I know what we can do. It doesn't sound like much, but this is what we can do:
We can use the blackout as an opportunity to encourage the workers on the cleanup sites and send our thanks, either literally or energetically, for their hard work. We can put our energy toward the successful cleanup and healing of the oceans.
We can petition the federal government to reinstate a moratorium on off shore drilling, and explore alternatives to oil. We can buy less stuff, we can drive less often, or carpool.
We can pray. In our time prayers are belittled, like they're cheap. They're not. The universe listens.
Life as we know it has come to an end in the Gulf of Mexico.
A whole fleet of Chevron workers surrounded documentary filmmaker James Fox as he entered a corner store in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. "They're watching me, but they're not interacting with me at all."
"They will even arrest, I was told, off camera, if they are caught talking to a reporter, they are going to jail," Fox told Veritas internet radio show:
CNN has been told by the National Guard to stop filming Animal Response Teams, even though they had been given permission to film by the National Fish and Wildlife Service. Rescue workers have been told they will be fired if they speak to the media:
"Why the silence?" This is probably an attempt to keep people from knowing and therefore speaking out. This is ridiculous! What can we do?
I am so damn sick of hearing about the oil disaster. Really, I am. It's not that I don't care - it's that there isn't really anything any of us can do. Oil will continue to spill out until relief wells are drilled sometime a few months down the road - the pressure must be released before you can stop the leak.
There is one interesting story connected to the gulf that I'm not sick of seeing - the news blackout. That the Federal government has seen fit to kowtow to BP (gee, the US government doing the bidding of a large corporation rather than the will of the people? Shocking, I know), and violate the first amendment of the US constitution, by preventing journalists from getting good shots of the destruction.
The interesting part, for me anyway, is not the current blackout - it's the continued trampling of our constitutional rights.
Amendment 1: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. (emphasis mine)
The "archaic" meaning of abridge (in other words, the word as meant by the writers of the Bill of Rights and Constitution as that is archaic English) is, according the Merriam-Webster dictionary, "to reduce in scope: diminish" (It is fitting that the example of usage displayed is: "attempts to abridge the right of free speech")
Now, this is not a law of congress that allows for a press blackout - it's a decision made outside of any law. That means that our leaders are, directly, violating the very foundation of our laws.
Not new. Not new at all. Hell, you need to get a permit to peaceably assemble (ie to protest. You have to apply for, and pay for a permit to protest - and you can be denied on any grounds - it's entirely up to the city you want to protest in). That sounds like one hell of an abridgment to me.
Now, one could argue for a sort of loophole, seeing as it wasn't Congress that made these laws requiring a permit to protest, but cities and states. However, the Congress, composed of the US Senate and the House of Representatives, has the authority to make laws that effect the entire country (assuming they are constitutionally sound - or, more recently, considering the USA PATRIOT ACT, if they were made after TERRORISTS attacked US [oh noes! scary terrorists! Let's abandon the founding principles of the republic or the terrorists will win!]). Congress does not have the authority to make a law which abridges, in any way, the right to free speech (we will leave to the side cases involving pornography, which the supreme court has said is not protected by the 1st amendment - which is odd, because the 1st amendment makes no exception for expression of depravity).
But anyway, all needlessly complicated paragraphs aside (parenthesis within parenthesis are never a good thing, sorry about that), it is not within the authority of any governing body, City, County, State, or Federal, to make a law which abridges the first amendment - which logically includes any law that requires the use of a permit, as that is an abridgment, a limitation, of said rights. The only way to abridge first amendment rights would require a new constitutional amendment, amending the 1st amendment to something like: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or limiting the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Except cities can demand that people pay them for the right to protest government policy, and the white house can ban the press from taking pictures of bummer stories like massive oil spills or the flag-draped coffins of dead American soldiers - that's OK (only said in overly complicated legalese, as modern laws are written).
So. We have decades-old abridgment of constitutional principles. Big deal, right? We are still allowed to complain, and display discontent in regards to company policies.
Yeah. Big deal. Did you see this last year?
What broadcasted from the sound cannon before the high pitched squeal (cut out of this video - but it is so loud that it can easily damage hearing within seconds)? "By order of the city of Pittsburgh chief (of) police, I hereby declare this to be an unlawful assembly. I order all those assembled to immediately disperse. You must leave the immediate vicinity. If you remain in this immediate vicinity, you will be in violation of the Pennsylvania crimes code..." Blah blah, face arrest and other police action, blah blah.
The Pennsylvania crimes code is in violation of the first amendment. No state law may supersede the constitution (it may supersede Federal law, according to the 10th amendment - of course, if the Federal raids of California's medical marijuana growers are any indication, the 10th amendment is about as valuable as the 1st).
Any crime code that allows for police to arrest people without evidence or probable cause or them having committed a crime (being at a protest is not a crime - being at a protest where some others within the protest may have smashed a shop window is also not a crime) is unconstitutional. It's very simple - an open and shut case.
Our government has been ignoring the parts of the constitution that are supposed to guarantee our rights. This has been going on for years - it wasn't new to the Bush administration (and it certainly hasn't disappeared under Obama). It dates back to the Vietnam era in this country - when the national guard was called down upon protesters - and it's only been getting slowly worse since then. (The national guard wasn't called down because of violence used by protesters, I'll have you know - they were called down because the protests had such strength that they were shutting down public buildings. That's a threat to the establishment, and don't call me conspiratorial - power clings to power, it always has, it always will)
THAT... is what I still find interesting about the situation on the gulf. The continued trampling of our rights.
FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE, WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON. THE PERSON'S IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373(c). Arizona SB1070 Article 8, section B, emphasis mine.
I wonder if anyone else would find this funny. Tea Party attendees typically rant about government interference, calling any form of government interference by it's most extreme forms: Fascism, communism, etc. I'm generalizing here, but it seems true - I'll remind you that I have actually attended a tea party.
What's the tea party response to Arizona's new "Show me your papers" law? Oh, they're all for it. (note: the Arizona tea party has declared that they support it. The rest of the tea parties across the country either support it or are silent on it, and none oppose)
A law that assumes that you are guilty of being a noncitizen if you can't produce your birth certificate or Social Security Card (or some other proof of residency that most people don't carry with them - especially now in the time of identity theft). A law that gives police not only the right but the mandate to stop ANYONE they have contact with and demand papers and arrest them if they do not happen to have papers on them.
I wonder, sometimes, if they know anything about Nazi Germany at all. Allow me to remind you: Checkpoints. Papers. Arbitrary arrests. Fear. A society rapidly shifting from open to closed. This should all feel very familiar.
This legislation bears all of the hallmarks of police state authoritarianism. And white people shouldn't feel safe either. Maybe if the Arizona government develops some reason to fear you, whitey, maybe they'll assume that you're an illegal canadian. Papers, please.
It's spreading, too. Legislation is being introduced to bring the same authoritarianism to Utah. FUN!
Have you ever been in an internal border patrol checkpoint? Oh, I have! And I was pulled over and profiled, despite the fact that I'm very white.
It was Texas. Near El Paso. And I looked rather like a hippy at the time (long, wild curly hair). I got pulled from the car. I got screamed at. "WHERE ARE THE DRUGS?" They asked (Answer: Not on me). Detained. Handcuffed. No evidence of any wrongdoing, and especially no evidence of me NOT being a citizen. I was released after about 45 minutes of them searching the car.
Can you understand why I'm opposed to this sort of legislation? Anything that gives a government agency new and sweeping authority to detain anyone they desire is directly in conflict with our liberty.
I don't really give a shit what your views on immigration are, this sort of law is in opposition to liberty.
You want to stop immigration? Well how about bringing the troops home from Iraq, every last one of them, and putting them in the Southwest desert, patrolling the border?
And all you legal immigrants out there? Leave your fucking papers at home. They can't arrest all of you.
Are you sick of your preferred beverages being co-opted by political movements? Tea has been taken by the far right. Coffee by the moderate left.
Does this piss anyone else off? I don't want to think about how so many people don't know what fascism is (and how it differs from socialism) when drinking a cup of oolong tea, dammit! I don't want to think about opening respectful lines of communication with government representatives no matter what I think of their policies when I'm drinking my morning coffee either (coffee time is sacred to me - it's between me and the coffee and the morning sun)
I do not want to have a mental association with a political movement of any kind when I drink a goddamn beverage!
Hence, the Beer Party Movement.
What are the politics of the beer party movement?
Leave that shit at the door. The beer party movement is about enjoying the evening, since the preferred morning beverages have been co-opted by political ideologies.
I believe that beer is neutral. Left, Right, Statist, Libertarian, beer is for everyone. Beer is about the moment. Enjoy it. Live in it. Let's tell some jokes, let's bitch about our jobs (or lack of jobs), let's leave the politics to be discussed another time. Beer is neutral. Let's keep it that way.
Forget your opinions of the Tea Parties for a minute. You should know I'm not the biggest fan of what is essentially the GOP with a megaphone. Yes, ironic, I know - that people are screaming against fascism while working with the most obvious fascists in the Right-wing establishment. I want to make a point here, and the idiocy of the average teabagger (their chosen appellation being only the most obvious idiocy) is entirely irrelevant to the point.
CNN reported on a recent tea party rally in Searchlight, Nevada: “Hundreds of people, at least dozens of people – we haven’t gotten a count of how many people turned out there. We heard Sarah Palin talk about everything about the campaign, to unseat Sen. Reid to what she calls ObamaCare, on the heels of that health care vote and even talking about her definition of her love of America.”
Actual count was 9,000 people at a minimum. 14,000 at high end. CNN says: Dozens or maybe a few hundred.
Remember the Feb 15, 2003 anti-Iraq war rallies? The center of the 800+ city rally was in New York City. New York was chosen as the barometer for the success of the multi-city, multi-nation rally. CNN, FOX News, NPR all reported the turnout was well under 10,000 in New York City.
Accurate counts by protest organizers and NYPD put it at over 100,000. In just that city.
Do you see a correlation here? Any similarities?
The corporate media marginalizes popular movements. Even UNPOPULAR popular movements like the tea party. What does the Anti-Iraq War movement of 2003 have in common with the tea parties of 2009/2010?
Both stand in the way of corporate profits.
In 2003, there were reasons why major media outlets did not cover the protests with any accuracy at all. Anything with NBC affiliation had a direct conflict - NBC is owned by GE, which is among other things a military contractor. NPR receives substantial grants from the federal government. The Federal government wanted in the war (obviously - given that the federal government is largely owned by corporate interests, you can see why they would). FOX News had excellent reason to not run accurate coverage - they sell 2 things: fear and patriotism. The anti-Iraq war movement challenged the patriotic paradigm, while also telling us we had no reason to fear Iraq. Definite conflict of interest with Fox. And CNN's parent company gave 1.6 million dollars in campaign contributions to W's presidential run (which also explains their dismal lack of coverage of the 2000 election theft).
Now, how does the tea party movement stand in the way of corporate profits? Interesting question, since they love to spout off quotes from Ayn Rand books that they've probably never read, and talk about corporate capitalism as if it was endorsed by Jesus... It's a side-effect. We all know that FOX news is the GOP propaganda station. The biggest slice of fear that FOX has been dishing out for the last 2 years is that Obama is the socialist anti-christ Nazi babykiller communist muslim of doom. So anything he does is evil and wrong. And he's doing health care. So health care reform is evil and wrong (never you mind that the United States has the worst health care system in the developed world).
Health care reform was, of course, the first big push of the Obama administration. So, we know the rest - it's the worst thing ever, he'll kill grandma, blah blah blah. (NOTE: I'm not a fan of the health care legislation. For entirely different reasons from the teabaggers)
So the Teabaggers had their enemy: Whoever the republican leadership said was their enemy. Obama and health care are IT. And that is what they protest against.
Interesting... because the final health care bill is actually REALLY good for insurance. Big insurance companies will get MILLIONS of new clients because of the legal obligation to buy insurance. And those that can't afford it will get medicaid or a government subsidy to buy private insurance. It's a GIGANTIC HANDOUT.
Don't be fooled: Insurance companies LOVE this bill. It's exactly what they wanted. But the tea partiers are still raging against it, even though it's really good for their beloved corporate America (the same corporate America that has left them impoverished and working at Walmart).
But they still rage against it. The republicans are feeding the flames because they hope to ride the rage to electoral victory in November. Teabaggers are still fighting because they are pissed off. They're not even sure what they're pissed off at, but they are PISSED!
But back to my original point: They were marginalized by the same news media outlets (Except for FOX) that marginalized the 2003 protests. Because they stand in the way of the flow of millions of dollars.
Just an example of the way corporate media plays us. We are an ocean of peasants. They have a grand old time directing the ebb and flow.
The corporate media are like mercenary firms that deal in information and manipulation. Doesn't matter the cause, just the paycheck.
Stop thinking in terms of CNN, MSNBC, FOX. Start thinking in terms of Blackwater and ArmorGroup International. Stop thinking in terms of "is this a liberal or conservative media outlet" and start thinking in terms of "who's bankrolling this?"
The Iraq protesters - Marginalized. Teabaggers - Marginalized. The only points of view you hear are those of "industry experts" who are usually paid consultants from whatever industry they are supposed to be giving an unbiased analysis of. And then you get to hear the latest celebrity gossip.
Turn it off. Especially the crap that panders to you. Conservatives - turn off FOX. Liberals - for fuck's sake, TURN OFF NPR! You are not becoming informed. You are being distracted. Stop letting yourself and others be marginalized.
So yeah. A year since Obama took the office. How are things going? Let's count the change.
Gitmo - still open. Oh, and they're not actually releasing most of the prisoners (you know, those guys that they can't prosecute for lack of evidence). They're just moving them stateside
Iraq - still there (and still planning on keeping those massive military bases. Make no mistake, we are not leaving - there will be an enduring presence - remember, Obama has already broken his campaign promises for a rapid withdrawal... it just kept getting extended as he got closer to winning. Besides, this nation is not fond of tearing down military bases. We still have them in Japan and Germany)
Afghanistan - WORSE!
Pakistan - More drones!
Yemen - Yeah, we're waging an undeclared war against YEMEN now! This brought to you by the 2009 recipient of the Nobel prize for peace.
Health Care - What? No, no, no. You're confused. It's INSURANCE care now, because it will be illegal to NOT own insurance and there is no public option.
No lobbyists in the white house - BWAHAHAHAHAHA! Right. That one didn't hold up more than a WEEK, did it?
Transparency in the White house - *cough, cough* ...No.
I'm not saying he's the exact same as bush. He can speak. He has garnered more respect and cooperation internationally. But... on several key issues, this man has repeatedly NOT changed (or slightly altered for the worse) some of the most damning things about the former administration.
He INCREASED the pentagon's budget (already at world-conquest proportions)
He increased the Federal Reserves power for financial oversight (the federal reserve being one of the organizations that caused the financial crisis to begin with, through 'cheap money' aka VERY low interest rates)
He has not taken any steps to end unconstitutional practices sanctioned by the USA PATRIOT ACT. Warrantless Wiretapping, Anyone?
Now, granted - he may have saved the economy or at least slowed down it's death a bit. Unemployment has ebbed and his stimulus is, at the very least, partially responsible for that.
He Lifted the ban on embryonic stem cell research, which will potentially give us invaluable research that could eventually cure many diseases.
He passed his climate change bill... (but it's mostly Cap and Trade, so it's COMPLETELY FUCKING USELESS - it won't cut back on air pollution or carbon much if at all)
Oh, and we have the first Latina supreme court justice. And she seems pretty damn progressive.
Conclusion: Obama's not all bad, but... he's nowhere NEAR good enough to be what we need. He is, as I've often stated, Clinton pt II - and Clinton just wasn't that great of a president. Remember that 'better than' does not equal 'good'.
Posts
