come before you and beg for money, every week until we get our bills paid. My favorite thing is to drill small holes in my knee caps with an ancient brace and bit. Or would be, but I'm not a masochist; however, the show must go on; so here I am again.

Gone are those golden daze of yore when a couple of folks with money, not that white money, but the folding kind, would step up and pick up our publishing tab for the year. Those indeed were the daze, but I fear those daze have come and and gone; so it's up to all of you to step up and pay your fair share of keeping us active, fighting the good fight for you and yours. Can you name any other group that does what we do without taking a dime? Most take a six or seven figure salary. The difference is, all I owe allegiance to is to you, and not those who can afford to pay a 6 or 7 figure salary.

Ergo, please visit this site and follow the directions therein; and, against all odds, we'll be here for you every week with the latest news; whether good or bad, you can always deal with the truth; but you need to know what it is; and you'll find it here! Where else can you find it?

*****


02-11-1925 ~ 07-24-2013
Thanks for the knowledge!



12-05-1938 ~ 07-26-2013
Thanks for the music!




*****

We get by with a little help from our friends!
So please help us if you can...?
Donations

*****

So how do you like Bush Lite so far?
And more importantly, what are you planning on doing about it?

Until the next time, Peace!
(c) 2013 Ernest Stewart a.k.a. Uncle Ernie is an unabashed radical, author, stand-up comic, DJ, actor, political pundit and for the last 12 years managing editor and publisher of Issues & Alibis magazine. Visit me on Facebook. Visit the Magazine's page on Facebook and like us when you do. Follow me on Twitter.













Statement On Verdict In Bradley Manning Court-Martial
By Julian Assange

Today Bradley Manning, a whistleblower, was convicted by a military court at Fort Meade of 19 offences for supplying the press with information, including five counts of 'espionage'. He now faces a maximum sentence of 136 years.

The 'aiding the enemy' charge has fallen away. It was only included, it seems, to make calling journalism 'espionage' seem reasonable. It is not.

Bradley Manning's alleged disclosures have exposed war crimes, sparked revolutions, and induced democratic reform. He is the quintessential whistleblower.

This is the first ever espionage conviction against a whistleblower. It is a dangerous precedent and an example of national security extremism. It is a short sighted judgment that can not be tolerated and must be reversed. It can never be that conveying true information to the public is 'espionage'.

President Obama has initiated more espionage proceedings against whistleblowers and publishers than all previous presidents combined.

In 2008 presidential candidate Barack Obama ran on a platform that praised whistleblowing as an act of courage and patriotism. That platform has been comprehensively betrayed. His campaign document described whistleblowers as watchdogs when government abuses its authority. It was removed from the internet last week.

Throughout the proceedings there has been a conspicuous absence: the absence of any victim. The prosecution did not present evidence that - or even claim that - a single person came to harm as a result of Bradley Manning's disclosures. The government never claimed Mr. Manning was working for a foreign power.

The only 'victim' was the US government's wounded pride, but the abuse of this fine young man was never the way to restore it. Rather, the abuse of Bradley Manning has left the world with a sense of disgust at how low the Obama administration has fallen. It is not a sign of strength, but of weakness.

The judge has allowed the prosecution to substantially alter the charges after both the defense and the prosecution had rested their cases, permitted the prosecution 141 witnesses and extensive secret testimony. The government kept Bradley Manning in a cage, stripped him naked and isolated him in order to crack him, an act formally condemned by the United Nations Special Rapporteur for torture. This was never a fair trial.

The Obama administration has been chipping away democratic freedoms in the United States. With today's verdict, Obama has hacked off much more. The administration is intent on deterring and silencing whistleblowers, intent on weakening freedom of the press.

The US first amendment states that "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press". What part of 'no' does Barack Obama fail to comprehend?
(c) 2013 Julian Assange is an Australian editor, activist, journalist, and founder of Wikileaks.





The Turkey Under The Table
By Uri Avnery

WHEN YOU have a conflict between two parties, the way to solve it is clear: you put them in the same room, let them thrash out their differences and emerge with a reasonable solution acceptable to both.

For example, a conflict between a wolf and a lamb. Put them in the same room, let them thrash out their differences and emerge with... Just a moment. The wolf emerges. Now where's that lamb?

IF YOU have a conflict between two parties who are like a wolf and a lamb, you must have a third party in the room, just to make sure that Party 1 does not have Party 2 for dinner while the talks are going on.

The balance of power between Israel and the Palestinian Authority is like that between a wolf and a lamb. In almost every respect - economic, military, political - Israel has a vast advantage.

This is a fact of life. It is up to the Third Party to balance this somehow.

Can it be done? Will it be done?

I HAVE ALWAYS liked John Kerry. He radiates an air of honesty, sincerity, that seems real. His dogged efforts command respect. The announcement this week that he has at long last achieved even the first stage of talks between the parties can give some room for optimism.

As Mao said: "A march of a thousand miles begins with a single step."

The parties have agreed to a meeting of delegates to work out the preliminary details. It should take place this coming week in Washington. So far so good.

The first question is: who will be the third person? It has been leaked that the leading candidate for this delicate task is Martin Indyk, a veteran former State Department officer.

This is a problematic choice. Indyk is Jewish and very much involved in Jewish and Zionist activity. He was born in England and grew up in Australia. He served twice as US ambassador to Israel.

Right-wing Israelis object to him because he is active in left-wing Israeli institutions. He is a member of the board of the New Israel Fund, which gives financial support to moderate Israeli peace organizations and is demonized by the extreme rightists around Binyamin Netanyahu.

Palestinians may well ask whether among the 300 million US citizens there is not a single non-Jew who can manage this job. For many years now it has been the case that almost all American officials dealing with the Israeli-Arab problem have been Jews. And almost all of them later went on to be officials in Zionist think-tanks and other organizations.

If the US had been called upon to referee negotiations between, say, Egypt and Ethiopia, would they have appointed an Ethiopian-American?

I HAVE met Indyk several times, generally at diplomatic receptions (not US embassy receptions, to which I was not invited.) Once I sent him a letter connected with his name.

The story about the Indyk is well known to anyone versed in Jewish folklore. It was told by a very influential Jewish rabbi, Nachman of Braslaw (1772-1811), who has many followers even today in Israel.

Once upon a time there was this prince who suffered under the delusion that he was an Indyk (turkey in Yiddish - from the Hebrew for Indian hen. He was sitting naked under a table and eating only crumbs thrown to him.

After all the doctors failed to cure him, a wise rabbi undertook the task. He stripped off his clothes, sat naked under the table and started acting like an Indyk too. Step by step he convinced the prince that an indyk may wear clothes, eat regular food and, in the end, sit at the table instead of under it. That way the prince was cured.

Some might say that this story has a direct bearing on his future job, if he is indeed chosen. Two naked Indyks are now under the table, and his job will be to get them to sit at the table and talk seriously about peace.

True, the Palestinians are used to having crumbs thrown to them, but they may now demand some real food.

THE CHANCES for any peace negotiations may be assessed by the atmosphere prevailing on both sides, the terminology they use and the internal discussions they conduct.

These are not very inspiring.

In Israel almost nobody uses the word "peace". Even Tzipi Livni, who will be in charge of the negotiations on our side, talks only about a "final-status agreement" that would "put an end to the conflict", not put an end to the occupation".

Most Israelis ignore the event altogether, believing that Netanyahu's and Mahmoud Abbas' sole aim is to abort the negotiations in such a way as to put the onus on the other side. Most Palestinians believe the same. Peace is definitely not in the air.

However, a poll conducted this week showed that a large majority of Israelis - 55 to 25 (or, to percentualize it, 69 to 31) - would vote in a referendum for a peace agreement achieved by the Prime Minister. I have never had any doubt about this.

The idea of holding a referendum about a peace agreement is now being advocated by the Right and resisted by the Left. I am in favor. Without a solid majority, it would in any case be almost impossible for any government to remove settlements. And I believe that any concrete agreement accepted by a credible Palestinian leadership and recommended by the US will receive a resounding "Yes" in a referendum.

MOST OF the experts say that Israel should not strive for an endgame agreement, but for a more modest "interim" agreement. They cite the old Jewish adage: "He who wants to catch too much catches nothing."

I beg to disagree...

First, there is the saying that you cannot cross an abyss in two jumps. No stopping in the middle. We quoted this saying to Yitzhak Rabin after Oslo.

The fatal flaw of the Oslo agreement was that it was all interim. The final aim was not stated. For the Palestinians it was clear that the aim was the setting up of the State of Palestine in all the occupied territories, including East Jerusalem. For the Israeli side, this was not clear at all. Absent an agreement on that, every interim step became a point of contention. If you want to go by train from Paris to Berlin, the intermediate stations are different from the ones on the way to Madrid.

Oslo gave up its poor soul somewhere along the way with the endless wrangling about the "safe passage" between the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, the "third withdrawal" and such.

The only way to proceed is first of all to reach an agreement on the "core issues". This can be implemented over some time - though I would not recommend that either.

Israeli-Palestinian peace is a huge step in the history of the two peoples. If we have the courage to do it, let's do it, for God's sake, without lying down along the way and crying.

AT THE moment, the great riddle is: what has Kerry promised each side in secret?

The method seems sound. Since the two sides could not agree on anything, and each demanded that the other start negotiations "without pre-conditions" while posing a lot of pre-conditions themselves, Kerry chose a different way.

It is based on a simple logic: in the American-Israeli-Palestinian triangle, almost all decisions will have to be made two-to-one. In practice, each side needs American support to get its demands accepted.

So, instead of trying to achieve the impossible - Israeli-Palestinian agreement on the basis of the negotiations - America gave each side a promise to support it on certain points.

For example, at a guess: a promise that the US will support the Palestinians on the border issue. The border will be based on the Green Line with reasonable land swaps. Also, on freezing settlements while the negotiations go on. On the other hand, the US will support Israel on the definition of Israel as a "Jewish" state and on the (non-)return of Palestinian refugees.

In the past, the US has broken such promises without blushing. For example, before the Camp David meeting, President Bill Clinton gave Yasser Arafat a solid promise that he would blame neither side for a failure. (Since the meeting was convened without the slightest preparation, failure was predictable.) After the conference, Clinton put the blame squarely - and wrongly - on Arafat, a vile act of political opportunism, designed to help his wife get elected in New York.

In spite of such experiences, Abbas put his trust in Kerry. It seems that Kerry has the gift of inspiring such trust. Let's hope he does not squander it.

So, with or without a turkey to keep the wolf from devouring the lamb, and in spite of all the past disappointments, let's hope that this time real negotiations get going and lead towards peace. The alternative is too dismal to contemplate.
(c) 2013 Uri Avnery ~~~ Gush Shalom







Obama Supports The Racial Surveillance That Killed Trayvon
By Glen Ford

President Obama pretended to cross over to the Black side for a few minutes, last week, in response to near-universal Black rage at George Zimmerman's acquittal in the stalking and murder of Trayvon Martin. According to a Washington Post-ABC News poll, 87 percent of African Americans believe the shooting was unjustified, compared to only one out of three whites. Blacks made their outrage visible in hundreds of demonstrations and vigils across the country, prompting even Obama's most hardcore apologists to beseech their icon to say something to put the angry Black genie back in the bottle.

Beginning his performance with "Once the jury's spoken, that's how our system works," and an endorsement of the propriety of the trial, Obama half-mumbled 2,100 words designed to indicate that he is aware of "a history of racial disparities in the application of our criminal laws, everything from the death penalty to enforcement of our drug laws" - and then almost immediately washed his hands of the matter with the caveat: "The criminal code and law enforcement is traditionally done at the state and local levels, not at the federal levels." Stand Your Ground laws are something that might be reexamined "if they are designed in such a way that they may encourage the kinds of altercations and confrontations and tragedies that we saw in the Florida case, rather than diffuse potential altercations." Mostly, Obama was concerned with reestablishing "trust" in the system. "I think it would be productive for the Justice Department, governors, mayors to work with law enforcement about training at the state and local levels in order to reduce the kind of mistrust in the system that sometimes currently exists."

Obama insisted, in closing, that "things are getting better" in America, despite the proliferation of Stand Your Ground laws designed to justify precisely the vigilante murder and acquittal that occasioned his "impromptu" press conference.

The fact is, Trayvon Martin's death was quite ordinary, as was the impunity granted to Zimmerman - once by cops, the second time by jury. What was extraordinary, was the groundswell of furious Black protest, a response so fierce it forced Obama to recall a time when he used to be Black, too.

His cop-out - that most laws are made at the state level - belies the fact that Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder are champions of mass incarceration, insulating the federal prison system from austerity, even as he slashes Medicare and Medicaid budgets and the sacred cows of defense and Homeland Security. While state prison populations have declined, overall, mainly due to budget pressures, the federal prison system "continues to grow by about 3 percent a year," according to Mother Jones. For this administration, mass incarceration is top priority.

Filling up those prison beds with Black and brown bodies requires the maintenance and expansion of a monstrous system of hyper-surveillance - the foundation stone of the Incarceration State. Racial surveillance, transforming whole communities into Constitution-free zones, is the feeder system of the American Gulag. It is the reason that one out of every eight prisoners on planet Earth is an African American, and that one out of three Black American men will wind up with felony records. Study after study has shown that young Blacks use illegal drugs with the same or less frequency than whites, yet Blacks are far more likely to be arrested and incarcerated for drug offenses - due to massive racial surveillance. You find the crime you look for.

When the president told the nation, last week, that "African-American young men are disproportionately involved in the criminal justice system," he was attempting to frame white fears of Blacks as somehow practical and commonsensical, rather than racist. (Obama denied that racism is "endemic" to the U.S. in his Philadelphia speech on race, in March, 2008.) In the real world of pervasively racist America, Blacks are hyper-surveilled from damn near cradle to the grave, both within and outside their communities. "Involvement" in the criminal justice system is all but inevitable.

Hyper-surveillance places the assumption of guilt on the peoples and communities that are targeted - which, in the U.S., means all Black people (even Barack Obama - "until I was a senator," he said). Hyper-surveillance - its justification and practice - stripped Trayvon Martin of the presumption of innocence, marking him with a fatal presumption of guilt. Two-thirds of whites still believe his death was justified, despite the clear facts of his innocence. That's why his death is ordinary - because ordinary white people routinely condone such killings.

And so, in practice, does Obama, despite his press conference theatrics. The president has high praise, and possibly a powerful appointment in store, for Ray Kelly, the New York City Police Commissioner who has overseen and defended over five million stop-and-frisks since 2002, overwhelmingly targeting Black and brown men. Obama is looking for a new head of Homeland Security. "I think Ray Kelly is one of the best there is," Obama said. Kelly proudly justifies his management of the Mother-of-All-Stop-and-Frisk operations, as intended "to instill fear" in young Blacks and Latinos that they may be patted down by a cop whenever they leave their homes. Kelly also created a massive program to spy on Muslims, not only in New York City but in other localities, and arranged for CIA agents to be embedded in the NYPD to conduct domestic surveillance - which is illegal.

Obama is, of course, well aware of Kelly's huge contributions to the cause of racial and ethnic hyper-surveillance, and has given his wholehearted endorsement. The First Black President encourages the killing of more Trayvons throughout the "Homeland," just as he orders so-called "signature" mass murder-by-drone of males of a certain age in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Yemen and Somalia (along with whatever women and children may be within the missile's kill zone).

The rage that forced Obama to don his "Black" identity must be channeled into sustained political action - a Movement - that directly confronts the dehumanization and targeting of Black America at its root: the mega-profiling of hyper-surveillance. Otherwise, it's all sound and fury, signifying...not much.
(c) 2013 Glen Ford is the Black Agenda Report executive editor. He can be contacted at Glen.Ford@BlackAgendaReport.com.







The Business Of Mass Incarceration
By Chris Hedges

Debbie Bourne, 45, was at her apartment in the Liberty Village housing projects in Plainfield, N.J., on the afternoon of April 30 when police banged on the door and pushed their way inside. The officers ordered her, her daughter, 14, and her son, 22, who suffers from autism, to sit down and not move and then began ransacking the home. Bourne's husband, from whom she was estranged and who was in the process of moving out, was the target of the police, who suspected him of dealing cocaine. As it turned out, the raid would cast a deep shadow over the lives of three innocents-Bourne and her children.

*****

The murder of a teenage boy by an armed vigilante, George Zimmerman, is only one crime set within a legal and penal system that has criminalized poverty. Poor people, especially those of color, are worth nothing to corporations and private contractors if they are on the street. In jails and prisons, however, they each can generate corporate revenues of $30,000 to $40,000 a year. This use of the bodies of the poor to make money for corporations fuels the system of neoslavery that defines our prison system.

Prisoners often work inside jails and prisons for nothing or at most earn a dollar an hour. The court system has been gutted to deny the poor adequate legal representation. Draconian drug laws send nonviolent offenders to jail for staggering periods of time. Our prisons routinely use solitary confinement, forms of humiliation and physical abuse to keep prisoners broken and compliant, methods that international human rights organizations have long defined as torture. Individuals and corporations that profit from prisons in the United States perpetuate a form of neoslavery. The ongoing hunger strike by inmates in the California prison system is a slave revolt, one that we must encourage and support. The fate of the poor under our corporate state will, if we remain indifferent and passive, become our own fate. This is why on Wednesday I will join prison rights activists, including Cornel West and Michael Moore, in a one-day fast in solidarity with the hunger strike in the California prison system.

In poor communities where there are few jobs, little or no vocational training, a dearth of educational opportunities and a lack of support structures there are, by design, high rates of recidivism-the engine of the prison-industrial complex. There are tens of millions of poor people for whom this country is nothing more than a vast, extended penal colony. Gun possession is largely criminalized for poor people of color while vigilante thugs, nearly always white, swagger through communities with loaded weapons. There will never be serious gun control in the United States. Most white people know what their race has done to black people for centuries. They know that those trapped today in urban ghettos, what Malcolm X called our internal colonies, endure neglect, poverty, violence and deprivation. Most whites are terrified that African-Americans will one day attempt to defend themselves or seek vengeance. Scratch the surface of survivalist groups and you uncover frightened white supremacists.

The failure on the part of the white liberal class to decry the exploding mass incarceration of the poor, and especially of African-Americans, means that as our empire deteriorates more and more whites will end up in prison alongside those we have condemned because of our indifference. And the mounting abuse of the poor is fueling an inchoate rage that will eventually lead to civil unrest.

"Again I say that each and every Negro, during the last 300 years, possesses from that heritage a greater burden of hate for America than they themselves know," Richard Wright wrote. "Perhaps it is well that Negroes try to be as unintellectual as possible, for if they ever started really thinking about what happened to them they'd go wild. And perhaps that is the secret of whites who want to believe that Negroes have no memory; for if they thought that Negroes remembered they would start out to shoot them all in sheer self-defense."

The United States has spent $300 billion since 1980 to expand its prison system. We imprison 2.2 million people, 25 percent of the world's prison population. For every 100,000 adults in this country there are 742 behind bars. Five million are on parole. Only 30 to 40 percent are white.

The intrusion of corporations and private contractors into the prison system is a legacy of the Clinton administration. President Bill Clinton's omnibus crime bill provided $30 billion to expand the prison system, including $10 billion to build prisons. The bill expanded from two to 58 the number of federal crimes for which the death penalty can be administered. It eliminated a ban on the execution of the mentally impaired. The bill gave us the "three-strikes" laws that mandate life sentences for anyone convicted of three "violent" felonies. It set up the tracking of sex offenders. It allowed the courts to try children as young as 13 as adults. It created special courts to deport noncitizens alleged to be "engaged in terrorist activity" and authorized the use of secret evidence. The prison population under Clinton swelled from 1.4 million to 2 million.

Incarceration has become a very lucrative business for an array of private contractors, most of whom send lobbyists to Washington to make sure the laws and legislation continue to funnel a steady supply of poor people into the prison complex. These private contractors, taking public money, build the prisons, provide food service, hire guards and run and administer detention facilities. It is imperative to their profits that there be a steady supply of new bodies.

*****

Bourne has worked for 13 years as a locker room assistant in the Plainfield school system. She works five hours a day. She does not have medical benefits. She struggles to take care of a daughter in fragile health and a disabled son.

Bourne and her children sat terrified that April afternoon in their apartment. After about 10 minutes four more police officers arrived with her husband. His clothes were torn and disheveled. His face was swollen and bruised. He was handcuffed. "He looked like he been beat up," she said.

"They were telling him, tell us where you have the stuff at, the drugs at," Bourne said when we met at a prison support group I help run at the Second Presbyterian Church in Elizabeth, N.J. "Tell us where you have the stuff at 'cause if you don't we are going to handcuff her and the kids. And you be a man, you know, you know be a man and tell so we ... don't have to handcuff her and the kids. And he told them they [she and the children] have nothing to do with this, and there's nothing in the house."

The police took her husband to the kitchen. "They were hittin' him in the kitchen," she said, "punchin' him, like in the stomach. Like by his ribs. He was saying they don't have nothin' to do with it, you know, they don't."

She could hear the officers repeating: "Where are the drugs?" They beat him for about 10 minutes, she said. The police then went into the living room and handcuffed Bourne and her son and daughter. They took her husband out of the apartment. Three officers remained until a K-9 dog unit arrived. The police removed the handcuffs and took Bourne and her children into the kitchen. A dog was guided around the living room and then coaxed up the stairs to the bedrooms, where it stayed for five minutes before being brought back down. The police remained in the bedrooms about 30 minutes. Bourne heard banging sounds. She heard one of the officers say: "We found drugs in a black boot." Her husband's boots had been in a plastic bag with his clothes in preparation for his moving out of the apartment.

Although not under arrest, Bourne was taken to the police station, where she filled out forms and was fingerprinted. No charge was filed against her at the time. Two hours later the police drove her home. It would be weeks before Bourne learned-in an indirect way-that she, too, would face the possibility of jail time because of the raid.

When Bourne returned home that spring night, "It looked like a tornado had went through my bedroom. Everything was piled on top of each other. The TV was broken. It had been pushed over on the floor. I had my cellular phone charging in the socket-the charger was ripped out the socket. There were nails holes [made by the police] in the wall. You could see little dots, probably about six, seven, 10. The computer was pushed over on the ground. The cable was pull out the TV. The blinds was removed. The shades were removed from the windows. The containers that I have clothes in was all thrown on the bed. The dresser drawers were sitting high on top the bed."

"I felt violated," she said. "Very violated. I felt that if [they] wanted him so bad, why destroy my stuff?"

In cleaning up she found that her wedding and engagement rings, kept on the top of her dresser in a small box from Macy's, had disappeared. She soon found that other items were missing.

"They took video games that I bought for my kids that was packaged inside a closet in a shoe box," Bourne said. "They took a remote control that go with one of the game systems. I had collectible like coins that I bought way back. That was gone." She had seen police leaving the apartment with a yellow plastic container that had a new Acer computer she had bought for her cousin. "I had told them, 'Where are you going with that computer?' " she said. The police immediately returned it.

Her husband is in Union County Jail in Elizabeth. He is charged with possession of drugs in public housing and possession of drugs in a school zone. When Bourne spoke to him by phone he told her the police had taken $900 he had in his pocket and that he had $2,000 in the apartment closet. When she checked the closet the money was not there. The police report in Bourne's possession claims the officers confiscated $134 from the apartment and $734 from her husband. There was no mention of the other missing items, including her rings.

When Bourne was in court for her husband's arraignment in early July she was stunned to hear the prosecutor tell the court that cocaine was also found by the police in a pocket of her jeans.

She told me she was not wearing jeans at the time. She said she does not take or sell drugs. And she pointed out that the police report, which she showed to me, never mentioned finding drugs on her person. After being charged she met with a public defender who told her that she should urge her husband to confess that the cocaine was his. If he does not, Bourne could face six years in jail.

The state-appointed attorney, with whom Bourne spent less than 15 minutes, told her to stay out of trouble. She has never been arrested at any time in her life. She said the encounter with the lawyer left her feeling "degraded."

"I have two kids," she said. "I'm 45. Why would I be trying to go to jail? That's not me, that's not how I was brought up. My daughter is sick. My son has a disability. I'm the only one that take care of both of them."

If she goes to jail it will be catastrophic for her children. But this is not a new story. It happens to families every day in our gulag state. Bourne is one human being among hundreds of thousands routinely sacrificed for corporate greed. Her tragedy is of no concern to private contractors or supine judges and elected officials. They do not work for her. They do not work for us. They are corporate employees. And they know something Bourne is just discovering: Incarceration in America is a business.
(c) 2013 Chris Hedges, the former Middle East bureau chief for The New York Times, spent seven years in the Middle East. He was part of the paper's team of reporters who won the 2002 Pulitzer Prize for coverage of global terrorism. He is the author of War Is a Force That Gives Us Meaning and American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War on America. His latest book is, ""Death Of The Liberal Class."







Cutting The Poor While Subsidizing Millionaires

"Stop the moochers!" shouted a flock of GOP budget whackers in the US House recently, as they literally ripped all food stamp funding out of the farm bill.

They say they're shocked that use of this program has jumped so dramatically in recent years. Crying that "those" people are costing us money, the House whacked the entire budget for getting food to the poor.

Well, yes, food stamp use is up, but - hello, clueless congress critters - so is the need. Longterm joblessness and falling wages are sucking more and more of your constituents out of the middle class down into the vortex of poverty. It's disgraceful for you well-paid lawmakers to gut a poverty program that's working exactly as it's meant to do, at the very time it's most needed.

But, next, the flock of budget whackers suddenly flew completely off course. Going from disgraceful to disgusting, they approved a farm bill that gives ridiculous taxpayer handouts to the biggest and richest agribusiness operations in our land. Those entities are wallowing in record-high crop prices and farm income this year, yet the GOP's pious deficit scolds turned into free-spending corporate socialists, doling out the most generous farm subsidies in US history.

For example, they perverted the crop insurance program into an absurd, guaranteed-income plan for the wealthiest farms, each of which will collect more than a million dollars a year from us. Moreover, these "free-market" Republicans would also have the government (ie, you and me) guarantee an artificially-high price for various commodities produced by the giant farms. And, they would make all of these subsidies permanent.

This is Jim Hightower needy, but a free feed for millionaire farmers? That's a moral abomination! For more information and action, contact the Environmental Working Group.
(c) 2013 Jim Hightower's latest book, "If The Gods Had Meant Us To Vote They Would Have Given Us Candidates," is available in a fully revised and updated paperback edition.








A Nuclear Free World
By David Swanson

We've managed to outgrow or to come within sight of outgrowing cannibalism, slavery, blood feuds, duels, capital punishment, child labor, tar and feathering, the stocks and pillory, wives as chattel, the punishment of homosexuality, and listening to Rush Limbaugh. To various degrees, these practices -- and many others -- have been eliminated or reduced and stigmatized.

While the stupidest practice ever created -- the mass killing known as war -- remains, we've seen most of the world ban poison gas, land mines, cluster bombs, biological weapons, depleted uranium, napalm, white phosphorous, and other disgusting weaponry. But the worst weapon of all remains, and the treaty requiring its reduction and elimination is completely ignored.

We've begun learning to avoid long-lasting environmental damage. We try not to poison our fruit trees or our grass or our rivers. But when it comes to damage that lasts longer than humanity has existed, we go right on producing it. And in so doing, we contributeto a slowly building crisis that could soon slip out of humanity's control and eventually remove humanity from existence. Meanwhile, Pandora's Propaganda tells us that nuclear energy -- the same stuff that proliferates the weaponry -- will help the earth's climate rather than hurting it.

Uh huh. And blood-letting and lobotomy will heal what ails you.

Except that they won't. And we've come to admit and accept that and to move on. We don't fund lobotomies. Why must we fund nuclear energy? And don't say: because television can replace lobotomies but will never reproduce Fukushima.

August is Nuclear Free Future Month . Take a look at what Fukushima is like two years after. Here's a hint: its former residents have to visit it by Youtube too.

Here's something you can do to help: Set up a screening of this new film: The Ultimate Wish: Ending the Nuclear Age.

The Ultimate Wish is the wish for a world without nukes. This is a film that connects Fukushima to Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Here we watch a survivor of Nagasaki meet a survivor of Auschwitz. And it strikes us with crystalline clarity that they are both victims of incredible stupidity and cruelty. We completely set aside the fact that the holocaust was created by bad German lies about a master race while the dropping of the bombs was created by good U.S. lies about ending World War II and starting the Cold War. The politics fades, and we're left with the human species treating itself as even ants would never treat their fellow ants.

In The Ultimate Wish, produced by Robert Richter and Kathleen Sullivan, we see nuclear survivors in classrooms speaking with young people. One teacher asks the students to close their eyes. She drops a single ball bearing into a metal pan, the noise meant to represent all the bombs of World War II, all the bullets, all the grenades, even the two nuclear bombs. Then, to represent the nuclear weapons now in existence, she dumps a whole noisy bag of ball bearings.

A large coalition has issued the following appeal:

Do you want to reach thousands on August 9 with our message on the need for the Obama administration to engage in multilateral negotiations now for a nuclear free future?

Then join our Thunderclap. Watch a brief video and learn about how a Thunderclap works.

Thousands will see the message below on all of our Facebook pages and Twitter accounts on August 9 at 11:02 a.m., the time the bomb was dropped on Nagasaki:

Aug 9 1945 US A-bombed Nagasaki. Pres #Obama: Speak out at Sept 26 UN Nuclear Disarmament Summit! #NoMoreNagasakis How do you join the Thunderclap? Click on this link and sign up.

And on August 9 the message will automatically be sent to all your friends and supporters.

Not a bad idea, huh? Try to reach some of your non-friends and non-supporters too.
(c) 2013 David Swanson is the author of "War Is A Lie."








The Threat Of Critical Mass
By James Donahue

Since entering the atomic age the concept of critical mass has become part of our vocabulary.

In atomic fusion, we are talking about a buildup of heat from the splitting of supercharged atoms that explode after reaching a state of critical mass. And admittedly this is a crude explanation of something that I know little about.

Now the mystics have developed a theory of critical mass linked to a belief in the evolution of human consciousness. With billions of humans all using their minds at the same time, they are tapping in and being influenced by a central information library called the collective unconsciousness.

In contemporary scientific terminology, this phenomenon is called "thought contagion" resulting from "morphic resonance of the group mind." British author Dr. Rupert Sheldrake, theorizes that this resonance is "a nonmaterial organizing collective memory field that affects all biological systems. This field can be envisioned as a hyper spatial information reservoir that brims and spills over into a much larger region of influence when critical mass is reached."

The optimists within esoteric circles believe that humans are evolving with the help of the critical mass of enlightenment. The theory is that a certain number of "awakened" human beings can initiate "a significant shift in global consciousness." The result is a fusion of awakening among others until the entire planet is filled with enriched humans, their brains working collectively for the good of all.

Unfortunately, I don't see this happening. There seems to be a general dumbing down of people all over the world. The willingness of the American public to blindly follow a mediocre, not-too-bright president into a military assault against a small country like Iraq was a good example of what I am talking about.

The world unquestionably accepted the Bush reasoning for such an attack, that the little dictator there was storing "weapons of mass destruction," even though it was a very lame excuse. Especially after a skilled inspection team spent weeks scouring the country and found no evidence of such weapons. And now, after bombing Iraq into the Stone Age, and still being unable to prove such claims, the general public appears unwilling to hold Mr. Bush accountable for his actions. If anything, his popularity as a "leader" has actually risen since leaving office.

It strikes me that there might be a hidden agenda behind the mass killing of so many innocent people in both Iraq and Afghanistan, since the Bush War Against Terror was launched in 2001. It may have something to do with a probability that people all over the world are growing dumber and dumber by the day.

With more than six billion humans existing on this planet, and the numbers growing expedientially by the hour, there is more information being transmitted through the collective now than ever before in history.

I find it extremely troublesome that, instead of evolving into something superior, the human race seems to be de-evolving into a state of almost animal behavior. It is almost as if the uneducated masses are feeding so much stupidity into the collective, it is dragging down the ability of everybody else to think.

A good example of how the collective influences thought patterns is found in a mythological phenomenon known as the 100th Monkey Effect. As the story is told, a group of Japanese monkeys created the critical mass needed to teach the species a new behavior. It began with the washing of sweet potatoes by the children of the monkey tribe. The behavior was expanded into the older generation of monkeys that also began washing sweet potatoes. The knowledge spread slowly, but when a certain number of monkeys knew this behavior, the 100th monkey, suddenly the phenomena spread to all the animals. The behavior was adopted throughout the species, even among monkeys that were many miles away and had no contact with this tribe.

While the story appears to be a fabrication, it demonstrates the effect human thinking seems to have on one another. It has been shown that a collective unconscious stream of information does exist and that all humans possess the ability to tap into this rich resource of knowledge.

And therein lies the crisis faced by the human race today. We have obviously populated the planet to a point of critical mass, or at least gotten so close to that number that the weak minded are already being influenced by the thought patterns of the majority. If we allow ourselves to reach that unknown number ... the 100th Monkey Effect cold grip the minds of everyone. It is conceivable that we, as a race, could, through sheer numbers, fall back to simple left-brain thought. We could be no more than a world of robots without purpose.

This leads me to think that the actions of a few world leaders ... while giving the appearance of total stupidity ... might have cause. Someone, I hope wiser and smarter than George W. Bush may be pulling strings to make the puppets jump. If my theory is right, Bush and those lame-brained Congressional leaders that followed him into office, are being allowed to lead the world right into the apocalypse for good cause. My fear is that if we fail to enlighten billions of the stupid people soon, mankind will fly directly back into the stone age.
(c) 2013 James L. Donahue is a retired newspaper reporter, editor and columnist with more than 40 years of experience in professional writing. He is the published author of five books, all dealing with Michigan history, and several magazine articles. He currently produces daily articles for this web site




Joseph Stiglitz



In An Economic Democracy, Stiglitz And Reich Would Be Contenders For Fed Head
By John Nichols

The big election race of 2013 is for the position of Federal Reserve chairman.

The United States is not an economy democracy, however. So there will be no popular vote on who will make the most critical decisions on jobs, investments, interest rates and a host of other defining issues for working families, communities, states and the nation.

But there is a campaign going on. In order to influence the selection of a new chair by President Obama and the Senate confirmation process: Contenders are positioning. Camps and caucuses are organizing. Endorsements are being made. Issues are being placed on the table.

So let's invite the American people into the process.

Let's tell them how powerful the Fed is, and what it could do to address poverty, unemployment and the economic challenges faced by cities like Detroit.

One member of Congress, Michigan Democrat Dan Kildee, is already inviting us to imagine the possibilities.

In response to the threat of bankruptcy that looms for Detroit and other cities, Kildee has argued that the Fed should be actively engaged in developing solutions for cities that are in economic turmoil after decades of deindustrialization and federal and state neglect. "While Detroit's problems may be extreme, they are certainly not unique," says Kildee. "Municipalities in Michigan and across the country are increasingly facing insolvency that requires us to rethink the way we support our cities."

When Fed Chair Ben Bernanke appeared before the House Financial Service Committee in mid-July, the congressman said, "I would ask if you would think about how you would advise Congress or how the Fed itself might pursue policy that would have the effect of potentially avoiding-but certainly mitigating-the economic effect of municipal financial failure."

Kildee's point is well taken, not merely with regard to the debate over Detroit-but with regard to the debate over who will head the Fed.

One potential contender for the job, Lawrence Summers, has a record of delivering for Wall Street and the big banks-as an advocate for deregulation, privatization and the elimination of essential regulatory protections such as the Glass-Steagall Act. As economist Dean Baker noted after the economy melted down in 2007 and 2008, "The policies [Summers] promoted as Treasury Secretary and in his subsequent writings led to the economic disaster that we now face." But Summers is also an over-the-top advocate for the sort of free trade agreements that have left communities across this country with shuttered factories and high unemployment. He's so disinclined toward the public investments that might renew those communities that Congressman Peter DeFazio, D-Oregon, has said, "Larry Summers hates infrastructure."

So count Summers out.

There are better choices, such as Janet Louise Yellen, who in her writings and in her tenure as the Vice Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System has evidenced a higher commitment to the Fed's mandate to promote high employment. She's clearly a candidate-so much so that on Tuesday she got her first newspaper endorsement: from The New York Times.

But Senator Bernie Sanders has suggested a pair of dark-horse contenders who-in a real race for the Fed chairmanship-would offer working Americans a genuine choice.

Declaring that "it's time for new leadership at the Federal Reserve and a new approach to our troubled economy," Sanders has identified Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz and former US Labor Secretary Robert Reich as "excellent candidates" to replace Chairman Ben Bernanke when the chairman finishes his term January 31.

"We need a new Fed chair who will act with the same sense of urgency to combat the unemployment crisis in America today that has left 22 million Americans without a full time job," argues Sanders. To that end, Sanders rejects Summers as a contender, writing to President Obama that "it would be a tragic mistake to nominate anyone as chair of the Fed who continued those failed policies. Instead, we need a new chair who will have the courage to hold Wall Street accountable for their fraud, recklessness and illegal behavior, and stand up for the needs of ordinary Americans."

But Sanders also recognizes that, in the race for the Fed chairmanship, progressives should have a contender. Or, perhaps, two.

"As you consider whom to nominate as the next chair of the Federal Reserve, I urge you to consider someone who will put the needs of the disappearing middle class ahead of the interests of Wall Street and the wealthy few," Sanders wrote to the president. "There are a number of excellent candidates who are capable of doing that. Nobel Prize economist Joseph Stiglitz and former US Secretary of Labor Robert Reich are just two names that come to mind."

The reality is that, while the names of Stiglitz and Reich come quickly to the mind of Sanders and other progressives, they may not be at the top of the White House list. But they should be. On the immediate issue of Detroit, Reich has written brilliantly on the importance of recognizing, "in an era of widening inequality," that the real question is whether Americans are going to "[write] off the poor" who reside in urban America. On the broader question of the economy, Stiglitz is arguing that "so-called 'free trade' talks should be in the public, not corporate interest."

Those are not ideas that are now at the center of the discussion about who should head the Fed.

But they should be.

And they can be.

This is the point of treating the race for the Fed chairmanship as an election, rather than an anointment.

By putting Stiglitz and Reich in the running, Sanders invites organized labor and economic justice and urban policy groups to join the debate. By highlighting the progressive economic approaches advanced by Stiglitz and Reich, as an alternative to those advanced by Larry Summers, they expand the understanding of what the Fed can and should do-for Detroit, for cities across the country and for neglected rural communities.

The debate is essential.

A quarter century ago, my colleague William Greider wrote the groundbreaking book: Secrets of the Temple: How the Federal Reserve Runs the Country (Simon & Schuster). The Fed still operates behind veils of secrecy. Most Americans do not know what it does and, more critically, what it can do.

Treating the race for Fed head as a race, as a real campaign, invites citizens into the process.

Urging the selection of Stiglitz or Reich might not lead to the actual choice of a progressive-populist as Fed chair. But it could turn the tide against Summers. It might help Yellen. And it would almost certainly create pressure on whoever takes charge of the Fed to recognize and embrace the full potential of the Federal Reserve.
(c) 2013 John Nichols writes about politics for The Nation magazine as its Washington correspondent. His new book on protests and politics, Uprising: How Wisconsin Renewed the Politics of Protest, from Madison to Wall Street, has just been published by Nation Books. Follow John Nichols on Twitter @NicholsUprising.








When Extradition Theories Collide: Snowden's Whistleblowing vs. CIA Kidnappings
So there are two men, both of whom, Washington is convinced, must be brought in: one to face "justice," one to escape it.
By Tom Engelhardt

He came and he went: that was the joke that circulated in 1979 when 70-year-old former Vice President Nelson Rockefeller had a heart attack and died in his Manhattan townhouse in the presence of his evening-gown-clad 25-year-old assistant. In a sense, the same might be said of retired CIA operative Robert Seldon Lady.The Italian court had sentenced Robert Seldon Lady, the CIA's former Milan station chief to nine years in prison. But arrested in Panama near the Costa Rica border, he was released within 24 hours to fly to the United States, rather than wait for Italy to request his extradition.

Recently, Lady proved a one-day wonder. After years in absentia -- poof! -- he reappeared out of nowhere on the border between Panama and Costa Rica, and made the news when Panamanian officials took him into custody on an Interpol warrant. The CIA's station chief in Milan back in 2003, he had achieved brief notoriety for overseeing a la dolce vita version of extraordinary rendition as part of Washington's Global War on Terror. His colleagues kidnapped Hassan Mustafa Osama Nasr, a radical Muslim cleric and terror suspect, off the streets of Milan, and rendered him via U.S. airbases in Italy and Germany to the torture chambers of Hosni Mubarak's Egypt. Lady evidently rode shotgun on that transfer.

His Agency associates proved to be the crew that couldn't spook straight. They left behind such a traceable trail of five-star-hotel and restaurant bills, charges on false credit cards, and unencrypted cell phone calls that the Italian government tracked them down, identified them, and charged 23 of them, Lady included, with kidnapping.

Lady fled Italy, leaving behind a multimillion-dollar villa near Turin meant for his retirement. (It was later confiscated and sold to make restitution payments to Nasr.) Convicted in absentia in 2009, Lady received a nine-year sentence (later reduced to six). He had by then essentially vanished after admitting to an Italian newspaper, "Of course it was an illegal operation. But that's our job. We're at war against terrorism."

Last week, the Panamanians picked him up. It was the real world equivalent of a magician's trick. He was nowhere, then suddenly in custody and in the news, and then -- poof again! -- he wasn't. Just 24 hours after the retired CIA official found himself under lock and key, he was flown out of Panama, evidently under the protection of Washington, and in mid-air, heading back to the United States, vanished a second time.

State Department spokesperson Marie Harf told reporters on July 19th, "It's my understanding that he is in fact either en route or back in the United States." So there he was, possibly in mid-air heading for the homeland and, as far as we know, as far as reporting goes, nothing more. Consider it the CIA version of a miracle. Instead of landing, he just evaporated.

And that was that. Not another news story here in the U.S.; no further information from government spokespeople on what happened to him, or why the administration decided to extricate him from Panama and protect him from Italian justice. Nor, as far as I can tell, were there any further questions from the media. When TomDispatch inquired of the State Department, all it got was this bit of stonewallese: "We understand that a U.S citizen was detained by Panamanian authorities, and that Panamanian immigration officials expelled him from Panama on July 19. Panama's actions are consistent with its rights to determine whether to admit or expel non-citizens from its territory."

In other words, he came and he went.

Edward Snowden: The Opposite of a Magician's Trick

When Lady was first detained, there was a little flurry of news stories and a little frisson of tension. Would a retired CIA agent convicted of a serious crime involving kidnapping and torture be extradited to Italy to serve his sentence? But that tension had no chance to build because (as anyone might have predicted) luck was a Lady that week.

After all, the country that took him into custody on that Interpol warrant was a genuine rarity in a changing Latin America. It was still an ally of the United States, which had once built a canal across its territory, controlled its politics for years, and in 1989 sent in the U.S. military to forcefully sort out those politics once again. Italy wanted Lady back and evidently requested that Panama hand him over (though the countries had no extradition treaty). But could anyone be surprised by what happened or by the role Washington clearly played in settling Lady's fate? If you had paid any attention to the global pressure Washington was exerting in an "international manhunt" to get Edward Snowden, the NSA whistleblower it had already charged under the draconian Espionage Act, back to its shores, you knew which direction Robert Seldon Lady would be heading when he hit the nearest plane out of Panama -- and I don't mean Italy.

But here was the curious thing: when Panama sent him north, not east, there wasn't the slightest ripple of U.S. media curiosity about the act or what lay behind it. Lady simply disappeared. While the Italian minister of justice "deeply regretted" Panama's decision, there was not, as far as I can tell, a single editorial, outraged or otherwise, anywhere in this country questioning the Obama administration's decision not to allow a convicted criminal to be brought to justice in the courts of a democratic ally or even praising Washington's role in protecting him. And we're not talking about a media with no interest in trials in Italy. Who doesn't remember the wall-to-wall coverage of the murder trial (and retrial) of American student Amanda Knox there? For the American media, however, Lady clearly lacked Knox's sex appeal (nor would he make millions off a future account of his Italian sojourn).

In this same period, there was, of course, another man who almost magically disappeared. In a transit area of Moscow's international airport, Edward Snowden discovered that the U.S. government had deprived him of his passport and was determined to bring him back to Washington by just about any means to stand trial. That included forcing the plane of Bolivian President Evo Morales, returning from Moscow, to make an unscheduled landing in Austria and be searched for Snowden.

The NSA whistleblower was trapped in a kind of no-man's-land by an Obama administration demanding that the Russians turn him over or face the consequences. After which, for days, he disappeared from sight. In his case, unlike Lady's, however, Washington never stopped talking about him and the media never stopped speculating on his fate. It hasn't yet.

He's only appeared in public once since his "disappearance" -- at a press conference at that airport with human rights activists from Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch. The U.S. government promptly deplored and denounced the event as something Moscow "facilitated" or "orchestrated," a "propaganda platform," and a State Department spokesperson even suggested that Snowden, not yet convicted of anything, shouldn't have the right to express himself in Moscow or anywhere else.

The truth is: when it comes to Snowden, official Washington can't shut up. Congressional figures have denounced him as a "traitor" or a "defector." The world has repeatedly been lectured from the bully pulpit in our national capital on how necessary his return and trial is to freedom, justice, and global peace. Snowden, it seems, represents the opposite of a magician's trick. He can't disappear even when he wants to. Washington won't let him, not now, not -- as officials have made clear -- ever. It's a matter of morality that he faces the law and pays the (already preordained) price for his "crime." This, in today's Washington, is what passes for a self-evident truth.

The Lady Vanishes

It's no less a self-evident truth in Washington that Robert Seldon Lady must be protected from the long (Italian) arm of the law, that he is a patriot who did his duty, that it is the job of the U.S. government to keep him safe and never allow him to be prosecuted, just as it is the job of that government to protect, not prosecute, CIA torturers who took part in George W. Bush's Global War on Terror.

So there are two men, both of whom, Washington is convinced, must be brought in: one to face "justice," one to escape it. And all of this is a given, nothing that needs to be explained or justified to anyone anywhere, not even by a Constitutional law professor president. (Of course, if someone had been accused of kidnapping and rendering an American Christian fundamentalist preacher and terror suspect off the streets of Milan to Moscow or Tehran or Beijing, it would no less self-evidently be a different matter.)

Don't make the mistake, however, of comparing Washington's positions on Snowden and Lady and labeling the Obama administration's words and actions "hypocrisy." There's no hypocrisy involved. This is simply the living definition of what it means to exist in a one-superpower world for the first time in history. For Washington, the essential rule of thumb goes something like this: we do what we want; we get to say what we want about what we do; and U.N. ambassadorial nominee Samantha Powers then gets to lecture the world on human rights and oppression.

This version of how it all works is so much the norm in Washington that few there are likely to see any contradiction at all between the Obama administration's approaches to Snowden and Lady, nor evidently does the Washington media. Its particular blind spots, when it comes to Washington's actions, remain striking -- as when the U.S. effectively downed the Bolivian president and his plane. Although it was an act of seemingly self-evident illegality, there was no serious reporting, no digging when it came to the behind-the-scenes acts of the U.S. government, which clearly pressured four or five European governments (one of which may have been Italy) to collude in the act. Nor, weeks later, has there been any follow-up by the Washington media. In other words, an act unique in recent history, which left European powers disgruntled and left much of Latin America up in arms, has disappeared without explanation, analysis, punditry, or editorial comment here. Undoubtedly, given the lack of substantial coverage, few Americans even know it happened.

The lucky Mr. Lady's story has followed a similar trajectory. Having vanished in mid-air, he has managed so far not to reappear anywhere in the U.S. press. What followed was no further news, editorial silence, and utter indifference to an act of protection that might otherwise have seemed to define illegality on an international level. There was no talk in the media, in Congress, or anywhere else about the U.S. handing over a convicted criminal to Italy, just about how the Russians must return a man Washington considers a criminal to justice.

This, then, is our world: a single megapower has, since September 2001, been in a financing and construction frenzy to create the first global surveillance state; its torturers run free; its kidnappers serve time at liberty in this country and are rescued if they venture abroad; and its whistleblowers -- those who would let the rest of us know what "our" government is doing in our name -- are pilloried. And so it goes.

All of it adds up to a way of life and the everyday tradecraft of a one-superpower world. Too bad Alfred Hitchcock isn't around to remake some of his old classics. Imagine what a thriller "The Lady Vanishes" would be today.
(c) 2013 Tom Engelhardt is co-founder of the American Empire Project. He is the author of The End of Victory Culture: a History of the Cold War and Beyond, as well as of a novel, The Last Days of Publishing. His most recent book is The American Way of War: How Bush's Wars Became Obama's (Haymarket Books).




The NSA headquarters in Fort Meade, Maryland.




Major Opinion Shifts, In The US And Congress, On NSA Surveillance And Privacy
Pew finds that, for the first time since 9/11, Americans are now more worried about civil liberties abuses than terrorism
By Glenn Greenwald

Numerous polls taken since our reporting on previously secret NSA activities first began have strongly suggested major public opinion shifts in how NSA surveillance and privacy are viewed. But a new comprehensive poll released over the weekend weekend by Pew Research provides the most compelling evidence yet of how stark the shift is.

Among other things, Pew finds that "a majority of Americans – 56% – say that federal courts fail to provide adequate limits on the telephone and internet data the government is collecting as part of its anti-terrorism efforts." And "an even larger percentage (70%) believes that the government uses this data for purposes other than investigating terrorism." Moreover, "63% think the government is also gathering information about the content of communications." That demonstrates a decisive rejection of the US government's three primary defenses of its secret programs: there is adequate oversight; we're not listening to the content of communication; and the spying is only used to Keep You Safe™.

But the most striking finding is this one:

"Overall, 47% say their greater concern about government anti-terrorism policies is that they have gone too far in restricting the average person's civil liberties, while 35% say they are more concerned that policies have not gone far enough to protect the country. This is the first time in Pew Research polling that more have expressed concern over civil liberties than protection from terrorism since the question was first asked in 2004."

For anyone who spent the post-9/11 years defending core liberties against assaults relentlessly perpetrated in the name of terrorism, polling data like that is nothing short of shocking. This Pew visual underscores what a radical shift has occurred from these recent NSA disclosures:

Perhaps more amazingly still, this shift has infected the US Congress. Following up on last week's momentous House vote - in which 55% of Democrats and 45% of Republicans defied the White House and their own leadership to vote for the Amash/Conyers amendment to ban the NSA's bulk phone records collection program - the New York Times has an article this morning which it summarizes on its front page this way:

The article describes how opposition to the NSA, which the paper says was recently confined to the Congressional "fringes", has now "built a momentum that even critics say may be unstoppable, drawing support from Republican and Democratic leaders, attracting moderates in both parties and pulling in some of the most respected voices on national security in the House."

It describes how GOP Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner - a prime author of the Patriot Act back in 2001 and a long-time defender of even the most extremist War on Terror policies - has now become a leading critic of NSA overreach. He will have "a bill ready when Congress returned from its August recess that would restrict phone surveillance to only those named as targets of a federal terrorism investigation, make significant changes to the secret court that oversees such programs and give businesses like Microsoft and Google permission to reveal their dealings before that court."

Democratic Rep. Zoe Lofgren is quoted this way: "There is a growing sense that things have really gone a-kilter here". Yesterday on This Week with George Stephanopoulos, Democratic Sen Dick Durbin, one of Obama's closest Senate allies, said that the recently revealed NSA bulk record collection program "goes way too far".

The strategy for the NSA and its Washington defenders for managing these changes is now clear: advocate their own largely meaningless reform to placate this growing sentiment while doing nothing to actually rein in the NSA's power. "Backers of sweeping surveillance powers now say they recognize that changes are likely, and they are taking steps to make sure they maintain control over the extent of any revisions," says the NYT.

The primary problem enabling out-of-control NSA spying has long been the Intelligence Committees in both houses of Congress. That's an ironic twist given that those were the committees created in the wake of the mid-1970s Church Committee to provide rigorous oversight, as a response to the recognition that Executive Branch's surveillance powers were being radically abused - and would inevitably be abused in the future - without robust transparency and accountability.

But with a few rare and noble exceptions, the Intelligence Committees in both houses of Congress are filled with precisely those members who are most slavishly beholden to, completely captured by, the intelligence community over which they supposedly serve as watchdogs. Many receive large sums of money from the defense and intelligence industries.

There is a clear and powerful correlation between NSA support and amounts of money received by these members from those industries, as Wired's Dave Kravets adeptly documented about last week's NSA vote and has been documented before with similar NSA-protecting actions from the Intelligence Committee. In particular, the two chairs of those committees - Democrat Dianne Feinstein in the Senate and Republican Mike Rogers in the House - are such absolute loyalists to the NSA and the National Security State generally that it is usually impossible to distinguish their behavior, mindset and comments from those of NSA officials.

In sum, the Senate and House Intelligence Committees are the pure embodiment of the worst of Washington: the corrupting influence of money from the very industries they are designed to oversee and the complete capture by the agencies they are supposed to adversarially check. Anything that comes out of the leadership of those two Committees that is labeled "NSA reform" is almost certain to be designed to achieve the opposite effect: to stave off real changes in lieu of illusory tinkering whose real purpose will be to placate rising anger.

But that trick seems unlikely to work here. What has made these disclosures different from past NSA scandals - including ones showing serious abuse of their surveillance powers - are the large numbers of the NSA's own documents that are now and will continue to be available for the public to see, as well the sustained, multi-step nature of these disclosures, which makes this far more difficult for NSA defenders to predict, manage and dismiss away. At least as much as they are shining long-overdue light on these specific NSA domestic programs, the NSA disclosures are changing how Americans (and people around the world) think about the mammoth National Security State and whether it can and should be trusted with unchecked powers exercised in the dark. Those public opinion shifts aren't going to disappear as the result of some blatantly empty gestures from Dianne Feinstein and Mike Rogers masquerading as "reform".

Despite the substantial public opinion shifts, Pew found that Americans are largely split on whether the NSA data-collection program should continue. The reason for this is remarkable and repugnant though, at this point, utterly unsurprising:

Nationwide, there is more support for the government's data-collection program among Democrats (57% approve) than among Republicans (44%), but both parties face significant internal divisions: 36% of Democrats disapprove of the program as do 50% of Republicans.

Just as Democrats went from vehement critics of Bush's due-process-free War on Terror policies to vocal cheerleaders of Obama's drone kills and even Guantanamo imprisonments, the leading defenders of the NSA specifically and America's Surveillance State generally are now found among self-identified Democrats. That was embodied by how one of the most vocal Democratic NSA critics during the Bush years - Nancy Pelosi - in almost single-handedly saved the NSA from last week's House vote. If someone had said back in 2007 that the greatest support for NSA surveillance would be found among Democrats, many would find the very idea ludicrous. But such is life in the Age of Obama: one of his most enduring legacies is transforming his party from pretend-opponents of the permanent National Security State into its most enthusiastic supporters.

But despite that hackish partisan opportunism, the positive opinion changes toward NSA surveillance and civil liberties can be seen across virtually all partisan and ideological lines:

The largest changes toward demanding civil liberties protections have occurred among liberal Democrats, Tea Party Republicans, independents and liberal/moderate Republicans. Only self-identified "moderate/conservative Democrats" - the Obama base - remains steadfast and steady in defense of NSA surveillance. The least divided, most-pro-NSA caucus in the House for last week's vote was the corporatist Blue Dog Democrat caucus, which overwhelmingly voted to protect the NSA's bulk spying on Americans.

As I've repeatedly said, the only ones defending the NSA at this point are the party loyalists and institutional authoritarians in both parties. That's enough for the moment to control Washington outcomes - as epitomized by the unholy trinity that saved the NSA in the House last week: Pelosi, John Bohener and the Obama White House - but it is clearly not enough to stem the rapidly changing tide of public opinion.
(c) 2013 Glenn Greenwald. was previously a constitutional law and civil rights litigator in New York. His most recent book is, With Liberty and Justice for Some: How the Law Is Used to Destroy Equality and Protect the Powerful. He is the author of the New York Times Bestselling book "How Would a Patriot Act?," a critique of the Bush administration's use of executive power, released in May 2006. His second book, "A Tragic Legacy," examines the Bush legacy. He is the recipient of the first annual I.F. Stone Award for Independent Journalism.








Stranded By Sprawl
By Paul Krugman

Detroit is a symbol of the old economy's decline. It's not just the derelict center; the metropolitan area as a whole lost population between 2000 and 2010, the worst performance among major cities. Atlanta, by contrast, epitomizes the rise of the Sun Belt; it gained more than a million people over the same period, roughly matching the performance of Dallas and Houston without the extra boost from oil.

Yet in one important respect booming Atlanta looks just like Detroit gone bust: both are places where the American dream seems to be dying, where the children of the poor have great difficulty climbing the economic ladder. In fact, upward social mobility - the extent to which children manage to achieve a higher socioeconomic status than their parents - is even lower in Atlanta than it is in Detroit. And it's far lower in both cities than it is in, say, Boston or San Francisco, even though these cities have much slower growth than Atlanta.

So what's the matter with Atlanta? A new study suggests that the city may just be too spread out, so that job opportunities are literally out of reach for people stranded in the wrong neighborhoods. Sprawl may be killing Horatio Alger.

The new study comes from the Equality of Opportunity Project, which is led by economists at Harvard and Berkeley. There have been many comparisons of social mobility across countries; all such studies find that these days America, which still thinks of itself as the land of opportunity, actually has more of an inherited class system than other advanced nations. The new project asks how social mobility varies across U.S. cities, and finds that it varies a lot. In San Francisco a child born into the bottom fifth of the income distribution has an 11 percent chance of making it into the top fifth, but in Atlanta the corresponding number is only 4 percent.

When the researchers looked for factors that correlate with low or high social mobility, they found, perhaps surprisingly, little direct role for race, one obvious candidate. They did find a significant correlation with the existing level of inequality: "areas with a smaller middle class had lower rates of upward mobility." This matches what we find in international comparisons, where relatively equal societies like Sweden have much higher mobility than highly unequal America. But they also found a significant negative correlation between residential segregation - different social classes living far apart - and the ability of the poor to rise.

And in Atlanta poor and rich neighborhoods are far apart because, basically, everything is far apart; Atlanta is the Sultan of Sprawl, even more spread out than other major Sun Belt cities. This would make an effective public transportation system nearly impossible to operate even if politicians were willing to pay for it, which they aren't. As a result, disadvantaged workers often find themselves stranded; there may be jobs available somewhere, but they literally can't get there.

The apparent inverse relationship between sprawl and social mobility obviously reinforces the case for "smart growth" urban strategies, which try to promote compact centers with access to public transit. But it also bears on a larger debate about what is happening to American society. I know I'm not the only person who read the Times article on the new study and immediately thought, "William Julius Wilson."

A quarter-century ago Mr. Wilson, a distinguished sociologist, famously argued that the postwar movement of employment out of city centers to the suburbs dealt African-American families, concentrated in those city centers, a heavy blow, removing economic opportunity just as the civil rights movement was finally ending explicit discrimination. And he further argued that social phenomena such as the prevalence of single mothers, often cited as causes of lagging black performance, were actually effects - that is, the family was being undermined by the absence of good jobs.

These days, you hear less than you used to about alleged African-American social dysfunction, because traditional families have become much weaker among working-class whites, too. Why? Well, rising inequality and the general hollowing out of the job market are probably the main culprits. But the new research on social mobility suggests that sprawl - not just the movement of jobs out of the city, but their movement out of reach of many less-affluent residents of the suburbs, too - is also playing a role.

As I said, this observation clearly reinforces the case for policies that help families function without multiple cars. But you should also see it in the larger context of a nation that has lost its way, that preaches equality of opportunity while offering less and less opportunity to those who need it most.
(c) 2013 Paul Krugman --- The New York Times






The Quotable Quote...



"He who joyfully marches to music in rank and file has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would fully suffice. This disgrace to civilization should be done away with at once. Heroism at command, senseless brutality, deplorable love-of-country stance, how violently I hate all this, how despicable and ignoble war is; I would rather be torn to shreds than be a part of so base an action!"
~~~ Albert Einstein









US Government Argues Drone Strikes Are Above The Law
A new lawsuit challenges whether counterterrorist officials should be allowed to operate without fear of litigation
By David Sirota

Court cases are often cures for insomnia, but every so often a lawsuit is an eye-opening journey through the looking glass. One of those is suddenly upon us - and we should be thankful because it finally provides an unfiltered look at our government.

You may not know about this case, but you should. Called Al-Aulaqi v. Panetta, it illustrates the extremism driving the policies being made in the public's name.

The first thing you should know about this case is that it is simply about a man who wants to know why his grandson is dead. That's right - in this age of endless war, a grandfather named Nasser Al-Aulaqi is having to go to court to try to compel the U.S. government to explain why it killed his grandson in a drone strike despite never charging the 16-year-old American citizen with a crime.

Another thing you should know is the specific defense the government is mounting in this case. As the New York Times reported, the Obama administration's Deputy Attorney General Brian Hauck first declared that courts have no right to oversee executive-branch decisions to extrajudicially assassinate Americans. He also insisted that the White House already provides adequate due process for those it kills, prompting federal judge Rosemary Collyer to point out that "the executive is not an effective check on the executive." The fact that the judge needed to issue such a reminder speaks volumes about an administration utterly unconcerned with constitutional governance.

But perhaps the most important thing to know about this case is what the government is arguing about the law itself. In defending the administration, Hauck asserted that such suits should not be permitted because they "don't want these counterterrorism officials distracted by the threat of litigation."

The radical message is obvious: Yes, the government now claims that America should not want public officials to have to consider the constraints of the law.

If this harrowing doctrine sounds familiar, that's because the sentiment behind it has been creeping into our political dialogue for years.

When President Obama first took office, for instance, his administration declared that Bush officials who violated laws against torture "will not be subject to prosecution." Rather than deterring similar law breaking in the future, the new president's administration agreed with former Vice President Dick Cheney, who claimed that any investigation would "do great damage" to "our capacity to be able to have people take on difficult jobs ... without having to worry" about being punished for breaking the law.

At the local level, it has been much the same notion from police. Indeed, two years ago, when citizens began recording police brutality with their cellphones, the head of America's police union claimed that such recording and accountability was unacceptable because it might make police officers think twice about breaking the law.

"Anything that's going to have a chilling effect on an officer moving - an apprehension that he's being videotaped and may be made to look bad - could cost him or some citizen their life," he said.

Taken together, the logic implies that America should want a government that gets to shoot first and never have questions asked. It implies, in other words, that we should want a government that is above the law - and that we shouldn't want a "chilling effect" on government law breaking because that might endanger us.

Consider, though, what's more dangerous: a government that has to momentarily think about following the law when using violence or a government that gets to use such violence without having to think at all?

Government officials pretend they have the only answer to that question. But Nasser Al-Aulaqi's dead grandson suggests there is a far more accurate answer than the one those officials are offering.
(c) 2013 David Sirota is a nationally syndicated newspaper columnist, magazine journalist and the best-selling author of "Hostile Takeover" and "The Uprising." He hosts the morning show on AM760 in Colorado and blogs at OpenLeft.com. E-mail him at ds@davidsirota.com. David Sirota is a former spokesperson for the House Appropriations Committee. Follow him on Twitter @davidsirota .








An Open Letter To Trayvon Martin's Father
By Greg Palast

Dear Mr. Martin,

I have a 16-year old son. I cannot imagine losing him because some beast decided to play Lone Ranger.

And so, with cautious humility, I make this suggestion, this plea.

Sue the beast. You must.

I understand you are reluctant to launch another painful trial of uncertain outcome and cost, monetary and emotional. And I know a money judgment won't bring your son home.

But imagine this: George Zimmerman gets a half-million-dollar book deal and $25,000 a pop to appear at gun shows - plus a fee to put his name on a 9mm semi-automatic. The 'Zimmerman Protector.'

There's only one way to put this monster out of business: Justice can only come out of the barrel of a lawsuit.

Only in a lawsuit can you force Zimmerman to the witness stand. That's crucial. In the criminal case, Zimmerman's daddy, a magistrate no less, could say it was poor George yelling for help on that desperate phone call.

In a civil action, your son's lawyer can say to Zimmerman, "Come on, George, let's hear you scream for help. George, let's hear you scream that this skinny kid is going to kill you. Come on, George, show us how Trayvon somehow grabbed your big fat head while he was taking the gun from your hand."

A federal indictment won't do that: Zimmerman can't be called as a witness in a criminal case. A federal trial won't disgrace Zimmerman nor stop him from getting rich off your son's corpse.

A civil trial has none of that "reasonable doubt" crap that can get Zimmerman off the hook with some fantasy story about Trayvon as the dangerous aggressor. Zimmerman's consigliere said it was Trayvon’s own fault he was murdered. The "decision [to get shot] was in Trayvon Martin's hands more than my client's." Do you want that to be the last word about your son?

Maybe you don't want the money. OK, then: Set up a foundation and make Zimmerman turn over all that blood money, those book deals and gun show fees, to the Trayvon Foundation. Make him work every day of his lousy life for Trayvon.

There’s another advantage to civil action. To be blunt, you won't have to rely on painfully befuddled prosecutors like the ones we witnessed in that courtroom. In a lawsuit, you can choose the best legal gunslingers in the country.

I'm not guessing about that. I asked fearsome Florida trial lawyer Mike Papantonio if he and his partner, civil rights attorney Bobby Kennedy Jr., would take on the case if called. Papantonio said his firm is standing by, ready to help your legal team if asked. And I have no doubt there are other great plaintiff lawyers who would leap to your cause.

Americans love to complain that there are "too many lawyers." I agree that if some corporate defense lawyers drown in their hot tubs, only their mothers should cry. But it is our unique system of tort law that gives Americans the true Hammer of Justice. Plaintiff lawsuits, even more than government agencies or the FBI, are what keep drug companies from poisoning us and keep dangerous toys from maiming our kids. And, using section 1983 of the federal civil rights statute, it’s the power of the plaintiffs' bar that stops racist jerks from denying jobs, mortgages and freedoms to people of color.

And there's one final reason to bring a civil action. Let the word go forth to any Zimmerman wannabe dreaming that wealth and admiration requires only their hunting down another dark-skinned kid in a hoodie: Maybe sick Florida law will keep you out of prison, but you will have your sorry ass dragged onto a witness stand, where you will be ripped up, ruined and busted for the rest of your life.

So I'm asking you, as one dad to another, stand your ground and sue this killer - for Trayvon and for all our kids.

With respect,

Greg Palast
(c) 2013 Greg Palast is author of the New York Times bestseller, Billionaires & Ballot Bandits: How to Steal an Election in 9 Easy Steps, The Best Democracy Money Can Buy, Armed Madhouse and the highly acclaimed Vultures' Picnic, named Book of the Year 2012 on BBC Newsnight Review.





The Dead Letter Office...






Heil Obama,

Dear Generaldirektors Koch,

Congratulations, you have just been awarded the "Vidkun Quisling Award!" Your name will now live throughout history with such past award winners as Marcus Junius Brutus, Judas Iscariot, Benedict Arnold, George Stephanopoulos, George W. Bush, George H.W. Bush, Prescott Bush, Sam Bush, Fredo Bush, Kate Bush, Kyle Busch, Anheuser Busch, Vidkun Quisling and last year's winner Volksjudge John (the enforcer) Roberts.

Without your lock step calling for the repeal of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, your attempts to get rid of all minimum wages, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Syria, Iran and those many other profitable oil wars to come would have been impossible! With the help of our mutual friends, the other "Corporate whores" you have made it possible for all of us to goose-step off to a brave new bank account!

Along with this award you will be given the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross with Golden Oak Leaves, Swords and Diamonds, presented by our glorious Fuhrer, Herr Obama at a gala celebration at "der Fuhrer Bunker," formally the "White House," on 09-02-2013. We salute you Herr Kochs, Sieg Heil!

Signed by,
Vice Fuhrer Biden

Heil Obama






Why Republicans Are Disciplined And Democrats Aren't
By Robert Reich

As we head toward renewed battles over the debt ceiling, sequester, and government funding, it's important to understand why Republicans are disciplined and Democrats aren't.

For the past five years of the Obama administration Republicans have marched in lockstep to oppose just about everything Obama and the Democrats have proposed. Yet the Democrats rarely march together. Recently, for example, 22 Democrats in the House joined every Republican in voting to delay the individual mandate in Obamacare.

When Republican leaders tell rank-and-file Republicans to call Obamacare's cost controls "death panels," or to say the rich are "job creators," or the poor are "takers rather than makers," they all repeat the same words. (Frank Luntz, their message consultant, once said: "There's a simple rule. You say it again, and you say it again and you say it again, and you say it again, and you say it again, and then again and again and again and again, and about the time that you're absolutely sick of saying it is about the time that your target audience has heard it for the first time.")

Democrats never stick to the same message. They rarely even say the same thing the same way twice. In fact, their messages often conflict.

To be sure, the Tea Partiers in Congress have challenged the GOP leadership. But that challenge is really about who should have the authority to impose discipline over the Party. The firebrands are bucking the old establishment with their own new establishment. Democrats, by contrast, buck their leaders all the time. And they do it as individuals, lone wolves and free agents.

Republican discipline and Democratic lack of discipline isn't a new phenomenon. As Will Rogers once said, "I'm not a member of any organized political party. I'm a Democrat."

The difference has to do with the kind of personalities the two parties attract. People who respect authority, follow orders, want clear answers, obey commands, and prefer precise organization and control, tend to gravitate toward Republicans.

On the other hand, people who don't much like authority, recoil from orders, don't believe in clear answers, often disobey commands, and prefer things a bit undefined, tend to gravitate to the Democrats.

In short, the Republican Party is the party of the authoritarian personality; the Democratic Party is the party of the anti-authoritarian personality.

In "Authoritarianism and Polarization in American Politics" (Cambridge University Press, 2009), Jonathan Weiler, professor of international studies at UNC Chapel Hill and his co-author, Marc Hetherington, use statistical models to determine whether someone is a Republican or Democrat. It turns out that the best predictor of party affiliation is someone's score on an authoritarian personality scale that measures many of the traits I mentioned above.

This means Republicans will almost always be more disciplined about voting and messaging than the Democrats. Which gives the GOP an advantage in times like this, when the two parties are at war with each other — and when so many Americans, angry and confused, are looking for simple answers.
(c) 2013 Robert Reich is Professor of Public Policy at the University of California at Berkeley. He has served in three national administrations, most recently as secretary of labor under President Bill Clinton. He has written twelve books, including The Work of Nations, Locked in the Cabinet, and his most recent book, "Beyond Outrage," is now out in paperback. He is also a founding editor of the American Prospect magazine and chairman of Common Cause. His new film, “Inequality for All,” will be out September 27.








The Moral Verdict On Bradley Manning
A Conviction of Love in Action
By Norman Solomon

The sun rose with a moral verdict on Bradley Manning well before the military judge could proclaim his guilt. The human verdict would necessarily clash with the proclamation from the judicial bench.

In lockstep with administrators of the nation's war services, judgment day arrived on Tuesday to exact official retribution. After unforgiveable actions, the defendant's culpability weighed heavy.

"Our apologies, good friends, for the fracture of good order, the burning of paper instead of children, the angering of the orderlies in the front parlor of the charnel house," another defendant, Fr. Daniel Berrigan, wrote about another action that resulted in a federal trial, 45 years earlier, scarcely a dozen miles from the Fort Meade courtroom where Bradley Manning faced prosecution for his own fracture of good order.

"We could not, so help us God, do otherwise," wrote Berrigan, one of the nine people who, one day in May 1968 while the Vietnam War raged on, removed several hundred files from a U.S. draft board in Catonsville, Maryland, and burned them with napalm in the parking lot. "For we are sick at heart..."

On the surface, many differences protrude between those nine draft-files-burning radical Catholics and Bradley Manning. But I wonder. Ten souls saw cruelties of war and could no longer just watch.

"I prefer a painful truth over any blissful fantasy," Manning wrote in an online chat. Minutes later he added: "I think I've been traumatized too much by reality, to care about consequences of shattering the fantasy." And he also wrote: "I want people to see the truth ... regardless of who they are ... because without information, you cannot make informed decisions as a public."

Those words came seven weeks after the world was able to watch the "Collateral Murder" video that Manning had provided to WikiLeaks. And those words came just days before military police arrived to arrest him on May 29, 2010.

Since then, huge numbers of people around the world have come to see Bradley Manning as personification of moral courage. During the last several months I've read thousands of moving comments online at ManningNobel.org, posted by signers of the petition urging that he receive the Nobel Peace Prize. The comments are often stunning with heartfelt intensity of wounded idealism, anger and hope.

No verdict handed down by the military judge can change the moral verdict that has emerged from people all over the world, reciprocating what Bradley Manning expressed online a few days before his arrest: "I can't separate myself from others." And: "I feel connected to everybody... like they were distant family."

The problem for the U.S. government was not that Bradley Manning felt that way. The problem came when he acted that way. Caring was one thing. Acting on the caring, with empathy propelling solidarity, was another.

Days ago, in closing argument, the prosecutor at Fort Meade thundered: "He was not a whistleblower, he was a traitor."

But a "traitor" to what? To the United States... only if the United States is to be a warfare state, where we "cannot make informed decisions as a public." Only if we obey orders to separate ourselves from the humanity of others. Only if authoritative, numbing myths are to trump empathy and hide painful truth.
(c) 2013 Norman Solomon is co-founder of RootsAction.org and founding director of the Institute for Public Accuracy. His books include "War Made Easy: How Presidents and Pundits Keep Spinning Us to Death" and "Made Love, Got War: Close Encounters with America's Warfare State."



The Cartoon Corner...

This edition we're proud to showcase the cartoons of
~~~ Dave Granlund ~~~










To End On A Happy Note...





Have You Seen This...





Parting Shots...






Weiner Names New Campaign Manager
By Andy Borowitz

NEW YORK (The Borowitz Report)-One day after his campaign manager quit, the mayoral candidate Anthony D. Weiner named his penis to the post, telling reporters, "He was already making most of the major decisions, anyway."

In announcing the new appointment, Mr. Weiner lavished praise upon his penis, calling him "a tough hombre" who "cares about the struggles of ordinary, middle-class New Yorkers."

After one reporter questioned the wisdom of naming his penis to such an important role in the campaign, Mr. Weiner dismissed that concern, saying, "Look, he's gotten me this far."

While Mr. Weiner's decision to give the top job to his controversial appendage raised eyebrows among political observers, insiders said the move merely reflected his headline-grabbing member's already prominent role in the campaign.

"He [Mr. Weiner's penis] has been calling the shots for weeks now," one source said, adding that clashes between the former campaign manager Danny Kedem and the mercurial body part had led to Mr. Kedem's exit.

"There was a power struggle between Danny and the package, and Danny lost," said one campaign source. "Danny would try to talk sense to Anthony, but at the end of the day, the penis had his ear."
(c) 2013 Andy Borowitz




Email:uncle-ernie@issuesandalibis.org


The Gross National Debt




Iraq Deaths Estimator


The Animal Rescue Site















View my page on indieProducer.net










Issues & Alibis Vol 13 # 28 (c) 08/02/2013


Issues & Alibis is published in America every Friday. We are not affiliated with, nor do we accept funds from any political party. We are a non-profit group that is dedicated to the restoration of the American Republic. All views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily the views of Issues & Alibis.Org.

In regards to copying anything from this site remember that everything here is copyrighted. Issues & Alibis has been given permission to publish everything on this site. When this isn't possible we rely on the "Fair Use" copyright law provisions. If you copy anything from this site to reprint make sure that you do too. We ask that you get our permission to reprint anything from this site and that you provide a link back to us. Here is the "Fair Use" provision.

"Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.

In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include:

(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors."