A courageous man speaks out in Saudi Arabia

Khaled al-Johani decided to speak out at the "day of rage" in Saudi Arabia, even though no one else spoke. He is the 40-year old religion teacher in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, and the father of a 5-year old autistic boy. He was direct during his speech: Saudi Arabia needs free speech and it needs democracy. For this outburst, Khaled was imprisoned. He had plainly predicted that he would be thrown in prison during his speech. In the linked article, it was indicated that he would be transferred to the notorious maximum-security Takehi Alhaer prison outside Riyadh. It was suggested that he would be tortured there, and released only after he disavowed what he said about free speech and democracy. The following youtube video is an excerpt taken from a BBC program about the incident. Here is a Facebook page dedicated to Khaled.

Continue ReadingA courageous man speaks out in Saudi Arabia

How We Got Here: the Debate I

This will be a rather lengthy piece. It is my intention here to examine the historical underpinnings of what is happening today in the fight between the Right and everyone else. This will be part one of a two-part essay. Bear with me, it all does lead somewhere. The talking heads have been bloviating for decades now about the function of government vis a vis a so-called Welfare State. The Right claims that having the government “take care of” people is a violation of the American tradition of independence and self-reliance and will sap our resources, both fiscal and moral. The Left has argued that such government programs are there to protect people who have few resources from the depredations of the wealthy and an economy that fluctuates as a normal element of its functioning and that it is the responsibility of the better-off to aid those who are left without recourse in such a system. That’s the basics of the debate. The Right says no, people should look out for themselves. The Left says many people can’t and it isn’t right to let them starve in the streets. The Right says it has no desire to see anyone starve in the streets but rejects the idea that others are responsible for the perhaps bad choices of individuals who have been unable to take advantage of an open system. The Left counters by pointing out the system is not as open as the Right believes and built in to its workings is the inevitability that a certain number of people simply won’t be able to participate. Even if the Right then agrees, they assert that it is not the job of the State, using tax payer money, to off-set this imbalance. The Left says it is if people vote for it and even if they don’t there’s a moral imperative involved. The Right counters that the State is not the instrument for pursuing moral imperatives. Well. Let me be up front here—I think the Right has it wrong. They base their philosophy, if that’s what it is, on an idea of equality that is unsupportable. In the narrowest sense, they argue that our system is open to the extent that everyone has an equal shot at some measure of success and if they fail it is either because they were lazy, foolish, or unlucky. The government can functionally do nothing about any of that. The argument falls apart on its face. Equality in this country is a principle concerning representation before the State. The State in this sense is the community as a whole, both public and private. The ideas that we are not born to a Station in life which determines at the outset how far an individual might go through his or her own efforts. It was never intended as an assessment of talent or a measure of will or a guarantee of achievement. It is only a promise of access. Because people are not equal as individuals. They aren’t and there’s not much point in arguing about it. Intelligence, physical attributes, proclivities, all these things vary widely throughout any population group and to argue that, if somehow we could take away all social obstacles, everyone would be exactly the same is absurd. The Right seems to argue that because this is true, the rest of us have no responsibility for the fundamentally unequal achievements of any one, or group of, individual. They discount social obstacles. Not completely, because when an individual rises above a certain level, reaches the precincts of success, and has done so from straitened beginnings, many on the Right like to point to that individual as an exemplar of succeeding in spite of the circumstances of his or her life. So there is a tacit recognition that social conditions matter, but only as an ennobling aspect to a Horatio Alger story. The question really is why those conditions keep so many others down, but that, as much as the successful individual’s achievement is credited to personal qualities, is a matter of personal failure, not attributable to anyone else. Which seems to make success and failure a matter of choice. Exclusively. Ergo, the tax payer, through the medium of the State, has no responsibility for such failures. This can only be true if the assertion of equality is true as an innate quality. [More . . . ]

Continue ReadingHow We Got Here: the Debate I

Substitute NYT for Wikileaks and substitute Iran for the United States

Wikileaks continues to be punished for being one of the few organizations brash enough to inform us what our governments are really doing and why. This is intolerable, of course, because the U.S. government is being run by big corporations and wealthy people who, for the most part, are driven by greed--so sorry to break this to the kids who are studying civics in grade school, where they don't tell you about armies of lobbyists, and they don't tell you that the banks own Congress. The true powers that be are running the federal government in secret and they are, regrettably, running it into the ground. That's what one should expect when there is no sunshine to keep powerful people accountable. What we have is a needlessly warmongering, debt-ridden secret and personally invasive brave new government.   I truly wish I didn't believe these things. Consider that our government first attacked Wikileaks by starving it financially, despite the lack of any charges filed against it. They did this by harassing Amazon and various financial organizations to make sure that Wikileaks had no funds to fight in Round II, which is underway. We now know that there are secret subpoenas being issued by the US, and thank goodness that Twitter had the decency to inform its users that their privacy is being invaded, unlike the big U.S. telecoms, who have a long documented track record for turning over our private information without informing us (encouraged very much by President Obama's agreement to grant them retroactive immunity for past invasions of our privacy.  Julian Assange sums up the current grand jury proceedings like this, and we know of this only because the U.K. Guardian has continually refused to be the lapdog of the U.S.:

The emergence of the Twitter subpoena – which was unsealed after a legal challenge by the company – was revealed after WikiLeaks announced it believed other US Internet companies had also been ordered to hand over information about its members' activities. WikiLeaks condemned the court order, saying it amounted to harassment. "If the Iranian government was to attempt to coercively obtain this information from journalists and activists of foreign nations, human rights groups around the world would speak out," Assange said in a statement.
Glenn Greenwald comments further:
It's worth recalling -- and I hope journalists writing about this story remind themselves -- that all of this extraordinary probing and "criminal" investigating is stemming from WikiLeaks' doing nothing more than publishing classified information showing what the U.S. Government is doing: something investigative journalists, by definition, do all the time. And the key question now is this: did other Internet and social network companies (Google, Facebook, etc.) receive similar Orders and then quietly comply? It's difficult to imagine why the DOJ would want information only from Twitter; if anything, given the limited information it has about users, Twitter would seem one of the least fruitful avenues to pursue. But if other companies did receive and quietly comply with these orders, it will be a long time before we know, if we ever do, given the prohibition in these orders on disclosing even its existence to anyone. UPDATE III: Iceland's Interior Minister, Ögmundur Jónasson, described the DOJ's efforts to obtain the Twitter information of a member of that country's Parliament as "grave and odd." While suggesting some criticisms of WikiLeaks, he added: "if we manage to make government transparent and give all of us some insight into what is happening in countries involved in warfare it can only be for the good."

Continue ReadingSubstitute NYT for Wikileaks and substitute Iran for the United States

Another notable whistleblower

In the December 27, 2010 edition of The Nation (available online only to subscribers), we learn of Martin Woods, who was an expert at spotting dirty money flowing through banking systems. In 2005 he took a job with Wachovia Bank. He was in for a rude awakening when, in 2006, during the Lebanon war, his superiors reprimanded him for trying to freeze in account used by Hezbollah. That same year, he identified suspicious transactions relating to Mexican currency exchanges--deposits of travelers checks “with sequential numbers for large amounts of money--more than any innocent person would need--with inadequate or no identity information on them, and what seemed to a trained eye to be dubious signatures.” Instead of being commended, his superiors at Wachovia Bank told him to “stop asking questions and to cease blocking suspicious transactions.” As the article points out, it turns out that his suspicions were entirely correct based upon the seizure of 5.7 tons of cocaine by the Mexican military. This year, the Justice Department charged Wachovia with the largest violation of the Bank Secrecy Act in US history, fining the bank $160 million. Shortly thereafter, Wells Fargo purchased Wachovia during the 2008 crash for $12.7 billion, thanks to a $25 billion handout of US taxpayer money. What happened to Martin Woods? The bank charged him with professional misconduct in 2008. He received “a stinging reprimand [claiming] that his actions could expose the bank to potential regulatory jeopardy and even large fines.” In December, 2008, Woods sued Wachovia for harassment and detrimental treatment, and the bank settled in 2009 for an amount which was undisclosed. For these reasons, I'm adding Martin Woods to my private Whistle-Blower Hall of Fame, along with Bradley Manning and Bradley Birkenfeld.

Continue ReadingAnother notable whistleblower

Matt Taibbi on Bernie Sanders

For the past few years, I've looked to Matt Taibbi for powerful ways to express, simultaneously emotionally and intellectually, the current national mess we're in. He recently wrote of his admiration for Bernie Sanders at Rolling Stone:

While everyone else in Washington was debating the political efficacy of the deal . . . Sanders blew all of that off and just looked at the deal’s moral implications. Which are these: this tax deal, frankly and unequivocally, is the result of a relatively small group of already-filthy rich people successfully lobbying an even smaller group of morally spineless politicians to shift an ever-bigger share of society’s burdens to the lower and (what’s left of the) middle classes. This is people who already have lots of shit just demanding more shit, for the sheer rotten sake of it. . . I contrast this now to the behavior of Barack Obama. I can’t even count how many times I listened to Barack Obama on the campaign trail talk about how, as president, he would rescind the Bush tax cuts as soon as he had the chance. He stood up and he said over and over again – I can still hear him saying “Let me be clear!” with that Great Statesman voice of his, before he went into this routine – that the Bush tax cuts were wrong and immoral. He said more than once that they “offended his conscience." Then, just as he did with drug re-importation and Guantanamo and bulk Medicare negotiations for pharmaceuticals and the issue of whether or not he would bring registered lobbyists into his White House and a host of other promises, he tossed his campaign “convictions” in the toilet and changed his mind once he was more accountable to lobbyists than primary voters.

Continue ReadingMatt Taibbi on Bernie Sanders