This is the scariest thing I’ve heard yet today.

…when told of the exact text of the First Amendment, more than one in three high school students said it goes “too far” in the rights it guarantees. Only half of the students said newspapers should be allowed to publish freely without government approval of stories.

But wait — there’s more! Seventy-five percent said that flag burning is illegal, and half of them claimed that the government could restrict “any indecent material on the Internet”. Perhaps even worse:

When asked whether people should be allowed to express unpopular views, 97 percent of teachers and 99 percent of school principals said yes. Only 83 percent of students did.

If you’re wondering what kind of sensationalist, radical, statistically-challenged institution is behind the survey, you’re probably wondering in the wrong direction. This was a survey sponsored by the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation, which seems to be completely legit. In any case, the whole report is here if you want more detail.

(via Warrenellis.com.)

 

Twelve distinguished retired Generals and Admirals have published an open letter [pdf] to the Senate Judiciary Committee, arguing against Gonzales’ nomination as Attorney General (well, coming as close to a stance as CYA-laden diplomacy does, at least).

Not too surprisingly, they express concerns over Gonzales’ position on the Geneva Convention, as well as the familiar “torture memo” issue. With regard to the Convention in general, they echo Colin Powell’s concern that:

…abandoning the Geneva Conventions would put our soldiers at greater risk, would “reverse over a century of U.S. policy and practice in supporting the Geneva Conventions,” and would “undermine the protections of the rule of law for our troops, both in this specific conflict [Afghanistan] and in general.” State Department adviser William H. Taft IV agreed that this decision “deprives our troops [in Afghanistan] of any claim to the protection of the Conventions in the event they are captured and weakens the protections afforded by the Conventions to our troops in future conflicts.” Mr. Gonzales’ recommendation also ran counter to the wisdom of former U.S. prisoners of war. As Senator John McCain has observed: “I am certain we all would have been a lot worse off if there had not been the Geneva Conventions around which an international consensus formed about some very basic standards of decency that should apply even amid the cruel excesses of war.”

It’s nice to see that tactics used to date have not completely quieted informed dissent.

(via truthout.)

 

Found via William Rivers Pitt’s Conyers Hearing blog, a “technical advisor and programmer” named Clint Curtis claims that, while working for Yang Enterprises, Inc. (YEI) in late 2000, he was present at a meeting in which Tom Feeney, a politician / lobbyist with close ties to the Bushes, requested “a prototype of a voting program that could alter the vote tabulation in an election and be undetectable”.

Not only has Mr. Curtis made this claim, he’s put it in an affidavit that is really worth a read. Seriously, it makes the plot of a Grisham story look somewhat dull.

General caveat: I’ve not had more than 10 minutes to spend on this, and I don’t have any idea how much or by whom any of this has been vetted.

BradBlog broke this first, and seems to have a lot of followup.

My tin-foil hat is buzzing.

 

Despite a narrowing Bush lead and an increasing series of legitimacy questions, the Ohio vote recount is expected to happen after the Ohio electors meet. Excuse me?

Meanwhile, Ukraine’s Supreme Court has taken the radical position that, umm, widespread evidence of fraud and other voting irregularities casts doubt on the outcome of a very close presidential race.

 

Riotpolice

As the Ukraine teeters on the brink of widespread “civil” conflict over disputed election results, the U.S. is urging the government to hold off certification of results until fraud and voting irregularity allegations have been investigated:

The White House said in a statement: “We strongly support efforts to review the conduct of the election and urge Ukrainian authorities not to certify results until investigations of organised fraud are resolved.”

At the same time, a federal judge has ruled that Ohio’s recount can wait until after result certification, at which point only 9 days will remain before electors meet.

Looking at the picture of flowers in riot shields, and hearing of 200,000 people in the streets of Kiev, I am reminded of relativepath’s recent introspection about identifying the “good guys” in Fallujah [my paraphrase]. There is little direct relation in terms of subject matter, but for the question:

What is your breaking point?  Are we past it?  What will it look like when it comes?

Ukraine. Ohio. Who is the beacon of democracy and freedom?

 

Paul Krugman was interviewed by Reuters yesterday, and provided a pretty gloomy assessment:

A deeper plunge in the already battered U.S. dollar is another possible route to crisis, the professor said.

The absence of any mention of currencies in a communique from the Group of 20 rich and emerging market countries this past weekend only reinforced investors’ perception that the United States, while saying it promotes a strong dollar, is willing to let its currency slide further.

“The break can come either from the Reserve Bank of China deciding it has enough dollars, thank you, or from private investors saying ‘I’m going to take a speculative bet on a dollar plunge,’ which then ends up being a self-fulfilling prophecy,” Krugman opined. “Both scenarios are pretty unnerving.”

In the longer-term, Bush’s version of social security reform, which Krugman says would relegate pensions for the elderly to the whims of volatile financial markets, could have wide-ranging implications for future generations.

But at least there’s an upside:

“I do believe at some point there is going to be a popular tidal wave against what has happened,” concluded Krugman. “In the meantime, you keep banging on the drum, you keep telling the truth.

“And then eventually we have the great demonstrations, which I think are important to let the government know that many Americans are not happy with what is happening,” he said.

This, the same week that the administration’s ideas for its second-term tax plan come out. The highlights: eliminate investment income taxes by removing the deduction for state and local taxes, and “scrapping the business tax deduction for employer-provided health insurance”. Unbelievable.

As MaxSpeak points out, the former amounts — coincidentally, I’m sure — to a tax on the blue states:

The income tax deduction chiefly benefits blue states. Texas and Florida, just to take two wildly random examples, have no state income tax. In the most recent tax legislation, a new tax cut was added for state sales taxes, ostensibly to put states with no income tax on the same footing as the others. Now that they are equalized in this way, the stage is set to remove both deductions simultaneously. What could be more fair?

The health insurance one leaves me somewhat speechless. Where was that during the domestic policy part of the debates? Salon [truthout has full text for non-subscribers] opines persuasively on the likely impact (hint: in 2008 Kerry or whomever will have an even bigger number of recently uninsured for the stump).

 

It’s been a busy few days for CIA news. First, Michael Scheuer (the author, as “Anonymous”, of Imperial Hubris: Why the West is Losing the War on Terror) resigned on Thursday.

On Friday, deputy director John McLaughlin resigned with a warning that “widespread resignations” were possible, inspired by agency management since the new CIA Director Porter Goss and team have started:

Several other senior clandestine service officers are threatening to leave, current and former agency officials said.

The disruption comes as the CIA is trying to stay abreast of a worldwide terrorist threat from al Qaeda, a growing insurgency in Iraq, the return of the Taliban in Afghanistan and congressional proposals to reorganize the intelligence agencies. The agency also has been criticized for not preventing the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks and not accurately assessing Saddam Hussein’s ability to produce weapons of mass destruction.

“It’s the worst roiling I’ve ever heard of,” said one former senior official with knowledge of the events. “There’s confusion throughout the ranks and an extraordinary loss of morale and incentive.”

Current and retired senior managers have criticized Goss, former chairman of the House intelligence committee, for not interacting with senior managers and for giving Murray too much authority over day-to-day operations. Murray was Goss’s chief of staff on the intelligence committee.

At the same time, the Deputy Director of Operations Stephen Kappes delivered his resignation, though was convinced by Goss and the White House to hold a final decision off until Monday morning.

Newsday (via DailyKos) connects the dots today: this is an intentional move ordered by the White House to purge the CIA of voices who have been critical of administration policies:

“The agency is being purged on instructions from the White House,” said a former senior CIA official who maintains close ties to both the agency and to the White House. “Goss was given instructions … to get rid of those soft leakers and liberal Democrats. The CIA is looked on by the White House as a hotbed of liberals and people who have been obstructing the president’s agenda.”

Politicizing intelligence in this manner can only enhance the echo chamber effect — that non-critical positive feedback loop that amounts to an institutional yes-man — which basically means it’s no longer adding value. That is not good — disturbing as the threats we face may be, we need now as much as (or more than) ever to perceive reality as clearly and accurately as possible, not to structurally guarantee that we only see pre-approved realities.

 

It seems to be getting hard to publicly point out that war is a horrible thing that kills people and generally sucks.

Today brought two terrifying data points. Note that neither is even about any of the particular wars in which we are currently involved, but rather the general idea of organized armed conflict.

First, 66 ABC affiliates decided not to show the film Saving Private Ryan, apparently due to concern that its graphic descriptions of WWII might incur large fines from the FCC in the post-we’ve-seen-Janet-Jackson’s-breast era. This despite the fact that it has been broadcast on ABC on two previous occasions. Is war only “decent” enough for TV when we’re not fighting any?

But wait — there’s more. ABC News via boingboing via backchannel relativepath (thanks!), the United States Secret Service investigated some Boulder, CO high school students simply for singing a forty year old folk song that questions if profit justifies war:

The students told ABC News affiliate KMGH-TV in Denver they are performing Bob Dylan’s song “Masters of War” during the Boulder High School Talent Exposé because they are Dylan fans. They said they want to express their views and show off their musical abilities.

This falls under the Secret Service’s bailiwick, we’re told, because apparently singing this song amounts to threatening the president’s life:

Threatening the president is a federal crime, so the Secret Service was called to the school to investigate.

Students in the band said they’re just singing the lyrics and not inciting anyone to do anything.

The 1963 song ends with the lyrics: “You might say that I’m young. You might say I’m unlearned, but there’s one thing I know, though I’m younger than you, even Jesus would never forgive what you do … And I hope that you die and your death’ll come soon. I will follow your casket in the pale afternoon. And I’ll watch while you’re lowered down to your deathbed. And I’ll stand o’er your grave ’til I’m sure that you’re dead.”

The first stanza of this song identifies those to whom the closing sentiment is addressed:

Come you masters of war
You that build all the guns
You that build the death planes
You that build the big bombs
You that hide behind walls
You that hide behind desks
I just want you to know
I can see through your masks

To confuse non-original song lyrics with the sort of threat that warrants Secret Service investigation is absurd and chilling. In fact, the Secret Service’s FAQ rather clearly and reasonably discusses the difference:

The Secret Service does not desire or solicit information pertaining to individuals or groups expressing legitimate criticism of, or political opposition to, the policies and decisions of the government of government officials. However, we are interested in legitimate information relating to threats, plans or attempts by individuals, groups or organizations to harm USSS protectees.

According to ABC News, the Secret Service got involved after a group of students and adults who heard a rehearsal called a radio talk show “saying the song the band sang ended with a call for President Bush to die”, and then someone called the Secret Service. I assume that the Secret Service takes all reported threats seriously, but then does do some degree of actual vetting before sending agents to investigate. The Secret Service actually spent time interviewing the students’ principal as well as a teacher involved in an unrelated student protest last weekend (whaa-?), so presumably someone decided that this was an actual threat. (Note that there is no hint anywhere that the evidence of “threat” goes in any respect beyond singing this song.)

We are so very far through the looking-glass. Even knowing that, what I find amazing is that the talk-show callers, whoever called the Secret Service, and apparently some decision maker all seem to have read the first stanza of this song to identify the sitting POTUS, but that doesn’t seem to bother any of them. One of the performers hits the nail on the head (again from ABC):

“It’s just Bob Dylan’s song. We were just singing Bob Dylan’s song … If you think it has to do with Bush that’s because you’re drawing your own conclusions. We never conveyed that Bush was the person we were talking about,” said Allysse Wojtanek-Watson, a singer for the band.

If you haven’t heard the song or read the lyrics lately, check it out. It’s one of those Dylan songs that send shivers down my spine, and on the “moral values” scale, it certainly surpasses fretting about love between people with similar genitalia.

It’s encouraging that these students are acting with such conscience and bravery, and it’s great that their principal supported them and the performance went off as planned. However, that small silver lining is dwarfed by the impact this sort of exercise of state power has on the broader discussion climate in our country. Boulder is, after all, a very progressive city, and this event sends a pretty strong signal to school administrators and others in less progressive places (like Richland County, WI, or 66 local ABC TV markets).

My hat is off to those fighting the good fight in Boulder, but I hold it over a heart that increasingly quivers for our country. We are not acting like a very good beacon of democracy and freedom at the moment.

 

If you haven’t yet read this week’s Savage Love, check it out. Well said, Dan.

 

SorryworldRegarding the events of last Tuesday, this site has over 600 (and counting, it seems) photo apologies from US citizens to the world: http://www.sorryeverybody.com/.

© 2021 layer8 Suffusion theme by Sayontan Sinha