So just after I heard that Pete Seeger died, Emily mentioned to me that she was first introduced to him as a child via Sesame Street. So I did a search online and found him singing a song with Oscar the Grouch called "Garbage". I immediately loved it -- it brilliantly played off environmental issues with the garbage that envelops our "culture". Well, today I found another version of "Garbage" which has an additional, overpowering verse that was co-written by Seeger himself (the original song was written by Bill Steele). Here's the song and the part that Seeger co-wrote (with Mike Agranoff):
In Mister Thompson's factory, they're making plastic Christmas trees Complete with silver tinsel and a geodesic stand
The plastic's mixed in giant vats from some conglomeration That's been piped from deep within the earth or strip-mined from the land. And if you question anything, they say, "Why, don't you see?
It's absolutely needed for the economy," oh,
Oh, Garbage! Garbage! Garbage! Garbage! There stocks and their bonds -- all garbage! Garbage! Garbage! Garbage! Garbage! What will they do when their system goes to smash
There's no value to their cash There's no money to be made But there's a world to be repaid Their kids will read in history books About financiers and other crooks And feudalism, and slavery
And nukes and all their knavery To history's dustbin they're consigned Along with many other kinds of garbage. Garbage! Garbage! Garbage! Garbage!
Over the last several months, and again today with the NSA porn story, I find myself wondering if we should really be fighting for "privacy" per se as many have been doing for months and years. I think I can imagine a good society where there's little privacy. One where everyone is accepted by others -- and themselves. Rather, the problem is the public (and especially politically involved people in all likelihood) get no privacy from the government and internet corporations while the government and corporations get near total secrecy about their activity from the public. So disparity is really the key.
Of Eden, via her dad, Jim Naureckas, who notes on his fb page that "She's already gotten a dozen requests for photos and made one little bumblebee cry." More pics at tumblr.
At the National Press Club, a representative of the U.S.-backed opposition confirmed this week that they have refused to sit down and negotiate with Assad.
Investigative reporter Robert Parry reported last week: “Though many Americans may believe -- from absorbing the mainstream U.S. news -- that it is Syria’s President Bashar al-Assad who needs to be pressured to the negotiating table, the reality is that Assad has repeatedly offered to join peace talks in Geneva. It is ‘our’ opposition that has refused to go.
“The rebel leaders have offered up a host of excuses: they want the U.S. government to provide sophisticated weapons first; they want all Hezbollah fighters from Lebanon to withdraw; they want to be in a winning position before talks begin; they want Assad to agree to resign as a precondition of talks.
“In other words, the fractious rebels, whose most effective fighters are allied with al-Qaeda, don’t want peace talks; they’d rather wait for the United States and other outside powers to be drawn into the civil war and ensure Assad’s ouster, an outcome that also could make Syria the new hotbed for terrorism in the Middle East.”
Yesterday, Parry followed up: "The Syrian rebels, already angry over the postponed U.S. military strikes against Bashar al-Assad’s government, appear determined to obstruct peace talks and thus may be wielding what amounts to a veto against plans to dismantle Assad’s stockpile of chemical weapons, a process that would be fraught with danger if there is no cease-fire.
"While it might seem counterintuitive for the rebels to undercut an international plan to eliminate the government’s poison gas, there is logic to the rebels’ position, in that their goal is the overthrow of Assad, not simply removing one category of weapon – and indeed one whose primary value may be that it makes a U.S. military intervention against Assad more likely."
On Tuesday, I questioned the Special Representative to the United States for the National Coalition of Syrian Revolution and Opposition Forces Najib Ghadbian at the National Press Club and he confirmed that the U.S.-backed rebels (as opposed to other, independent factions) are refusing to sit down with Assad [emphasis added]:
Husseini: I want to clarify something you said earlier. ... You didn't want to negotiate with the current regime of Bashar al-Assad. Can you clarify -- so -- what have been the modalities, for those coming in to this late, you folks have been refusing to negotiate up until this point? Is that accurate?
Ghadbian: No, that's not accurate.
Husseini: That seems to be what you were saying.
Ghadbian: Let me be very specific: We supported every political initiative to end this conflict. We supported the Arab League initiative, which begins with Assad delegating his powers to his vice president, we thought that was a good idea. We supported the elements of Geneva One. We were willing -- in fact we were working -- to go to Geneva Two. But, our understanding of Geneva One is the following: there will be a transitional government with full executive authorities, including the security and military areas, which means Assad has no role in these areas. That's our understanding of Geneva One. So, we were going to Geneva Two with this understanding. We wanted to include an element of accountability in the negotiations, in the political process. And that is why we believe Bashar al-Assad has committed crimes against humanity. And he is not acceptable as a person. We believe that his departure from the scene is a positive step for any political solution, by any means. And definitely after the use of chemical weapons, he's absolutely not acceptable. He, his brother and those who are implicated in the use of chemical weapons.
Now, there are a lot of people who support Bashar al-Assad. They are Syrians. Some of them are forced to do so. Some of them are in fact under the propaganda of the regime. Some of them are defending their privileges. It's those elements, in fact, we want to talk to. Those, those are Syrians and that's what we want to talk about. So -- again -- we want a political solution that -- again -- would include some element of accountability. And -- again -- we believe Bashar al-Assad is a basically destructive element in any negotiations. So, that's the way we understand Geneva and any political solutions after the use of chemical weapons. He should, in fact, be brought to justice; preferably very soon. Any international effort by our friends at the UN should include that. Otherwise, we would not support it.
Husseini: Now, just to clarify, it's not a new position -- it's been your consistent position over time -- that you will not sit down with him for negotiations, you want to sit down and negotiate with other factions.
Ghadbian: Right.
Husseini: Well prior to this, over the past two and a half years, you will not sit down with Bashar al-Assad --
Ghadbian: Well, that position evolved. Early on -- before the regime committed atrocities on the mass scale -- early on we were, people were asking Bashard al-Assad before the revolution, to take serious, reformists steps to bring Syria into a democratic kind of conclusion. But, you know, the regime was using lethal weapons, using live munitions from day one, in Dara, remember. And so, immediately, as the regime continued, and it was obvious that the regime did not believe in a political solution, Bashar al-Assad up to the use of chemical weapons, he communicated to us, directly and indirectly, that he can achieve a military victory and he's working toward that end. He's talking Geneva, but he's not going to go to Geneva. Why should he talk about his departure Why should he talk about his stepping down? I mean, it doesn't make sense. But, I think, for us again, since the Arab League initiative, we took that position that, if he in fact were to delegate his powers -- at that point delegating powers; maybe he could stay for a while. - But as he continues to commit atrocities, crimes against humanity, against Syrian people, we were clear -- we would not negotiate with individuals who committed crimes against humanity and against the Syrian people. That's a principle position. We continue to stick by that, position.
Audio of full event below. Excerpt from above starts at 26:55:
The 35-year sentence today seems to give Bradley Manning a chance at being free in ten years and seems to have been what the defense realistically wanted. It seems why they did not purse arguments as outlined in "Bradley Manning's Legal Duty to Expose War Crimes" by Marjorie Cohn for example.
Manning's short statement toward the end of his trial -- and the associated defense strategy -- have prompted some heartache and soul searching among his supporters. Having been alternatively in the courtroom and in the adjacent trailer with a video feed of the trail the day of his statement, it certainly hit me with a mixture of feelings still to complex to communicate effectively.
But the thing that struck me most that day was the little discussed government line of argument. It was a case study in projecting the faults of the government on to Manning. The prosecution sought to disparage Manning as someone who was "narcissistic," who thought he was "special," lacked "empathy" and blamed his "problems on others."
This from a government whose leaders have openly espoused U.S. "exceptionalism," calling it "the indispensable nation" which can use violence and violate international law largely at whim, deny or minimize the carnage it inflects on innocent civilians -- and, on those rare occasions when confronted with said violations, does not take responsibility, but demonizes those who expose said wrong doing -- for example the record number of whistleblowers the Obama administration has prosecuted, such as Manning.
The prosecution, when pushing for a 60 year sentence for Manning stated: "There is value in deterrence, Your Honor. This court must send a message to any soldier contemplating stealing classified information. National security crimes that undermine the entire system must be taken seriously. Punish Pfc. Manning’s actions, Your Honor.” So, the military is incapable of maintaining discipline except upon threat of penalty of decades behind bars.
The AP reports: "The House narrowly rejected a challenge to the National Security Agency's secret collection of hundreds of millions of Americans' phone records Wednesday night after a fierce debate ... The vote was 217-205 on an issue that created unusual political coalitions in Washington, with libertarian-leaning conservatives and liberal Democrats pressing for the change against the Obama administration [and] the Republican establishment..." The New York Times writes "disagreements over the program led to some unusual coalitions." Similarly, NBC opined the "amendment earned fierce opposition from an unusual set of allies, ranging from the Obama administration to the conservative Heritage Foundation." [Emphasis added throughout.]
And, when the NSA story broke, the Washington Post Express headline [June 11, 2013] read: "Recent revelations have given even the most ardent political foes a common target: government overreach." AP wrote of the "odd-couple political alliance of the far left and right" [June 12, 2013] with the Edward Snowden revelations making "strange bedfellows." [New York Daily News, June 11, 2013]
Every time you have this convergence of progressives and conservatives against the establishment, it's regarded as "unusual" "odd" or "bizarre" -- even though it keeps coming up on issue after issue: war, military spending, trade, corporate power, Wall Street, fossil fuel subsidies, as well as -- in the case of the NSA spying on the citizenry -- the central issue of Constitutional rights and civil liberties.
As documented below, the meme in the media and elsewhere is a permanent note of surprise, when it should be an established aspect of U.S. politics: There are in fact two "centers" -- one that is pro-war and Wall Street (the establishment center) -- and another that is pro-peace and populist (the anti-establishment center).
The establishment keeps the left and right populist factions at bay by demonizing them to each other -- "let's you and him fight" is the mindset -- which is why MSNBC so often feeds hate of conservatives and Fox feeds hate of progressives. If they were to pay more attention to issues, they might break them down and it might become clear that there's quite a bit the principled left and right agree on. Meanwhile, establishment Democrats and Republicans collude on war, Wall Street and much else, effectively reducing principled progressives and conscientious conservatives into pawns of the Democratic and Republican party establishments.
A left-right alliance is extremely threatening to the establishment. Rep. King recently bemoaned about the NSA scandal: "too many Republicans and conservatives have become Michael Moores." Similarly, former Iraq war military spokesperson Dan Senor triumphantly declared: "I think this further strengthens the center on national security. I think there was a real risk over the last couple weeks that there would be this left/right coalition that would backlash against the United States government..." Sen. Lindsey Graham commented back in 2010: "You know what I worry most about: an unholy alliance between the right and the left." Dan Quayle in 1990 as George H. W. Bush, who Obama recently honored, was driving the nation to war attacked the "McGovern-Buchanan axis."
A major way the establishment keeps principled progressives and conscientious conservatives hating instead of dialoguing is by not acknowledging all they have in common -- and when it is acknowledged, treat is as a freak instance.
Certainly, there are disagreements, but the agreements should not be dismissed or minimized. And both should be talked out by the parties in a real fashion. Each shouldn't be caricatured by an establishment hell-bent on preventing a meaningful dialogue from taking place.
The major media tends to stress the differences between the establishment Democrats and establishment Republicans, sometimes this results in inflating minor issues or marginalizing major issues, or taking serious schisms and tossing them down the memory hole.
During the last presidential election, both President Obama and Gov. Romney talk constantly about "jobs" -- but both backed the secret TPP [Trans-Pacific Partnership] deal that threatens jobs, and is opposed by much of their electoral base. And, critically, the issue got minimal coverage. The convergence of progressives and conservatives that initially voted down the Wall Street bailout of 2008 has been largely forgotten.
A real dialogue between the the left and right may lead to a sort of political re-alignment. As I suggest at VotePact.org it could become the basis for a voting strategy, with disenchanted Democrats and disenchanted Republicans pairing up and voting for the anti-establishment candidates they most want in twos rather than being separated and eternally trapped voting for their "lesser evil". At minimum, experimenting with such approaches would likely lead to a healthier political culture and grant the bases of each establishment political party a way to assert themselves against the elites.
Perhaps the formation of an organization is overdue: The Center for a New Center. That might cure the political culture and media from its insistence that there's something perennially unusual that keeps happening:
War and Military Spending:
"House Republican leaders on Wednesday abruptly canceled a vote on a resolution forcing U.S. withdrawal from Libya amid signs an unusual alliance of liberals and conservatives could approve the measure, indicating Congress's growing dissatisfaction with the extent of U.S. military operations overseas.
"The House had been scheduled to vote on a resolution by Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D., Ohio) requiring President Barack Obama to withdraw from Libya within 15 days. The measure cites the 1973 War Powers Resolution, which says the president must get approval from Congress if a military operation lasts 60 days or more.
"But at a closed-door meeting of House Republicans Wednesday, GOP leaders were surprised by members' strong concerns about the Libya operation. Some conservatives were prepared to support Mr. Kucinich's resolution, Republican aides said." [Wall Street Journal, June 2, 2011]
Gary Pruitt, the president and CEO of the AP spoke at the National Press Club this week; Angela Greiling Keane, the Press Club president, moderated the event. I submitted the question "Do you think major media outlets had sufficiently scrutinized the Obama administrations targeting of whistleblowers including Thomas Drake and Bradley Manning? Didn't that -- along with the attacks on Wikileaks -- pave the way for targeting mainstream media outlets like the AP?" A version of this was asked along with a related question toward the end of the event: See more at washingtonstakeout.com.
This morning I questioned Sen. Dianne Feinstein and Rep. Mike Rogers — the chairs of the Senate and House intelligence committees — as they walked out of ABC studios: “Many Americans are concerned about the revelations of this week and how they square with the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution. Let’s start there. What does the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution say?”
Feinstein said it was “protection against search and seizure,” which is true but very limited. I tried to interject, “the measure is probable cause” — but she went on at some length about the alleged legality of the programs that became public this week, while avoiding the question of their Constitutionality. [transcript below]
The Fourth Amendment states:
“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
That would seem to totally contradict the programs exposed this week. It’s as though the government photocopies all of your papers.
The attitude of defending unconstitutional programs that in effect have been made legal gives new meaning to the old Kissinger quote: “Illegal we do immediately; unconstitutional takes a little longer.” See: Bush-Era Spying ‘Made Legal’ Under Obama.
In the course of my trying to get them to address the Fourth Amendment, I attempted to read it, which didn’t seem as though it was to their liking and they walked away.
But first, Rep. Rogers claimed that the programs reported on this week are “not targeted on Americans. It has to be a non-U.S. person that is believed to be on foreign soil. That is a huge difference from what is being portrayed in the media.” I noted that this was clearly false, certainly for the phone metadata story. This seemed to upset him.
I then read most of the Fourth Amendment, Rogers appeared extremely uncomfortable, said he didn’t want a “debate” — I said it wasn’t a debate, I wanted them to square the programs with the Fourth Amendment. Feinstein said they would do this “another time.”
Update:
Marcy Wheeler who has written extensively about this notes: “Just about every time Dianne Feinstein and Mike Rogers talk about these programs, they confuse the dragnet of American’s contacts with PRISM, which isn’t supposed to involve Americans. That says something about how closely they understand them.”
Shahid Buttar of the Bill of Rights Defense Committee states: “There’s a reason that Senator Feinsten and Rep. Rogers keep dodging questions about secret government spying: it simply can’t be squared with the Fourth Amendment. Neither has acknowledged the full extent of the government’s surveillance operations, which extend well beyond last week’s disclosures. And while those programs have gained legal cover, it’s only because the congressional committees they lead have utterly failed their responsibility to check & balance executive abuses.”
Note: Then-head of NSA Michael Hayden claimed the Fourth Amendment didn’t contain the phrase “probable cause” when questioned by Jonathan Landay in 2006. Video; Report by FAIR.
– Sam Husseini
Transcript:
Sam Husseini: Good morning.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein: Good morning.
SH: Senator, many Americans are concerned about the revelations this week and how they square with the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution. Let’s start there. What does the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution say?
Sen. Dianne Feinstein: Well, it’s protection against search and seizure. The program here –
SH: — and the measure is probable cause –
DF: The program here is legal. It has been passed by the Department of Justice as a legal program. It is carefully audited. You have inspectors generals independently looking at it. It is reviewed by the court every three months. And the court — when they pass out one document which was the document that was revealed — which said it could continue for another three months, the court also passes another statement which puts strictures on the program for the remaining three months.
SH: — The Fourth –
Rep. Mike Rogers: Can I interject there: the important part of that as well–as all of this is right — is that is not targeted on Americans. It has to be a non-U.S. person believed to be on foreign soil. That is a huge difference from what is being portrayed in the media.
SH: That is not the case with the program pertaining to phone data. The Fourth Amendment stipulates that people’s papers shall not be violated but upon probable cause.
MR: I’m not sure who you are with. I am not sure, we’re getting into a debate here.
SH: I am quoting the Fourth Amendment here.
MR: — I understand. But case law also –
SH: — supported by oath or affirmation –
DF: I think there’s no sense –
MR: If you want a debate we can do that later.
SH: I don’t want a debate –
DF: We’ll do that another time.
SH: I’m just quoting the Fourth Amendment. I want you to square this program with the Fourth Amendment.
