Archive | America RSS feed for this section

Responding to critics of my article about Snowden

22 Nov

I recently wrote an article criticizing Snowden’s push for reformist policies. Whether you support him or not, it is clear that Snowden calls for reform of surveillance programs. This is undeniable. This article aims to answer some criticisms I saw on reddit:

Criticism 1:

Not a very good deconstruction. Starts going into using terms like “elitist” and “privilege”. End of the article accuses him of being a “reformist”.

Wanting to post the Inigio Montoya meme in response to this blog entry.

One last little bit, the critic in the blog post pulled this quote to showcase Snowden’s elitism:

The issue is too abstract for average people who have too many things going on in their lives.

I would say to that blog author, get on public transit, or go down to a suburban supermarket, and ask people who Edward Snowden is, or if they know anything about the “Five Eyes”. From my perspective after several public conversations, Snowden was being optimistic, not elitist.

There is no doubt that I use terms like “elitist” and “privilege” in the article. Let me explain first, the idea of privilege as I see it. His white skin color and male gender no doubt also makes his ideas palatable to the public. Imagine if Snowden was a poor black woman. The credibility of Snowden would then be immediately questioned and there would undoubtedly be racist remarks thrown around.  The form of respect that Snowden can get by being a certain race and gender, along with the ability to just walk away from a job in order to engage in whistleblowing is, I would argue, a form of privilege. Even though he is currently in Russia thanks to the US government, which I would argue is undeniable, his proposal of self-sacrifice I would say is a privileged act, because not everyone that is a whistleblower can engage in such a sacrifice. Imagine a worker who has long hours, is barely making ends meet and works a second job.  There is the possibility that someone in that position could be a whistleblower, but there is the possibility that they could lose their job because of it, causing their family to go into turmoil. That is what I fundamentally mean by privilege. Snowden had a cushy job, which he left behind, before he went to Hong Kong. Not every person has an opportunity as Snowden did, to leave their job and whistleblow, especially if their family is depending on their income to live.

This critic then brings up the point that I falsely identified Snowden as elitist, saying that I should “get on public transit, or go down to a suburban supermarket, and ask people who Edward Snowden is, or if they know anything about the “Five Eyes”.” This critic then writes that “from my perspective after several public conversations, Snowden was being optimistic, not elitist.”Before going any further, what did Snowden say? Well, here’s the quote I used in the original article:

“…I said there are two tracks of reform…the political and the technical. I don’t believe the political will to be successful…The issue is too abstract for average people who have too many things going on in their lives. And we do not live in a revolutionary time. People are not prepared to contest power. We have system of education that is really a sort of euphemism for indoctrination. It’s not designed to create critical thinkers. We have a media that goes along with government intended to provoke a certain emotional response.”

I described this at the time as “almost a bit elitist.” I said that because he is basically saying, in the bolded section, that mass surveillance is too abstract for the ordinary person. While I think undebatable that mass surveillance is definitely complex, and average people do have a lot going on in their lives, it seems that ordinary people can understand it. That was why I said he was being possibly, a bit elitist, since he is almost saying that ordinary people can’t understand mass surveillance. I do not believe that is true. Onto the rest of his quote. I think Snowden is right with his criticism of the education system and the mass media, but I disagree with his idea that we do not “live in revolutionary time” and that “people are not prepared to contest power.” Activists and advocates fighting on the ground, especially eco-radicals and those who are part of the occupy movement would no doubt scoff at this notion.

Criticism #2:

As soon as someone starts talking about the difference between a democracy and a republic they have lost me. Must be a US thing.

There’s a lot of words in that article. Pity hardly any of them contributed anything much to any kind of coherent argument.

Well, not surprisingly, I disagree with the last two sentences that say it wasn’t a “coherent argument.” One must remember that the article was a response to an interview, not just a straight article, so that is why one could argue it wasn’t “coherent” which I would disagree with. Onto the more pertinent claim: the idea that there is a difference between a democracy and republic. One could definitely argue that there are democratic elements of the US government which would comprise the US congress (House and Senate) and the Presidency because both are voted into power. However, there are some anti-democratic elements like the US Supreme Court, the court system at-large, and the Electoral College. All of these elements are in theory accountable to the public, but in reality, they are not. This is why I feel that the US is a representative republic, mainly with the evidence being representation in the two houses of Congress. I know that many use the term “democracy” to describe the United States. My conception of democracy is not through government, but control of something by the populace, like community-owned banks, co-ops, industrial/economic democracy, collectives, and so on. Even if you did consider the US and other Western states to be democracies, then one would have to first define what they mean by democracy and then say these states are indirect/elite democracies (i.e. the Athenian city-state) rather than direct democracies, which is in my view the truest form of democracy.

That’s really all I have to say.

Questioning Snowden’s reformism

11 Nov

Edward Snowden (middle) interviewed by the editor of The Nation, Katrina vanden Heuvel (right) and contributing editor to The Nation, Stephen F. Cohen (left).

As I promised in my previous article for this blog, this article will focus on Edward Snowden’s recent interview for The Nation which can be read here. Specifically, this article will question Snowden’s emphasis on reformism as a solution to countering government surveillance and focus on a number of other issues he brought up in the interview.

Moving beyond Snowden has to say about the US-government-imposed exile in Russia, he first told The Nation about his concern about the “bigger picture”:

“…that the post-World War II, post-Cold War directions of societies were either broadly authoritarian or [broadly] liberal or libertarian. The authoritarian one believed that an individual’s rights were basically provided by governments and were provided by states. The other society–ours–tended to believe that a large portion of our rights were inherent and couldn’t be abrogated by governments, even as this seemed necessary.”

Snowden then went on to ask a number of open-ended questions about societies becoming more “liberal” or “authoritarian.” While what Snowden says sounds nice, I don’t necessarily agree with the underlying narrative. Rather than labeling societies “liberal,” “authoritarian,” or “libertarian,” its probably better to recognize the the recognition of individual rights was a struggle by people from numerous social movements over the years against governments and corporations. Its not like the Voting Rights Act of 1965 or the Civil Rights Act of 1963 came out of nowhere. They came as a result of struggle and determined effort.

Not long after Snowden makes this point about different types of societies, he deems the United States as a “representative democracy”:

“We [the United States] are a representative democracy. But how did we get there? We got there through direct action. And that’s enshrined in our Constitution and our values.”

Firstly, I’ve always cringed at the term “representative democracy” as I feel it is completely inaccurate since the United States is a representative republic, not a democracy. Secondly, and more importantly, this type of analysis misses the fact that some people engaged in direct action, especially the disenfranchised and disempowered, to fight in the revolution and engage in social movements that created the original fabric of the United States as we know it today, during the Revolutionary War. However, there were others that did not participate, and those people are mainly the wealthy elite despite the fact that some of them were in the Continental Army structure. Beyond the Revolutionary War, those in the poor and middle classes were those who continued to create the social fabric of the United States, the rich lording over them, but not engaging in direct action per say. To say that the creation of a representative republic was enshrined in the Constitution is correct, but it misses the historical context.

This quote leads to Snowden’s argument about the “right of revolution” and civil disobedience:

“We [as Americans] have the right to revolution. Revolution does not always have to be [about] weapons and warfare; its also about the principles that we hold to be representative of the kind of world we want to live in. A given order may at any given time fail to represent those values, even work against those values. I think that’s the dynamic we’re seeing today. We have these traditional political parties that are less and less responsive to the needs to ordinary people, so people are in search of their own values. If the government or the parties won’t address our needs, we will. It’s about direct action, even civil disobedience…They [the state] put us in “free speech zones”; they say that you can only do it at this time, and in this way, and [that] you can’t interrupt the functioning of the government. They limit the impact that civil disobedience can achieve. We have to remember that civil disobedience must be disobedience if it’s to be effective. If we simply follow the rules that a state imposes upon us when that state is acting contrary to the public interest, we not actually improving anything. We’re not changing anything.”

This all sounds nice and great, despite it being couched in traditional conservatism, perhaps, but what is Snowden’s example of this working?…it turns out to be an unexpected answer: Occupy Wall Street, saying it was the last time that civil disobedience brought about “change”:

“I believe strongly that Occupy Wall Street had such limits because local authorities were able to enforce…an image of what proper civil disobedience is…the individuals who were loader, more disruptive and, in many ways, more effective at drawing attention to their concerns were immediately castigated by [the] authorities. They were cordoned off, pepper sprayed, thrown in jail…[Occupy] had an impact on consciousness [but] it was not effective in realizing change…but getting inequality out there into the consciousness was important.”

Firstly, I think its great that Occupy was used an example of civil disobedience, but I feel it is false to say it was the last time that civil disobedience brought about “change.” To give one pertinent example, think about the eco-activists working to stop pipelines across the US. Were they not successful? Are they not an example of civil disobedience working? Lest us remember what someone told me in response to my article about the climate march about civil disobedience, specifically in reference to arrests and blockades

“From personal experience, I can tell you that arrests and blockades are merely tactics, not a strategy. There has to be an overall strategy that hits the bosses in the pocketbooks and threatens a political shift. The latter is much harder to organize, require much more time and effort. It requires a lot more people, and we have to find them. Where better to find them when 400,000 show up in the same place at the same time?”

Anyway, there is no need to address Snowden’s declaration that the internet is the equivalent of “electronic telepathy,” that a “deep state” exists, or even that the revelations about surveillance are fundamentally about “liberty.” Firstly there is Snowden’s idea of “noble” self-sacrifice:

“…I’ve said this from the beginning: it’s not about me. I don’t care if I get clemency. I don’t care what happens to me. I don’t care if I end up in jail or Guantanamo or whatever, kicked out of a plane with two gunshots in the face. I did what I did because I believe it is the right thing to do, and I will continue to do that.”

While I think its wonderful that someone would engage in such self-sacrifice, it seems that engaging in this sacrifice shows that he has a level of privilege. Some people have such a poor state of affairs, especially people of color in the United States (and worldwide), that self-sacrifice for them might not be worth it since it may hurt their family’s future or their future. Snowden, is not one of those people who has such a poor state of affairs, despite the US-government-imposed exile in Russia.

What Snowden says about social movements and political action is very pessimistic and disturbing in a number of ways, as he says that now is not the time for revolution. First he says the following, which is almost a bit elitist (see the bolded part)

“…I said there are two tracks of reform…the political and the technical. I don’t believe the political will to be successful…The issue is too abstract for average people who have too many things going on in their lives. And we do not live in a revolutionary time. People are not prepared to contest power. We have system of education that is really a sort of euphemism for indoctrination. It’s not designed to create critical thinkers. We have a media that goes along with government intended to provoke a certain emotional response.”

Later in the interview, he outlines a non-confrontational way of confronting “great powers” and saying (again) that people are not ready for revolution:

“I don’t want to directly confront great powers [mega-corporations?], which we cannot defeat on their own terms. They have more money, more clout, more airtime. We cannot be effective without a mass movement, and the American people are too comfortable to adapt to a mass movement…As tensions increase, people will become more willing to engage in protest. But that moment is not now.”

What type of revolution does Snowden really want? Well, it seems that he supports encryption, saying it is a civic responsibility and duty, but more importantly, the idea of “technical reform,” but he admits that these reforms have to be uniform everywhere:

“Of course I want to see political reform in the United States. But we could pass the best surveillance reforms, the best privacy protections in the world, in the United States, and it would have zero impact internationally…But if someone creates a reformed system today–technical standards must be identical around the world for them to function together.”

This is also reflected in his statement that we wants the system “changed,” not overthrown:

“Sometimes misunderstood is that I didn’t stand up to overthrow the system. What I wanted to do was give society the information it needed to decide if it wanted to change the system.”

Once again, how does “society” get to decide it wants to “change” the system if they aren’t in the policy-making apparatus. As for overthrow, well, in a sense, society can decide that, but it is usually only a small part of society that makes such an overthrow possible.

On a completely different topic, Snowden interestingly argues that calling someone a whistleblower or hero “otherizes” them:

“As for labeling someone a whistleblower, I think it does to them–it does to all of us–a disservice, because it “otherizes” us. Using the language of heroism, calling Daniel Ellsburg a hero, and calling other people who made great sacrifices heroes–even though what they have done is heroic–is to distinguish them from the civic duty they performed, and excuses the rest of us from the same civic duty to speak out when we see something wrong…We have to speak out or we are party to that bad action.”

Near the end of the article, Snowden laughs at the idea that he is a celebrity. Here’s the exchange from the interview:

The Nation: Speaking of films, we understand that in addition to Laura Poitras’s documentary Citizenfour, a couple of others will be made about you.

Snowden: Anything to get people talking about the issues is great. I’m not a movie guy. I don’t know all this stuff that comes with celebrity. I don’t know who the actors will be and stuff like that. But anybody who wants to talk about the issues—that’s great.

The Nation: You already are a celebrity.

Snowden: People say that, but I’ve only had to sign autographs for “civ-libs” types. And I autograph court orders.

The Nation: Maybe, but you need a strategy of how you’re going to use your celebrity, for better or worse. You own it. You can’t get rid of it.

Snowden: [laughs] Well, that’s kind of damning!

The Nation: And you don’t know what lies ahead. Fortune sometimes turns very suddenly, 

Snowden: Then let’s hope the surprises are good ones.

Finally, in the last paragraph of the interview, Snowden expands on his “personal politics,” further explaining his “personal philosophy,” showing that he is not a radical for sure (bolding is my emphasis):

“As for my personal politics, some people seem to think I’m some kind of archlibertarian, a hyper-conservative. But when it comes to social policies, I believe women have the right to make their own choices, and inequality is a really important issue. As a technologist, I see the trends, and I see that automation inevitably is going to mean fewer and fewer jobs. And if we do not find a way to provide a basic income for people who have no work, or no meaningful work, we’re going to have social unrest that could get people killed. When we have increasing production—year after year after year—some of that needs to be reinvested in society. It doesn’t need to be consistently concentrated in these venture-capital funds and things like that. I’m not a communist, a socialist or a radical. But these issues have to be 

His views on economic policies such as than increasing employment, reinvesting production, reducing inequality seem to make him as a moderate who wants the system preserved, worrying about social unrest. I don’t know why, but this reminds me a bit of Aristotle really wanting to preserve the existing system.

I know that this article did not cover a good amount of the interview, but hopefully this article shows that Snowden is clearly a reformist, which provides more room to question what he believes and stands for. That is all.

Fareed Zakaria’s false narrative and mass surveillance

6 Nov
A screenshot from Juice Rap News's rap about Australia's mass surveillance law, the G20, etc...

A screenshot from Juice Rap News’s recent rap about Australia’s new mass surveillance law, the G20, and much more.

Recently, Fareed Zakaria, a managing editor of Foreign Affairs recently wrote an opinion piece for the Washington Post which pushed a false narrative. This article aims to criticize Zakaria’s column since mass surveillance seems to be the talk of many activists, concerned citizens, and pissed-off Americans these days.*

One of Zakaria’s main points is that whistleblower Edward Snowden should face trial in the US. He says this again and again, couched in supposedly pro-Snowden rhetoric:

“He [Snowden] comes off [as]…intelligent and well-intentioned. I say this as someone who believes that Snowden broke the law and should be accountable but also that he performed a public service that lacks proper democratic oversight and judicial checks. There is a way to reconcile these positions: a trial…The Obama administration should make clear that Snowden would get an open, civilian trial in the United States…It would be the trial of the century, shining a spotlight on something that has been hidden deep in the shadows for too long. And that is what Snowden says he wanted from the start.”

Beyond this ridiculous, absurd, and flowery language is Zakaria’s claim that what Snowden revealed had “limited consequences,” with very little that was “morally scandalous” and his strange argument that US hacking on Chinese computer systems is ok (what?). Oh yeah, and add in Zakaria’s construction of a straw man, guessing what Snowden would argue if he was part of the trial. He even found some anonymous legal scholars who said that “Snowden could get a fair trail” and David Pozen of Columbia University to claim that since Snowden’s case is “so highly publicized already…that the basic fact of the disclosures is old news, as is much of content, some of which is not declassified.”

There is one main problem with Zakaria’s piece: there is NO talk of calling government officials, mainly in the NSA, to trial. They are the ones who should be sitting in a prison, not Snowden. As Snowden himself said in a recent interview with The Nation (which I will analyze in depth in a later article):

“…Richard Nixon got kicked out of Washington for tapping one hotel suite. Today we’re tapping [phone lines and reading emails of] every American citizen in the country, and no one has been put on trial for it or even investigated. We don’t even have an inquiry into it.”

The tapping of phones, reading emails and storing information of Americans, and people all across the world is no doubt violating some law or another beyond the 4th Amendment of the Constitution, which is obviously being violated. You might ask: what has the NSA, and government at large, done that would result in government officials going to jail? Well, let me tell you of the NSA’s misdeeds, some pertinent examples of mass surveillance, and more [1]:

  1. The DOJ was wiretapping the cloakroom of the House of Representatives
  2. The NSA tried to wiretap an unknown member of Congress
  3. The NSA is currently collecting the telephone records of millions of US customers of Verizon due to a a routine renewal of surveillance by the FISA court
  4. The NSA had set up a program called PRISM to collect data from tech giants including Google, Facebook, Microsoft, Yahoo, Skype, YouTube, and Apple, all of whom, are all participating in top secret spying program
  5. The NSA has developed a powerful tool for recording and analyzing where its intelligence comes from called Boundless Informant
  6. Such wide NSA surveillance might, as David Seaman noted, allow for the government to blackmail, shame, or discredit any activist or journalist who threatens status quo which follows Thomas Drake’s claim that we are all “persons of interest” for the government
  7. The NSA repeatedly from 1999 to 2007 kept trying to access the data of private companies with only Qwest refusing access
  8. The NSA is monitoring credit card transaction as part of its supposed effort to target possible terrorists
  9. The NSA is building the country’s biggest spy center to store our information
  10. In March 2013 alone, the NSA collected 97 billion pieces of data from worldwide networks!
  11. The NSA is getting an “electronic copy” of detail records of all Verizon phone calls within the US and between the US and abroad.
  12. The NSA wants to collect, know, process, and sniff “all” (or as much info. as they can get) in part by partnering with intelligence agencies in other countries; the idea of “collecting it all” seems to be a big goal of the NSA
  13. The NSA has processed, as of December 2012, more than a trillion pieces of metadata
  14. The NSA has “strategic partnerships” with companies such as: At&T, Verizon, Motorola, Qwest, Intel, Microsoft, Cisco, HP, EDS, Oracle, and Qualcomm
  15. The PRISM program and the “collection of communications on fiber cables and infrastructure” are completely interlinked.
  16. The FBI and CIA can select info. from PRISM if they wish at any time
  17. The NSA shares data with Canada’s equivalent (of the NSA) called the Communications Security Establishment (CSE)
  18. The US has signal intelligence partners such as coalitions like NATO and countries such as Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United Kingdom
  19. Signal Intelligence is exchanged with Israel, which includes private data of Americans, is driven mainly by their interests
  20. Parts of the NSA focus on “trade activities” of countries such as Mexico, Belgium, France, Italy, Germany, Japan, Spain, Brazil, and Mexico, because of their “importance to U.S. economic, trade, and defense concerns,” with reports from these divisions informing diplomats at specific summits who were informing President Obama and then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton
  21. Spying on leaders such as Brazil’s Dilma Rousseff (and key advisors) and Mexico’s Peno Nieto
  22. The NSA spied on UN Security Council members (such as Brazil, France, Japan, and Mexico), with the US’s UN members saying that thanks to this spying their real position on sanctioning Iran
  23. The NSA places implants into devices such as servers and routers in order to spy on their internet use and computer use, without detection
  24. The NSA is having a challenge at storing, ingesting and processing all the data they receive
  25. The NSA can spy on anyone’s email they want, they just need to name a certain query and a specific justification
  26. The NSA can access a broad range of data on Facebook thanks to the FBI
  27. A claim in a leaked NSA document that there is “nothing to worry about” if you “accidentally” target a person living in the US
  28. The “NSA now has the capability to store all content from all communications, both phone and computer” and in the view of NSA whistleblower Russ Tice
  29. In January of 2014, the US army in January of this year, deployed two surveillance blimps “called aerostats, for three years of testing over Maryland” which “will have a surveillance range of over 300 miles.”
  30. NSA and FBI are spying “on Muslim leaders, particularly Muslim leaders who were lawyers, civil rights leaders, and academics.” Also see here.
  31. Plans by the NSA and US government at-large to use spying to benefit US corporations
  32. The NSA’s secret “Google-like” search engine, IREACH, where they share “more than 850 billion records about phone calls, emails, cellphone locations, and internet chats” with more than a dozen U.S. govt. agencies
  33. The NSA is partnering with Saudi Arabia’s brutal state police, is a partner with the Israeli intelligence service on every act of military aggression and gives Turkey info. about the PKK even as Turkey is a key target of US spying
  34. The possibility that the NSA or any govt. agency could hack into your computer if you watch a funny cat video
  35. The terrorist screening database of 680,000 people, with almost half not even classified as terrorists, and the CIA, DIA, NSA and FBI being the top people who nominate people to the list.
  36. A program where “huge volumes of private emails, phone calls, and internet chats are being intercepted by the National Security Agency with the secret cooperation of more foreign governments than previously known.”
  37. Germany serving as the NSA’s biggest listening post in Europe
  38. The NSA “secretly intercepting, recording, and archiving the audio of virtually every cell phone conversation on the island nation of the Bahamas.”
  39. The NSA and GCHQ having a list of 122 leaders, including Angela Merkel, who are being spied on
  40. The NSA tracking “down the private email and Facebook accounts of system administrators (or sys admins, as they are often called), before hacking their computers to gain access to the networks they control”
  41. Governments and government agencies regularly tapping into private license-plate tracking databases even if casts many as suspects
  42. The NSA infects millions of computers with malware, even making fake facebook pages and servers at certain times. Also see here.
  43. The CIA searched US senate computers. Also see here.
  44. The NSA has an advice columnist who complains about being spied on…what?
  45. For years, the “DOJ had utilized warrantless electronic surveillance to identify suspects…[and] no criminal defendant had received such notice.”
  46. The GCHQ and NSA “targeted WikiLeaks and other activist groups with tactics ranging from covert surveillance to prosecution.”
  47. The NSA “is using complex analysis of electronic surveillance, rather than human intelligence, as the primary method to locate targets for lethal drone strikes,” which interestingly is centered on a focus on the metadata in one’s phone or cell-phone tracking
  48. NSA can use US data without a warrant, according to a revealed FISA court order
  49. The NSA collected email records in bulk for two years of Obama’s presidency and continues to do so up until the present
  50. The NSA, along with other intelligence services like the CIA and FBI, are “spying on the European Union mission in New York and its embassy in Washington,” along with “38 embassies and missions” which are considered targets, which include “traditional ideological adversaries…snsitive Middle Eastern countries…EU missions and the French, Italian and Greek embassies, as well as a number of other American allies, including Japan, Mexico, South Korea, India and Turkey.”
  51.  Microsoft and the NSA are collaborating over user data, allowing user’s data to be intercepted and stored by the NSA
  52. The NSA paid the GCHQ to continue spying
  53. The NSA somehow has “secret backdoor permission to search databases for individual Americans’ communications”
  54. The NSA “paid millions of dollars to cover the costs of major internet companies involved in the Prism surveillance program” such as Google, Facebook, Microsoft and Yahoo! This falls in line with what the NSA general counsel said: that big tech companies like Yahoo and Google provided ‘full assistance’ in legally mandated collection of data
  55. The NSA and GCHQ worked to “unlock encryption used to protect emails, banking and medical records” while the NSA itself has tried to crack the encryption of Tor, but that they haven’t been fully successful.
  56. The NSA shares raw intelligence data including personal info. of Americans with Israel
  57. The NSA spied on the Indian embassy and the UN. This falls in line with US diplomats spying on the top officials of the United Nations as revealed by Wikileaks cables.
  58. The US monitored Angela Merkel and numerous other phones of world leaders, and not surprisingly they won’t let Merkel see HER OWN NSA file
  59. Snowden claims that the NSA caused the Syrian internet blackout in 2012 accidently in an attempt to infiltrate it
  60. The NSA recruits people at hacker conventions but has recently, and justifiably, taken a lot of flack
  61. When the NSA “intercepted the online accounts of legally targeted foreigners over a four-year period it also collected the conversations of nine times as many ordinary internet users” many of whom are US citizens
  62. The NSA “searched through its data troves of emails and other communications data for 198 “identifiers” of Americans’ information in 2013 alone.”
  63. Vodafone “revealed the existence of secret wires that allow government agencies to listen to all conversations on its networks, saying they are widely used in some of the 29 countries in which it operates in Europe and beyond,” likely some of those agencies are the NSA, CIA and FBI.
  64. Top NSA officials “wrestled for weeks with how to respond to an unprecedented surge in open records requests from members of the public in the wake of the first mass surveillance revelations” from documents provided by Snowden
  65. Ironically, US secretary of State John Kerry claimed that the US “obtained intercepted phone calls that prove Moscow is deliberately trying to destabilise eastern Ukraine”
  66. Snowden claims that the NSA spied on Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch
  67. The NSA “created ‘back doors’ into…Huawei[‘s] networks.” This is what Fareed Zakaria supports for some stupid reason
  68. The GCHQ collected Yahoo! webcam images and then fed them to the NSA
  69. The NSA spied on rival states during the 2009 climate summit according to Snowden
  70. The NSA and GCHQ have been “been developing capabilities to take advantage of “leaky” smartphone apps, such as the wildly popular Angry Birds game, that transmit users’ private information across the internet.”
  71. The increase in mass surveillance could be because of a “need” to brunt climate activism
  72. The NSA has a tool to hack into iPhones by using a backdoor
  73. U.S. tax dollars are being used to monitor “Americans who voice dissent against the extraordinary influence that some of the world’s most powerful corporations have on our elected officials”
  74. The FBI has used drones to monitor citizens on US soil. This isn’t a surprise as tar sands drones seem to be coming soon
  75. Rice Tice has said that the the US engaged in “illegal use of space-based satellites and systems to spy on U.S. citizens”
  76. Not only is the FBI engaging in intimidation to some degree, but it is also clear that “state, local, and federal law enforcement agencies are systematically monitoring First Amendment activities…in the name of safety and security in a post-9/11 age.”
  77. According to a New York Times article, all U.S. mail is being scanned and put into a database which is called Mail Isolation Control and Tracking. Funny enough, Gizmodo contemplated it three years earlier, asking if people could imagine if the Postal Service scanned and emailed all your letters
  78. The FBI conducts its own signals intelligence as part of the Data Intercept Technology Unit (DITU) which feeds data to the NSA, possibly doing even more surveillance than even the NSA
  79. There’s the Magic Lantern program developed by FBI to log keystrokes and there’s the  Computer and Internet Protocol Address Verifier, another FBI surveillance program
  80. Finally there’s DCSNet which is the FBI’s “sophisticated, point-and-click surveillance system that performs instant wiretaps on almost any communications device”

These crimes by the NSA especially, are now anomaly, since, as Kirk Wiebe said


I could simply say that NSA officials should go on trial and be put in jail. Snowden has alluded to this. I could even say that the NSA should be abolished, just like the CIA, as I have previously advocated for. However, the mass surveillance apparatus is more expansive than just the NSA, or just the CIA. After all, corporate and government surveillance are intertwined, which is in part because after 9/11 the US intelligence community “found itself in control of a huge amount of money, contracting with domestic and foreign companies to build and proliferate tools needed to spy on the world” which led to what some call a “surveillance-industrial complex.”[2] Hence, there is more to worry about than what some claim to be a “surveillance state” since it is MUCH more complex and intricate than that. It is important to also recognize a valid point by Zaid Jilani:

“Government can be an incredibly positive force when it is transparent, accountable and empowering. When it is not those things, not only should we oppose it, but we should be proud that there are people on the Right who are willing to join with us in that cause—they’re helping us actually increase faith in the positive aspects of the public sector by addressing its abuses. Not only can we advocate for rolling back the national security state and implementing positive government programs like Medicare for All and a national living wage, but if we are to win over the American public, it may very well be necessary to do both.”

And please, do NOT claim as this article says that because of mass surveillance, “Equality has finally come to the shores of America in the form of surveillance. We are all in the same boat now and when the lights go out, we are all black.” That is not only insensitive to blacks, but it is bypassing the reality of racial domination and oppression in the United States. There is no doubt that the US is a surveillance society (I’ll agree with the ACLU on this one). But, that term in and of itself is too mild. It is best to call the US what cryptohippie calls an electronic police state, which they define as follows [4]:

“An electronic police state is quiet, even unseen. All of its legal actions are supported by abundant evidence. It looks pristine. An electronic police state is characterized by…State use of electronic technologies to record, organize, search and distribute forensic evidence against its citizens…In an Electronic Police State, every surveillance camera recording, every email you send, every Internet site you surf, every post you make, every check you write, every credit card swipe, every cell phone ping…are all criminal evidence , and they are held in searchable databases, for a long, long time. Whoever holds this evidence can make you look very, very bad whenever they care enough to do so. You can be prosecuted whenever they feel like it – the evidence is already in their database.”

It is more likely that this type of state exists in the US than a police state as traditionally defined, despite what others have to say about it. [5]

It is important to remember that the Snowden revelations are NOT the first time that people have been concerned about the mass surveillance apparatus. As Eli Pariser predicted in his 2007 book, The Filter Bubble, “by 2014, they [the NSA] anticipate dealing with so much data they’ve invented new units of measurement just to describe it.” [6] Pariser wasn’t the only one. Maureen Webb wrote about global surveillance, mainly by the US in the wake of 9/11. In a book released the same year, 2007, Webb wrote that the NSA’s electric bill was $21 million a year (likely much higher now), shreds 40,000 documents a day, and that governments were using individual private information they collected to “assess and preemptively eliminate the [supposed] risk that any of us might pose to the state” which she says requires that “everyone be evaluated as a potential suspect.” [7]  She also wrote about RFID chips used in DHS (Dept. of ‘Homeland Security”) visas which could be accessed by the US government and private companies. [8] In the book, Webb also warned that there will be the creation of a “global identity system predicated on the avoidance of risk” meaning that if one isn’t registered or has no “personal profile” then they will amount to, essentially, a “non-person,” making them a “risk to the state.” [9] Interestingly, in part of the book, Webb writes about the connection between corporations and the state on surveillance, calling it the ‘corporate-security complex’ [10]:

“…the new symbiotic relationship that is developing between an immense security/intelligence establishment and an ambitious information technology industry [can be called the]…corporate-security complex [which] is an aggressive drive of the project for globalized, mass registration and surveillance.”

Later Webb expands on this writing that billions of dollars, euros and other currencies flow into this complex and makes a bold and dark statement about a surveillance society, which almost echoes some wary-of-government themes, writing that [11]:

“In a surveillance society…[the] government need not represent the people; the ruling class [or elite] is above the law; the people and individuals are answerable to the state; their rights and protections are subordinated to the state’s interest; and the executive branch of government usurps the constitutional power of the other branches of government.”

Webb also writes in her book that global surveillance is not efficient, that it does not help catch terrorists, that it doesn’t address the causes of terrorism, that racial profiling is endemic to mass surveillance, and that global insecurity is exacerbated by such surveillance. [12] Still, Webb’s alternative to this is reformist and does not involve dismantling the “immense security/intelligence establishment” she is concerned about.

Dana Priest and William Arkin have a similar reformist aim, only to expose information in the name of transparency, but they have a few interesting things to say about the establishment that Webb is clearly concerned about, such as [13]:

  • the government spending $10 billion a year to keep “secrets secret”
  • the creation of a “national security bureaucracy” which has run amok
  • Obama continuing the expansion of this establishment or bureaucracy, which they call ‘Top Secret America,’ despite supposed signs to the contrary
  • a “culture of spending” to stop supposed terrorist attacks, which resulted in a huge bureaucracy, which has major problems
  • the NSA ingesting 1.7 billion pieces of intercepted communications every day, including telephone calls, radio signals, cell phone conversations, emails, texts and more.

Arkin and Priest also write about the connection between corporations, and the US government on surveillance, noting that the NSA hires private firms to come up with much of its “technology and innovations,” and a federal-state-corporate partnership that “has produced a vast domestic intelligence apparatus that collects, stores, and analyzes information about tens of thousands of U.S. citizens and residents.” [14]

Finally, there is a older book by Mark Monmonier, written in 2002, which is also reformist in nature, is also about surveillance. There is one good thing that Monmonier does: define specific terms. He writes that surveillance is, in his view, about “monitoring to control human behavior” while data surveillance is, in quoting computer scientist Roger Clarke who coined the term, as  “the systematic use of personal data systems in the investigation of [people’s] actions or communications.”[15] However, Monmonier also echoes Snowden and others who are part of the corporate front, a supposed social justice campaign, called Reset the Net. At one point he writes that “data warehouses,” private companies like Axicom, which collect “detailed information on individual households” and rent that information to “retailers, insurers, and…detective agencies” is really Big Brother, not the government, while at another point he criticizes those who say that “Big Brother is almost everywhere,” and in the last sentence of the book, he declares: “for some of us, Big Business is a worse threat than Big Brother.” [16] Not only does this contradict his statement earlier in the book that “Big Brother is doing most of the watching…but corporations, local governments, and other Little Brothers are quickly getting involved” but it is completely absurd.[17] Why can’t someone be concerned about corporate surveillance, state surveillance and big business all at the same time?

While I know that this article did not come up with a way to dismantle and counter the corporate-state surveillance apparatus, that is not what this article was about. Still, I feel obliged to give some suggestions for what is a way forward. First, and foremost, I’d say making the connections between corporate and state forces on surveillance and the terror complex is clear. Then, there can be debate about what is the approach to counter and dismantle this nexis. I must be clear: working with the corporate sector in order to counter this surveillance is wholly counterproductive and it makes you a simple pawn of big business, whether you like that or not. I don’t think anyone wants that. Secondly, I think that reforming the NSA in any way, shape or form is a waste of energy. Instead, those who care about state surveillance should push for the NSA, CIA and FBI to be abolished for starters, with those who committed crimes, perhaps top NSA officials, going on trial. I would say that Snowden should go on trial, but based on the treatment Chelsea Manning got, I do not think that Snowden will get a fair trail in the US. I just don’t see it as possible.

Beyond my proposed ideas is the fact that Maureen Webb is right when she writes that “democratic societies are gradually becoming surveillance societies–or worse…authoritarian police states.” [18] I’ll end with this: what happens now, in regards of the massive America surveillance apparatus, is up to us.


*While other countries and populations, including many countries in Latin America and Europe, are also concerned and angry about this surveillance, I write this from my perspective as a person who lives in the United States.

[1]The sources for this information come from a widely circulated article for Global Research which I have since criticized on this blog for faulty framing there is an accurate description of the mass surveillance by the US government, documents used in Glenn Greenwald’s new book shown in a 108 page PDF, and numerous other sources (here, here, here, here, here, here, herehere, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here).

[2] See here and here. Also see here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, herehere, here, here, and here for other articles on the subject

[3] See here, here, here for commentaries using the term “surveillance state.”

[4] Wendy McElroy of the libertarian Independent Institute uses this term as well, writing that:

“The modern surveillance state is referred to as an electronic police state because it uses technology to monitor people in order to detect and punish dissent. The authorities exert social control through spying, harsh law enforcement, and by regulating “privileges” such as the ability to travel. But all of this starts with surveillance…State surveillance has become more secretive and increasingly exempt from both oversight and accountability [since the end of the Cold War] Fusion centers now reach into private databases such as Accurate, Choice Point, Lexis-Nexus, Locate Plus, insurance claims, and credit reports. They access millions of government files like DMV records…The foregoing is a description of electronic totalitarianism. If its creation is invisible to many people, then it manifests yet another characteristic of a police state: People do not believe their freedom is gone until there is a knock on the door—one that comes in the middle of the night.”

[5] An example of someone who uses the term police state is Michael Rattner.

[6] Pariser, Eli. 2007. The Filter Bubble: What the Internet is Hiding from You. New York: Penguin Press, 11.

[7] Webb, Maureen. 2007. Illusions of Security: Global Surveillance and Democracy in the Post-9/11 World. San Francisco: City Lights, 48, 71-72.

[8] Ibid, 84-85. I know conspiracy theorists will be giddy about me mentioning the word RFID chips, as many think it is part of some government conspiracy, but they can just wipe the grins right off their faces.

[9] Ibid, 101.

[10] Ibid, 194-5.

[11] Ibid, 196, 201.

[12] Ibid, 235, 239-240, 243.

[13] Priest, Dana & Arkin, William M. 2011. Top Secret America: The Rise of the New American Security State. New York: Little Brown & Company, 24, 51, 77, 156, 277

[14] Ibid, 133, 182.

[15] Monmonier, Mark. 2002. Spying With Maps: Surveillance Technologies and the Future of Privacy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2, 152.

[16] Ibid, 151, 170, 172.

[17] Ibid, 2.

[18] Webb, 209.

There are numerous countries where being gay is a crime. Which ones does the US govt. support?

29 Oct

Recently, I saw this tweet in response to MediaRoots about countries where being gay or homosexual is a crime:

I decided to accept this challenge and work to find out which of these countries has US support.

The first two charts relate to the five countries that have the death penalty for homosexuals (Iran, Mauritania, Saudi Arabia, Sudan and Yemen). Info comes from numerous sources. [1]

Number of US troops stationed in the said state


Foreign Assistance and Foreign military financing (FMF) in said state


Next, I looked into all the countries were being homosexual is illegal, including those where the death penalty can be applied. I used the same sources as used for the above two charts.[1]

US troops stationed in said countries


Foreign Assistance and Foreign Military Financing (FMF) to said countries [2]

chart 4

Finally, I looked at who were in “bilateral partnerships” with the US government. [3]

chart 5

From this data, it is hard to get a clear correlation between which countries have on the books laws where being gay is a crime and US support. The only countries where is this correlation could be made strongly would be Egypt, Yemen, Sudan, Kuwait,, and Afghanistan. I think the US support for certain countries is dependent on geopolitical aims and other factors, meaning that they do and don’t always line up with these abusers of human rights. While it is hard to come with with such a correlation, it is clear from this data that the US government doesn’t give a damn about human rights…if we thought they ever did. Even under Jimmy Carter they didn’t care. As Howard Zinn wrote in A People’s History of the United States,

“…Carter, despite a few gestures toward black people and the poor, despite talk of “human rights” abroad, remained within the historic political boundaries of the American system, protecting corporate wealth and power, maintaining a huge military machine that drained the national wealth, allying the United States with right-wing tyrannies abroad…Carter’s job as President, from the point of view of the Establishment, was to halt the rushing disappointment of the American people with the government…Under Carter, the United States continued to support, all over the world, regimes that engaged in imprisonment of dissenters, torture, and mass murder.”

I’ll end with what current National Security Adviser Susan Rice revealingly, usually those in power don’t say stuff as she did, said in December 2013 and let you come to your own conclusions about the data I have presented:


[1] Sources:,, the most recent data from the DMDC for ‘Active Duty Military Personnel by Service by Region/Country’, data from ( for example) and the numbers used here mean “obligations,” not planned or spent aid, and, and Note:  Malawi is not included because “enforcement of law suspended,” Lebanon not included because the law was “ruled invalid in one court”, Dominica not included because the leader of the country said the anti-gay law wouldn’t be enforced, Palestine/Gaza Strip not included because it isn’t a country per say.

[2] For chart 4:

*Likely a good amount of this money is to overthrow the Syrian govt.

[1] Yemen

[2] Senegal

[3] India

[4] Burma

[5] Namibia

[6] Swaziland

[7] Botswana

[8] Lesotho

[9] Sri Lanka

[10] Jamaica

[11] Bahrain

[12] Guinea

[13] Mauritania

[14] Barbados

[15] Oman

[16] Uzbekistan

[17] Libya

[18] Uzbekistan

[19] Saudi Arabia

[20] Guyana

[21] Turkmenistan

[22] Papua New Guinea

[23] Sierra Leone

[24] Algeria

[25] Togo

[26] Belize

[27] Tonga

[28] Gambia

[29] Ghana

[30] Samoa

[31] Trinidad & Tobago

[32] Maldives

[33] Mauritus

[34] Solomon Islands

[35] Malaysia

[36] Comoros

Some numbers may be rounded. Some numbers are the most recent available. Not included on here is Morocco, Seychelles, Kiribati, and Iran as money is in the negative. Additionally, Kuwait, St. Kitts & Nevis, Grenada, UAE, Bhutan, Tuvalu, Nauru, St Vincent & the Grenadines, and Brunei are not included, as they received zero dollars.

[3] For chart 5:

- YES [Afghanistan, Kuwait, Bahrain, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, Malaysia, Burma, Comoros, Nigeria, Seychelles, Tanzania, Qatar, Yemen, UAE, India]

- NO [Botswana, Burundi, Cameroon, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, Kenya, Lesotho, Mauritus, Mozambique, Senegal, Namibia, Sudan, Bangladesh, Guyana, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Libya, Tunisia, Algeria, Morocco, Ivory Coast, Oman, Iran, Mauritania, Sierra Leone, South Sudan, Swaziland, Togo, Uganda, Zambia, Zimbabwe, Bhutan, Brunei, Maldives, Singapore, Sri Lanka, Uzbekistan, Antigua & Barbuda, Barbados, Belize, Grenada, Jamaica, St. Kitts & Nevis, St Vincent & the Grenadines, Trinidad & Tobago, Cook Islands, Kirbati, Nauru, Papua New Guinea, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Tonga, Tuvalu

- also is a main source for this info., along with some info. from

Criticizing Glenn Greenwald

29 Oct

Before I pen an article about the surveillance apparatus, I think its time to challenge and critique Glenn Greenwald, just as I did for Snowden’s push for reform.

I start back in 2010, with the Citizens United decision, which Greenwald supported. I even made a graphic (a bit exaggerated mind you) about this last year:

tumblr_mm19xow3D71qcts6yo1_1280This graphic comes from an article I wrote which focuses on “fake socialists,” people like Bernie Sanders, Lawrence O’Donnell and others. At the time I wrote that while Greenwald “never comes out says he loves Citizens United, he supports its underlying reasoning” and that it is ok that money is considered (political) speech. I said and still believe that this is troubling, describing that Greenwald is a homosexual, politically independent, “not ‘liberal’ or ‘conservative’ while criticizing the two-party system…not voting at all, advocating for drug decriminalization, opposing capital punishment” and much more. Noam Chomsky, as indicated by the graphic said in an interview with Truthout that “…there are some civil libertarians like Glenn Greenwald who more or less supported it on free speech grounds. I don’t agree with it, but I can see the argument.”

Here are some highlights of what Greenwald wrote about Citizens United, titled ‘What the Supreme Court got right: It’s best for the government to stay out of the business of restricting political advocacy‘. Saying right now, I don’t agree with his position at all. I feel that money is not political speech. I thought I’d turn it into some pictures, as it might be easier to understand rather than just having a bunch of quoted sections.

1. Greenwald says that 1st amendment is relevant in this case


2. Greenwald says that even if the court ruling has bad outcomes…who cares! (what?)


3. Greenwald: Only the Constitution is something the Sup court should consider, no consideration if the actions produce good results… huh?


4. Greenwald: Even if restricting speech has good results, then it shouldn’t be done


5. Greenwald says that I don’t see how Citizens United could make things that much worse, the system is already messed up as it exists


6.  So, corporate money strengthens incumbents but not the two parties…huh? That’s not true, both are strengthened by corporate money.


7. If something magically violates the Constitution it should be removed…but who decides if it is “sufficiently repugnant”?


8. Free speech “burdened by campaign finance laws” is under-stated? Greenwald thinks so.


9. Greenwald is a free speech absolutist…so would he support the Hobby Lobby decision?


10. Greenwald says that campaign laws are ineffective and that small non-profits are hurt by them


11. Campaign finance laws are like gun control laws…what?


12. Are current efforts really restricting “political speech”?


13. Public financing is the answer?…really?


14. If Citizens United leads to public financing then it will have a “positive outcome”…what??


15. Political speech restrictions suppress some views?


16. Hmm. Is it really “constitutionally mandated”? and what is “political advocacy”?


17. He opposes corporate personhood…


Rather than continuing on and quoting more from this article, I think its best to continue on, and move to other views that Greenwald has. What you think about what Greenwald writes in regards to Citizens United is up to you. I do think a comment by Randy Shields, about Greenwald supporting a decision that overturned a law banning videos showing kittens being crushed to death for sexual satisification, is appropriate here:

“The inspiration for this piece was a tweet of Salon’s Glenn Greenwald where he defended the court’s decision. Screw you, Glenn Greenwald, and your lofty liberal white bread apologetics, which don’t mean shit in the real world of “crush” videos and capitalism.”

Greenwald’s view is not surprising since he has gone to conferences of the CATO Institute and Socialism conferences, as noted on his twitter:

This isn’t the only critique of Greenwald. Socialist Worker writer Kolponashokti-r Doinyo was critical of Greenwald standing beside two conservatives and not challenging them:

“…Glenn Greenwald took part in a college speaking tour sponsored by the Future of Freedom Foundation (FFF) and Young Americans for Liberty (a mouthpiece for Republican presidential contender Ron Paul) in early February…The idea behind the coming together of a libertarian (Hornberger), a conservative (Fein) and a liberal (Greenwald) was for this diverse set of speakers to speak out against the NDAA…All three panelists shared the belief that there are certain core principles which citizens should fight for irrespective of their professed political and ideological beliefs…The libertarian analysis put forth by Hornberger posits that the problem with breaching civil liberties and the core problem of the NDAA is ultimately that this represents big government…while words like “empire” and “imperialism” were thrown around to describe the U.S., there was no connection made between U.S. imperialism and the economics of capitalism…While Greenwald’s critique of Barack Obama for undermining civil liberties was correct, his decision to choose a platform provided by right-wing libertarians should be a matter of concern to people on the left. At the forum, he never raised any points of political difference that he might have with the libertarians, giving the impression that civil liberties issues trump all other political and social questions. In fact, he went so far as to say that the only person challenging the narrow political spectrum of the two-party system currently is Ron Paul, effectively showing support for him before the Republican primaries…For someone like Greenwald to speak on a platform provided by a right-wing libertarian organization connected to Ron Paul–and to speak highly of Paul without even hinting at political differences–while solely concentrating on the question of civil liberties does not reflect the political perspicacity that followers of his blog at might expect.”

There are a number other critiques out there. Chris Floyd notes that Greenwald fits in with Ominyar’s reformism, unlike Douglas Valentine who says he’ll give Greenwald and others a “free pass” for working with a multi-billionaire (bolded is my emphasis)

“I’m sure the writers hired by Omidyar’s quarter of a billion dollars will produce work of value, dig up some useful facts. So does the Times, so does the now oligarch-owned Washington Post, so do Murdoch’s papers on occasion. But I don’t think Omidyar’s enterprise has been set up to challenge the status quo or pose the “threat” to the system that its hero-worshippers are looking for. Indeed, even Greenwald calls only for “reforms” of the system, for “real oversight” of the National Security State by legislators — the same legislators bought, sold, cowed and dominated by Big Money. I honestly don’t think that the powers-that-be feel threatened by an enterprise set up by one of their number that confines itself to calls for “reform” from “within” — especially when its sole owner continues to cooperate with the Koch Brothers, hard-right ideologues like Hernando de Soto and indeed with the National Security State itself in subversive adventures overseas. Omidyar’s goals are limited: to protect the privacy of the individual from government. This is a noble, worthy aim. But based on his own actions, he is perfectly content for that privacy-protected individual to advance a punishing neo-liberal agenda on the rest of the world, and at home, in collusion with the National Security State if need be. Whether Greenwald, Scahill, Taibbi, Wheeler and the rest are equally content with this agenda is something we will find out in the months to come.”

Bill Blunden had his own unique criticism, which is relevant here. He wrote that encryption is nice, but not the answer:

“…Glenn, does this mean that addressing mass surveillance, and the mass subversion which enables it, will entail tackling the related problem of corporate state capture? Or, as Sheldon Wolin refers to it, the specter of inverted totalitarianism?…Glenn mentioned that the average person may feel powerless against the government, but they could turn to strong cryptography as a way to regain privacy. He also acknowledged that while hi-tech companies don’t care one jot about your privacy they do, however, care about their bottom lines. By seeking out other companies that offer more secure services the public could apply market pressure which would send hoards of angry hi-tech executives to the White House…Encryption may be a good thing, but it’s hardly a panacea. Specifically, mass subversion trumps strong cryptography every time…Finally, I don’t think society should have to rely on hi-tech billionaires to support our interests in the halls of Washington. Corporate pressure is not the solution. Corporate pressure is the problem…the fossil fuel industry, the defense industry with its appendages in hi-tech, and the plutocrats of Wall Street are largely directing the U.S. government. Our elected leaders are their proxies. The NSA’s surveillance machine is but a small part of a much large private sector data aggregation machine. Both systems exist to further the aims of the economic elite.”



Ken Klippenson of White Rose Reader had a unique critique, writing:

“It’s also puzzling that one of the journalists whom Snowden contacted about the leak, Glenn Greenwald, did not advise Snowden to forgo Hong Kong in favor of Latin America. Greenwald is a former civil rights litigator turned journalist who writes helpfully and knowledgeably about civil liberties: he can’t plausibly claim ignorance about the fact that Hong Kong typically cooperates with U.S. extradition requests. Having by his own account corresponded with Snowden “since February”, this would’ve given Greenwald plenty of time to research the likelihood that Hong Kong would grant Snowden political asylum. Greenwald even notes that he was “working with” Snowden “long before anyone spoke to Bart Gellman,” the only other journalist with whom Snowden corresponded. So Greenwald was not short on time to research potential safe havens for Snowden. Snowden even informed Greenwald of his intentions to flee the country: as Greenwald recalled, “He sort of said, ‘My plan is, at some point, go somewhere far away, and I want you to come there and interview me.’” Then would’ve been a good time to exercise some journalistic ethics and see to it that his source would be going to a safe place. Having failed that, he complied with Snowden’s request to publish his name. Now Snowden is in a country that’s likely to extradite him, and he can’t fly somewhere else because the world knows who and where he is.”

There are other critiques as well, like those that criticize him for misstating the charges against Chelsea Manning, and Israel Shamir’s articles (see here and here) about The Guardian, Snowden, and him getting to Moscow.

There is probably more to criticize, but this is all I am going to write for now. Further critique is for another day.

Challenging and critiquing Snowden

27 Sep
How Juice Rap News perceives Snowden (

How Juice Rap News perceives Snowden

I recently read a post criticizing, mainly, the reformist ideas of NSA whistleblower, Edward Snowden, by the always provocative wordpress blog, The Rancid Honeytrap. You might say off the bat, well that’s some guy sitting in his basement typing away on some computer and he doesn’t need to be listened to. I disagree. The post brought up a number of valid critiques of Snowden’s belief in surveillance reform. While I am glad that Snowden has showed, thanks to journalists who have written about the top secret or secret documents that he obtained, the extent of the massive surveillance state run by elements of the U.S. government, there is definitely an area for critique and criticism This article/post is an attempt to continue that critique, but in my own words.

At the beginning of blogpost, The Rancid Honeytrap quotes Snowden in a recent interview saying some surveillance is ok, especially if the “people say they want it”, claiming that

“…we can have people in every country make that decision because that’s what democracy is about. That’s what self-government is about…[not] making these decisions behind closed doors, without public debate, without public consent. That decision, belongs exclusively to the people of that country…I think it’s wrong of any politician, to take away the people’s seat at the table of government”

I agree with The Rancid Honeytrap that this isn’t what democracy is about, and even if all of Snowden’s premises are true, it “does not rightfully empower an acquiescent majority to vote away freedom from constant and pervasive government surveillance any more than people can.” At the same time, I think Snowden’s idea that people have such a voice in government is frankly not only absurd, but not true at all. [1] As an April 2014 study by Martin Gilens of Princeton University and Benjamin L. Page of Northwestern University  concluded,

“economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while mass-based interest groups and average citizens have little or no independent influence…Our analyses suggest that majorities of the American public actually have little influence over the policies our government adopts”

Noam Chomsky noted something very similar to this back in August of last year, saying that:

“… In the work that’s essentially the gold standard in the field, it’s concluded that for roughly 70% of the population – the lower 70% on the wealth/income scale – they have no influence on policy whatsoever. They’re effectively disenfranchised. As you move up the wealth/income ladder, you get a little bit more influence on policy. When you get to the top, which is maybe a tenth of one percent, people essentially get what they want, i.e. they determine the policy. So the proper term for that is not democracy; it’s plutocracy.”

After this, Chomsky goes on to define the US as a “Really Existing Capitalist Democracy” where  the public is supposed to” lend their weight every few years, to a choice among the responsible men” but they are meant to be spectators and not participants.Hey, why not add good ‘ole Chris Hedges into the mix, who has his problems as The Rancid Honeytrap and others like OLAASM know well. In his book, Empire of Illusion, Hedges writes that the idea of consent of the governed is an empty one (142-3):

“The words consent of the governed have become an empty phrase…Our nation has been hijacked by oligarchs, corporations, and a narrow, selfish, political, and economic elite, a small moneyed group that governs, and often steals, on behalf of moneyed interests…The government…provides little more than technical expertise for elites and corporations…It has become the greatest illusion in a culture of illusions. It perpetuates a power and democratic ethic it does not possess. It seeks to perpetuate prosperity by borrowing trillions of dollars it can never repay…corporate power…holds the government hostage.”

Add to this the controversial but well-sourced study titled ‘Human and Nature Dynamics (HANDY): Modeling Inequality and Use of Resources in the Collapse or Sustainability of Societies’ which not only talked about how collapse of human civilization, in their view can be avoided if “the rate of depletion of nature is reduced to a sustainable level and if resources are distributed equitably” (1) but that “the scenarios most closely reflecting the reality of our world today” (20) are what they consider, elite-commoner societies:

“the economic stratication of society into Elites and Masses (or “Commoners”)…accumulated surplus [or wealth] is not evenly distributed throughout society, but rather has been controlled by an elite. The mass of the population, while producing the wealth, is only allocated a small portion of it by elites, usually at or just above subsistence levels…Elites “prey” on the production of wealth by Commoners.” [2, 5]

Keeping what Martin Gilens and Benjamin L. Page’s study, Noam Chomsky, Chris Hedges and the HANDY study said, it is incorrect to say that people have a “seat at the table of government” or can even make decisions in a supposed democracy. They can’t, especially in the U.S. The same can apply to countries like Australia, which like Canada and the UK, in the words of a leaked 2005 Citigroup memo, is a plutonomy (while also being a plutocracy or a government controlled directly or indirectly by the rich) which refers to the habits of rich consumers, rather than “the rest, the “non-rich”, the multitudinous many” which is driven by a number of factors:

“Disruptive technology-driven productivity gains, creative financial innovation, capitalist-friendly cooperative governments, an international dimension of immigrants and overseas conquests invigorating wealth creation, the rule of law, and patenting inventions…six drivers of the current plutonomy: 1) an ongoing technology/biotechnology revolution, 2) capitalist-friendly governments and tax regimes, 3) globalization that re-arranges global supply chains with mobile well-capitalized elites and immigrants, 4) greater financial complexity and innovation, 5) the rule of law, and 6) patent protection”

This memo also notes that “at the heart of plutonomy, is income inequality. Societies that are willing to tolerate/endorse income inequality, are willing to tolerate/endorse plutonomy.” Such societies, like Australia and the U.S., are what I once called states in crisis, or those states that “elites have more power in forming public policy than the general populace or at minimum put in place elite-friendly policies.”

Such ideas also invalidate Snowden’s philosophy, if you could call it that, which is as follows [2]:

  • as “long as there’s broad support amongst a people, it can be argued there’s a level of legitimacy even to the most invasive and morally wrong program, as it was an informed and willing decision”
  • “the public needs to decide whether these policies are right or wrong.”

The people don’t have an ability to decide if policies are right or wrong because they aren’t part of the policy-making apparatus, and their views are easily brushed aside by elites in the U.S., and likely in other countries as well. Additionally, Snowden’s trust in the thoughts of the public also forgets the fact that public opinion polls can be manipulated as the GCHQ did, deceptive, or limit “people’s sense of wider possibilities,” which limits the scope of public debate.

To some extent, The Rancid Honeytrap says that Snowden’s idea that we can “register our consent” is absurd:

“…Let’s allow for argument’s sake that it’s entirely fine for people to waive their own rights and those of their dissenting neighbors. By what means does Snowden propose we register our consent? Do we get to vote on this? Or is our consent inferred from not toppling the government when it predictably makes things worse instead of better?”

The Rancid Honeytrap writes toward the end of their piece that whistleblowers themselves  are the “kind of people who get into the sort of deep, dark places from which whistles customarily get blown. Places that are uniquely attractive to patriots, ultra-conformists, imperialists and sociopaths” and that while he appreciates “their service to the truth, but with all due respect, these are not my kind of people.” It is definitely true that whistleblowers, whether Edward Snowden, Chelsea Manning, or Daniel Ellsberg, hold very reformist thoughts.

At one point, in the words of The Rancid Honeytrap, he rightly points out that Snowden still “insists he’s still working for it [the NSA]…[and] his only beef with the country’s gigantic security apparatus is bulk data collection conducted by that single agency.”  These reformist beliefs of Snowden are deeply problematic, as the system itself could afford getting rid of “bulk data collection” by the NSA, since the surveillance apparatus at-large would NOT be dismantled. Still, those who benefit from such collection don’t want it to go away.

One Juice Rap News segment back from September 2012, almost ten months before Snowden revealed himself to the world, encapsulates the holistic nature of the mass surveillance of the surveillance state, which has a 1984-ish vibe when the host, Robert Foster talks to General Baxter, who represents the state/military establishment/intelligence establishment all in one:


Robert Foster: “Explain why the state is spying on us?”

"My fellow Oceanians, we've always been at war with Eurasia, or is it East Asia? Either way its war and we need a vision to wage it. But now the proles are connecting online passing these illusionary divisions of race, religion, and nationality."

General Baxter: “My fellow Oceanians, we’ve always been at war with Eurasia, or is it East Asia? Either way its war and we need division to wage it! But now the proles are connecting online passing these illusionary divisions of race, religion, and nationality!”

"Sounds grand to me."

Robert Foster: “Sounds grand to me.”

"Its a catastrophe. Centuries of hard work being undone, profits are vanishing, and its due to the internet. Its empowering humanity. We need to get this snafu under control rapidly."

General Baxter: “Its a catastrophe! Centuries of hard work being undone, profits are vanishing, and its due to the internet! Its empowering humanity! We need to get this snafu under control rapidly.”

Robert Foster: "How?"

Robert Foster: “How?”

General Baxter: "Behold the latest weapon in the war of terror. Our greatest invention since 9/11. Guaranteed to keep us free and safe forever. I give you the surveillance state ladies and generals."

General Baxter: “Behold the latest weapon in the war of terror. Our greatest invention since 9/11. Guaranteed to keep us free and safe forever…I give you the surveillance state ladies and generals!”

General Baxter: "Our secret wires log your case dial. Monitor every single number on your speed dial. Rewind to your position with facial recognition and pinpoint you within 0.3 of a mile!"

General Baxter: “Our secret wires log your case dial. Monitor every single number on your speed dial. Rewind to your position with facial recognition and pinpoint you within 0.3 of a mile!”

General Baxter: "We've put eyes everywhere without consulting you, keeping you safe whether or not you want us to. Soon, they'll be no freedoms left for threatening. Then we'll have won the war! Take that terrorism!"

General Baxter: “We’ve put eyes everywhere without consulting you, keeping you safe whether or not you want us to. Soon, they’ll be no freedoms left for threatening. Then we’ll have won the war! Take that terrorism!”

While there is good criticism in the rest of The Rancid Honeytrap‘s post, my take on it will have to wait for another article, another time, another day. Sorry to say.


[1] While I say this, I am not saying that people do have have the ability to influence or push government to make certain decisions. However, I am saying that in general, the government, I’m mainly talking about the U.S. government but this could be applied to other governments, doesn’t really care what ordinary people think. They care what the people with the deep pockets say and think. That’s who they, in general, listen to. That is the current state of affairs.

[2] This was expressed in articles in the New York Times and The Guardian. Obviously, Snowden has more thoughts than this, but these are some of his major reformist views.

Questioning the US Institute of Peace: does it really care about peace?

26 Sep

At the end of July, Little Sis, a project of the Government Accountability Project (GAP), published a short article criticizing Stephen Hadley. They write that Hadley has “made a career of promoting, overseeing, and profiting from war,” as he was already responsible as a White House official during the Bush Administration “for inserting faulty intelligence about Iraq’s nuclear capabilities…in Bush’s State of the Union in 2003.” They also noted that Hadley has, since he left public office, “co-founded an international consulting firm and joined the board of weapons manufacturer Raytheon” and more importantly, he serves as the chair of the US Institute of Peace (USIP)’s board of directors, while also authoring Washington Post op-eds about the crisis’s in Syria, Gaza, and Ukraine when he could personally profit from them. GAP then writes that the agenda of the USIP can then “be described as Orwellian” since he chairs the organization which was interestingly enough established during the Reagan era in 1984. Still, I’d argue that one can’t negatively portray an institution like the USIP just by looking at one person. So, this article will continue the analysis of GAP to question the federally-funded institution itself: does it really serve the interests of peace?

It is important to look further into the USIP, starting with those that run it. There were a number of specifics not noted in the article by GAP was that Hadley was formerly the director of the Bessmer Group up to 2009, which “operates as a bank holding company for Bessemer Trust.” The trust says that it has one goal and one goal only: “preserving and enhancing our clients’ wealth” through a use of credit investments, currencies, hedge funds and more. The international consulting firm mentioned in passing in GAP’s article, at which Hadley is a principal, is called the RiceHadleyGates Team. This firm also includes former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, and a former “Special Assistant to Under Secretary for Political Affairs” at the State Department named Anja Manuel. This firm is assisting a Silicon Valley-based company where British war criminal and former Prime Minister Tony Blair is a “special adviser” and advises, according to The New York , “companies about doing business in emerging markets like the Middle East, China, Brazil, India and Turkey.” Hadley also sits on the international advisory council member of APCO worldwide, another consulting firm. Finally, he is a member of the Atlantic Council which is, in the words of Allen Ruff, an “elite foreign policy NGO” that is dedicated to moving forward the “national interest” of the US and continuing “Cold War supremacy within the ‘Atlantic community’ and beyond.” Then, he is a member of Aspen Institute Homeland Security Group as well, which includes has people such as NYPD Commissioner Bill “broken windows” Bratton and Michael Chertoff, among others.

Some of the other board members make one question the institution as well. John Kerry, a corporatist Senator and now Secretary of State, and Chuck Hagel, who formerly served on Chevron’s board of directors and is now Secretary of Defense, serve as board members. One board member, J. Robinson West, was even the chairman and founder of PFC Energy which advised big oil companies, helped lease off the outer continental shelf for oil drilling during the Reagan years and is currently a member of the National Petroleum Council which focuses on advising, informing and recommending measures to the Energy Secretary on “any matter relating to oil and natural gas, or to the oil and gas industries” which is “submitted to it or approved by the Secretary.” Other board members make one lift their eyebrow, including: a member of the board of directors of the right-wing legal organization called the Center for Individual Rights; the director of the Atlantic Council; the president of the National Defense University; a senior fellow at the libertarian Hoover Institution; and the president of Quality Care Consultants. Some board members seem to not be corporate or tied to the foreign policy and military establishments like one who heads a civil and human rights group and another that is the former executive director of the National Council on Independent Living. In the past, Harriet Zimmermann, who was a member of AIPAC and the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, was even a member of the USIP’s board. If this isn’t enough, USIP has eight-six experts working at places ranging from the centrist Brookings institution to the World Bank and the Rockefeller Foundation.

The Institution has an interesting history. It was spurred by grassroots pressure initially and then it came to engage in projects that some may be disturbed by and goes against the ideas those who pushed for it, peace activists, in the first place. After all, David Petraeus called them “a great asset in developing stronger unity of effort between civilian and military elements of government” in Afghanistan. They helped convene the Iraq Study Group in 2006, which came out with a final report that urged an immediate pull-out from Iraq and a surge in Afghanistan. So much for peace as this suggestion means that war would decline in one country and increased in another. To echoe what Howard Beale said in Network about the “truth” from television, “this is mass madness you maniacs!” Then, there was the Genocide Prevention Task Force, convened by USIP and other groups, which was co-chaired by former Secretary of State Madeline “the price was worth it” Albright and former Secretary of Defense William Cohen who has played a big role in US military actions in Kosovo and Iraq in the 1990s. The 174-page report from this task force, which had thirty-five recommendations for lawmakers and other public officials, echoed the ideas of the Responsibility to Protect (R2P), stating in part that: “states have a basic responsibility to protect their citizens from genocide and mass atrocities…As an element of this expression of resolve, the United States should also reaffirm its support for the principle of the “responsibil­ity to protect.” What this report did not note is that R2P has been used to justify the interventions in the Ivory Coast and Libya in 2011 along with one in the Central African Republic in 2013. Binoy Kampmark wrote in 2008 that this report, which was from a task force chaired “by key players in the Clinton administration,” pairs well with “interventionist rhetoric Obama has, at times, articulated” and through his foreign policy advisers, while the “priorities given to genocide prevention may yet again be minimized.”

USIP had other initiatives such as one that purportedly was aimed at preventing electoral violence in the two Sudans, where the US has an oil interest and is competing with China, but had no similar program in another other region of the world. Then there is the publication of something called “The Iran Primer” which claims to offer a “comprehensive but concise overview of Iran’s politics, economy, military, foreign policy, and nuclear program” which is edited by Robin B. Wright who is a scholar who works at The Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, a group where the Vice Chairman of Morgan Stanley is the chair of its board of Trustees, which is filled with a number of business-friendly folks. A number of others write for the publication, including a director of a part of the Brookings Institution and a Carnegie Endowment’s policy analyst.

Sara Diamond in the July/August 1990 issue of Z Magazine brought another critique to the USIP: that is it close with the intelligence establishment. Diamond writes that the Institute has become “a stomping ground for professional war-makers” and has become “a funding conduit and clearinghouse for research on problems inherent to U.S. strategies of ‘low intensity conflict.’ She later writes that the USIP’s board in 1984 looked like a bunch of “right-wing ideologues from academia and the Pentagon” since, as she concludes, by law, “the USIP is an arm of the U.S. intelligence apparatus…[and] intersects heavily with the intelligence establishment.” That isn’t all. Diamond writes that the Institute has a congressionally approved board of directors, its first president worked with the State Department to disseminate anti-Contra propaganda and at the time, of the article’s writing, three of the board members presided over the seemingly defunct “U.S. Global Strategy Council which was a “shadowy clique of military intelligence strategists headed by former CIA deputy director Ray Cline.” Furthermore, Diamond noted that most of the USIP’s grant projects “through early 1990 reveals undeniable favoritism toward researchers committed to Cold War paradigms.” And the article continues on.

The problems with USIP don’t stop here. According to an archived page on USIP’s website, former fellows of the institution include Leon Aron of the American Enterprise Institute, Ray Jennings and Albert Cevallos of USAID, Richard Joseph of the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), Dana Priest of the Washington Post, and the failed Vice Presidential candidate Bill Richardson. Lest us forget that the US government’s official position on Syria was “sponsored by the U.S. Institute of Peace to negotiate disputes among selected elements of the Syrian Opposition,” according to Professor Richard Rubenstein in CounterPunch. On the problems with USIP, Associate Professor Thomas N. Nagy added that “Dr. Waromonger” Daniel Pipes who is a premier warmonger, an obvious Islamaphobe, a supporter of the Vietnam War, a strong supporter of Israel who opposes a Palestinian state, and advocate of U.S. military attack on Iran to stop its nuclear program, was nominated to the board of USIP by President George W. Bush. This nomination was blocked by rightly angry Democratic senators, but Bush used his authority to appoint Pipes through a recess appointment (he served for two years) while Pipes was endorsed by the Anti-Defamation League, the Zionist Organization of America, a number of senators and other small groups.

While one cannot deny that USIP engages in good work from time to time, it is clear that this federal institution is mired by connections the foreign policy and military establishments, the intelligence community and the corporate sector. These connections make clear that USIP is not promoting peace. After all, that isn’t their mission; rather it is, according to their website, a push to “increase the nation’s capacity to manage international conflict without violence.” This weak statement doesn’t even say, or even allude, that wars should be ended or scaling down of violence worldwide. If USIP doesn’t start demanding real peace, which would require a push to cut war spending worldwide, especially in the US, and rethinking war economies, then it may be time to question if it is really needed anymore.

Flashback: controversy over my Gay Inc. piece

20 Aug

A store of the Human Rights Campaign which had been “trashed” by a bunch of radical queers due to the organization’s disregard of homelessness and other issues which is bold, even if I don’t agree with everything they say here (

Back in May 2013, I sent an editor of a publication a draft of my article which criticized big gay groups, or Gay Inc. which was eventually published on Nation of Change. I was originally going to publish the whole email conversation, but there is no need for that. Rather, it is best to quote what the editor-in-chief said in emails to me.

After three emails, when I had said I was open to change on my piece “about the mainstream LGBTQ movement” including edits, rewrites, etc… and saying I would publish it somewhere else if I did not get a response, the editor responded. Here is what he had to say (bolded parts are emphasized) on May 15, 2013:

Hi Burkely –Sorry to keep you waiting! I’ve been on killer deadline for the last week+ — and it’s not quite over yet. I do have your essay and I’ve spent a bit of time with it, but haven’t made a decision. It would certainly be controversial, given the nature of your critique of “Gay Inc.” It’s the kind of piece that would have to be extremely well-documented and ironclad in its assertions, as I assume it would raise the hackles of the many people who have a vested interest in these orgs. Consquently, I need to spend some more time with the piece before reaching a decision. But I don’t want to hold you up, so I would certainly understand if you decided to shop it elsewhere. I’ll be much freer next week, so please feel free to get in touch then. Thanks for your patience!

At the time, I told this editor that I knew the piece would be controversial but that I could deal with controversy, even publishing a response piece afterwards. Clearly, looking back, the editor did not share my point of view and was concerned about “controversy” and wanted it to be “well-documented” and “ironclad in its assertions.” I sent two more emails to this editor, and he finally responded at the end of May, asking if he had made a decision about my essay. Here is what he said, apologizing for his slow response, on May 31, 2013, saying he had made a decision and “put the issue to rest:”:

Dear Burkely –

Finally put the next issue to rest this AM, so now I can turn my sights to other matters. Apologies for my slowness in getting you an answer on the piece. I think you’ve done some good research and drawn some interesting connections between “Gay Inc.” and the corporate world — which, by the way, is far from a new discovery. The very coinage “Gay Inc.” suggests that many others have complained about corporate involvement in GLBT orgs. But I have a number of substantive concerns about the piece beyond the question of originality: It seems to me the kind of piece that should carefully lay out the evidence without judgment, then ponder what it means to be so dependent on corporate sponsorship, and finally conclude that this has a corrupting influence. Instead, you begin with the judgment that corporate sponsorship — indeed corporations themselves — is bad, so the rest is just backup material. Everyone knows that the major GLBT orgs rely heavily on corporate sponsorship — it’s the way of the world. Another problem is this: while you document lots of cases of corporate sponsorship of mainstream GLBT orgs, I don’t think you’ve made the case that this is ipso facto a terrible thing. Certainly the potential for abuse is there, but I’m sure all of these orgs would tell you that they couldn’t survive without corporate sponsorship. If true, the question becomes whether we’d be better off without them. Another question: is this any different from every other public interest group in America, whether disaster relief or animal rights? I think they all rely on corporate sponsors to some extent — but feel free to prove me wrong. In any case, I think you need to make the argument that the GLBT movement is uniquely corrupted by corporate influence. BTW the companies that tend to sponsor gay orgs — Microsoft, the airlines, etc. — tend to be the ones with the best policies on gay rights. You don’t see Exxon/Mobil as a major sponsor, am I right? I’m just sayin’. So, I will have to pass on the piece as written. As implied in paragraph 3, perhaps there’s an article there based upon your research. It might be useful for our readers to know exactly which companies are sponsoring which organizations. And certainly if you can document any examples of how this influence has affected their actions or policies, that would be of great interest. I guess your complaint is that Gay Inc. doesn’t criticize big corporations for their many sins. But who does? This is America. In any case, why is it up to the GLBT movement to provide this critique? I’ll stop there and let you reply — if you’ve made it this far!

Thanks much,

As you can expect, this response made me annoyed and madder, especially when he said that corporate sponsorship of GLBT organizations, as he called them, was “the way of the world” which later was used as the title of my article for Nation of Change. His assertion that certain corporations have “good policies” on gay rights is bull. That ignores the fact that such policies do not make them better corporations but rather more mischievous, I would argue. If other groups are funded by corporate sponsors, they definitely should be criticized too.  If I was to find evidence of any corporate sponsor influencing any of the big gay organizations in a direct and a notable way, then I’d have to probably request internal documents or something which they would never give me. As a result, such an endeavor is literally impossible. Despite this, I am glad he praised my research…

At the time, in response to this editor, I said that if corporate sponsorship is the way of the world, it should change and I said that the organizations must be rejected as corporate leeches, just like I said in my article for State of Nature and that since “corporations control and dictate our lives…it seems fair to criticize them.”  Months later, he responded with much of his critique still intact, responding to an email I can’t seem to find (bolded parts are my emphasis):

Hi Burkely,

Thanks for your follow-up to our earlier correspondence, with apologies for my very slow reply. There’s not much I can add to my earlier critique of the piece, which still stands. Yes, corporations are powerful and pervasive in our lives — so much so that they are indeed unavoidable in all walks of life. The idea that orgs. like the HRC and Task Force would have no corporate sponsorship is quixotic in this day and age. Your war is with the corporate state, as it used to be called, of which the current gay movement is but one manifestation. But how is the GLBT rights movement more corrupted by corps. than anyone else? Also, for what it’s worth, corps. that sponsor gay orgs invariably have very gay-friendly policies. So it goes. I still think there could be the nub of an article there, but it would require some down-and-dirty research to make it work IMHO.

So, the idea that these organizations could have no corporate sponsorship is silly? Come on. Even though I would not argue that, I would say that there are non-profits and orgs. out there that do good work and don’t have ANY corporate sponsors. To have a corporate sponsor is to be corrupted in and of itself. I don’t see why “down-and-dirty research” is needed to prove that. Once again, who cares if they have “gay-friendly policies.” That type of stuff is just BS and PR to promote themselves as caring about “equality.” In my response to the email at the time, I said that having corporate sponsorship leads to what one can call “manufactured equality” which I argued “won’t address the root causes of discrimination against them and numerous other problems facing them. And I made an even more powerful point: “as long as Gay Inc. has corporate sponsors, they will never push for what LGBTQ people need but rather for corporate-friendly equality.”

I reprint my article which I published on Nation of Change below which hit back at a number of criticisms by the editor. I also welcome comments about what the editor said and what you think about all of this.

Its the Way of the World: Bradley Manning and Gay Inc.

By Burkely Hermann

At a recent DNC fundraiser 56- year old LGBTQ advocate Ellen Sturt heckled Michelle Obama  to ask for the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) to be signed via executive order. This was a simple demand, as she notes in her Washington Post op-ed where she says she could no “longer remain silent.” Although this was brave, what about famed gay whistleblower PFC Bradley Manning? Would he get the same treatment? Glenn Greenwald wrote that Chair of the San Francisco Pride Parade overode the board’s decision declaring that Manning would not be one of the Grand Marshals of the parade while huge corporations like AT&T, Verizon, Bank of America, and Wells Fargo, sponsored the Parade. What he wrote next was a bombshell: “[the] remarkable shift in public opinion on gay equality…is less significant than it seems because…gay equality poses no real threat to elite factions…If anything, it bolsters those power structures.” One must ask: does the cause of gay equality “pose no threat” to the ruling elite?

First one, one must understand, that the LGBTQ rights movement has changed over time. BusinessWeek calls the gay rights movement, “one of the most successful political enterprises in history” because of its contributions in the last 40 years. However, this “enterprise” has led people to worry: lesbian host Ellen DeGeneres is perceived as the mainstream gay perspective, that there is a slow response of the movement to lynching of LGBT people in Honduras, how liberals support equal rights in rhetoric but refuse to support legislation putting it place and finally how from the 1970s on, the movement allied with the Democratic Party while the current “LGBT leadership…abandons…an agenda that stresse[s]…social [and]…economic justice…[like] the Human Rights Campaign [HRC]…ignor[ing] homelessness and poverty altogether.”

From this, I began to look into Gay Inc.  Andy Thayer defines this term as encompassing all of the big gay non-profits, from the National Gay & Lesbian Task Force (NGLTF) to the HRC but I would expand it to include the Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG), the Gay & Lesbian Advocates and Defenders (GLAD), the Gay, Lesbian & Straight Education Network (GLSEN), Out and Equal Workplace Advocates (Out and Equal), GLAAD,  Family Equality Council, and the National Gay and Lesbian Center of Commerce (NGLCC). Also it would includes other groups like the Arcus Foundation, the Gill Foundation, Log Cabin Republicans, Freedom To Marry, Equality Forum, Lesbian Victory Fund, and American Foundation for Equal Rights. Is it the way of the world that major LGBTQ organizations rely heavily on corporate sponsorship?

Before I get into the organizations themselves, as the saying goes, follow the money. The sponsorships of Gay Inc. give a further insight. The banksters who helped plunge the world economy into economic crisis sponsored a number of organizations including the HRC, NGLTF, GLAD, PFLAG,  NGLCC, Out and Equal, GLSEN, and GLAAD. As for the companies that are part of the Center for Copyright Information that devised the authoritarian copyright alert system which is commonly called “Six Strikes,” they back Equality Forum, Out and Equal, NGLTF, and GLAAD. There are many other egregious corporate sponsors of the NGLTF, HRC, GLAD, PFLAG, Equality Forum, Family Equality Council, NGLCC, Out and Equal (has 55 sponsors!), GLSEN, and GLAAD (here and here). Some might say that this is no different from any other public interest group in America, but Gay Inc. is uniquely corrupted by the business community.

How do these groups pay back their sponsors? It differs from group to group. The NGLTF inadvertently call for people to vote for Democrats and backed the healthcare “reform” bill while the HRC’s ‘corporate equality index’ praises Corporate America as this year’s report gave the highest ratings possible to some of those who sponsored them! GLAD has a Board of Directors including including former employees of Verizon, HRC, and GlaxoSmithKline while the GLSEN, who came up with the idea of Gay-Straight Alliances, has a Board of Directors comprised of most of their corporate sponsors. Out & Equal tries to help LGBTQ people find jobs has groups on their “LGBTCareerLink” page including BP, Bank of America, GE, Comcast, PNC, and Clorox, half of whom are their sponsors.  NGLCC is even worse as they making an effort to make corporate America LGBTQ “certified” and the Equality Forum has a former Comcast CEO on their Board of Governors while their major sponsor is Comcast itself.

The other groups that have less of a roll in Gay Inc. are also corrupted. The Arcus Foundation has a former member of the Rockefeller Foundation, a CNN correspondent, and IBM employee on their Board while the Gill Foundation has similar board members. Freedom To Marry, which wants gay marriage and DOMA repealed, has the vice-president of, and a surrogate speaker for President Obama on their board of directors while they praising Mayor 1% Emanuel, Mayor Bloomberg, and Glenn Beck, as voices for equality! The American Foundation for Equal Rights which claims to want equal rights for all has a board of Directors including the HRC president, and the Chairman of the CATO institute. Other groups just follow along like the Log Cabin Republicans and the Stonewall Democrats which advocate for gay policy in their respective parties while the Lesbian Victory Fund endorses LGBT candidates.


By now, it should be clear that Greenwald was right. I’d say we’d be better off without these groups, just like the Gang Green groups that dominate the mainstream environmental movement. People must remember this is not the way it was supposed to be because the movement itself began with queer sit-ins in 1965 which morphed into a protest rally, not with Stonewall riots in 1968. As Gay Inc., the corporate leeches, has been timid, there is hope: the Gay Liberation Network, which pushes for a grassroots direct action to help LGBTQ people. The corporate leeches must be thrown away and LGBTQ and allies must stand next to each other and push for full liberation not simply policies that promote assimilation like gay marriage and ENDA.


And here is the submission I sent to the editor, which I believe is a bit different, but still good:

Gay Inc., Bradley Manning and corporate power


Yesterday, I was just browsing across twitter and I stumbled across an article by Glenn Greenwald. It explained that the famed whistleblower Bradley Manning was not made one of the Grand Marshals of the San Francisco Pride Parade. He explained that while “even a hint of support for Manning will not be tolerated, there is a long roster of large corporations serving as the event’s sponsors who are welcomed with open arms…[including] AT&T and Verizon…Bank of America…Wells Fargo…Clear Channel…[and] Kaiser Permanente…Even at the San Francisco Gay Pride Parade, once an iconic symbol of cultural dissent and disregard for stifling pieties, nothing can happen that might offend AT&T and the Bank of America…Thus, while Bradley Manning is persona non grata at SF Pride, illegal eavesdropping telecoms, scheming banks, and hedge-fund purveyors of the nation’s worst right-wing agitprop are more than welcome.” What he wrote next was startling to me. He said that while there has been a “remarkable shift in public opinion on gay equality…this development is less significant than it seems because the cause of gay equality poses no real threat to elite factions or to how political and economic power in the US are distributed. If anything, it bolsters those power structures because it completely and harmlessly assimilates a previously excluded group into existing institutions and thus incentivizes them to accommodate those institutions and adopt their mindset.” This is proved by simply looking at the full list of the parade’s sponsors which includes Bud Light, Virgin Mobile, Toyota, and Hilton Hotels as well. Additionally, President Obama declared in his inaugural address that “Our journey is not complete until our gay brothers and sisters are treated like anyone else under the law…for if we are truly created equal, then surely the love we commit to one another must be equal as well,” but has not taken any concrete steps to even put his ideas into practice because what he said was a bunch of meaningless liberal rhetoric. Greenwald’s observation is what led me to investigate more to see if he was correct.


One needs an informed perspective on the mainstream organizations of the LGBTQ rights movement, which have developed very much over time, becoming subsumed by the establishment. Caleb Castañeda writes that it worrying that the movement is treating Ellen DeGeneres as the mainstream gay perspective, the slow approach of the movement in response to lynching of LGBT people, the irony that in the words of the late Alexander Coleburn that the movement is trying to save the sinking ship of marriage and how in Ron Jacobs’s words that on the “liberal side of the US political spectrum one hears words in support of equal rights only to be all to often followed by a refusal to support those rights when it comes to actually passing legislation.” To cap it off, there’s an article by Tommi Avicolli Mecca noting that “by the late 70s, a more mainstream movement had emerged. Gay rights bills were pushed through legislatures, inroads made with certain Protestant denominations, support gained from the Democratic Party…[now] the new LGBT leadership often abandons multi-issue coalitions and an agenda that stressed social as well as economic justice…[for instance] the Human Rights Campaign [HRC]…ignores homelessness and poverty altogether, and wants Congress to pass a federal gay rights bill that doesn’t include transgenders, the group that needs protection the most.”

From this, I began to look into Gay Inc. Andy Thayer defines this term as encompassing all of the big gay non-profits, from the National Gay & Lesbian Task Force (NGLTF) to the HRC but I would expand it to include the Arcus Foundation, the Gill Foundation, Log Cabin Republicans, Freedom To Marry, Equality Forum, Lesbian Victory Fund, the Gay & Lesbian Advocates and Defenders (GLAD), the Gay, Lesbian & Straight Education Network (GLSEN), Out and Equal, GLAAD, Family Equality Council, and the National Gay and Lesbian Center of Commerce (NGLCC).

I start with the HRC. This organization is the most celebrated LGBTQ organization in the United States, which according to a back of one of their stickers, “envisions an America where all LGBT people are ensured equality and are embraced as full members of the American family at home, at work and in every community.” However, a further look at their website puts this into question. Looking at their “platinum,” “gold,” “silver,” and “bronze” corporate partners there are some startling companies that are helping them. Such companies include: Citigroup which participated in a conference that is hosted by an organization that denies the horrible Armenian genocide, Microsoft which increased their offshore profit holdings by $16 billion last year, American Airlines which will probably merge with US Airways creating the world’s largest airline, Bank of America which is currently in court over lost mortgage investments, Coca-Cola which needs excessive water use to make their products, the Toyota-made Lexus which was sued by customers because of sudden acceleration, Chevron which was issued criminal charges by Brazilian prosecutors for massive environmental damage, BP which paid no corporate income taxes but got a rebate, Google which admitted that its “Street View” program violates privacy, Nike which runs sweatshops for profit in the Southeast Asia, IBM which put over $6.5 billion dollars offshore last year, TD Bank which has investments in TransCanada which is building the Keystone XL Pipeline, Goldman Sachs which paid no corporate income tax, Shell Oil which is now responsible for all of the oil spills in the Niger Delta, Starbucks which was fined by a Chilean Court $50,000 for anti-union practices in the country, Dell which was found by a New York Court to be guilty of fraud, JPMorganChase which has recently been more vigorously investigated by federal authorities in cases including a flawed review of loans and lying to investors, and Morgan Stanley which admitted that it knew about the housing bubble in 2005 before it burst but did nothing to stop it. Also, one can even get a BankAmericard for the organization! All of these partners make it seem that the HRC really doesn’t really care about equality, but that it’s just a façade. They say their ‘corporate equality index’[CEI] will “propel equality” and their President writes that “Corporate America continues to raise the bar in workplace fairness. we hope Congress will follow corporate America’s lead and create a level playing field – including passing fully-inclusive workplace non-discrimination legislation.” This year’s CEI report gave high ratings to General Motors Co., Ford Motor Co., IBM, and Freddie Mac, among others.


The next biggest part of Gay, Inc. is the National Gay & Lesbian Task Force or NGLTF. First off, one should consider their sponsors include one major group of banksters (Wells Fargo), a bus line that is owned by Greyhound (Grey Goose), a CBS-owned television network (Showtime), Comcast-NBCUniversal, a major US airline (Southwest) and an LGBTQ weekly called the Washington Blade. In the issues section of their website, they take a stand against the “anti-gay industry,” they have a vote guide that lists their positions but doesn’t mention the Democratic Party even though they clearly are telling people to vote for the Democrats, they want the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) to pass which is backed by groups ranging from the HRC, NAACP, American Bar Association and yes, Nike, which are the same in both Houses of Congress. The same goes with the Matthew Shepard Act which was backed by numerous gay rights organizations in the Senate and was tied to a military spending bill in the House which further shows the non-threatening nature of the bill. Then, they praised the Affordable Care Act which was a bailout for the healthcare industry. None of this is surprising considering the Board of their Action fund includes a pro-Obama message service (Progressive Victory), a holding company of diversified commercial and industrial businesses (CIC Group), and an organization that consults different groups on gender issues (Botzer Consulting). One shouldn’t forget that their Board of Directors includes members of a global consulting firm (McKinsey and Company), a huge hospital company (Brinker International), and the program officer of the Gates Foundation.

Gay & Lesbian Advocates and Defenders (GLAD) is one of the most corrupt of them all. Their Board of Directors includes a former employee of GE Healthcare, the US Treasury Department, Verizon, HRC, and GlaxoSmithKline. From this it’s no surprise their sponsors include Macy’s, Bank of America, Liberty Mutual, and DLA Piper. Maybe this is why they don’t have much in the realm of legislative advocacy. A similar organization, the Gay, Lesbian & Straight Education Network (GLSEN) has a similar situation. They have corporate sponsors including AT&T, Wells Fargo, Disney, Target, Disney, IBM, HP, Goldman Sachs, Google, Morgan Stanley and Citigroup. As a result, their Board of Directors includes members of Disney, Kodak, Sodexo, JPMorgan Chase, Cisco Systems, Wells Fargo, DreamWorks, and IBM. This is a major problem because they are the originators of the whole idea of Gay-Straight Alliances in secondary educational institutions (I had one in my high school).


Consider an organization that doesn’t seem that bad: it advocates to help LGBTQ people find jobs. This group called Out & Equal has its problems. These stem from the companies that group lists on its “LGBTCareerLink” page which include a company that helped George W. Bush fix the Florida elections (WellPoint), BP, Bank of America, GE, Comcast, PNC, and Clorox among others. This won’t really help the well-being of LGBTQ folk and improve their place in society. Then there’s the organization named GLAAD which officially says it will secure “full and lasting equality.” However, this is put seriously into question when Comcast and Wells Fargo are two of their “premier partners” and their other sponsors include AT&T, IBM  and Microsoft.


One of the biggest foundations that funds much of the movement called the Arcus Foundation doesn’t seem to have direct connections to Big Business. However, on their Board of Directors they have a person who founded a group that “advances corporate, philanthropic and legislative efforts” for social justice causes, the CEO of the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, one who formerly worked at the Rockefeller Foundation, a former CNN correspondent, a former IBM employee, former Director of Board Affairs for Planned Parenthood, and a former accountant. As for the Gill Foundation, it’s pretty similar. Its board members include the founder of Quark, Inc. and a former Google employee. Also, they promote a project by Out & Equal which once again promotes big business.

In a completely different realm is a family-oriented organization called Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays or PFLAG. It sounds all nice and dandy but there’s one major problem: its sponsors. Those that back this organization include Wells Fargo, UPS, Credit Suisse, Barclays, Sodexo, Dow, Northrop Grumman, and Finra, the self-regulating body of the financial industry. This is then why their policy positions don’t really challenge business. On the other hand, Freedom To Marry, which pushes for Gay Marriage and ending “federal marriage discrimination” is similarly backed by business interests. The organization’s board of directors includes former members of an asset management company, vice-president of, surrogate speaker for President Obama, a person who has coached hundreds of corporate CEOs. These are even worse than the competing Log Cabin Republicans which advocates for gay policy in the GOP and the Stonewall Democrats doing the same in the Democratic Party along with the Lesbian Victory Fund endorses LGBT candidates in office. And don’t forget the Equality Forum which has a former Comcast CEO on their Board of Governors, and a Wealth Advisor for Merrill Lynch on their Board of Directors. Good ole’ Comcast and AT&T sponsor them as well. Then there’s the Family Equality Council which officially “represents the three million parents who are lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender in this country and their six million children.” However, I’m not sure how those that are “represented” would like to see that the organization is sponsored by the Royal Bank of Canada, HBO, Target, Capitol One, PepsiCo, and General Mills. The last organization I focused on was the National Gay and Lesbian Center of Commerce. This is one of the worst: it has corporate partners including Wells Fargo, UnitedHealthcare, and MillerCoors while they have an effort to reach corporate America and help make them LGBTQ “certified.”

By now, it should be clear that Greenwald was right when he said that gay equality does not threaten the American power structure and possibly even bolsters their power through the backing of Gay, Inc. by the Business Community. This wasn’t the way it was supposed to be. The LGBTQ rights movement which didn’t begin in Stonewall but actually in “in 1965 [in] the first queer sit-ins on record took place at a late-night Philadelphia coffee shop and lunch counter called Dewey’s, a popular hangout for young gays, lesbians and drag queens.” This action morphed into a protest rally, “an informational picket line protesting the lunch counter’s treatment of gender-variant youth….[and] another sit-in” which spread across the country in numerous incidents as described in a history of the movement by Tommi Avicolli Mecca. However, Stonewall was marked as the beginning by many because after it was the founding of the militant Gay Liberation Front or GLF which tied gay liberation to other struggles for liberation. This has been lost in Gay Inc. There has been no confrontation of heterosexism or fostering of understanding to mitigate homophobic violence or an end for all restrictions for LGBT people in the workplace. A new path must be forged, by using the direct action organization called the Gay Liberation Network run by Andy Thayer, which aims for a grassroots approach to help LGBTQ people as basis for the new movement which would reject the establishment parties and the power of the business community. Otherwise, this social movement will increase the power of those who are screwing the world every day.


Death, Destruction, and Hope for Palestinians

3 Aug

This was originally posted on Nation of Change and has been reprinted here. Some numbers and specifics have been corrected.

Over 1200 1400 Palestinians massacred, and 53 63 Israeli soldiers are dead, which is more than twenty-two times less deaths than Palestinians. These deaths were not due to a set of attacks by rogue, paramilitary elements. Rather they were caused by the military of what FLAME, a pro-Israeli group, even calls, “America’s unsinkable aircraft in the Middle East,” in a recent ad in The Nation: Israel. Since June, the Israeli military has pummeled the citizens of the Gaza Strip with bombs, naval bombardment, mortars, white phosphorous, and more. As a result, thousands have been displaced, six UNRWA schools have been bombed, Gaza’s only power plant has been destroyed, meaning the thousands will not have electricity and are plunged into darkness, and hospitals have been bombed. On July 22nd, the UN’s Office of Humanitarian Affairs painted a bleak picture of conditions in the Gaza Strip, saying there is “no safe place for civilians,” and that there are “critical shortages of hospital supplies and medicines,” at least 107,000 children requiring “specialized psychosocial support to deal with the trauma” from the attacks, “no or limited access to water” because of power systems being destroyed or “no fuel to generate them,” and reports “of sewage flooding.” Navi Pillay, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, said recently that Israel’s non-respect for the “life of civilians, including children…may amount to war crimes and crimes against humanity.” It is without doubt that Hamas firing rockets into Israel constitutes war crimes. But, it is absurd to think that, as a moderate opinion by the editors of The Nation  states, firing rockets into Israel is “just as atrocious as the far more deadly Israeli barrages” or that the invasion of Gaza is an act of self-defense. Both ideas are false and both sides have committed war crimes that run afoul of the established laws of war. Under the UN Charter, every sovereign state has a right to self-defense, including Israel. However, the bombing and invasion of Gaza does not follow this right, mainly expressed in Article 51 of the UN Charter. In fact, Hamas did not even kidnap the three children as Israel claims, meaning that Israel is clearly committing a war of aggression, the “supreme international crime.” Palestine has the right to self-defense as well, but as social activist Howard Zinn once said, “I don’t think that terrorism is justified even though the end is a just one. The demands of the Palestinians are just, but I don’t think that terrorist acts are justified, on both moral and pragmatic grounds,” and he goes on to explain the specifics of his reasoning. [1] This article does not tread on ground that others have written about extensively, instead it summarizes the history of Israel and occupied Palestine, how we got where we are today and what we can do to make the situation better for all those touched by the bloodshed.

The formation of the Israeli state

First it was the classic Neanderthal man; then it was: sedentary farmers; Amorites; early Mesopotamian empires; ‘sea peoples;’ Egyptians; Assyrians; Persians; Alexander ‘the Great;’ Romans; Arabs; Timor; Mamluks; Ottomans; and the British. These are most of the groups that ruled over the “Holy Land” or the British mandate of Palestine as it was once called. This all came from a dusty book with tattered covers titled The Times Concise Atlas of World History which was published a while ago, back in the Reagan era, in 1982. Sometimes old books can help as much if not more than the digital libraries in the present, like those of Wikipedia. As one Washington post columnist Richard Cohen recently admitted, state of Israel “is the legal creation of the United Nations,” and did not exist prior to 1948. This section will examine the early history of Israel in order to gain a greater understanding.

For years, people had been advocating for a Jewish settlement in Palestine. The British had committed themselves to a Jewish national homeland in Palestine in the Balfour Declaration, as had others on their own accord, like one of the so-called “Paris Rothschilds” [2]. By the 1940s, the British became “fearful that the Americans would try to eject them from the Middle East” and deny them control of the oil reserves in a region “considered central to [British] imperial strategy.”[3] Ibn Saud, the ruler of Saudi Arabia, came as an important person to the British Empire who could possibly play an “important factor” in the empire’s efforts to escape their “dilemma in Palestine” which was then a British mandate “torn by mounting strife between Jews and Arabs.” [4] However, Saud was not in favor of a new Jewish state in Palestine, strongly opposing the establishment of a “Jewish homeland” in Palestine. He was even reassured by President Franklin Roosevelt in 1945 that the U.S. government would not “change its Palestine policy without consulting the Arabs.” [5] American relations with the Arab world were aggravated as the state of Israel came into being. Saud, who was “outspoken…against Zionism and Israel,” said that if the US supported Israel, then it “would be a death to American interests in the Arab world,” further saying that Arabs would destroy the new state. [6] Additionally, Saud waived his ability to punish the US “by canceling the Aramco [Arab-American Oil Company] concession,” a threat which alarmed interested companies along with the military and foreign policy establishment. [7] By 1948, the UN’s General Assembly and other organs had recommended the “partition of Palestine” but it was rejected by the Arab states. [8] Subsequent violence gripped Palestine and when the British withdrew from their mandate in 1948, chaos soon followed. On May 14, 1948, the state of Israel was proclaimed by the Jewish National Council and was quickly recognized by the Soviet Union and the US. [9] The Arab states surrounding Israel did not like this at all. War quickly begun as the Arab League “launched a full-scale attack” against Israel and Ibn Saud even threatened to “apply sanctions against American oil concessions,” but luckily for the US, a rushed State Department study at the time showed this strategy would not be very effective. [10] Eventually, even though the government of Saudi Arabia was formally hostile toward Zionism, Saud found he could distinguish between Aramco and the “policy of the U.S. government elsewhere in the region,” even arguing that oil royalties helped Arab states resist “Jewish pretensions.” [11]

There is one more angle to the creation of the state of Israel: the change of the demographic makeup. The colonial British, which had control of the mandate of Palestine since 1917, saw their role as an “arbitrator between the Arab and Jewish communities,” and they were persuaded in 1939 by Palestinian Arabs protesting to “put a ceiling on Jewish immigration,” which was reversed as a result of the “horror of the Holocaust.” [12] Furthermore, the war with Arab states which began in 1948 with Israel’s creation, led to hundreds of thousands of refugees, most of whom were Muslim and Palestinian, further concentrating the “opposition of Arab states.” [13] There was something even more telling. This was the emigration of 750,000 Arabs between 1946 and 1967 into Jordan, Syria, and Lebanon, while 894,000 Jewish people immigrated to Israel from 1948 to 1964 from across the Mediterranean and Europe. [14] This meant that 194,500 more Jews came to Israel than Arabs who left. The effect of changed demographics affected Israel for years to come.

Israel’s military aggression: a bloody history

As American sociologist and political scientist Charles Tilly famously suggested, “war made the state, and the state made war.” This is true of the creation of Israel, a state founded on war itself, which can’t even be denied by hard-nosed defenders of Israel. By end of their ‘war of independence’ in 1948, Israel had control of many lands which were not given to them under the UN’s partition plan, and by 1967 they had control of the Gaza Strip, the West Bank, the Golan Heights, and the Sinai Peninsula (which they later relinquished back to Egypt). [15] Israel has not, in its sixty-six year history, heeded the suggestion by President Harry S. Truman in December 1947, on the eve of a UN vote, that “…the Jews must now display tolerance and consideration for the other people in Palestine with whom they will necessarily have to be neighbors.” At the same time, there is something more absurd: the explaining of the “question of Israel…by a dispute with Biblical origins” as claimed in one episode in the popular TV series, The West Wing, since that means that the conflict in that region cannot be solved by real “political or policy-based solutions.” [16]

During the 1950s and 1960s, the Israeli military carried out raids in the Gaza Strip then under Egypt’s control, the West Bank then under Jordanian control, Egypt, Syria, and Jordan. These raids, which were officially meant to respond to terror attacks and declared as “retribution operations” which Ariel Sharon described years later as having an objective “to create in Arabs a psychology of defeat, to beat them every time and…decisively [enough] that they would develop the conviction they would never win.” [17] Even the likely Zionist Uzi Eilam, wrote that the retribution operations, also called reprisal operations, “were not overly effective in curbing infiltration and attacks,” saying that Israel often “provoked the enemy…and incited war.” [18] While thousands of Arab soldiers and Palestinians were killed, only hundreds of Israeli civilians and soldiers were killed by terror attacks during the same period. The violence in the 1948 war which involved numerous killings and massacres occurred again in the 1950s, with incidents like the one in Qibya, in the West Bank, in 1953, when sixty-nine Palestinian villagers, most of whom were civilians, were massacred, which was internationally condemned at the time. [19]

By 1967, a new war was on the horizon. Gamal Abdel Nasser, then the strongman of Egypt and Arab nationalist, wanted to “assert his will” through military force, since he had no oil, to avenge “Israel’s battlefield successes in 1956.” [20] In 1956, during Israel’s invasion of Egypt, Israeli soldiers massacred 49 Palestinians in cold blood, which Noam Chomsky argued is “kind of like the My Lai massacre in Vietnam.” [21] Soon, in 1967, Jordanian armed forces were under Egyptian command and the Iraqis were helping as well, completing the “mobilization of Arab military might,” and then beginning the attack on June 5th. [22] Israel’s military put on the defensive, made an offensive move. Within the first hours of the war, Israel “quickly obliterated” the air forces of Egypt and those of fellow Arab states. [23] With Israel coming out victorious from the war, gaining control of Jerusalem, the West Bank, the Golan Heights, and the Sinai Peninsula, Arab oil ministers “banned shipments to the United States and Britain,” and to a small degree West Germany, for a period of four months since the ban failed since oil was taken from elsewhere as a result. [24] This was only part of the story. When the smoke cleared, 20 Israeli civilians were killed, 10,000-15,000 Egyptians were killed or missing, 6,000 Jordanians were killed or missing, 2,500 Syrians were killed, and 10 Iraqis were killed. In total, that means that at minimum, 21,030 were killed in the war. That’s over three times the number of Israelis killed in their ‘war for independence,’ which started as “a civil war within the Palestinian British mandate” with 300,000 Palestinians fleeing or being expelled by the time Israel was created. [25]

With the war ended, the US government pushed for Arabic countries to work within UN Security Council Resolution 242, which “would return Israel to its 1967 borders” and President Nixon even offered the “services of Henry Kissinger as negotiator.” [26] Although Henry Kissinger claimed it was “unlikely the Arabs would use the oil weapon against the United States,” he was dead wrong. [27] In 1973, Sadat launched an attack on Yom Kippur to “catch Israel when it was least prepared,” and the Arabs scored key victories in the first days of the war. [28] The US government seemed to purportedly arrange a truce in this war, but also resupplied the Israelis, officially to counter the Soviets, which portrayed the US “as an active ally of Israel.” [29] This move did not please Arab countries. Egypt and other Arab states called for implementing an oil embargo against the United States for its support of Israel, rejecting a “radical” Iraqi proposal to “nationalize all American business in the Arab world” and “institute a full oil embargo.” [30] The Nixon administration said they wanted “movement toward a peace settlement” and announced a $2.2 billion aid package to Israel, which provided Arab leaders with “a sufficient pretext to take on the United States.” [31]

By 1978, the Camp David Accords had brought Israel and Egypt together. Anwar Sadat, who had begun the Yom Kippur war against Israel, wanted to “create a settlement acceptable to the Palestinians” but economic policies implemented as part of the agreement exposed the country to the full force of Western capitalism. [32] Just like the military dictatorship in Egypt today, Sadat had 1,500 opponents arrested and purged “the army of 200 officers friendly to the Muslim Brotherhood” while countering growing opposition from Islamists, already dissatisfied by Israel’s victory over Egypt in 1967, who assassinated him in October 1981. [33] After Sadat was gone, Hosni Mubarak, who was ousted in the Egyptian Revolution in 2011, came to power. If it couldn’t get any worse, by the 1980s, the reactionary and theocratic government of Iran backed groups such as Hamas and Islamic Jihad, with the Iranian Revolution providing “practical and moral support” to the “remarkable intifada (uprising) of Palestinian youth” in 1987. [34]

By 1967, the Israeli occupation of the West Bank, Gaza and the Golan Heights had begun. These conquests, these seizures of territory, were just some of the stolen land that Israel claimed authority over. Since 2006, Israel has engaged in a conflict with Gaza, resulting in the killing of thousands. During the 2008-9 war in Gaza, Richard Goldstone, a Jewish and South African judge was part of a “fact-finding mission…to investigate violations of humanitarian and human rights law” during the war, which Israel refused to cooperate with. [35] The report, called for short the Goldstone Report, detailed human rights violations by both sides, finding that “Israel used disproportionate military force against Hamas militants in the Gaza Strip” and indicting the occupation itself by condemning “Israel for border closures, the blockade, and for the wall…in the West Bank.” [36] The result was vilification of his name, with denouncement by Israeli Parliament and by what Chris Hedges calls the liberal class, despite the fact that he was “the quintessential Jewish liberal” who was a “champion of human rights and international law.” [37]

US aid to Israel and blowback

Some years ago, a retired US naval officer told British journalist Robert Frisk, his reflections on Israel’s 2002 invasion of Palestinian Authority’s territory: “when I see on television our planes and our tanks used to attack Palestinians, I can understand why people hate Americans.” [38] In 1998, Chris Toensing, the editor of Middle East Report had an encounter with a waiter which mirrored what the retired naval officer had to say, but the waiter went further, explaining that while “Israel’s occupation of the West Bank, Gaza Strip, and East Jerusalem” are illegal, Israel takes in 40 percent of US aid, which it uses to “build new settlements on Palestinian land and buy US-made warplanes and helicopter gunships.” [39] Not surprisingly, Palestinian rulers “hate America for not supporting their cause and [for] not restraining Israel.” [40] This section brings such concerns to light, looking at U.S. financial support for Israel and the blowback it causes.

In his book, What We Say Goes, Noam Chomsky writes that “you can date the beginning of enthusiastic support for Israel” by the US government to 1967. [41] He further mentions that after “Israel’s huge military success” in the 1967 war, the US government saw Israel as “the most reliable base for U.S. power in that part of the world.” [42] Importantly, Nasser, who helped launch the war to begin with, was the “symbol…of secular Arab nationalism” and when he was smashed by Israel, it doomed hopes of it spreading, all while US aid began to skyrocket along with increased concern about the Holocaust. [43] Interestingly, support for Israel was easily exploited as a “weapon to beat back the hated New Left” since there were numerous radical Jewish-Americans active in social movements. [44] Chomsky continues, arguing that he believes that “U.S. policies toward Israel are very harmful to the American people and to future generations” but that the Israeli lobby doesn’t determine policy, since “serious U.S. state interests” win out against Israeli interests when the two are in conflict. [45]

It wasn’t always this way. During the 1940s and 1950s, many American political elites supported Arab states due to their oil with President Eisenhower even ordering Israel to withdrawal from the Gaza Strip and Sinai Peninsula in 1956, to which Israel complied. [46] By the mid-1960s, this changed as Soviet ties to Arab states pushed the U.S. government closer to Israel with the first “offensive weapons system sale to Israel” approved in 1965. [47] The six-day war brought the Israeli and US governments closer together. After the war in 1967, the US sold “phantom jets to Israel,” with US military sales jumping from $140 million between 1968 and 1970 to $2.57 billion in 1974, after the Yom Kippur War. [48] Furthermore, from 1949 to 2004, the US gave Israel $97.5 billion, resulting in Israel becoming a “military giant” which possesses nuclear weapons, and whose security “resides in military might and the colonial occupation of Palestinians.” [49] The US government has been so dedicated to such aid that it has shown that it doesn’t care about “liberty and justice for all.” In 2002, a Palestinian independent weekly, Hebron Times, was closed down by the CIA for “being overly critical of Israel and US policy towards Palestinian people” and the editor said in response that the US didn’t value press freedom. [50] The US government, as noted by William Blum, habitually supports “Israeli belligerence and torture,” condemning Arab resistance toward it while a different standard applies to “Israeli terrorism.” [51] Such action by the US government is only one of the many that are supportive of Israel. Since the first time the US used its permanent veto power in 1970, the US has vetoed at least 30 resolutions which either concern the “Palestinian question,” problems in the “occupied territories,” or try to hold Israel accountable for their war crimes. This pattern has continued, as the State Department spokesperson recently declared it was the “only one” defending Israel when the UN Human Rights Council voted to investigate Israeli war crimes in the recent invasion of Gaza, in a manner possibly similar to the Goldstone Report.

The support of Israel by the US government didn’t just lead to billions of dollars and smiles. Rather, it led to blowback, which means reactions to “clandestine operations carried out by the U.S. government” to overthrow foreign regimes, execute certain people or helping to launch “state terrorist operations” against target populations. [52] In simpler terms, it means that “a nation reaps what it sows,” and for the US it is connected to “unintended consequences of American policies and acts.” [53] US support of Israel led to a horrible consequence: fundamentalist terrorist acts. Osama Bin Laden, the former leader of Al-Qaeda, said, less than a month after the 9/11 attacks, that one of his reasons for hating the US, other than US sanctions against Iraq and stationing of U.S. troops along with US bases in Saudi Arabia, was “American policies toward Israel and the occupied territories.” [54] After the 9/11 attacks, Bin Laden told journalist Robert Frisk that he was not only infuriated by U.S. troops being stationed in Saudi Arabia but also US “policies regarding Israel and Iraq.” [55] It is important to remember that Bin Laden was on the side of the US until 1990 and 1991 because of a change in U.S. policy.

A book by an anonymous senior U.S. intelligence official titled Imperial Hubris: Why the West is Losing the War on Terror, provides important insights on the depths on how Bin Laden’s thinking on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was influenced by anger over US policy. As argued in Imperial Hubris, that “Washington’s maintenance of a policy status quo toward the Muslim world” and basically a constant green light “for Israel’s action against Palestinians would have resulted in more young men volunteering for jihad” even if Bin Laden never existed or if Iraq had never been invaded. [56] After all, young Palestinian suicide bombers “who are willing to sacrifice their lives” are seen as heroes who are engaging in a “just military response” to Israel’s occupation of Palestine and the “relegation of three generations of Palestinians to refugee camps.” [57] As the U.S. government stands along with Israel to “free it from obeying UN resolutions and nonproliferation treaties,” it also helps Israel “develop and deploy weapons of mass destruction.” [58] The response by Al-Qaeda to such actions was to describe the “U.S.-Israel relationship as a detriment to America.” [59] Following in the footsteps of Hamas, Islamist organizations and others, Bin Laden declared, along with other Al Qaeda leaders, that he desired a terrorist “attack inside Israel” and through this process Al Qaeda played a role in “internationalizing the issue” of the Israeli-Palestinian war. [60] There is something deeper. Based on the issues that are at the core of Bin Laden’s foreign policy, Imperial Hubris claims that the “status quo U.S. policy toward Israel will result in an unending war with Islam.” [61] While such a claim is an over-exaggeration and misconstruing of facts, it is clear that if U.S. foreign policy toward Israel is perceived that way then it must be changed to be beneficial to Palestinians, not policy that has a murderous intent.

The current tragedy in occupied Palestine

Currently the “brutalization of the Palestinians by Israeli occupation forces,” as Chris Hedges calls it, continues. [62] As UN Security Council Resolution 478 states, the Fourth Geneva Convention applies to “Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem,” and that Israel is “the occupying power.” Such an occupation is simply a manifestation of what Hedges calls “Israel’s brutal apartheid regime.” [63] Israel is a country that: the U.S. used to transfer Stinger missiles to the Afghani mujahedeen, which later merged with other groups to form the Taliban; voted against the establishment of the International Criminal Court; and has a nuclear weapons program which is bound to cause problems. [64] Israel is also one of the world’s biggest purchasers of US weapons, is a nuclear weapons nation, and was encouraged by the U.S. to construct uranium weapons. [65] Horrifyingly, Israel has used “uranium armor plated tanks and uranium weapons against the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza.” [66] Likely, the health effects of using such weapons are bad, if not worse than the U.S.’s use of depleted uranium in Iraq. Such actions, among other brutalities, are why Israel’s actions, like those of any aggressive power or terror group, seem to fall under the definition of terrorism outlined by Black’s Law Dictionary: “the use or threat of violence to intimidate or cause panic; esp. as a means of affecting political conduct.” [67]

The wars and brutality against Palestinians and other marginalized groups is connected to something bigger: the Israeli war economy. Kevin Phillips, in his history of wealth in America titled Wealth and Democracy, briefly covers the subject. Phillips writes that by 2000, high technology “accounted for 40 percent of Israeli exports,” leading to what Shali Tshuva, then supervising “government studies of the technology sector,” then called “two economies in the same country,” the old and the new. [68] For Israel, the newer economy “largely left out Arabs and Orthodox Jews” who were “two large, poor minorities.” [69] What was this “new economy” anyway? Naomi Klein dedicates eighteen pages to it in her bestseller, The Shock Doctrine. She writes that the Israeli economy is “resilient in the face of major political shocks” and that it “expands markedly in direct response to escalating violence.” [70] The foundation for a new Israeli economy which is “based on the promise of continual war and deepening disasters” were laid in the 1990s as Israel’s government believed a peace agreement with the Palestinians would allow the country to be “the Middle East’s trade hub” since Israel’s neighbors “would have to lift their boycotts.” [71] While this did not happen, Israel’s economy became very tech-dependent while a small elite including “corrupt elite around Arafat” benefited from the economy. [72] However, the makeup of the economy soon changed. In 2002, the state of Israel faced a recession. In response, the government intervened with a “10.7 percent increase in military spending,” funded by slashing spending on social services, which also resulted in the Israeli military serving a role almost as a “business incubator.” [73] In the years after 9/11 the Israeli state had already embraced “a national economic vision” replacing the dot-com bubble with a “homeland security bubble,” uniting the hawkish Likud Party, and an embrace of “Chicago style economics” which was embodied by current Prime Minister and then-finance minister for Ariel Sharon, Benjamin Netanyahu. [74] By 2004, the Israeli economy was “performing better than almost any Western economy” with the country positioning itself “as a kind of shopping mall for homeland security technologies” which brought law enforcement, corporate CEOs, public officials and others from around the world. [75] Conclusions about Israel’s economy go further. A prominent Israeli investment banker, Len Rosen, was quoted in Fortune magazine as saying that “security matters more than peace,” which is connected to the saving of Israel’s economy by the “war on terror industry” and the reframing of the conflict with Palestinians as part of the war on terror, not about “specific goals for land and rights.” [76] Furthermore, the gap between the rich and poor has expanded. By 2007, over 24 percent of Israelis were living “below the poverty line” and 35.2 percent of Israeli children were “in poverty—compared with 8 percent twenty years earlier” all while a “small sector of Israelis” has benefited from the boom. [77] There is one result of this new economy which is even scarier. The “Israeli industry no longer has a reason to fear war” and at the same time, the Palestinian economy is in trouble, with high poverty. [78] As some have said, Israel has an economy hijacked by military and security interests. Klein concludes in writing that Israel has “turned itself into a fortified gated community, surrounded by blocked-out people living in permanently excluded red zones,” with a few  “profiting from the endless and unwinnable war on terror” and a society losing their “economic incentive for peace.” [79]

As Genevan philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau wrote in Chapter 4 of On Social Contract, “the state of war cannot arise from simple personal relations, but only from proprietary relations.” For the Israeli government, this applies to conflicts with Palestinians in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. Some, such as Nafeez Ahmed and retired Lt.-Gen. Moshe Yaalon, have argued that Israel’s war in Gaza is driven by a goal to gain control of natural gas. Even if this is exaggerated, it is true that Israel’s war economy is dependent on the conflict with Palestine. Just as Anti-Flag sings in Anatomy of the Enemy, Israel has formed the idea of a brutal enemy (Hamas, Hizballah, etc…) and suppressed dissent, as they recently did when police harassed those protesting against the invasion of Gaza inside Israel (also see here) and killed some in the West Bank. There is an incentive to continue militaristic policies as long as there is some real or constructed enemy to fight but once the enemy is gone, the justification for increased military spending and security measures cannot be completely justified, and can be easily questioned. At such a point, the state of fear and terror present in Israel, which makes many support the government’s policies, would be more open to scorn as the basis of fear and terror would be gone. Lest us forget that Israel helped create Hamas, which former Israeli official Avner Cohen called an “enormous, stupid mistake” and said, “Hamas, to my great regret, is Israel’s creation.” Glenn Kessler wrote in the Washington Post, that in the 1980s, the Israeli government wanted to weaken the PLO so they promoted “the rise of Islamic parties as a counterweight, on the theory that Islamic groups would not have the same nationalistic impulses” which eventually “fueled the rise of Hamas as a political force.” American sociologist Immanuel Wallerstein added to this that support for Hamas goes back even farther than the 1980s, with Israel giving “financial aid to the Palestinian branch of the Muslim Brotherhood, known as Hamas” in the 1970s in order to “weaken the strength of the PLO among Palestinians,” but eventually Hamas “became an even more vehement and effective opponent of the Israeli state than…the PLO.”

What can be done?

The current violence seems to be never-ending. Israel continues its wars of aggression and violent militants fire rockets and use suicide bombs. But, there is something that can be done other than twiddling your thumbs all day. This section will focus on solutions to stemming the current violence, many which are moderate in nature but will help in some way or another.

Recently, there has been a push even by adamant pro-Israel supporters to end U.S. aid to Israel. A recent poll by Rasmussen shows that the US public supports taking away U.S. aid for both sides (Israel and Palestine) in an effort to bring peace. In his 2001 book, Stupid White Men, liberal billionaire and filmmaker Michael Moore, before he had begun to virulently and blindly favor the Democratic Party, wrote a bit about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Using words I doubt he would use today, he said that he didn’t want “apartheid being funded in my name,” and made four propositions: Congress informing Israelis that “it has thirty days to end the bloodshed perpetrated in…our name” or aid is cut off; making Israel work with Palestinians to create a Palestinian state; the US giving Palestine double what it gives Israel; and the UN committing to defend Israelis and Palestinians. [80] Moore goes on to recommend a general strike and civil disobedience, in an almost joke letter to Yasser Arafat, as strategies to combat Israeli aggression. The path of nonviolent resistance, which is rarely, if ever, covered in the Western media, is already being taken by many Palestinians, with recent protests in the West Bank and even inside Israel. The movie Five Broken Cameras focuses on such acts of nonviolent resistance in a town in the West Bank.

Moore is not the only one that proposes that U.S. aid to Israel be cut, among other measures. Melvin Goodman, a national security insider, engages in moderate criticism of militarism in his book, National Insecurity: The Cost of American Militarism. Goodman writes that “the United States gives assistance to numerous countries that do not need it or do not deserve it because of serious human rights violations,” pointing out Israel as one such country, saying that it gets “military assistance, although it has military superiority in the region,” which he argues doesn’t contribute to “regional stability in the Middle East or Europe.” [81] He later brings up the topic again, writing that the U.S. government has been “constantly and deliberately embarrassed by the Israeli government,” despite the huge amount of US economic and military aid to the government, which often times “announcements of settlement expansion to do the most harm to U.S. interests in the region.” [82]

Beyond cutting U.S. aid to Israel and using money given to Israel as leverage, there is another solution: Jewish groups critiquing Israel and putting forward “less violent, more democratic ways forward.” [83] It is important to remember that to be a Jewish person you do not have to support Israel and by extension not all Jewish people support Israel. Back in the 1970s, between 1973 and 1978, a group of American Jews, called Breira, worked to “create a democratic space that allowed serious debate about the fate of Israelis and Palestinians beyond the narrow consensus of mainstream American Jewish leadership” and they were “viciously attacked and mercilessly crushed” with people falsely calling them heretics or traitors. [84] In the present, numerous Jewish publications, in Cornel West’s view, are “slowly beginning to turn against mainstream Jewish imperial identity,” recognizing that the “Israeli colonial occupation of Palestinians and deference to American imperial strategic interests produce neither security for Israel nor justice for Palestinians.” [85] Such groups stand against what West calls the “major groups of the Jewish lobby,” which could more accurately called the Israeli imperial lobby, including AIPAC and the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations. At the present, there have not only been efforts by groups such as Jewish Voice for Peace but also an effort by Israeli reservists to not fight in the recent invasion of Gaza.

There are many measures that can be taken to counter and stop Israel’s oppressive policies and military aggression driven by a war economy. The UNRWA has advocated for two measures: ending the “crippling blockade” of Gaza and demolishing the West Bank wall, which some call the “apartheid wall.” [86] It is clear that there is a bipartisan consensus on giving Israel weapons of war, shown by $351 million to expand the Iron Dome system and Congressional resolutions blaming Hamas, with Israel taking no blame, for the current invasion. There is hope yet. While a recent Gallup poll shows slim majority support for Israel’s invasion of Gaza among Americans, there are growing numbers of Democrats, Independents, and Republicans who do not feel the invasion is justified. Additionally, according to a CNN/ORC poll, 38% of Americans “have an unfavorable opinion of Israel, up 14 percentage points from February.” The pro-Israeli propaganda and views which dominate the mainstream media and “national conversation” are being chipped away. The BDS (Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions) movement, although controversial among people across the political spectrum, is going a good job at helping advance consciousness of Israeli crimes, outlining the brutality of the occupation, highlighting what companies are profiting off the occupation, and so on. These efforts, which rabid pro-Israeli supporters are desperately trying to suppress, are helping to change US opinion on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and are a helpful way to express solidarity with struggling Palestinians. In the end, there is much that can be done and what happens next is up to you.


[1] Zinn, H. (2002) Terrorism and War (p. 26). New York: Seven Stories Press.

[2] Yergin, D. (1992). The Prize: The Epic Quest for Oil, Money & Power (p. 61). New York: Simon & Schuster.

[3] Ibid, 396

[4] Ibid.

[5] Zinn, H. A People’s History of the United States: 1492-Present (Fifth ed., p. 414). New York: HarperCollins.

[6] The Prize, 425.

[7] Ibid.

[8] Ibid, 425-6.

[9] Ibid, 426. Former Secretary of Defense Clark Clifford, in his account of the US recognition of Israel, quotes then-Undersecretary of State Robert Lovett as saying that “it would be highly injurious to the United Nations to announce the recognition of the Jewish state even before it had come into existence…such a move would be injurious to the prestige of the President. It is obviously designed to win the Jewish vote, but in my opinion it would lose more votes than it would gain.” Other historians have written that even if the policy of endorsing Israel was “an attempt to win Jewish votes, it failed” since he “squeaked through in the 1948 election” and that President Truman’s advisers seemingly exaggerated “the importance of the “Jewish vote” for the next presidential election,” convincing Truman that all Jewish voters supported a new Jewish state in Palestine.

[10] Ibid.

[11] Ibid.

[12] Robinson, F. (2009). The Cambridge Illustrated History of the Islamic World (Reprint, p. 105-6). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

[13] Ibid, 106.

[14] Barraclough, G. (1982). The Times Concise Atlas of World History (p. 141). London: Times Books Limited.

[15] Cambridge, 141.

[16] Sardar, Z. and Davies, M.W. (2002) Why Do People Hate America? (p. 36-7). New York: The Disinformation Company.

[17] Kober, A. (2009). Israel’s Wars of Attrition: Attrition Challenges to Democratic States (p. 55). New York: Routledge.

[18] Eilam, U. (2011). Eilam’s Arc: How Israel Became a Military Technology Powerhouse (p. 27). Eastbourne: Sussex Academic Press.

[19] Ganin, Z. (2005). An Uneasy Relationship: American Jewish Leadership And Israel, 1948–1957 (p. 191). Syracuse University Press; Shlaim, A. (1999). The Iron Wall (p. 91). Norton; and Morris, B. (1993). Israel’s Border Wars, 1949–1956: Arab Infiltration, Israeli Retaliation and the Countdown to the Suez War (p. 258-9). Oxford University Press.

[20] The Prize, 554.

[21] Chomsky, N. (2001). Propaganda and the Public Mind: Conversations with Noam Chomsky, pp. 45. Cambridge: South End Press.

[22] The Prize, 554.

[23] Ibid, 555.

[24] Ibid, 555-8.

[25] Propaganda and the Public Mind, pp. 196-7.

[26] The Prize, 606-7.

[27] Ibid, 607.

[28] Ibid, 602-3.

[29] Ibid, 663-5.

[30] Ibid, 607.

[31] Ibid, 608-9.

[32] Cambridge, 113.

[33] Ibid, 113-9.

[34] Ibid, 119.

[35] Hedges, C. (2010). Death of the Liberal Class (p. 148). New York: Nation Books.

[36] Ibid.

[37] Ibid, 149-156.

[38] Why Do People Hate America?, pp. 5-6.

[39] Ibid, pp. 47-8.

[40] Ibid, pp 51.

[41] Chomsky, N (2007). What We Say Goes: Conversations on U.S. power in a changing world (p. 126). New York: Metropolitan Books.

[42] Ibid, 127.

[43] Ibid, 128-9.

[44] Ibid, 129.

[45] Ibid, 134, 136-7.

[46] West, C. (2004). Democracy Matters: Winning the Fight Against Imperialism (p. 116). New York: Penguin Books.

[47] Ibid.

[48] Ibid, 117.

[49] Ibid, 118-9.

[50] Why Do People Hate America?, p. 203.

[51] Blum, W. (2000). Rogue State: A Guide to the World’s Only Superpower (p. 30). Monroe: Common Courage Press.

[52] Johnson, C. (2004). Blowback: The Costs and Consequences of American Empire (Second ed., p. xi). New York: Henry Holt & Company.

[53] Ibid.

[54] Ibid, 3.

[55] Terrorism and War, p. 13.

[56] Imperial Hubris: Why the West is Losing the War on Terror (p. 134).Washington, D.C.: Brassley’s Inc.

[57] Ibid, 135.

[58] Ibid, 227.

[59] Ibid.

[60] Ibid, 229-30.

[61] Ibid, 257.

[62] Hedges, C. (2010) Empire of Illusion: The End of Literacy and the Triumph of Spectacle (p. 142). New York: Nation Books.

[63] Death of the Liberal Class, pp. 28.

[64] Blowback, pp. 13, 66, 123.

[65] Caldicott, H. (2002). The New Nuclear Danger: George W. Bush’s military-industrial-complex (p. xxxi, 44, 157). New York: New Press.

[66] Ibid, 158.

[67] Garner, B. A. (2006). Black’s Law Dictionary (Third Pocket Ed., p. 713). St. Paul: Thomson West.

[68] Phillips, K. (2002) Wealth and Democracy: A Political History of the American Rich (p. 269). New York: Broadway Books.

[69] Ibid.

[70] Klein, N. (2007). The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism (p. 541-2). New York: Picador.

[71] Ibid, 542-3.

[72] Ibid, 547-8, 550.

[73] Ibid, 550.

[74] Ibid.

[75] Ibid, 551.

[76] Ibid, 552, 555.

[77] Ibid, 556.

[78] Ibid, 557.

[79] Ibid, 558.

[80] Moore, M. (2001) Stupid White Men … and other Sorry Excuses for the State of the Nation! (p. 179-181). New York: HarperCollins.

[81] Goodman, M. (2013). National Insecurity: The Cost of American Militarism (p. 349). San Francisco: Open Media Series. Goodman is arguing here that military assistance to Israel doesn’t contribute to regional stability.

[82] Ibid, 381.

[83] Democracy Matters, pp. 121.

[84] Ibid, 120-1.

[85] Ibid, 121-2.

[86] See tweets by UNRWA here, here, here and here.

Why I oppose ENDA

29 Jul

An example of the rhetoric of those opposing exemptions to ENDA

This has been reposted from ZBlogs.

There has been a recent ruse over ENDA, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act. As Katie McDonough noted in Salon, after the recent Hobby Lobby decision “progressive and LGBTQ groups one-by-one withdrew their support from the measure” including groups like the “National Gay and Lesbian Task Force [NGLTF], the Transgender Law Center and the American Civil Liberties Union.” What was their reason for not supporting the bill? The measure’s “gaping exemptions for religious organizations” specifically, making the bill, in their view, worthless. At worst, some said that this exemption locked in discrimination for millions as argued by groups like the Center for Inquiry in their statement withdrawing support of ENDA. Even 100 religious leaders sent a letter to President Obama telling him to remove a religious exemption from an ENDA-like executive order (Obama has since signed the executive order). On the religious exemption in ENDA alone, one of my friends, who is trans*, told me that she did not want to participate in lobbying for the law, after I had sent her an article about groups dropping their support since I thought she’d be interested in the subject.

One group remained a strong supporter of ENDA: the Human Rights Campaign or HRC, the biggest Gay Inc. organ, with Fred Sainz, as noted in the liberal gay publication The Advocate, saying that they support ENDA “because it will provide essential workplace protections to millions of LGBT people.”Other groups such as Freedom to Work and the National Center for Transgender Equality still support the bill, as do weird allies: Republican backers like the gay conservative group Log Cabin Republicans and the American Unity Fund. Even gay conservative Andrew Sullivan, who has some reservations about the law, supports it. In contrast, Matt Barber, who has previously claimed that homosexuals openly ridicule Christianity and engaged in fearmongering by falsely claiming that a House bill on HIV/AIDs prevention paid for gender-reassignment surgery, absurdly claimed that ENDA was “the crown jewel of homofascism” and that left-leaning groups were mad since it did not “outlaw” Christianity.

It is strange that the religious exemption in the law is being brought up as an issue now. Back in April of last year, if not earlier, the ACLU, the National Center for Lesbian Rights, and others criticized the law’s religious exemption but they did not withdraw their support for the bill. If the Hobby Lobby decision had never happened, it is a likely that these groups would still be supporting the bill, despite their ‘reservations.’ Lest us forget that even though the Democratic Party theoretically supports ENDA, but they “have allowed it to languish on paper for a decade without ever hitting the floor of Congress,” as noted by Sherry Wolf in CounterPunch. More importantly, as Wolf noted in the same article, then-President Bill Clinton “held a closed-door meeting in 1997 with advocates of ENDA” which she said had “been chiseled away at to include notable exemptions for small businesses, the armed forces and religious organizations.”

In my critique of ENDA, in an article I wrote for Dissident Voice last November, I said I was uneasy with a section that showed that the law applied “to a great majority of the workforce, but only to a sliver of the overall businesses.” I further noted that volunteers are not covered by the law, that “those fired for gender ID or sexual orientation before the act is enacted will not benefit from the legal repercussions of the law” and a section of the law I still find utterly chilling, since it “allows employers to continue (or begin) to set ‘dress or grooming standards’ of employees.” In this article, I also went through all of the corporate sponsors of the bill, most of whom were part of the so-called “Business Coalition for Workplace Fairness,” ranging from Intel to Microsoft to Chevron, showing that the corporate sector believes that the lesbians and gays (mainly) constitute a new “marketplace to sell goods and services.” I concluded the article saying that ENDA reinforces “the capitalistic status quo by not challenging corporate power or the power elite in any serious way” and I warned that the “the corporate sector is going full-speed ahead” as they try to rapidly turn the whole community of gender, sexual and radical diversity “into a market so they can get millions of dollars in profits.” Looking back, my argument was a moderate one which didn’t even oppose ENDA, but I still agree with most of what I wrote, other than the multiple uses of the term GSRM, which I’ve since learned is not a positive term.

Most supporters of the law do not realize the obvious reality that surrounds the law itself. The business community wants to tap a new market, while using it boost their profits with policies of ‘diversity’ and ‘inclusiveness’ that follow the law’s enactment and subsequent implementation. Still, the law itself, as I noted in the previous paragraph, has deep problems. People like Robyn Pennacchia of Death and Taxes magazine say that ENDA should be passed because it is “geared towards protecting the rights of American citizens” but not with any of the religious exemptions, because it is an “exercise in futility.” Even if there was no religious exemption in the law, there would still be the section allowing “an employer from requiring an employee, during the employee’s hours at work, to adhere to reasonable dress or grooming standards,” or another defining one’s sexual orientation as “homosexuality, heterosexuality, or bisexuality,” rather than using an open definition like that of the American Psychological Association. A pro-ENDA article, in Gay Star News, interestingly enough, notes that the law “bars significant remedies available under the Civil Rights Act in cases of race or sex discrimination” and doesn’t allow LGBT plaintiffs to “file disparate impact claims seeking to show that an employer’s policy has disproportionately negative consequences on [their] community.” Any sort of program that mimics affirmative action for gays, lesbians, trans* people, bisexuals and others, is also not required under the law which declares that

“nothing…shall be construed or interpreted to require or permit…any covered entity to grant preferential treatment to any individual or to any group because of the actual or perceived sexual orientation or gender identity…[or] the adoption or implementation by a covered entity of a quota on the basis of actual or perceived sexual orientation or gender identity.”

Georgetown University law student Noah Baron brought this up in an article published last month in the Huffington Post, and went even further. He argued that the law was awful before the Hobby Lobby decision, noting that it “prohibits both public and private employers from making use of most affirmative action programs” but only when it is “applied to LGBT people” and it “may roll back significant progress made in protecting transgender Americans from employment discrimination.” Baron later called ENDA “a token, but ultimately simply another reminder that LGBT persons are regarded as less-that,” while noting that the Title VII protection that has been won by transgender people could be lost with ENDA’s passing. In the final sentence of his article, he remarked that ENDA “would achieve” something that is deeply disconcerting: the “enshrining into federal law anti-LGBT bias as an officially more-acceptable form of bigotry.”

There is something disturbing that is getting little coverage: how restrictions put in place by President George W. Bush which allow “faith-based hiring” would not be affected by the law or by Obama’s executive order. Additionally, the law basically institutionalizes discrimination not only through the religious exemption, but it also does so through “dress and grooming standards” which infringes on the freedom of expression of individuals especially those such as trans* or queer people, who are not as accepted by society than others, could be forced to groom or dress a certain way that would be harmful to their well-being. Why are groups not putting up a fuss about that? Why just this religious exemption? And why now?

There is another deeper problem with ENDA, which could easily be called the Ensuring National Discrimination Act. It could be an example of how efforts to make “social injury” illegal “powerfully legitimizes law and the state as appropriate protectors against injury and casts injured individuals as needing such protection by such protectors,” as argued by political theorist and political science professor at the University of California at Berkeley, Wendy Brown, in the introduction to her book, States of Injury (see page 27). If applied to ENDA, the “injured individuals” would be people who are lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans*, queer, etc… and the mechanisms of enforcing the anti-discrimination measures would be the legitimization of the state. In the instance of ENDA, it is hard to apply this idea completely since the law has many exemptions and leaves out the power of the state in many instances, giving individuals more leeway at times.

Some folks in the vast community of gender, sexual and radical diversity will be angry and enraged at this article, saying that there must be non-discrimination measures that protect their community. I agree that such measures can be useful and can help. Stopping discrimination of people of any sexual orientation, color or creed is a laudable goal. However, ENDA as it currently stands, is a bill that institutionalizes discrimination, even without the religious exemption, whether supporters of the law will admit it or not. The nature of ENDA and the corporate support behind it, which is connected to an exploitation of ‘new’ market of ‘wanting’ consumers, is why I cannot lend my support to this legislation. There are a number of questions you could ask of the legislation (What will the law do about homelessness and poverty? What will it do to address the harassment of trans* individuals by police? What will it do to stop the criminalization of young trans* and queer people?) and the answer is always: NOTHING. In the end, it is best to remember what Linda Zerilli, a professor at the University of Chicago, writes in her book, Feminism and the Abyss of Freedom (page 122), something that supporters and their allies pushing ENDA often forget, but should not be forgotten: “rights are not things to be distributed from above, but a demand for something more made from below.”


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,378 other followers