I've always thought we had a more or less free press, until I saw the MSM treatment of: Bradley Manning--and taxes!
Let's start with taxes. In the alarmist rhetoric of the "fiscal cliff" commentators, taxes on dividends are treated as if everyone earns them; if their tax rates go up to the same rates as earned income(!), then the bottom will fall out of the stock market; middle class people with 401K's will suffer along with billionaires. After all, they'll have to pay those higher taxes too.
But owners of 401Ks don't pay taxes on dividends their funds earn, although the funds do, so their investments might earn slightly less. But, the big losers, if taxes on dividends went up, would be the people paying the restored 39% rate. They'd pay it on their dividends, too, which is why, if capital gains were treated the same way, their tax rates would go up not from 35 to 39%, but from an effective tax rate of 15% or less, to one more comparable to what 'ordinary' people pay.
That's the idea. It not only would help pay off the deficits; it would lower income inequality. But the Media doesn't want ordinary Joe Blow to know that. Commentators want you to think these higher taxes will hit you 'ordinary' people especially hard.
The fiscal cliff was really an invention of the Tea Party Republicans to force government to shrink, favoring the wealthy. Obama, that 'poor' negotiator, locked them into a closet: to get out, they'll have to concede on higher taxes for the wealthy to avoid being tarred with raising taxes for everyone.
If Republicans want to protect their favorite charity--the military--they could be pressured to give up even more, like those favored tax-rates on dividends and capital gains, even Romney's carried interest.
Are there enough progressive Democrats to push that far, especially given the MSM's conservative corporatist bias on tax issues?
Another media bias is harder to see: it often is carried out by an absence of coverage, as in Bradley Manning, Wikileaks, et al. Here is a whistleblower with global impact, and he's treated like a terrorist and held incommunicado for almost two years, before he's allowed to speak. And then the media hardly covers him, or Assange, or Wikileaks, which revealed more embarrassing state secrets, and gave newspapers more issues to write/pontificate about for months than any other source. It showed how petty and conniving most governments are--especially the United States.
That's not terrorism. Was the boy who yelled: "The Emperor has no clothes!" a terrorist, or a truth teller?
A free press? We have a press dedicated to maintaining the American Empire and its prime supporters--and beneficiaries--the very wealthy. In Fifth Century Rome, the Emperor and Roman Senators had panegyrists, too.
Showing posts with label Wikileaks. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Wikileaks. Show all posts
Monday, December 10, 2012
Saturday, August 25, 2012
Democracy Needs Wikileaks
It's not just disturbing, that the US, UK and Sweden are ganging up on Julian Assange, and Ecuador.
You can be sure that none of the first three nations are concerned about the rough sex accusations made against Assange (the charges are not for rape, but for a kind of sexual aggression only prosecuted in Sweden; but he's not even formally charged: the extradition is only for questioning).
So, the UK threatens Ecuador's Embassy, and despite the threatened action being a breach of international law, the US and Sweden both make encouraging noises.
Why, because under Assange's leadership Wikileaks published thousands of US diplomatic and military documents, classified from NOFORN to Secret. Newspapers all over the world published articles about them, and even Americans now know a lot more about what our nation is doing to the rest of the world. Wikileaks enabled one of the US's most crucial freedoms--freedom of information--to be dramatically, if temporarily, expanded.
Wikileaks sympathizers claim that the US is pressuring both the UK and Sweden to extradite Assange to the US. They say the US intends to try him for espionage, which is punishable by death. Of course, the three principal nations deny everything. But note what the US is not saying: it's not saying that Britain should honor Ecuador's grant of asylum to Assange; it's not saying that Britain shouldn't threaten Ecuador and it's not saying that it won't prosecute Assange for espionage.
Meanwhile the UK denies him safe passage.
All three nations boast about their freedom of the press. Ecuador has only recently had such freedoms: its media was privately owned, in bed with dictators and staunchly opposed to Rafael Correa's government, which has not repressed it.
But the Obama administration appears as zealous as the former USSR to crush dissident Assange; and Romney, if anything, would try to outdo Obama. US media say Ecuador's President has attacked his own press, but that appears to be a distortion.
Correa's government faced a hostile, partisan private oligopoly dominating Ecuadoran media; his supposed "assault" is his government's attempt to nurture a fairer press. Ecuador has promoted public and cooperative outlets, so they could compete with private media.
It would be as if Obama promoted NPR and MSNBC. Oh, he has?
So, why are Assange and Ecuador the new bad-guys to three supposedly democratic governments?
Both bad-guys have defied the American Empire. If they prevail, The Empire looks weak. So, it doesn't matter that the New York Times and WaPo, co-publishers with Assange, are just as culpable as Assange himself. They're connected to power; Julian isn't.
"Hang the bastard!" parallels Rome's response in its declining years. The Fifth Century Empire tortured and "slow-burned" its opponents, but still it lost control, long before CE 476.
You can be sure that none of the first three nations are concerned about the rough sex accusations made against Assange (the charges are not for rape, but for a kind of sexual aggression only prosecuted in Sweden; but he's not even formally charged: the extradition is only for questioning).
So, the UK threatens Ecuador's Embassy, and despite the threatened action being a breach of international law, the US and Sweden both make encouraging noises.
Why, because under Assange's leadership Wikileaks published thousands of US diplomatic and military documents, classified from NOFORN to Secret. Newspapers all over the world published articles about them, and even Americans now know a lot more about what our nation is doing to the rest of the world. Wikileaks enabled one of the US's most crucial freedoms--freedom of information--to be dramatically, if temporarily, expanded.
Wikileaks sympathizers claim that the US is pressuring both the UK and Sweden to extradite Assange to the US. They say the US intends to try him for espionage, which is punishable by death. Of course, the three principal nations deny everything. But note what the US is not saying: it's not saying that Britain should honor Ecuador's grant of asylum to Assange; it's not saying that Britain shouldn't threaten Ecuador and it's not saying that it won't prosecute Assange for espionage.
Meanwhile the UK denies him safe passage.
All three nations boast about their freedom of the press. Ecuador has only recently had such freedoms: its media was privately owned, in bed with dictators and staunchly opposed to Rafael Correa's government, which has not repressed it.
But the Obama administration appears as zealous as the former USSR to crush dissident Assange; and Romney, if anything, would try to outdo Obama. US media say Ecuador's President has attacked his own press, but that appears to be a distortion.
Correa's government faced a hostile, partisan private oligopoly dominating Ecuadoran media; his supposed "assault" is his government's attempt to nurture a fairer press. Ecuador has promoted public and cooperative outlets, so they could compete with private media.
It would be as if Obama promoted NPR and MSNBC. Oh, he has?
So, why are Assange and Ecuador the new bad-guys to three supposedly democratic governments?
Both bad-guys have defied the American Empire. If they prevail, The Empire looks weak. So, it doesn't matter that the New York Times and WaPo, co-publishers with Assange, are just as culpable as Assange himself. They're connected to power; Julian isn't.
"Hang the bastard!" parallels Rome's response in its declining years. The Fifth Century Empire tortured and "slow-burned" its opponents, but still it lost control, long before CE 476.
Tuesday, December 14, 2010
Wiki-Revolution II
Wikileaks has added a new wrinkle to non-violent protest. Neither Gandhi, nor Martin Luther King could reach so many, to unveil the secrets, of violence and corruption, by so many, over most of the globe. Neither could stop wars, and perhaps wikileaks can't either, but it can certainly reach the masses of people with the information they need, so popular revulsion could stop them. It's possible.
The wikileaks case is radical. Political alliances crumble, and others emerge in unforeseen places, like conservative libertarians and anti-war progressives: Ron Paul insisted that Assange is only the publisher and that nobody was killed by the document dump, compared to the many killed in illegal wars caused by lying, the very thing the documents illustrate. He said if Assange is prosecuted, then the Times and WaPo should be as well. He claimed (as Ellsberg has) that what Assange did was just as legal as Daniel Ellsberg, and the Pentagon Papers. Some claim that Assange is no Ellsberg, but one funny fact is: Ellsberg loudly proclaims that he is.
However, this is bigger than one person. What wikileaks wrought is not simply Assange's creation. As wikileaks' name implies, it involves the cooperation of numberless collaborators all over the world, but it has also awakened a sleeping giant--yes, like Gandhi awakening colonized Indians from their torpor. The counter-offensive, after wikileaks was attacked, on the web and financially, has made people wake up. If you have a computer, and you're enraged at the world as presently constituted, here is a bloodless, even relatively safe, way of expressing your outrage, and perhaps forcing changes. Technology now being what it is, it is entirely possible that a small global movement, say 1 million strong, could force the world's governments to negotiate, to stop their wars, to enforce fair labor laws worldwide, to oppose the power of global corporations, or to act definitively and decisively on global climate change.
Anonymous demonstrates a whole new power, much more direct, non-violent, and populist. Yes, you have to have minimal understanding of computers, and a computer, of course, but computers and computer literacy are like a disease spreading across the globe with lightning speed.
On matters of free speech, and on wars and secrecy, progressives should look around them. As Ron Paul's speech indicates, progressives can find allies in funny places: progressives and libertarians have more in common than they think. There will be more libertarians, and hardly fewer progressives in the next Congress. Think how progressive the free exchange of information could be.
In addition, the resulting generation of hacktavists could make it possible to dismantle The Empire without bloodshed. The US might emulate Britain, peacefully withdrawing, instead of collapsing, like the fall of Rome.
The wikileaks case is radical. Political alliances crumble, and others emerge in unforeseen places, like conservative libertarians and anti-war progressives: Ron Paul insisted that Assange is only the publisher and that nobody was killed by the document dump, compared to the many killed in illegal wars caused by lying, the very thing the documents illustrate. He said if Assange is prosecuted, then the Times and WaPo should be as well. He claimed (as Ellsberg has) that what Assange did was just as legal as Daniel Ellsberg, and the Pentagon Papers. Some claim that Assange is no Ellsberg, but one funny fact is: Ellsberg loudly proclaims that he is.
However, this is bigger than one person. What wikileaks wrought is not simply Assange's creation. As wikileaks' name implies, it involves the cooperation of numberless collaborators all over the world, but it has also awakened a sleeping giant--yes, like Gandhi awakening colonized Indians from their torpor. The counter-offensive, after wikileaks was attacked, on the web and financially, has made people wake up. If you have a computer, and you're enraged at the world as presently constituted, here is a bloodless, even relatively safe, way of expressing your outrage, and perhaps forcing changes. Technology now being what it is, it is entirely possible that a small global movement, say 1 million strong, could force the world's governments to negotiate, to stop their wars, to enforce fair labor laws worldwide, to oppose the power of global corporations, or to act definitively and decisively on global climate change.
Anonymous demonstrates a whole new power, much more direct, non-violent, and populist. Yes, you have to have minimal understanding of computers, and a computer, of course, but computers and computer literacy are like a disease spreading across the globe with lightning speed.
On matters of free speech, and on wars and secrecy, progressives should look around them. As Ron Paul's speech indicates, progressives can find allies in funny places: progressives and libertarians have more in common than they think. There will be more libertarians, and hardly fewer progressives in the next Congress. Think how progressive the free exchange of information could be.
In addition, the resulting generation of hacktavists could make it possible to dismantle The Empire without bloodshed. The US might emulate Britain, peacefully withdrawing, instead of collapsing, like the fall of Rome.
Friday, December 10, 2010
Bloodless Wiki-Revolution
One of the things about the confrontation, wikileaks vs authorities, is that no blood has been spilled.
Despite all the bombast about "endangering Americans and our allies," it's clear that wikileaks and the cooperating news outlets have been very careful to insure no individual will be endangered. People are shown to be corrupt, or brutal, arbitrary or incompetent, but that doesn't kill them. It may shame them, but shame may be justified. Or, they may be embarrassed.
If there is one thing people of large egos fear more than death, it's embarrassment. Almost all political leaders, almost by definition, have large egos.
I said, on my 11/30 blog, that "if people laugh, it's all over." Maybe, that's why there have been such determined offensives by the US, and by some corporations against wikileaks: they could have been modeled on any number of authoritarian regimes. Corporate responses: shutting off donation routes, shutting off accounts, canceling site hosting, may be protective (in case GOP crazies make business with wikileaks into treason). Maybe, as well, they responded because wikileaks is attacking their people, the ones they influence, know and work with: their Generals, administrators, diplomats, Congressmen, Senators, President, the government they support, because it supports them.
It is heartening to know that revolutionary protest isn't confined to France or Thailand, and is possible, in cyber terms, all over the world. And it is strikingly non-violent.
We have enough blood and guts wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, maybe Somalia, Yemen--. So, by contrast, General Assange's master-stroke flew through electronic space, killing no one. Further, his "attack" only makes it more difficult for governments to hide behind secrecy, or to rely on it.
Is that so damaging? Perhaps to people used to exercising power out of the public eye. For them it could be a danger to their careers, at least. There were demands that Hillary resign, when the first State Department cables were released by wikileaks, although the demands have since died down.
Wikileaks emerged into my consciousness a couple of years ago, when "Julian" started sending me documents on Kenyan political corruption, and then classified military handbooks. I was initially startled, because my son's name is Julian. Unfortunately, I couldn't use Assange's documents, so, I joke, "Julian" went to the NY Times, instead!
Wiki-allies' counter-offensive, if only symbolic, like one-day walk-out strikes, demonstrates that there are real populist forces out there in cyber-land, and they aren't toothless. Think about it: if enough people became so discontented that they became hacktivists, if their number grew into the millions, instead of a few thousand, they could bring civilization to its knees! What would they demand? Freedom of information.
Transparency is probably the most democratizing force on the planet, but things may have to fall apart further, before our Roman Senators withdraw their grubby fingers from deep inside our pockets.
Despite all the bombast about "endangering Americans and our allies," it's clear that wikileaks and the cooperating news outlets have been very careful to insure no individual will be endangered. People are shown to be corrupt, or brutal, arbitrary or incompetent, but that doesn't kill them. It may shame them, but shame may be justified. Or, they may be embarrassed.
If there is one thing people of large egos fear more than death, it's embarrassment. Almost all political leaders, almost by definition, have large egos.
I said, on my 11/30 blog, that "if people laugh, it's all over." Maybe, that's why there have been such determined offensives by the US, and by some corporations against wikileaks: they could have been modeled on any number of authoritarian regimes. Corporate responses: shutting off donation routes, shutting off accounts, canceling site hosting, may be protective (in case GOP crazies make business with wikileaks into treason). Maybe, as well, they responded because wikileaks is attacking their people, the ones they influence, know and work with: their Generals, administrators, diplomats, Congressmen, Senators, President, the government they support, because it supports them.
It is heartening to know that revolutionary protest isn't confined to France or Thailand, and is possible, in cyber terms, all over the world. And it is strikingly non-violent.
We have enough blood and guts wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, maybe Somalia, Yemen--. So, by contrast, General Assange's master-stroke flew through electronic space, killing no one. Further, his "attack" only makes it more difficult for governments to hide behind secrecy, or to rely on it.
Is that so damaging? Perhaps to people used to exercising power out of the public eye. For them it could be a danger to their careers, at least. There were demands that Hillary resign, when the first State Department cables were released by wikileaks, although the demands have since died down.
Wikileaks emerged into my consciousness a couple of years ago, when "Julian" started sending me documents on Kenyan political corruption, and then classified military handbooks. I was initially startled, because my son's name is Julian. Unfortunately, I couldn't use Assange's documents, so, I joke, "Julian" went to the NY Times, instead!
Wiki-allies' counter-offensive, if only symbolic, like one-day walk-out strikes, demonstrates that there are real populist forces out there in cyber-land, and they aren't toothless. Think about it: if enough people became so discontented that they became hacktivists, if their number grew into the millions, instead of a few thousand, they could bring civilization to its knees! What would they demand? Freedom of information.
Transparency is probably the most democratizing force on the planet, but things may have to fall apart further, before our Roman Senators withdraw their grubby fingers from deep inside our pockets.
Monday, November 29, 2010
Leaks Spill Empire
The latest wiki leaks spill awful confirmations of what so many have been saying for so long: how sleazy is the Imperial enterprise.
I'm hoping it's the beginning of a graceful end to the American Empire. Since it does not legally exist, I cannot be accused of treason to say I'd love to see it go. The United States is a great Republic, not an Empire. Empires make nations into exploitative, brutal machines, which enormously benefit a very few, at the expense of nearly everyone else.
It happened with the Roman Empire, and the Spanish, and give a gander to the grand estates the British gentry showed off to each other. Those former empires are now prosperous states, more or less, if the bond speculators and the supine governments don't bring them all down.
Think what it would be like if the United States of America, the USA, was just an ordinary country. It would still be just as beautiful. The very rich might be less so. But everyone else would be better off. Consider, first of all, that we spend something above $750 billion strictly on "Defense." That's about ten times, what the Chinese (our nearest competitor) spends, although we borrow it from them, in effect. A good bit of the components we buy from them, too.
If we weren't spending most of that money on weapons and wars, on the ability to destroy, and actual destruction; if we weren't spending so much of that money overseas (700-800 bases in 80 countries), we could employ our people, taking advantage of their skills, we could rebuild our crumbling and out-of-date infrastructure, and afford the services everyone should have.
In addition, a constant drain to our balance of payments would be plugged. We could also enjoy the spectacle of the rest of the world trying to take care of themselves through the UN, or regional groups like NATO, in which the US is only one member. Nope, don't have the troops, don't have the airlift, either. Got rid of it. You'll just have to work it out--if you think it's important enough. How delicious that would be!
So, what brought on this vision of a Post-Imperial world? Why, Wikileaks, of course. The Wizard of Oz has been shown for the charlatan he is; the whole international "community," it seems, is crammed with small and cunning minds, constantly conniving. (I passed the written Foreign Service exam; I am so thankful I flunked the interview! I was in love, but that's a different story.)
Of course, heads of states and their flunkies, and especially Secretaries of State, etc. are extremely unhappy. Wikileaks exposes their pettiness and hypocrisy, and renders the USA less trustworthy than she was during the worst of Bush.
And after all, what is the ultimate currency of an empire? Belief that an empire will act like one.
If people laugh, it's all over.
I'm hoping it's the beginning of a graceful end to the American Empire. Since it does not legally exist, I cannot be accused of treason to say I'd love to see it go. The United States is a great Republic, not an Empire. Empires make nations into exploitative, brutal machines, which enormously benefit a very few, at the expense of nearly everyone else.
It happened with the Roman Empire, and the Spanish, and give a gander to the grand estates the British gentry showed off to each other. Those former empires are now prosperous states, more or less, if the bond speculators and the supine governments don't bring them all down.
Think what it would be like if the United States of America, the USA, was just an ordinary country. It would still be just as beautiful. The very rich might be less so. But everyone else would be better off. Consider, first of all, that we spend something above $750 billion strictly on "Defense." That's about ten times, what the Chinese (our nearest competitor) spends, although we borrow it from them, in effect. A good bit of the components we buy from them, too.
If we weren't spending most of that money on weapons and wars, on the ability to destroy, and actual destruction; if we weren't spending so much of that money overseas (700-800 bases in 80 countries), we could employ our people, taking advantage of their skills, we could rebuild our crumbling and out-of-date infrastructure, and afford the services everyone should have.
In addition, a constant drain to our balance of payments would be plugged. We could also enjoy the spectacle of the rest of the world trying to take care of themselves through the UN, or regional groups like NATO, in which the US is only one member. Nope, don't have the troops, don't have the airlift, either. Got rid of it. You'll just have to work it out--if you think it's important enough. How delicious that would be!
So, what brought on this vision of a Post-Imperial world? Why, Wikileaks, of course. The Wizard of Oz has been shown for the charlatan he is; the whole international "community," it seems, is crammed with small and cunning minds, constantly conniving. (I passed the written Foreign Service exam; I am so thankful I flunked the interview! I was in love, but that's a different story.)
Of course, heads of states and their flunkies, and especially Secretaries of State, etc. are extremely unhappy. Wikileaks exposes their pettiness and hypocrisy, and renders the USA less trustworthy than she was during the worst of Bush.
And after all, what is the ultimate currency of an empire? Belief that an empire will act like one.
If people laugh, it's all over.
Tuesday, July 27, 2010
War Absurdity
What would happen if Obama said, 'Okay, I get it,' and insists on winding down the Afghan war as quickly as possible? The right wing would be predictably outraged. However, the large majority of the electorate, according to polls, feels the war wasn't justified, or worth fighting. Could the right-wing media machine whip up enough rage to convert majority anti-war sentiment to pro war?
Almost everyone, after slogging through Wikileaks' released war documents, has already pointed out the absurdity of the Afghan war. It's the hopelessness of the enterprise that comes through, the sheer complicated, mindless destruction on all sides. The Taliban is horrible, the Afghan government is corrupt, incompetent and almost as brutal; the US and NATO are efficient killing-machines, even when policy dictates restraint to protect civilians.
And then, there is Pakistan and its ISI, often labeled "Pakistan's CIA." The ISI is Pakistan's CIA, FBI and military Intel units all rolled into one: it's closely linked to Pakistan's army. The ISI, in these released documents, has been openly implicated in supporting elements of the Taliban in Afghanistan. Neither a revelation, nor a confirmation, it just makes public what the US military thinks: that its ally, Pakistan, is playing both sides. Many experts on the Af-Pak war have said so for a long time.
This may be changing, because now Pakistanis realize: the Afghan Taliban, the Pakistani Taliban, and its allies work together. Both of the latter have attacked the Pakistani Army and the government as its enemy. The army has waged all out war against parts of the Taliban in the Northwest Frontier--but it has not attacked others. Why?
Elements within the ISI have been Taliban patrons ever since the US abandoned Afghanistan in the 1980's. They see factions within it as useful tools in their contest with vastly larger and wealthier India. A friendly Afghanistan would protect Pakistan's rear. They may be right: their strategy may pay off, when the US leaves.
It's not a question of 'if' the US will leave, but whether it will begin to leave in 2011 as Obama promises, and whether this 'beginning' will amount to really getting out, or not. The sheer, numbing reality of this stupid, awful war, as illustrated in the Wikileaks documents, argues that any sane person would begin leaving now, not a year from now.
What will be illuminating is Obama's response, and of those on the fence in Congress (more or less pro-war Democrats). Excepting Ron Paul, all Republicans are dead-set against withdrawal, but then few of them seem rational, anyway.
My bet? The military will say withdrawal isn't practical, and Obama will be afraid to oppose them, leading us towards the kind of bankruptcy that ended in the fall of the Roman Empire in 476.
Almost everyone, after slogging through Wikileaks' released war documents, has already pointed out the absurdity of the Afghan war. It's the hopelessness of the enterprise that comes through, the sheer complicated, mindless destruction on all sides. The Taliban is horrible, the Afghan government is corrupt, incompetent and almost as brutal; the US and NATO are efficient killing-machines, even when policy dictates restraint to protect civilians.
And then, there is Pakistan and its ISI, often labeled "Pakistan's CIA." The ISI is Pakistan's CIA, FBI and military Intel units all rolled into one: it's closely linked to Pakistan's army. The ISI, in these released documents, has been openly implicated in supporting elements of the Taliban in Afghanistan. Neither a revelation, nor a confirmation, it just makes public what the US military thinks: that its ally, Pakistan, is playing both sides. Many experts on the Af-Pak war have said so for a long time.
This may be changing, because now Pakistanis realize: the Afghan Taliban, the Pakistani Taliban, and its allies work together. Both of the latter have attacked the Pakistani Army and the government as its enemy. The army has waged all out war against parts of the Taliban in the Northwest Frontier--but it has not attacked others. Why?
Elements within the ISI have been Taliban patrons ever since the US abandoned Afghanistan in the 1980's. They see factions within it as useful tools in their contest with vastly larger and wealthier India. A friendly Afghanistan would protect Pakistan's rear. They may be right: their strategy may pay off, when the US leaves.
It's not a question of 'if' the US will leave, but whether it will begin to leave in 2011 as Obama promises, and whether this 'beginning' will amount to really getting out, or not. The sheer, numbing reality of this stupid, awful war, as illustrated in the Wikileaks documents, argues that any sane person would begin leaving now, not a year from now.
What will be illuminating is Obama's response, and of those on the fence in Congress (more or less pro-war Democrats). Excepting Ron Paul, all Republicans are dead-set against withdrawal, but then few of them seem rational, anyway.
My bet? The military will say withdrawal isn't practical, and Obama will be afraid to oppose them, leading us towards the kind of bankruptcy that ended in the fall of the Roman Empire in 476.
Friday, April 9, 2010
US Empire, Inc.
My previous blog dealt with a video released by Wikileaks. The importance of a service like wikileaks has been underscored by the denials of Pentagon and pro-defense bloggers about the meaning of the Iraq helicopter video. Wikileaks' crucial role has also been demonstrated by the recent Appeals Court decision that the FCC doesn't have the power to enforce net neutrality.
Comcast, AT&T and Verizon all claim that net neutrality will not fairly recompense them for their services, that they need to be able to charge more for high band-width users, in order to adequately invest in continued improvements in the Internet.
Gee, 80% profits (for Comcast) aren't enough?
What really is at issue is: who controls the Internet. The FCC has been like the cop in the patrol car; nobody controls where you go, but you have to abide by the speed limits. In the case of the Internet, the FCC was attempting to insure that everyone had equal access.
The companies want control. Their spokespeople claim they wouldn't charge more except for high-bandwidth users, but if there is no cop on the beat, why wouldn't they charge more? After all, a corporation's officers are legally required to maximize profit.
So, if there is premium access, then those not paying the higher fees will end up getting lower quality (lower cost) services, or they could be blocked unless they pay more.
Providers could also block users if their content promotes ideas or policies that could threaten their bottom line. This brings us back to Wikileaks: the Iraq video would not be in the interest of any corporation which makes profits from our war efforts, since it has profoundly anti-war implications. With no cop on the beat, it could have been blocked.
The same might be said for certain candidates: anti-corporate positions could therefore become even more difficult to bring to public attention. Not only would they be handicapped by receiving no corporate money now that corporations can spend unlimited money directly on elections, but in addition, the carriers could block meaningful access to a campaign.
There are two ways out: one is for the FCC to find another way to regulate the Internet to insure net neutrality: it's exploring its options. The other is to pass net neutrality laws in Congress, but the opposition of the large cable providers meshes with anti-regulatory zeal, largely Republican, though other corporations, like Google and Yahoo might encourage pro-regulation Congress-people if they push back.
The Appeals Court decision is like the second of a one-two punch, the first being the Supreme Court ruling that corporations have free speech rights as "corporate persons."
This looks like a silent corporate coup. Forget about Democrats and Republicans: corporations are gaining control--unless we stop them. Goodbye democracy, goodbye the United States. Hello US Empire, Inc. Is Augustus waiting in the wings? Is her name Sarah Palin?
Wednesday, April 7, 2010
Just Looking for Targets in Baghdad
The helicopter gunner was "looking for targets." What he saw was 8 men gathering on the ground, so they became targets. He justified shooting because two of them were carrying something. He decided they had weapons, although in fact they were carrying cameras. Almost all the men were killed in one burst of his machine gun. One struggled to rise on an elbow, the gunner watched. A van came to "gather the bodies," so he shot up the van.
The man in the van had come to rescue the injured, and had two children with him on the way to a tutor. The man he tried to rescue, the photojournalist's assistant, was killed; the children were seriously injured.
There is only one reason why this video was shown on the Internet: Wikileaks leaked it. The photojournalists were a two-man Reuters team, both killed, the photographer's body actually run over by an investigating US Bradley vehicle, his assistant killed when the helicopter returned to shoot up the van; the gunner chuckled when he saw the Bradley run over the body!
Reuters had tried to find out what had happened to their photojournalists and had filed an FOIA for the video; the military claimed there had been a firefight and the helicopter gunner had followed the "rules of engagement." You could see there was no fight; the men were relaxed, paying no attention to the helicopter overhead. This was casual murder, carried out as just another daily patrol, "looking for targets."
The Military refused to release the video. Now we can see why. From the video, we can see, vividly, that the military are out of control and can go on murder sprees with impunity. Reuters had "followed procedures" in trying to find out what had happened to their team; the military stonewalled and insisted on a lie. Only an illegal leak, "conveyed" to Wikileaks, revealed what really happened.
This is how Americans really fought the war in Baghdad (the video was shot in 2007), and probably how they are fighting it in Afghanistan now. Why would any Iraqi, or Afghan, want American military in their country if this is how they operate? This was, after all, simply a daily patrol "looking for targets."
Helicopters fly over me daily. If people here were shot like this, I'd get a cannon and start shooting at them the minute I saw them!
It's likely that the stories told Congress, and even the President, but certainly the media, are similar distortions and lies. The military aren't fighting for freedom; they're terrorizing the people they were sent to "liberate."
This is proof, if proof were needed, that the American military sow terror. We need to stop the terrorists--our troops. They need to come home.
Dismantle the Empire!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)