UNDERNEWS: June 21, 2011

UNDERNEWS: June 21, 2011

Since 1964, the news while there's still time to do something about it

U.S. gap between rich and poor worse than in some African and Mid East countries

Daily Mail, UK - The gap between America's rich and poor is so extreme levels of inequality are worse in the land of the free than they are in many developing countries. The U.S. ranks way behind the European Union and the United Kingdom in terms of inequality of pay, figures show.In fact, the situation is so extreme the land of the free falls behind countries such as Cameroon, the Ivory Coast and revolutionary Egypt, Tunisia and Yemen - and only just in front of Uganda and Jamaica.

Report: oceans in a surprisingly dangerous state

BBC - The oceans are in a worse state than previously suspected, according to an expert panel of scientists.

In a new report, they warn that ocean life is "at high risk of entering a phase of extinction of marine species unprecedented in human history".

They conclude that issues such as over-fishing, pollution and climate change are acting together in ways that have not previously been recognised.

The impacts, they say, are already affecting humanity.

The panel was convened by the International Programme on the State of the Ocean, and brought together experts from different disciplines, including coral reef ecologists, toxicologists, and fisheries scientists.

"The findings are shocking," said Alex Rogers, IPSO's scientific director and professor of conservation biology at Oxford University.

"As we considered the cumulative effect of what humankind does to the oceans, the implications became far worse than we had individually realised.

"We've sat in one forum and spoken to each other about what we're seeing, and we've ended up with a picture showing that almost right across the board we're seeing changes that are happening faster than we'd thought, or in ways that we didn't expect to see for hundreds of years."

Southern Baptists call for immigration amnesty

CIS - The Southern Baptist Convention, which met last week in Phoenix, adopted a resolution endorsing the legalization of virtually all illegal aliens. The resolution calls for "our governing authorities to implement, with the borders secured, a just and compassionate path to legal status, with appropriate restitutionary measures, for those undocumented immigrants already living in our country."

Word

If Obama chose to run for reelection not as a Democrat but as a moderate Republican, he could bring about two healthy transformations in the American political system. The moderate wing of the Republican Party could be restored. And the Democratic presidential nomination might be opened up to politicians from the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party. - Michael Lind, Salon

When left-leaning Americans abandon their principles for what they believe is politically expedient, they inadvertently shift the center of the national political spectrum farther to the right. Even as many of the supposed American left criticize Obama and his administration for capitulating before negotiating, as a whole, they have done the same thing. Whether the goal has been to avoid conflict, appear to be the more mature party, or attempt to coerce the right into matching their sample, the result has been a dismal failure and the destruction of the dynamic necessary for a rational public conversation. By constantly tuning the middle into the new left, the resulting new middles keeps moving farther to the lunatic fringe of the right - Liam Fox, News Junkie

Pocket paradigms

The trouble with MSNBC & CNN is that they can't tell the difference between breaking news and broken news.- Sam Smith

Reality check

The hazards of electronic health data bases

Those who think we're making too much of the hazards of electronic health data bases might want to consider two incidents reported by speaker Ross Anderson at a recent conference:

- Within hours of a central health records system going live, one doctor had accessed the records of the Prime Minister, as well as that of many celebrities.

- A police officer asked a gynecologist for all health records of patients under the age of 16 years. The justification was that anyone under the age of 16 who has been involved in sexual relations has committed a crime. The doctor at the clinic rightfully refused and told the officer she'd see him in court.

Word

The weak have one weapon - the errors of those who think they are strong - George Bidault

Man robs bank to get healthcare

Diane Turbyfill, Gaston Gazette - James Richard Verone woke up June 9 with a sense of anticipation. He took a shower. Ironed his shirt. Hailed a cab. Then robbed a bank. He wasn’t especially nervous. If anything, Verone said he was excited to finally execute his plan to gain access to free medical care. “I prepared myself for this,” Verone said from behind a thick glass window in the Gaston County Jail morning. Verone spoke calmly about the road that led him to the jail cell he shares with a young man charged with stealing computers. The 59-year-old man apologized for squinting. He hadn’t gotten his eyeglasses returned to him since being arrested a week ago. He smiled from the other side of the glass, sometimes gesturing with his hands. A plastic, red bracelet with his mug shot clung to his left wrist. Until last week, Verone had never been in trouble with the law. Now he hopes to be booked as a felon and held in prison where he can be treated for several physical afflictions.

Personal & collective virtue

Sam Smith

My piece on mob politics evoked a number of critical responses in part because I suggested that in a two-mob country it was all right to vote for the mob that does the least evil, primarily because change is not going to come at the voting booth but by citizen action:

“This doesn't mean that one doesn't vote for a Demo thug as president or some lower position, but it means that one does so recognizing that the selection of the least dangerous mob in town is a far different matter than backing a political cause.”

Blogger Arthur Silber called me a “pig-fucking collaborationist,” to which I take some umbrage as I once was responsible for the feeding of several pigs and never once found them sexually arousing.

There were also milder criticisms:

“I agree with your conclusion that what really matters are the actions people take outside the voting booth to improve the world. However, I disagree with your cavalier suggestion that people vote for the more moderately thuggish Democrats, as if voting for the lesser evil in itself had no consequences.

“By voting for the lesser evil, we continue to bestow unearned and undeserved legitimacy on the Democratic Party. If it were even possible to reform the party and restore it to its populist roots, we can be sure that would never happen if progressives habitually award it their votes because "otherwise the more evil Republican will win".

“In my opinion, all progressives should bolt the Democratic Party and give their votes to a third party that actually represents their core values. A number of contenders exist: the Green Party (which accepts no money from corporate PACs), the Socialist Workers Party, the Communist Party of America, etc.”

As one of the founders of the national Green Party, as well as the DC Statehood Party (which held public offices for 25 years) I have long been a fan of third parties. I have been a member of one for four decades. But I have also found that many of those attracted to them view their potential mainly in terms of top down politics. I see it the other way around.

There are also two ethical issues: one the question of the moral position for an individual to take; the other is the political position that will produce the best results.

They are not the same. As I wrote some years back in Green Horizons:

“To slow down traffic I might be morally justified in stepping into the Interstate, spreading my arms, and shouting, "stop," but it is probably not the most useful thing I could do for the cause. Besides, like some third party presidential candidates, I might not have another opportunity. My initial virtue might turn out to have been terminal.”

The conflict is often between antiseptic and useful virtue. The danger with the former is that it too often is a sort of moral narcissism with little social value and the problem with the latter is that it can easily be co-opted and compromised.

Having a bit of Quaker blood and having gone to a Quaker school, I am not unfamiliar with this conflict. The Quakers, for example, periodically withdrew from conventional politics, engaging instead in what we would call lobbying or activism, pressing specific issues. It is also true that they have been pretty good at compromise. For example, William Penn reached the only European-Indian agreement – and not even in writing – that was actually upheld by both sides. And there is the apocryphal story of Penn’s ship, on its way to the new land, being attacked by pirates and of the great Quaker taking a knife and cutting the line with which they were boarding the craft. Said Penn: “If thee wants this rope, thee may have it.”

Of course, Quakerism is a religion and if your primary concern is your personal righteousness, then that’s not a bad route. If your concern, on the other hand, is the collective progress of a community or a nation, than the messier culture of politics may prove more productive.

In my article I was addressing those who had suffered the illusion that Obama would bring them hope and change and might now be seeking a new approach. I was trying to nudge them in a better direction. I was not addressing the righteous who deeply believe they have found the way.

For one thing, it’s usually not worth the effort, and, for another, they tend not to be particularly effective in helping the apathetic, the confused, the strayed, the hoodwinked, the angry and the hopeless in moving in a new direction. It often takes one sinner to move another.

Sam Smith Green Horizon - In the 20th century, if you wanted to make a big splash in national third party politics, the best way to do it was with a major icon such as Roosevelt, Wallace or Perot. Here are the best numbers for various third party candidates:

Theodore Roosevelt 28%
Perot (1992): 19%
LaFolette: 17%
George Wallace: 14%
Debs (1912): 11%
Perot (1996): 9%
Anderson: 7%

All other 20th century third party candidates got 3% or less, including Debs in three additional runs and Thurmond and Henry Wallace in the hot 1948 race. It is useful to note that all the leading third party candidates - with the exception of George Wallace and Debs - drew heavily from mainstream constituencies rather than running as radical reformers.

Obviously the numbers don't tell the whole story. For example, the New Deal drew from Populist, Progressive and Socialist ideas despite low turnouts for their candidates. The Populists, despite topping out a 9% in a presidential race, influenced the politics of two Roosevelts, Theodore and Franklin.

Still, if you want to affect national politics with a national third party presidential run, history suggests that getting over 5% - preferably closer to 10% - is a good way to start. Otherwise, you can probably expect a less direct impact for your efforts, perhaps decades in the future. And, in any case, you can expect your swing at presidential politics to be fairly short-lived.

That does not mean, however, that these parties - like certain insects - were merely born, had sex, and then died. In fact, some of the third parties had long, healthy lives, in large part because they were as concerned with local as with national results. The Socialist Party is the most dramatic recent example, with a history dating back over 100 years. The party's own history suggest that eclecticism didn't hurt:

'From the beginning the Socialist Party was the ecumenical organization for American radicals. Its membership included Marxists of various kinds, Christian socialists, Zionist and anti-Zionist Jewish socialists, foreign-language speaking sections, single-taxers and virtually every variety of American radical. On the divisive issue of "reform vs. revolution," the Socialist Party from the beginning adopted a compromise formula, producing platforms calling for revolutionary change but also making "immediate demands" of a reformist nature. A perennially unresolved issue was whether revolutionary change could come about without violence; there were always pacifists and evolutionists in the Party as well as those opposed to both those views. The Socialist Party historically stressed cooperatives as much as labor unions, and included the concepts of revolution by education and of 'building the new society within the shell of the old.'"

By World War I it had elected 70 mayors, two members of Congress, and numerous state and local officials. Milwaukee alone had three Socialist mayors in the last century, including Frank Zeidler who held office for 12 years ending in 1960.

Some highly successful third parties never ran anyone for president (except in fusion with one of the major parties). Albeit in a confused and weakened status at the moment, the Liberal Party of New York remains the longest lived third party next to the Socialists. Founded in 1944 - in a break with the more radical American Labor Party - the Liberals benefited immensely from New York's fusion-friendly election laws, which allowed it to support Franklin Roosevelt in 1944 and to claim credit for giving Kennedy enough votes for his presidential victory. Other nominees of the party have included Averill Harriman, Mario Cuomo, Jacob Javits, Robert Kennedy, Fiorello LaGuardia and John Lindsey. Swinging the gate of New York politics made it exceptionally important.

The Farmer Labor Party in Minnesota lasted 26 years before merging with the Democrats. During that time it elected a senator and a governor. And in DC, the Statehood Party held an elected position for 25 years and some years later merged with the DC Green Party.

There is, it appears, no one right way to run a third party in the U.S. It always has to be a form of guerrilla politics because the rules are so thoroughly stacked against those not Democrats or Republicans. Thus the judging the right tactics at the right time, as opposed to planning moves strictly on the basis of their presumed virtue, would seem to be the wisest course.

914 more species added to endangered list

Environmental News Network - The past twelve months have seen 914 species added to the threatened list by the world's authority of species endangerment, the International Union for the Conservation of Nature's Red List. Over 19,000 species are now classified in one of three threatened categories, i.e. Vulnerable, Endangered, and Critically Endangered, a jump of 8,219 species since 2000.

Species are added to the threatened list for a variety of reasons: for many this year was the first time they were evaluated, for others new information was discovered about their plight, and for some their situation in the wild simply deteriorated. While scientists have described nearly 2 million species, the IUCN Red List has evaluated only around 3 percent of these.

Judge lets BP off the hook

Sabrina Canfield, Courthouse News Service - Ruling in favor of Transocean and BP, a federal judge [in New Orelans] dismissed third-party environmental claims in a giant pleading bundle in the Deepwater Horizon oil spill litigation, saying the fact that the oil flow has stopped makes those lawsuits irrelevant.

“The injunction at this stage would be useless, as not only is there no ongoing release from the well, but there is also no viable offshore facility from which any release could possibly occur,” U.S. District Judge Carl Barbier wrote. “The Macondo well is dead, and what remains of the Deepwater Horizon vessel is on the ocean floor, where it capsized and sank in 5,000 feet of water.

“Moreover, BP and the agencies comprising the Unified Area Command have been and are cleaning up the Gulf of Mexico. An injury is not redressable by a citizen suit when the injury is already being addressed.”

During the hearing, Ervin Gonzales, of the plaintiff steering committee, said the cleanup has not been adequate and “the environment is suffering.”

Bilderberg wrap

Charlie Skelton, Guardian, UK - This year, Bilderberg was bigger than ever. Bigger crowds, bigger names, more coverage. So here, starting with about the least most important thing, is what I've learned from this year's Bilderberg summit in St Moritz. I've got a bit of a crush on the Chinese vice-minister for foreign affairs. .

Bilderbergers look down on things. I've looked at hundreds of photos of the delegates on their nature walk through one of the world's most stunning valleys, and this is honestly the case: they don't look at the view. They walk with their heads down. They stare at their shoes. . .

This year for the first time, elected public representatives are queueing up to find out what's going on in their turf. An Italian MEP (a member of the European parliament's Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs), Mario Borghezio, was beaten up and arrested by Bilderberg private security. The next day Swiss MP Dominique Baettig was denied entry for after dinner drinks. He probably had an inkling he wasn't going to share a cognac with Kissinger that evening, but it spoke volumes that he tried.

The police and secret services keep the cameras at bay. The pegged-up shower curtain hides the hotel. Blackened windows and security escorts protect the delicate, quivering participants from the horror of being identified. The coyest are never seen at all, and never make the delegate list.

Now compare that with your life. CCTV cameras with face-recognition software scan your daily life. Travel cards log your journeys. And online, you'll have noticed – particularly in the last year – how your accounts are all being linked, and how you're having to constantly prove your identity.

And here's the irony. In secret, with no public oversight, a group of politicians, billionaires and corporate CEOs are discussing (we're told): Social Networks: Connectivity and Security Issues.

The global policy concerning the transparency of our social life is being thrashed out in an untransparent forum by people whose "social network" includes people like Henry Kissinger and the chairman of Goldman Sachs International. . .

The Bilderberg summit is a gathering of the richest, most powerful people in the western world. They can afford helicopters, hundreds of police, security personnel, secret servicemen, floodlights, fencing, portacabins, limousines, chauffeurs, chefs, catering, entertainment, and the hire of a massive luxury hotel for an entire week …

I found that many of the Swiss activists were keen to flag up (often with giant flags) the shady roots of the Bilderberg group. It's perhaps wrong to judge present delegates on Bilderberg's past, but the Swiss seemed particularly attuned to this aspect of the group's history: that it was founded in the early 1950s by Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands, a former SS officer and executive in IG Farben's notorious NW7 Berlin espionage centre. That's the IG Farben that manufactured Zyklon B and bankrolled Hitler.

Look to the hosts, and you find Bernhard's daughter Beatrix running Bilderberg, alongside "philanthropist" banker David Rockefeller and the saviour of world football (and wanted war criminal) Henry Kissinger.Look to the delegates, and inside the same conference you've got two people with the nickname "The Prince of Darkness": Lord Mandelson, and Richard Perle (the Washington uber-hawk). Read up about the chairman of Nestlé. Then read Jon Ronson's important new book on psychopaths. . .

Amy Winehouse bombs in Belgrade

Where life expectancy is falling

AARP sells out seniors big time

TPM - An article in Friday's Wall Street Journal has Social Security advocates angry and scratching their heads. It suggests that AARP -- one of the most powerful interest groups in Washington -- has done an about face on the question of cutting retirement benefits for seniors as part of a grand bipartisan bargain on shoring up the programs finances.

The change in posture, agreed to by AARP's board, has already sent shock waves through the Beltway's large and influential entitlement reform community. It's prompted calls from lawmakers and centrist and conservative groups for Congress to seize the initiative and agree to cut benefits. It's mobilized Social Security's strongest advocates against AARP, and it's prompted AARP to initiate a partial walk back -- a statement calling the story "misleading, but reiterating that the group could support Social Security reforms if they don't cause future retirees too much pain.

"It has also been a long held position that any changes would be phased in slowly, over time, and would not affect any current or near term beneficiaries," says AARP CEO A. Barry Rand -- in other words, the group could support some cuts, so long as they only impact people many years away from retirement.

But conversations with insiders suggest the Journal story, while mostly on point, underplays a key part of the story. What AARP decided doesn't necessarily constitute a change in policy, but rather a major strategic decision to announce their acceptance of those cuts now, while the legislative zeitgeist is about "fiscal responsibility", instead of later.

"It's terrible timing," says Roger Hickey, Co-Director of the Campaign for America's Future, and one of DC's veteran Social Security warriors.

In a big way, what AARP has decided doesn't surprise Social Security's progressive defenders. The two constituencies have had a complicated, sometimes icy relationship. But they have allied recently behind the idea that Social Security should not be dealt with in the current fight over budget deficits. AARP has reopened the rift by making this strategic shift -- to blink as a signal to tax-averse conservatives that they'll play ball on a stand-alone Social Security deal if revenues are on the table.

Larry Geller, Disappeared News - Senior organizations networked with each other rapidly this morning in reaction to a Wall Street Journal story that AARP would support changes to Social Security. The WSJ story was followed rapidly by independent stories on major news outlets such as the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal.

From the NY Times story:

|||Doug Henwood, the Brooklyn editor of a liberal business blog and Internet radio program who has written on Social Security, said AARP’s willingness to consider cuts in benefits “reads like a sign that this former lobby for the interest of older Americans has now transformed itself completely into an insurance company.” He continued, “Surely they can’t be persuaded by the merits of the arguments, since the alleged Social Security crisis is a phantom that can’t survive a serious round of fact-checking.” |||

Also, some organizations, in their own discussions, noted that AARP was instrumental in passage of Medicare Part D which created the infamous “doughnut hole” that requires seniors to pay full price for medications after reaching a certain limit. With the high cost of certain medications these days, that limit became a hurdle that many seniors could not overcome. It is not known (or at least I could not find data) how many seniors may have died because they could not purchase essential medications.

AARP benefits from its support of Part D by offering a Part D prescription drug plan.

Annals of music promotion

Boing Boing - Tony Bedard, who books live music at San Francisco's Hemlock Tavern, has a hobby as a "Folder Rock" archivist. It's Bedard's name for the sometimes overwrought, ham-fisted promotional mailers containing demo tapes and adjective-laden text that bands send out to show-bookers and music journalists. . . The Bay Citizen talked to Bedard about his fascination:

||| “A classic piece of folder rock is a padded mailer. You open it up and inside of that would be a colored, translucent plastic folder with a drawstring that you have to navigate. And inside of that a glossy folder, maybe with band sticker, and then inside the folder there would be the business card, the bio, and a photo. Sometimes there’d be these crazy promotional items, like golf tees or mints,” says Bedard, who has also played in San Francisco bands for 20 years...

Folder Rock is marked by hyperbole (“There is no other keyboardist in the history of rock & roll with a more stunning, voluminous résumé than Ian McLagan!”), baffling claims (“The aptly named-rebellious Perfectionist chooses his battles Wisely, with an evident persona that silently confirms that he does not Play!”) and down-right silliness ("My name is Shovelman and this is what I do: I play a guitar that's made out of an antique SHOVEL. DIG IT, Folktronica!!")...

There are the bands that claim they sound like diametrically opposed bands at the same time. (“We’re a rock band that sounds something like The Police meets AudioSlave meets Danzig.”) Bedard likens this to Stagflation, which is when recession and inflation exist at the same time.

There is a tendency among newly established bands to supply incredibly long, but less than riveting creation myths: “The band was started when former member Michael delivered a package to drummer Zack's house.” |||

Pocket paradigms

The journalists' job is not to make the stew but to gather the ingredients. So don't jump to too many conclusions about what I dump on the table. It's only the result of today's forage...- Sam Smith

Word

Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children . . . This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron. - Dwight D. Eisenhower

Why Bachmann didn't "raise" 23 foster children

Brian Montopoli, CBS News - After her speech at the Republican Leadership Conference, I asked GOP presidential candidate and Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann about her repeated claims that she has "raised" 23 foster children, a comment she reiterated in an interview with CNN following her speech.

Writing in the Daily Beast this week, Michelle Goldberg quoted Kris Harvieux, who worked as a senior social worker in the foster care system in Bachmann's county, who said at least some of Bachmann's placements were likely short term.

"Some of them you have for a week. Some of them you have for three years, some you have for six months," he said. "She makes it sound like she got them at birth and raised them to adulthood, but that's not true."

According to Goldberg, the Minnesota Department of Human Services reports that Bachmann's foster care license allowed her to care for at most three children at any one time; she had the license for 7 1/2 years.

(TPR: This means that she could have had three children at one time for an average of one year)

I asked Bachmann to explain the parameters of how long the children lived with her - was it as short as one week? As long as three years?

"It varied, it really varied depending on the children," Bachmann responded. "And we've never gotten into specifics about the children because we've always wanted to observe their privacy and that of their families. As I'm sure you can appreciate."

Kids fined $500 for lemonade stand

Jimmy Carter calls for end of war on drugs

Daily Beast - Former President Jimmy Carter is seconding the report by the Global Commission on Drug Policy that earlier this month declared the war on drugs a failure and called for a new approach. Instead of following Carter's lead and decriminalizing small amounts of marijuana and using treatment over prison, Carter says President Ronald Reagan began a “futile” campaign to stop drug imports that resulted in an enormous expenditure of resources, increased drug-related violence, and the skyrocketing of the U.S. prison population. “Not only has this excessive punishment destroyed the lives of millions of young people and their families (disproportionately minorities), but it is wreaking havoc on state and local budgets,” says Carter.

Pocket paradigms

I started out as a political reporter. Now I'm a crime reporter. The kind of of people I cover hasn't changed, only what they do..- Sam Smith

Word

Soil Association - Farming is a funny business that fits uncomfortably with normal business models – the inclusion of the ‘culture’ within agriculture and horticulture suggests why. Proper recognition of farms operating on a business level and within markets, whilst also providing these ‘ecosystem services’ is where the split will come between income from markets and income from the public purse in recognition of public services. Agriculture could be more likened to our health or education services, they too have to run in a business like way but much more is expected of them than economic outcomes. But farming is different here too in the thousands of individual business structures not necessarily connected or pulling in the same direction.

Big bankers' pay continues to soar

CNBC - Bank chiefs’ average pay in the US and Europe leapt 36 percent last year to $9.7 million, according to data compiled for the Financial Times, despite variable performance across the sector.

Two of the industry’s biggest names – Jamie Dimon, the JPMorgan Chase chief executive, and Goldman Sachs’ Lloyd Blankfein – were paid more than 15 times their 2009 earnings.

Mr Dimon received nearly $21 million in 2010, topping the FT’s survey of the salary and bonus packages awarded to 15 top bankers. Mr Blankfein earned $14.1 million, including a $5.4 million cash bonus – up from $863,000 in 2009

What we could learn about business from the Germans

Harold Meyerson, Washington Post - The key to both the retention and the continual upscaling of manufacturing in Germany is the composition of corporate boards, which are required by law to have an equal number of management and employee representatives.

MORE

From Overstocked Archives; On the care and feeding of theories

Sam Smith

As I might have predicted, our coverage of the Bilderberg conference has brought a number of suggestions that we are engaging in conspiracy theories. Actually, if we had a theory, it would be more of an anarchy theory, since when social and political order breaks down, one no longer needs conspiracies. Everyone does their own thing and the ones with the most power win. In Latin America they call it a culture of impunity. It’s an issue that’s come up before. Here are a few of my prior comments:

2006 - A conspiracy does not have to be illegal; it can merely be wrongful or harmful.

- The term 'conspiracy theory' was invented by elite media and politicians to denigrate questions or critical presumptions about events about which important facts remain unrevealed.

- The intelligent response to such events is to remain agnostic, skeptical, and curious. Theories may be suggested - just as they are every day about less complex and more open matters on news broadcasts and op ed pages - but such theories should not stray too far from available evidence. Conversely, as long as serious anomalies remain, dismissing questions and doubts as a "conspiracy theory" is a highly unintelligent response. It is also ironic as those ridiculing the questions and doubts typically consider themselves intellectually superior to the doubters. But they aren't because they stopped thinking the moment someone in power told them a superficially plausible answer. Further, to ridicule those still with doubts about such matters is intellectually dishonest.

- There is the further irony that many who ridicule doubts about the official version of events were typically trained at elite colleges where, in political science and history, theories often take precedent over facts and in which substantive decisions affecting politics and history are presumed to be the work of a small number of wise men (sic). They are trained, in effect, to trust in (1) theories and (2) benign confederacies. Most major media political coverage is based on the great man theory of history. This pattern can be found in everything from Skull & Bones to the Washington Post editorial board to the Council on Foreign Relations. You might even call them conspiracy theorists.

- Other fields - such as social history or anthropology - posit that change for better or evil can come as cultural change or choices and not just as the decisions of "great men." This is why one of the biggest stories in modern American history was never well covered: the declining birth rate. No great men decided it should happen.

- Homicide detectives and investigative reporters, among others, are inductive thinkers who start with evidence rather than with theories and aren't happy when the evidence is weak, conflicting or lacking. They keep working the case until a solid answer appears. This is alien to the well-educated newspaper editor who has been trained to trust official answers and conventional theories.

- The unresolved major event is largely a modern phenomenon that coincides with the collapse of America's constitutional government and the decline of its culture. Beginning with the Kennedy assassination, the number of inadequately explained major events has been mounting steadily and with them a steady decline in the trust between the people and their government. The refusal of American elites to take these doubts seriously has been a major disservice to the republic.

- You don't need a conspiracy to lie, do something illegal or to be stupid.

2007 - The other day I asked a former TWA pilot - one who had flown TWA 800 just months before its final crash - what a group of his colleagues sitting around a bar would say about the disaster. Overwhelmingly, he said, they would think the plane had been brought down by a missile - either the result of Navy error or a terrorist attack.

By the standards of the media and the rest of the American establishment, these pilots would thus qualify as conspiracy theorists. This is a bit odd since the average former TWA pilot knows far more about planes and what can go wrong with them than 99% of commentators, politicians and think tankers in Washington. Yet it is the latter who claim not only consummate access to the truth but the prerogative to determine who amongst us is a paranoid nut for not accepting their version of it.

We do not even need to discuss the facts of the TWA 800 incident to appreciate the enormous hubris involved in such a presumption. Yet almost every time the phrase 'conspiracy theory' is used, this hubris lurks to some degree just behind the protective shield of derision.

In fact, unproven or unprovable theories are all around us. They not only guide our everyday choices - I think if I turn right here I'll get home quicker - but our intellectual ones, witness the time spent absorbing the guesswork of Marx, Freud and Ayn Rand. The greatest conspiracy theory in our culture is probably the notion that J. Christ ascended into heaven and sitteth on the right hand of God the Father Almighty. If the Washington Post and the FBI had been around at the time, they might have insisted that his body had been snatched by members of a contemporary version of Al Qaeda. But no one would have paid much attention because the truth back then was controlled by religion and not by a secular elite. In more recent times, the secular elite has wrested ownership of unprovable theses from the priests.

And own them they will. An early example was a 1967 CIA report, 1035-960, on how to handle doubts about the JFK assassination. Among the recommendations:

"The aim of this dispatch is to provide material countering and discrediting the claims of the conspiracy theorists, so as to inhibit the circulation of such claims in other countries. .

"To discuss the publicity problem with and friendly elite contacts (especially politicians and editors), pointing out that the Warren Commission made as thorough an investigation as humanly possible, that the charges of the critics are without serious foundation, and that further speculative discussion only plays into the hands of the opposition. Point out also that parts of the conspiracy talk appear to be deliberately generated by Communist propagandists. Urge them to use their influence to discourage unfounded and irresponsible speculation.

"To employ propaganda assets to . . . refute the attacks of the critics. Book reviews and feature articles are particularly appropriate for this purpose. The unclassified attachments to this guidance should provide useful background material for passing to assets. Our ploy should point out, as applicable, that the critics are (I) wedded to theories adopted before the evidence was in, (I) politically interested, (III) financially interested, (IV) hasty and inaccurate in their research, or (V) infatuated with their own theories."

In other words, only the CIA and their toadies in politics and the media - aka 'friendly elite contacts' - are allowed to have theories before the evidence is in, be politically interested, financially interested, hasty and inaccurate in their research or infatuated with their own theories

This is not to say that popular alternative theories are inherently correct, only that the acceptability of any theory should not be based on the status of those who propose it but on the internal consistency of the premise and the external evidence to support it.

Obviously, if you want to rig the evidence, the approach favored by the secular elite is a good one. But what about those who go along with ill founded conclusions and prattle about conspiracy theories while sincerely believing that they are being responsible? This latter class includes much of the best educated and most powerful in Washington and other power centers.

One important cause of such behavior is simple caution and fear. To question the conventional wisdom in Washington is not a wise career move whether you're part of the government or merely reporting on it. It takes a lot of work and a lot of courage to challenge accepted presumptions.

Further, you can signal your willingness to play by the rules by the use of such terms as 'conspiracy theories.' It's a code that says to the powerful, you don't have to worry about me.

Finally, a major key to success in Washington is using certainty as a substitute for competence and disdain as a substitute for comprehension. Calling someone a conspiracy theorist is so much easier than actually investigating an issue or engaging in an honest intellectual debate, something that rarely happens in the capital.

Most of the time, the secular elite wants neither new facts nor new theories. On the other hand, the intellectually curious are not afraid of either. In the best scientific tradition, they will take new facts and, if they warrant it, contrive a hypothesis about them. They will test that hypothesis, and then take it from there, revising, discarding or refining what was originally proposed as the evidence accumulates. They will follow the story as far as the facts lead and leave the remaining anomalies out in the open to be dealt with in the future.

Admittedly, there are plenty who offer alternative theories who do not follow such a rigorous approach. The irony is that such critics of accepted wisdom have far more in common with the editorial board of the NY Times than either would admit. Both place faith over facts. It's just that their faiths clash.

This doesn't, however, mean that the alternative theorists' criticisms of official explanation are without merit. One does not have to accept the notion that the Bush regime was behind the WTC attack to question the gaps in the government's version of the story or to raise the mostly ignored issue of whether the World Trade Center was built right in the first place.

But critics who insist on ill-formed conclusions actually play into the hands of those in power who happily use the most extreme hypotheses to ridicule all doubt and questioning. This has happened with virtually every unsolved mystery of recent times. The serious remaining questions are thus obscured or lumped with the unreasonable. It is far better not to reach a final conclusion, offering instead several possibilities or just pressing for answers to the unresolved aspects of a case.

Thus, like the TWA pilots, I do not trust the official story on what happened to Flight 800. But I also do not know what really did happen. Like so many other incidents in our recent history, the case can not be closed, in no small part because those in power refused to deal with it in an honest and thorough manner. So it up to others to both investigate and come up with alternative hypotheses - to test them, to write about them and, perhaps some day, to finally discover the truth.

Meanwhile, we can do our country a great favor by encouraging others to keep asking these questions and seeking answers and not to insult or dismiss them as conspiracy theorists for attempting, as best they can, to do what those with far more power, knowledge and money, should have, and were meant to have, done.

2003 - I have reported on numerous matters outside the realm of establishment approved wisdom. In each case, I have tried to use the model of the classic (albeit today somewhat archaic) reporter or the detective, which is to say, to point out the anomalous and suspicious without leaping to conclusions.

Further, I regard a conspiracy in its legal sense of two or more people joining secretly to do something improper or illegal. It happens all the time. But to suggest that it only happens amongst the lower criminal classes is either naïve or grossly self-serving.

That said, much of what goes wrong in and around government is far more a product of culture than of conspiracy. If you plant corn in a field you are going to get corn and not cauliflower. If you impose prohibition - for either alcohol or drugs - you are going to create a massive class of criminals as well as corrupt law enforcement and politicians. If you train young men and women in unrestrained violence you may end up with Abu Ghraib. If you train college students to see themselves as chosen keepers of political and social truths you are going to end up with the Washington Post city room. And so forth.

As America sinks deeper into its culture of impunity, in which corruption is the norm rather than a deviance, the country's elite will lash out at those who questioned its acts, its morality and its wisdom. But please don't think there necessarily has to be a conspiracy involved. In many case it's just the way they growed.

2009 - The other day, Politico ran a typically sneering article about the Bilderberg Group. As usual, anyone who shows the slightest interest in the hyper secret meeting of some of the most powerful people in the world is a "conspiracy theorist."

This is smug, childish, mindless establishment journalism at its worst. By any traditional standard of journalism, a secret meeting of some of the most important people in the world is news. How you handle that news is certainly debatable but to ignore it completely is simply incompetence.

Consider this. The recent G-20 conference produced over 10,000 news stories. The next Bilderberg event, about 150 - none in the conventional media according to a Google scan.

Yet how newsworthy was the G20 conference? Robert Kuttner put it well when he wrote:

"Since they began at Rambouillet, France, in 1975, these annual economic summits have been treated as momentous events, but they are memorable mostly for being forgettable. Only very infrequently, as in the 1999 Cologne summit's embrace of debt relief for the third world, do they produce lasting achievements. This Group of 20 meeting was notable only because the club of seven leading democracies plus Russia was expanded to include emerging world powers such as India, China, and Brazil. . . But the 2009 summit, whose extensive press clippings will soon be fish wrap, succeeded mainly because it managed not to fail."

Of course, nothing much may happen at this year's Bilderberg conference - to be held perhaps in Greece in either May or June (only conspiracy theorists care where or when). On the other hand, Belgian viscount and current Bilderberg-chairman Etienne Davignon pointed out to the EU Observer that the Euro was created in part by the Bilderberg Group in the 1990s, certainly more newsworthy than anything the G20 crowd has been up to lately.

One of the reasons Bilderberg is so heavily censored by the archaic media is the number of publishers and owners who attend. The Washington Post, the New York Times, LA Times and all major networks' ABC, CBS and NBC have participated. All participants are sworn to secrecy.

Bilderberg denies its existence, and all the resorts at which they hold their meetings require their employees to lie and deny they are present.

Among those reportedly present in 2007 were Donald Graham, chairman and chief executive officer of the Washington Post, Richard N. Haass, president of the Council on Foreign Relations, Henry Kissinger, David Rockefeller, John Vinocur, senior correspondent of the International Herald Tribune, Paul Gigot, editor of the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal, Nicholas Beytout, editor-in-chief of Le Figaro, George David, chairman of Coca-Cola, Martin Feldstein, president and chief executive officer of the National Bureau of Economic Research, Timothy F. Geithner, president and chief executive officer of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, Vernon Jordan, senior managing director of Lazard Freres & Co., and Anatole Kaletsky, editor at large of the Times of London.

Any journalists who don't think such a crowd, meeting at a secret place at a secret time for secret reasons, is not worth covering deserves to have their press pass cancelled.

Obama con of the day: His defense of the Libyan war

The Hill - The White House argued President Obama has acted consistently with the War Powers Resolution in using U.S. military forces in Libya without first asking for congressional approval.

The administration’s argument, made in a more than 30-page report and legal analysis sent to congressional leaders, is that Obama is in compliance with the resolution because the U.S. does not have a lead role in the Libyan operation, which is being carried out by NATO.

Senior administration officials said that the president is not challenging the constitutionality of the resolution by not requesting approval from Congress, but instead maintained that because the U.S. is acting in a support role with no troops on the ground, no war authorization is necessary.

The U.S. is “not engaged in any of the activities that typically over the years in war powers analysis is considered to constitute hostilities within the meaning of the statute,” White House general counsel Bob Bauer explained.

“We’re not engaged in sustained fighting,” Bauer said. “There’s been no exchange of fire with hostile forces. We don’t have troops on the ground. We don’t risk casualties to those troops. None of the factors, frankly, speaking more broadly, has risked the sort of escalation that Congress was concerned would impinge on its war-making power.”. . .

“Look, we're at war. There's already been $750 million spent,” [Dennis] Kucinich said. “Whether there are boots on the ground or not doesn't really get into the question of whether or not the president had the ability [to intervene] in the first place.

“It's a constitutional issue here, and it can't be danced around at all.”

“It’s the law,” Rep. John Conyers Jr. (Mich.), the senior Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, said in a statement. “The president cannot unilaterally take the country to war.”

And why Obama is lying about this

David Swanson - The arguments made to "legalize" war, torture, warrantless spying, and other crimes by John Yoo and Jay Bybee and their gang are looking rational, well-reasoned, and impeccably researched in comparison with Obama's latest "legalization" of the Libya War.

Whatever the president's "foreign affairs powers" may be, they do not, under the U.S. Constitution, include the power to launch "military operations" or "hostilities" or "wars." Nor has the distinction between "military operations" that involve what ordinary humans call warfare (blowing up buildings with missiles) and "hostilities" that qualify for regulation under the War Powers Resolution been previously established. This distinction is as crazy as any that have come out of U.S. government lawyers in the past.

The War Powers Resolution forbids unconstitutional wars unless the United States is attacked. But even ignoring that fact, as is the custom, the Resolution says right at the top:

"It is the purpose of this joint resolution to fulfill the intent of the framers of the Constitution of the United States and insure that the collective judgment of both the Congress and the President will apply to the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, and to the continued use of such forces in hostilities or in such situations."

Anything from imminent involvement in hostilities to hostilities is covered. There doesn't seem to be a gap left through which to exclude bombing people's homes in a non-hostile manner with non-combat troops as part of an overseas contingency operation.

Congresswoman Lynn Woolsey remarks: "To say that our aggressive bombing of Libya does not rise to the level of 'hostilities' flies in the face of common sense and is an insult to the intelligence of the American people."

Further down, the same resolution makes clear:

"For purposes of this joint resolution, the term 'introduction of United States Armed Forces' includes the assignment of members of such armed forces to command, coordinate, participate in the movement of, or accompany the regular or irregular military forces of any foreign country or government when such military forces are engaged, or there exists an imminent threat that such forces will become engaged, in hostilities."

So, the "constrained and supporting role in a multinational coalition" is completely irrelevant, and would be even if it were true that a UN resolution was being adhered to.

The Obama report to Congress spends half its time claiming that the United States is not part of the NATO operation in any major way, and the other half warning that the NATO operation would collapse without the United States:

"If the United States military were to cease its participation in the NATO operation, it would seriously degrade the coalition's ability to execute and sustain its operation designed to protect Libyan civilians and to enforce the no-fly zone and the arms embargo, as authorized under UNSCR 1973. Cessation of U.S. military activities in support of OUP would also significantly increase the level of risk for the remaining Allied and coalition forces conducting the operation, which in turn would likely lead to the withdrawal of participation in the operation."

The "limited nature, scope and duration of the anticipated actions" is irrelevant. The War Powers Act specifically sets a limit of 60 days, which has passed. Moreover, not that it matters legally, but the House resolution to which this report was a response asked for some information that the report does not provide, including:

"The anticipated scope and duration of continued United States military involvement in support of NATO activities regarding Libya."

The report says the duration is limited, but that merely suggests it's not infinite.

I have my doubts even about that claim.

Would the place to which Weiner is going also treat Michelle Bachmann? She needs help

Daily Beast - A few dozen people showed up at the town hall for the April 9 [2005] event, and Bachmann greeted them warmly. But when, during the question and answer session, the topic turned to gay marriage, Bachmann ended the meeting 20 minutes early and rushed to the bathroom. Hoping to speak to her, Arnold and another middle-aged woman, a former nun, followed her. As Bachmann washed her hands and Arnold looked on, the ex-nun tried to talk to her about theology. Suddenly, after less than a minute, Bachmann let out a shriek. "Help!" she screamed. "Help! I'm being held against my will!"

Arnold, who is just over 5 feet tall, was stunned, and hurried to open the door. Bachmann bolted out and fled, crying, to an SUV outside. Then she called the police, saying, according to the police report, that she was "absolutely terrified and has never been that terrorized before as she had no idea what those two women were going to do to her." The Washington County attorney, however, declined to press charges, writing in a memo, "It seems clear from the statements given by both women that they simply wanted to discuss certain issues further with Ms. Bachmann."

Meet Michelle Bachmann's heretical husband

Note: We suggest that the term heretical be applied to the Christian right since it's beliefs and practices are - both historically and biblically - contrary to traditional Christian beliefs starting with the guy the religion was named after.

David Graham, Daily Beast - Plenty of politicians refer to their spouses as true partners, important counselors, and advisers on the campaign trail and in office. But Marcus Bachmann is all that and more for Rep. Michele Bachmann. He shares his wife’s religious path, political conversion, and unorthodox views, and he’s reputed to be one her few close advisers.

A Christian therapist, he has referred to gays as “barbarians,” raised five children and nearly two dozen foster children with his wife, and stood by her side throughout her political career. (For her part, she put her career as a tax-litigation attorney on hold to raise her children when they were young.) But he’s also a private person. He’s sometimes refused to discuss his work, and the Bachmann campaign didn’t return a request for comment, although he’s spoken on Christian radio shows in the past. . .

But where Bachmann’s political involvement is enigmatic, his clinical practice is slightly clearer¬and more contentious. Bachmann and Associates advertises “Christian counseling,” and as a “personal mission statement,” he writes, “I believe my call is to minister to the needs of people in a practical, effective, and sensitive way. Christ is the Almighty Counselor.” . . .

In one radio interview, posted to YouTube, he criticizes counselors who focused on patients’ feelings, saying that instead patients should be instructed on the correct path. “Our culture is filled with, ‘How do you feel?’” he said. “When you get a counselor saying, ‘How do you feel?’ that’s really a mistake. What should drive us is the undeniable truth and the godly principles of truth in God’s word... Too often do we find counselors who will excuse a person and allow their feelings to take charge.” In another interview, he said, “We’ve decided if you feel it, it’s all right.”

Exhibit A is homosexuality, a topic on which Rep. Bachmann has also expressed particularly strident views, calling for a ban on same-sex marriage on the grounds that it would lead to schoolchildren being indoctrinated into homosexuality.

“Barbarians need to be educated, they need to be disciplined, and just because someone feels it or thinks it, doesn’t mean we need to go down that road,” he said while discussing homosexuality during the radio interview. “We have a responsibility as parents and authority figures not to encourage such thoughts and feelings.”

Great thoughts of Michelle Bachmann

Pocket paradigms

Marxists and capitalists share an obsession with money and a taste for clichéd mantras about it. They also share a willingness to reduce the complexity of human existence to just a couple of choices. - Sam Smith

Furthermore. . .

Budget cuts threaten weather satellites

Some 60 lawsuits against various "Real Housewives"

If we had to pick our favorite Salahi lawsuit, we'd go with the one from December 2009, when the Salahis were being sued for nonpayment by their landscaper. The judge on the case ordered Tareq to give the watch off his wrist¬allegedly worth $325,000¬to the plaintiff to cover his debt of $2000. It turned out that the watch didn't work, and was actually a fake, worth less than $100.

What is poetry for?

George Kenney interviews Dr. Richard Wolff, Professor of Economics Emeritus, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, and a leading neo-Marxist theorist. He see the Greek debt problems as being a prelude to what America undoubtedly will experience somewhere further down the road.

Apple planning to censor use of Iphones at concerts

Unions save mineworkers' lives

Atlantic Southeast Airlines throws children's book author off plane for saying, "Fuck"

CIA spied on professor who criticized Iraq war

World's Oldest Light Bulb Has Been On for 110 Years

French plan to censor Internet

Mayors say jobs won't return until 2020. . .

Mayors call on Congress to reduce military spending. . .

Robert Reich explains the economy in two minutes and fifteen seconds . .

Nebraska nuclear plant narrowly avoids shutdown . .

An 1847 lecture on climate change . .

Babies prefer Picasso to Monet . .

Key Wal Mart action links

© Scoop Media