Blow That Whistle!

Daniel Ellsberg is widely attributed with bringing about the end of the decades long Vietnam war and simultaneously bringing down a sitting president, the only president to resign from office in what was then just under 200 years of American history. A war that lasted 20 years, four US presidents, a war that killed countless souls in the millions, a war that continued through overwhelming unpopularity in an extremely war weary society. And a president of the United States, "the most powerful man in the world", and maybe more powerful than any president when you consider the excesses of power for he which he was to be impeached. In fact, Daniel Ellsberg was the target of that now infamous Watergate scandal, the scandal to affix all scandals. At the time Ellsberg was reportedly named by Nixon as "the most dangerous man in America" and Nixon was so insecure about this danger that he had his "plumbers" break into the office of Ellsberg's psychiatrist looking for information to use against him. How in the world could an average man, who is in no way physically intimidating or violently threatening, become the most dangerous man in America?

America has historically enjoyed the unofficial title of "the greatest military power in the world" since the end of WWII, and no other power in the world has seriously considered an invasion of our North American stronghold. And our propaganda also creates a fortress, a fortress of ideas, designed to keep out unwanted influences, as was the case with the long cold war campaign against communism. Both of these forces have historically worked hand in glove to perpetuate the military industrial complex and our seemingly endless chain of needless conflict that only succeeds in creating and sustaining a near universal hegemony, a global schoolyard bully. It almost defies logic and credulity to suggest that any one man has the power to stop such a powerful entity, whether a US president or the Pentagon and their many war contractors. With millions of Americans taking part in the anti-war campaign, many putting their lives and freedoms on the line in countless demonstrations and actions across the country, the one action that had the most impact was as simple as transferring some files. Well, it wasn't that simple, Ellsberg had to copy the several thousand documents known as the Pentagon papers the old fashioned way, one at a time.

But in our modern world of fast paced technological wizardry it's truly remarkable how much information can be leaked in the time it takes to illegally download the latest Lady Gaga release. And in fact, that's exactly what Bradley Manning (allegedly) did, sort of. If the allegations are true, Bradley Manning, a 23 year old analyst in the US Army, while stationed in Iraq in 2009 and 2010, with access to a confidential government internet network, passed over a half a million secret documents to a personal computer using a CD-RW from which he had erased Lady Gaga tracks to free up storage space. Some of these documents may have also been transferred through a wireless network to an un-secure location, but many of them passed completely under the radar as an ordinary compact disc. Though Bradley Manning has been held in military detention without trial for 18 months, he has been declared guilty by the commander in chief, and is widely recognized by supporters as the source of the leaked documents. Once again, a single, average, non-threatening, non-violent individual is the most dangerous man in America. And this time, to make for an irony rich story, he is an openly gay man who came out to his commanders during the legacy of 'Don't ask, Don't tell'.

Why is information so threatening to such powerful people and even the US government itself? If something as simple as a computer file can cause so much damage to the legitimacy and integrity of our government, it's no wonder we live in such a state of Homeland Insecurity. One of Bradley Mannings many charges is "aiding the enemy," but if blowing the whistle on the unconstitutional behavior of our government officials happens to aid the enemy, the true fault lies with those corrupt officials. And when you begin to look at the information leaked it becomes clear that there is an altogether different war going on along side the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, an information war. And in this war, information is the only weapon and the only shield, and our ignorance of this wars existence, in an information war, is the equivalent of not bearing arms. And when you don't know there's an information war going on, you don't even know  if you're in it, or which side you're on, you don't even know what information is being kept from you or why. You might assume the enemy is some evil bad guy over there somewhere, when in fact the enemy just might be you. In the Art of War, Sun Tzu wrote "It is said that  if you know your enemies and know yourself, you will not be imperiled in a hundred battles; if you do not know your enemies but do know yourself, you will win one and lose one; if you do not know your enemies nor yourself, you will be imperiled in every single battle."

Though I cannot know exactly who has declared this war, nor on whom they have declared it, I believe that Bradley Manning is a hero in this world wide information war and I declare myself on his side, the side of truth and transparency, the side that believes and practices the use of sunlight as the greatest disinfectant. I declare myself on the side of Wikileaks and it's founder Julian Assange who believes that all intelligence should be open source and 100% accessible to all. I am on the side of John F. Kennedy who declared his intention to scatter the CIA to the four winds and I will work towards the goal of ALL intelligence apparatus to be completely dismantled and all secret information to be revealed in full. Our intelligence model was taken from the Russian and Nazi models during WWII and those military enemies justified our dark and shadowy underworld of secrecy that has created a moral blind spot for our nation in which crimes greater than any overt war crime, have consistently occurred and continue into the foreseeable future with absolute impunity. When this information war is finally over, the CIA, DIA, NSA, and so many other organizations will be but a pile of ruin, and in that ruin we will finally have the pieces of the puzzle whose complete picture will ultimately disintegrate any semblance of validity for this criminal empire, of , by, and for the 1%.

The basic systems of Checks and Balances in our government is nothing but a corrupt back scratching circle without that original promise of transparency, informing we the people to do our part to check our government. It has been largely due to our intelligence apparatus as well as the corruption of the FBI that we are being intentionally kept in the dark, and this has created the environment in which whistle blowers have become the only true check on our highest officials. Without Daniel Ellsberg leaking the Pentagon Papers, how many more would have died in Vietnam? How much more damage would Nixon have gotten away with if he hadn't met up with this most dangerous adversary? Ultimately the Pentagon papers led to a new era of public skepticism about being led into wars on false information, an awareness that represents an unquantifiable victory for the people in this information war waged by our government. Bradley Manning is a hero to all of those who believe in transparency, who distrust power, who know their enemies all too well. Bradley Manning has done more for the greater good in his prison cell than Barack Obama has done, or will do, no matter how many more years we let him pretend to lead. 

And with the new National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 and it's section on indefinite military detention of US citizens, we are all becoming Bradley Manning, we are all in this prison without trial, without transparency, without liberty, justice, and the pursuit of happiness. Now is the time for an army of Bradley Mannings, an army of whistle blowers, we need a lot more people considered to be as dangerous as Ellsberg and Manning by those who violate their oath to uphold the constitution as Nixon and Obama have done. We need a lot more ammo for the epic battle ahead, but our ammo is info. And if we are to fight this battle, if we are to put our life, liberty, and happiness on the line, we will declare our enemy, we will make it known that truth is on our side, and the day will soon come when our enemies are named and forever placed on the wrong side of history as the enemies of democracy itself. Those in the intelligence communities who have done little or no wrong, we compel you to come forward with your piece of the puzzle. We cannot guarantee your safety or freedom, we cannot promise you riches or power, we can only give you what your soul itself will soon cry out for: forgiveness. There may be no object of value that can compare to the redemption of your very soul.

President Obama, if you are half the man that Bradley Manning is you will free him immediately and honor him as the hero that he is for keeping his oath to uphold the constitution, may I remind you that you also took that oath.

Consensual Democracy

The flower of democracy has been ever so slowly unfolding over the last two thousand years, give or take. But once in a great while there is a burst of progress, bringing us into the light of a new era of democracy that quickly renders the old methods quaint. There is currently such a movement underway to bring democracy to new heights, or should we say new lows? Perhaps the towering "heights" of representative democracy are at the crux of the problems we face, democracy actually improves in quality when it gets lower to the ground where the people can access it. In a representative government you cannot access real power at all except through those so called representatives, who may not be very accessible themselves. And their accessibility may vary from one class to another, one person one vote just isn't good enough to get an audience with a senator.

At the heart of the direct democracy movement, now taking place largely under the umbrella of the 99%/Occupy Wall St. movement, lies the consensus process. This process is not new but it is becoming widely recognized as a positive alternative to representative democracy. Even those who are still deeply invested in the representative system and strongly identify with specific parties or politicians realize that the consensus process is far more true to the spirit of democracy. One reason why some can still have "Hope" for "Change" in the representative system, yet still actively participate in a direct democracy system is the obvious dilemma we all face with party politics. When you vote for a person you don't get to pick and choose which parts of their agenda you vote for, you get the whole package for better or worse. And that would be frustrating enough if we could trust them to do what they say they will do once they are elected.

Direct democracy is our next step, and perhaps our only hope to practice a true democracy on this planet. But the transition from representative democracy will not be a smooth one and we should be prepared for a great deal of turbulence. We went from having a king, a ruler, a monarch, to having a billion dollar ego-fest every other year to choose professional politicians to "represent" 'we the people' in a very small and closed power circuit. Besides the complete waste of time and money the unfortunate effect is that we have commodified our political world and handed it over to "professionals" who only see the value of the dollar and who represent no ones interest but their own family's financial well being. Though we can vote during election seasons, once politicians take office money is the only thing that sways them. Those with property, wealth, and power are the ones whose interests are being served, representative democracy is for sale.

Direct democracy on the other hand is something shared between consenting adults, it is a deeply philosophical and spiritual practice for many and must be approached with the utmost respect and consideration for the group and the process. When people come together to find their common ground there is a great deal of trust and openness required to create the atmosphere of inclusion and cooperation that draws the group in and exposes the heart of the matter, and hopefully brings forth the point of consensus. Approaching the group, therefore is like approaching a timid lover, whose mutual will you are prepared to woo into being. For many, approaching a group with an issue or agenda item can be a frustrating affair, they may see the group in general as being unreasonable, or the process as impractical. And though the group may actually be willing to embrace the idea, they might prefer the power point equivalent of dinner and a movie.

One cannot blame the group for being timid and even a little frigid, after all we've been through with "representative democracy" many of us feel abused, violated, and dare I say it, raped. After all, what is the opposite of consent? Career politicians are like drunk frat boys who will say anything at all to get into our pants and then do just the opposite once they have taken their prize. Women of the world may have noticed that they have more leverage with their man and their politician when the "polls" are open, and this is why it's a good idea to get a solid commitment before you give up the goods. And this is exactly the kind of unequal democracy we have practiced for far too long, where the majority of us are seduced by a slick talking walking ego who has no respect for us in the morning. This political courting pageant we call election season leaves the bulk of us so confused and disoriented that we feel as though someone slipped something into our drink and now we're waking up in the back of a strange van wondering what happened to our underwear.

It's equally understandable why many people approach the consensus process with little regard for the feelings and reaction of the group. We have been born into and fed a pure diet of "representative democracy" our entire lives, we are immersed into this world of ego-maniacs trying to control the planet. And to give them the benefit of the doubt we should try to recognize that these people are like soldiers who have never made love to a woman, only paid for prostitutes. For some in the party system they may even be like prisoners who have only had prison sex and now must learn how to relate in a world of equals who don't dominate one another as a matter of course. Needless to say, prisoners and rape victims make some pretty strange bed fellows, but all hope is not lost if we recognize these subtle dynamics and respond to one another as consciously and considerately as possible. This may be one of my more crude analogies, but for those of us who have been screwed by "representative democracy" our whole lives, it's unfortunately one of my more accurate analogies.

If there is an idea whose time has come, I believe it is this: Democracy can only exist between consenting adults, anything else is a violation of democracy. What is true for love is true for democracy.

An Army of 1%

"I have my own army in the NYPD, which is the seventh biggest army in the world."
~Michael Bloomberg, New York City Mayor, 1%

As the birthplace of Occupy Wall Street, New York City has understandably been the focal point of the now world wide movement for change in our monetary/power structures. And the events that have unfolded there have become the general theme and narrative of the movements actual progress. To make things more interesting, the city's Chief Executive Officer (or CEO) is an actual member of the extremely exclusive 1%. Mayor Bloomberg proudly championed this group of over-privileged underdogs, because he simply has a soft spot for persecuted minorities, especially when they're all billionaires like him. And what a rich theme for this modern day fairy tale reminiscent of so many other historical clashes between the 'haves' and the 'have nots', it just wouldn't be much of a story without someone willing to play the villain and represent the haves, the 1%. And why should he care if he is destined to be on the wrong side of history, he's filthy stinking RICH! As long as there's a chance, he simply must thwart any change in his lifetime, so that his children and grandchildren can continue to burn up the planets resources to fuel the ongoing party called aristocracy, that's his role and he's only too happy to play the part.

Bloomberg was speaking at MIT in late November when he explained to the crowd why he didn't feel the need to run for president of the United States, he expressed his contentment with his humble position as mayor of New York City this way: "I have my own army in the NYPD, which is the seventh biggest army in the world. I have my own state department, much to Foggy Bottoms annoyance. We have the United Nations in New York, so we have an entree into the diplomatic world that Washington does not have." Why would he refer to a police force as an "Army?" Are there not significant differences between a civilian peace keeping force and a military army, or standing army? In fact, a standing army that occupies our towns and cities is specifically forbidden by the constitution of the United States. But Bloomberg was not mistaken, just remarkably candid with his audience in revealing a new reality that has taken hold in the dark shadows of our collective ignorance. The police are in fact now standing armies in direct violation of the constitution, and this has never been more clear than when they are employed to violently beat and arrest those who are practicing their first amendment rights to free speech.

In the days following September 11, 2001, many new laws and practices were enacted as a result of anti-terrorism legislation that led to greater involvement in our urban and rural police departments by both intelligence and military officials and personnel. And with all of the bold and brutal attacks on the Bill of Rights through the duration of the Bush years, no one ever seriously considered repealing the Posse Comitatus Act restricting Military Personnel from carrying out a law enforcement role inside the United States territories. And though the Bush administration was guilty of holding U.S. citizens in military detention without trial in violation of Habeas Corpus, they made no attempt to completely abolish this most sacred of unalienable rights. So now, strangely, ten years later, Al Qaeda scattered, Bin Laden assassinated, the Iraq war over and the Afghan war on a slow burner, virtually every "representative" on Capital Hill voted in favor of the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act, which does more to undermine our Bill of Rights and Constitution than ANYTHING that came out the of the Bush/Bin Laden era.

Perhaps Bush simply could not have gotten away with such a naked attack on the Constitution, though it's hard to believe they knew their limits. One thing is for sure, Obama has shown that most of his supporters are still so drunk on his first "Hope" and Change" campaign that they will let him get away with anything at all, even the obliteration of the Bill of Rights and Constitution. And Obama has shown that he has absolutely no respect at all for either of these documents or the people they are designed to protect. Though it is being widely reported that Obama has "promised to veto" this bill, his language and rationale are wholly incomplete and incompatible with constitutional law. Press Secretary James Carney relayed the presidents thoughts in this statement "Any Bill that challenges or constrains the presidents critical authorities to collect intelligence, incapacitate dangerous terrorists and protect the nation would prompt his senior advisers to recommend a veto." Shouldn't we be relying on the presidents understanding of constitutional law to protect our unalienable rights and the integrity of the constitution? Instead, we're relying on him to decide if he wants to give up any of the ill-gotten powers usurped by the previous administration, or he might decide that the small restrictions pertaining to military detention are worth the vast additional powers added to his imperial presidency.

So again, why now? Even if Obama can effectively saber rattle us into a war with Iran, the one the Neo-cons have been dreaming about for over a decade, there's never been a valid terrorism threat from Iran, and if we could link them to Al Qaeda it would have been done long ago. And though we have Fukushima and the BP oil spill fresh in our collective memory, not to mention the collapse of the economy by the hand of the bankers, few can even recall the most recent "terrorist attack" or even "terrorist threat" on American soil. There's something altogether new about this attack on our rights, or perhaps there's something missing from the narrative. If you believe Al Qaeda is still alive and well and ready to strike at any moment then perhaps you don't sense this strange void. Al Qaeda under Bin Laden was a classic "Boogey man" capable of justifying absolutely ridiculous over reactions by the Bush administration, and even then they also had Saddam Hussein to make sure we felt insecure enough to allow our rights to be almost completely dismantled before our eyes. But this thanksgiving session of congress seemed somehow transported back to September 11, 2001 when the world seemed chaotic and cruel, what could possibly have them feeling so insecure that they would sign away our rights to a trial by a jury of our peers?

Could it be that members of congress, many of whom are millionaires, are more afraid of the 99% than they ever were of Osama Bin Laden? Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, and many more wise souls have issued us countless warnings about "Bankers" and "Monied interests", and in the last century we have been repeatedly warned about the congressional/industrial military complex. Our forefathers raised an army without much help, but they borrowed a great deal of money to do so, mostly from France. They understood that any group with significant funds could raise an army to achieve any ends at all, for freedom or for tyranny, and they knew that this power in private hands was perhaps a fate worse than they could yet conceive. This is ultimately the design of fascism, in which the wealthy ally with and/or subordinate the military to sustain hegemonic control over collective resources, including labor. And though we have been born into our contemporary context and experience these baby steps towards tyranny as gradual and incremental motions, Jefferson, Lincoln, F.D.R. and Eisenhower would recognize our world instantly as that dark dystopia they persistently warned us about. It has never been more clear to the common citizen that our republic is gone, our democracy defunct, and our rights have all been twisted into freakish distortions of their original intent.

In the course of human events, it has become necessary that we the people dissolve the political bands which have connected us with one another, and assume among the powers of the Earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and natures' god entitle us, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind have required us to declare the causes which impel us to separate. We hold that our self evident, equal and unalienable rights of Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness have been undermined and chipped away at by governments who no longer seek the legitimate consent of the governed, but only of the wealthiest among us. We affirm the right of the people to alter and/or abolish the offending government, and institute a new government, laying its foundations on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to us seems most likely to effect our safety and happiness. Prudence indeed, has dictated that governments long established have not been changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly our experience has shown that mankind is more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right ourselves by abolishing the forms to which we are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object envinces a design to reduce us under the absolute despotism of Plutocracy, it is our right, it is our duty to throw off such government, and to provide new guards to our future security.

There may have been some plagiarism in that last paragraph but I am prepared to go to jail for either the infringement on intellectual property, or for the content of said property. Under the current National Defense Authorization Act almost every sentence in the Declaration of Independence is a crime that could have our forefathers rotting in Guantanamo Bay indefinitely without trial. For someone such as myself to suggest that our current government has become destructive of our unalienable rights, and that it is therefore our right, and further our duty, to abolish said government, is effectively my one way ticket to indefinite detention. Our forefathers understood that this new entity they were creating was not in itself a cause for unquestioning loyalty, that in fact it was just another legal fiction that could, and most likely would, be co-opted by the forces of aristocracy that have been as adaptive to new forms of government as the common cold is to our body's immune systems. As hard as they worked to make the constitution a design that could repel the forces of inequity, they knew that no design would be impervious and they made sure that we had the legal precedent of the Declaration of Independence giving us ultimate legitimacy to abolish our offending government, which they would not even recognize as the cause for which they pledged their "Lives," "Fortunes," and "Sacred Honor."

The 1% is behaving as if there were no longer a constitution, it's time we realized what they have known for a long time, our republic, our democracy, is already gone, abolished by the 1% in a corporate coup detat. It's the only logical explanation for the behavior of our government in the last 50+ years, believing the constitution is in tact and fully active only leaves us perplexed and bewildered when contemplating our recent history. But when you realize that we currently have a government of the 1%, by the 1%, and for the 1%, it makes perfect sense, like water flowing along the path of least resistance. By hierarchical design the military and the police are automatically working for the 1%, their orders come from so far up the chain of command they rarely even know who is calling the shots. Nor do they care, they are selected and trained to care little for justice and much for authority, and have rarely shown any solidarity at all with other workers, citizens, humans. There is no boogey man prompting this attack on our inalienable rights, there is only the 99% finally coming out into the streets to say that this game is over. We simply cannot continue to enrich the few at the cost of the many, and that is the only terror that the 1% truly fears, and they have always been prepared for this moment. But they have no intention of giving up the wealth of the world, they feel strongly that they "own" it and they will spend most of their riches to maintain their very own army. An army of 1%.