Hi Marty,
I just heard the piece on NPR about your Pledge of Allegiance efforts. Good for you and your group! You need some support, with all the nasty things people say to you. You are correct that their response makes your case for you. If you object to a loyalty oath and you get responses like that, the loyalty oath is objectionable. Moreover, if something deserves loyalty, you don't need a pledge to enforce it or reinforce it. Loyalty comes from your heart.
Thanks for standing up,
/Steve
Monday, September 19, 2011
Saturday, August 27, 2011
Monday, August 08, 2011
Sunday, August 07, 2011
Wednesday, July 27, 2011
Saturday, July 23, 2011
Wednesday, July 20, 2011
Wednesday, July 06, 2011
14 Propaganda Techniques Fox "News" Uses to Brainwash Americans | Truthout
Hi Rob,
This one caught my eye because we've talked about Fox news in our family before:
http://www.truth-out.org/14-propaganda-techniques-fox-news-uses-brainwash-americans/1309612678
I did not, however, scan much past the opening two or three paragraphs. The author has no sense of the history of American journalism. From the start – 1776 and before – we have had propaganda, innuendo, lies, appalling or laughable attacks, subjective analysis, distortion, defamation, and all manner of vicious material in our democratic journalism. That’s what you get with free speech. We’ve had good and bad journalism in our national conversation forever. The difference now, with the internet and digital communication in general, is that we have much more of each – good and bad. Citizens always had to sort out truth and falsehood in the nation’s collective consciousness. The job may be harder now because the quantity is greater, but for me it’s feels like the opposite. The more bad journalism I’m exposed to, the easier it becomes to recognize it.
I know we’ve differed on the general question of citizens’ abilities in this area, but I figured I’d make my contrarian case anyway!
Love,
Dad
This one caught my eye because we've talked about Fox news in our family before:
http://www.truth-out.org/14-propaganda-techniques-fox-news-uses-brainwash-americans/1309612678
I did not, however, scan much past the opening two or three paragraphs. The author has no sense of the history of American journalism. From the start – 1776 and before – we have had propaganda, innuendo, lies, appalling or laughable attacks, subjective analysis, distortion, defamation, and all manner of vicious material in our democratic journalism. That’s what you get with free speech. We’ve had good and bad journalism in our national conversation forever. The difference now, with the internet and digital communication in general, is that we have much more of each – good and bad. Citizens always had to sort out truth and falsehood in the nation’s collective consciousness. The job may be harder now because the quantity is greater, but for me it’s feels like the opposite. The more bad journalism I’m exposed to, the easier it becomes to recognize it.
I know we’ve differed on the general question of citizens’ abilities in this area, but I figured I’d make my contrarian case anyway!
Love,
Dad
Tuesday, July 05, 2011
Michele Bachmann’s ‘Constitutional Conservatism': The Hidden Meaning | The New Republic
Michele Bachmann’s ‘Constitutional Conservatism': The Hidden Meaning | The New Republic:
"Bachmann’s own intimate connections to the more radical strains of conservative thinking, which long predate the Tea Party movement, are there for anyone to see. And there is only so much mileage she can gain from her so-far successful efforts to exceed the expectations of those who had the vague but erroneous impression that her extremist tendencies are the product of stupidity or indiscipline."
"Bachmann’s own intimate connections to the more radical strains of conservative thinking, which long predate the Tea Party movement, are there for anyone to see. And there is only so much mileage she can gain from her so-far successful efforts to exceed the expectations of those who had the vague but erroneous impression that her extremist tendencies are the product of stupidity or indiscipline."
Tuesday, June 28, 2011
Sunday, June 05, 2011
Tuesday, May 31, 2011
Tuesday, May 03, 2011
Glenn Greenwald - Salon.com
Glenn Greenwald - Salon.com: "It's been a long time since Americans felt this good and strong about themselves -- nothing like putting bullets in someone's skull and dumping their corpse into an ocean to rejuvenate that can-do American sense of optimism."
Thursday, March 24, 2011
Wednesday, March 23, 2011
Thursday, February 17, 2011
Power and Struggle
Amazon.com: Power and Struggle (Politics of Nonviolent Action, Part 1): Gene Sharp
As a military officer I studied and implemented violence for twenty-six years. Thanks to the movie "Friendly Persuasion" and my introduction to Quakers, I began to wonder if there wasn't a better way. That eventually brought me to Gene Sharp's book.
The first volume is rather short and summarizes. It is well worth the read. The second volume is rather dull from a reading standpoint but very necessary. Probably only an academe or tactician could really get enthused about it. The third volume is a good read. I found it very informative and useful.
Before reading this book, my answer to peaceniks would have been that the only true peace was that of the battlefield -- when everything is quiet and dead. I imaged nonviolence as capitulation. Now I see it as conflict by other means: a means of struggle requiring high courage, strict discipline, and thoughtful strategy.
I believe that two conditions are required for nonviolence to succeed: 1) there must be sufficient information flow between the populations of the nonviolent group and the aggressor group, and 2) some proportion of the aggressor group must be able to identify with members of the nonviolent group. If news of the struggle never circulates, bureaucracy can structure violence to continue indefinitely; if the aggressors see others as less than animals, the violence will also continue without end.
In violent struggle at least 50% of the participants lose. Sometimes the costs are so high that everybody loses. In nonviolent struggle, at most 50% of the participants lose and often not so severely. Sometimes both sides seem to come out ahead.
Emotionally, I'm still very much in touch with the hubris of violence. Intellectually, nonviolence offers strategies and approaches not otherwise available. Both those who extol nonviolence and those who denigrate it as folly should read this book. Otherwise, I think they speak from the most desperate ignorance.
As a military officer I studied and implemented violence for twenty-six years. Thanks to the movie "Friendly Persuasion" and my introduction to Quakers, I began to wonder if there wasn't a better way. That eventually brought me to Gene Sharp's book.
The first volume is rather short and summarizes. It is well worth the read. The second volume is rather dull from a reading standpoint but very necessary. Probably only an academe or tactician could really get enthused about it. The third volume is a good read. I found it very informative and useful.
Before reading this book, my answer to peaceniks would have been that the only true peace was that of the battlefield -- when everything is quiet and dead. I imaged nonviolence as capitulation. Now I see it as conflict by other means: a means of struggle requiring high courage, strict discipline, and thoughtful strategy.
I believe that two conditions are required for nonviolence to succeed: 1) there must be sufficient information flow between the populations of the nonviolent group and the aggressor group, and 2) some proportion of the aggressor group must be able to identify with members of the nonviolent group. If news of the struggle never circulates, bureaucracy can structure violence to continue indefinitely; if the aggressors see others as less than animals, the violence will also continue without end.
In violent struggle at least 50% of the participants lose. Sometimes the costs are so high that everybody loses. In nonviolent struggle, at most 50% of the participants lose and often not so severely. Sometimes both sides seem to come out ahead.
Emotionally, I'm still very much in touch with the hubris of violence. Intellectually, nonviolence offers strategies and approaches not otherwise available. Both those who extol nonviolence and those who denigrate it as folly should read this book. Otherwise, I think they speak from the most desperate ignorance.
Wednesday, February 16, 2011
Tuesday, February 15, 2011
Monday, February 14, 2011
Saturday, February 05, 2011
Sunday, January 30, 2011
Friday, January 28, 2011
Friday, January 21, 2011
Sunday, January 09, 2011
Sheriff Dupnik's criticism of political 'vitriol' resonates with public
Sheriff Dupnik&'s criticism of political vitriol resonates with public
Sheriff Dupnik calls Arizona's policy toward immigrants political fornickaboobery.
Sheriff Dupnik calls Arizona's policy toward immigrants political fornickaboobery.
Saturday, January 08, 2011
Monday, January 03, 2011
Saturday, January 01, 2011
Tuesday, December 28, 2010
Monday, December 27, 2010
Wednesday, December 08, 2010
Correspondence with Rob Related to Julian Assange
Here is some correspondence between Rob and me on December 7, 2010, the day Julian Assange was arrested in London. As always with email threads, the earliest message is at the bottom and the latest message is at the top:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Hi Rob,
I’m going to challenge you on that one! The Bill of Rights doesn’t make any distinctions about people or groups in the First Amendment. The right of free speech applies to everyone, not just the press, without qualification. The only settled qualifications applied since the Bill of Rights are those related to crowded theaters. The courts have tried to stay away from decisions about what counts as privileged information under national security. Yet I think the legal case against Assange has to turn on national security, not on whether he enjoys special privileges as a journalist.
As we saw with the Times reporter in the Valerie Plame case, Judith Miller, if a prosecutor wants to put a journalist in jail to force disclosure of sources, he will do it. Being a journalist doesn’t give you special immunity from coercion, according to the prosecutor or the courts. The Wikileaks case is different, of course, as Wikileaks’ source is not in question. We know from long history and from the last few days that if the government wants to shut you up in a national security case, it can and will.
I know of course that constitutional lawyers have a lot to say about these issues, but I’m going to stay in my role as dismayed and indignant citizen. I truly hope that Palin and the patriotic crowd do not carry the day here. Palin and others throw around the word treason in connection with a case that turns on rights of free speech. And I write in the middle of the work day to keep from becoming angry and depressed.
Love,
Dad
P. S. Thanks again for being such a good audience, interlocutor, and commentator. It has helped me a lot.
/S. G.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The Assange vs. New York Times distinction will probably come down to one of old media versus new media. Whether bloggers can avail themselves of the same freedom of the press protections that established newspapers can is an open and I think difficult question.
Also, I think El Pais is is a Spanish newspaper. I hadn't heard of it before the last week or so either.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Hi Rob,
Thanks for your note. I didn’t do research to nail down the list of publications that have an agreement with Wikileaks. I assumed that the Post, like the Times, had early access to the cables, since the Post published analysis of the cables shortly after Wikileaks published them. The list you give below sounds right, though I hadn’t heard of El Pais before. Is that in Paris?
I called Assange a journalist in my message to you, and changed that to website owner in the version I posted. However you see Assange’s role, you state the case correctly: if it’s unconstitutional to prosecute the New York Times under the Espionage Act, it’s unconstitutional to prosecute Wikileaks or Wikileaks’ founder, and for the same reasons.
/Dad
P. S. The only standing the government has for prosecution is the case against Bradley Manning. He is held in solitary confinement, with no visits even from his parents. The government has already denied him his right to a speedy trial. We can expect that when he is granted a military trial, it will be largely secret.
/S. G.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dad -
I was at an event today regarding data mining (the Constitution Project put it on to release its new report on the subject), and WikiLeaks briefly came up. It was not the subject of the panel, and is only tangentially related since data mining touches on issues of government openness and transparency. One of the panelists there was a guy by the name of Jim Harper who works at the Cato Institute. He described his position as not so much pro-WikiLeaks as anti-anti-WikiLeaks. I thought it was a good way of staking out some middle ground where you have some reservations about the whole situation, but hate the scapegoat that he has become.
Two quick comments about the substance of your email... I want to point out, again, that I don't think the Washington Post was one of the sources used for Wikileaks. I could be wrong, but I think the list was Le Monde, Der Spiegel, El Pais, The Guardian, and the New York Times. In fact, I believe that the New York Times was not even directly a source, but has an agreement with The Guardian whereby they share the information. Which brings me to my second point.
On the way back from the event I mentioned, WikiLeaks came up again, specifically that Assange was up a creek. I asked your question - why is it that Assange might be charged under the Espionage Act, but no one was talking about the Time culpability (or, for that matter, the other newspapers, though obviously there are jurisdictional issues there). Someone answered a newspaper has never been charged under the Espionage Act. Moreover, that the Times was aware of this issue, and took the position that the Espionage Act, if applied to journalists, would be unconstitutional. Your argument would probably be that Assange and WikiLeaks is operating as a journalistic group and therefore if it's unconstitutional with respect to the Times, then it's unconstitutional with respect to him... and I'm sure he'll make that argument. But, I thought I'd relay the points outlined from my cab ride.
Another point - I guess there's some uncertainty about whether our extradition treaty with Sweden covers Espionage Act violations. I hope that if Assange is ultimately prosecuted in the US that someone good steps up to the plate to defend him and makes these First Amendment arguments. It will be interesting to see how they play out.
Love,
Rob
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 12:58 PM, Steven Greffenius wrote:
Hi,
Britain arrested Assange today. They are holding him without bail.
Feinstein is a chicken in her argument. She advocates prosecution of Assange under the Espionage Act, but says nothing about prosecuting the New York Times or the Washington Post under the same law, which makes it a felony
Another interesting point comes up when you consider the language of the Espionage Act, which Feinstein wants us to do. All government officials – in the military, in the intelligence agencies, and in the administration itself – who planned torture, set up and maintained torture sites, transported people to those sites, prepared prisoners for torture, carried out torture, disposed the bodies of people who died from torture, arranged for torture with other governments, documented torture, transmitted and stored information about torture: every person who did that is guilty under the language of the law. They all possessed “information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation.” That’s exactly why the people engaged in torture wanted to keep the information secret. It was obviously harmful to the United States – much more harmful than the information in the State Department cables.
That’s why I wrote about this question in that brief post (http://sgreffenius.wordpress.com/2010/12/01/treason-betrayal-and-revolution/) about treason and betrayal. Treason isn’t committed by people outside of government who reveal things the government deems dangerous to its own security. Treason is committed by people inside government who betray the people they serve. No person who tries to replace the people guilty of that betrayal can be called a traitor.
/Steve
P. S. Note one more item, this one from Jon Stewart’s clip on Palin’s tweets: Assange isn’t even a United States citizen! By claiming a right to prosecute Assange, Feinstein claims a right to prosecute anyone in the world who possesses information we say is dangerous to the United States. Think about what that means.
It means we can hunt, capture, imprison, interrogate, prosecute, and sentence anyone in the world who we consider an enemy. I guess one shouldn’t be dismayed. We’ve already been doing that for nearly ten years. Now that Assange is under arrest, Feinstein would like to extend the hunt to a vulnerable journalist. Let’s see who’s next.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703989004575653280626335258.html?mod=WSJ_newsreel_opinion
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Hi Rob,
I’m going to challenge you on that one! The Bill of Rights doesn’t make any distinctions about people or groups in the First Amendment. The right of free speech applies to everyone, not just the press, without qualification. The only settled qualifications applied since the Bill of Rights are those related to crowded theaters. The courts have tried to stay away from decisions about what counts as privileged information under national security. Yet I think the legal case against Assange has to turn on national security, not on whether he enjoys special privileges as a journalist.
As we saw with the Times reporter in the Valerie Plame case, Judith Miller, if a prosecutor wants to put a journalist in jail to force disclosure of sources, he will do it. Being a journalist doesn’t give you special immunity from coercion, according to the prosecutor or the courts. The Wikileaks case is different, of course, as Wikileaks’ source is not in question. We know from long history and from the last few days that if the government wants to shut you up in a national security case, it can and will.
I know of course that constitutional lawyers have a lot to say about these issues, but I’m going to stay in my role as dismayed and indignant citizen. I truly hope that Palin and the patriotic crowd do not carry the day here. Palin and others throw around the word treason in connection with a case that turns on rights of free speech. And I write in the middle of the work day to keep from becoming angry and depressed.
Love,
Dad
P. S. Thanks again for being such a good audience, interlocutor, and commentator. It has helped me a lot.
/S. G.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The Assange vs. New York Times distinction will probably come down to one of old media versus new media. Whether bloggers can avail themselves of the same freedom of the press protections that established newspapers can is an open and I think difficult question.
Also, I think El Pais is is a Spanish newspaper. I hadn't heard of it before the last week or so either.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Hi Rob,
Thanks for your note. I didn’t do research to nail down the list of publications that have an agreement with Wikileaks. I assumed that the Post, like the Times, had early access to the cables, since the Post published analysis of the cables shortly after Wikileaks published them. The list you give below sounds right, though I hadn’t heard of El Pais before. Is that in Paris?
I called Assange a journalist in my message to you, and changed that to website owner in the version I posted. However you see Assange’s role, you state the case correctly: if it’s unconstitutional to prosecute the New York Times under the Espionage Act, it’s unconstitutional to prosecute Wikileaks or Wikileaks’ founder, and for the same reasons.
/Dad
P. S. The only standing the government has for prosecution is the case against Bradley Manning. He is held in solitary confinement, with no visits even from his parents. The government has already denied him his right to a speedy trial. We can expect that when he is granted a military trial, it will be largely secret.
/S. G.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dad -
I was at an event today regarding data mining (the Constitution Project put it on to release its new report on the subject), and WikiLeaks briefly came up. It was not the subject of the panel, and is only tangentially related since data mining touches on issues of government openness and transparency. One of the panelists there was a guy by the name of Jim Harper who works at the Cato Institute. He described his position as not so much pro-WikiLeaks as anti-anti-WikiLeaks. I thought it was a good way of staking out some middle ground where you have some reservations about the whole situation, but hate the scapegoat that he has become.
Two quick comments about the substance of your email... I want to point out, again, that I don't think the Washington Post was one of the sources used for Wikileaks. I could be wrong, but I think the list was Le Monde, Der Spiegel, El Pais, The Guardian, and the New York Times. In fact, I believe that the New York Times was not even directly a source, but has an agreement with The Guardian whereby they share the information. Which brings me to my second point.
On the way back from the event I mentioned, WikiLeaks came up again, specifically that Assange was up a creek. I asked your question - why is it that Assange might be charged under the Espionage Act, but no one was talking about the Time culpability (or, for that matter, the other newspapers, though obviously there are jurisdictional issues there). Someone answered a newspaper has never been charged under the Espionage Act. Moreover, that the Times was aware of this issue, and took the position that the Espionage Act, if applied to journalists, would be unconstitutional. Your argument would probably be that Assange and WikiLeaks is operating as a journalistic group and therefore if it's unconstitutional with respect to the Times, then it's unconstitutional with respect to him... and I'm sure he'll make that argument. But, I thought I'd relay the points outlined from my cab ride.
Another point - I guess there's some uncertainty about whether our extradition treaty with Sweden covers Espionage Act violations. I hope that if Assange is ultimately prosecuted in the US that someone good steps up to the plate to defend him and makes these First Amendment arguments. It will be interesting to see how they play out.
Love,
Rob
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 12:58 PM, Steven Greffenius wrote:
Hi,
Britain arrested Assange today. They are holding him without bail.
Feinstein is a chicken in her argument. She advocates prosecution of Assange under the Espionage Act, but says nothing about prosecuting the New York Times or the Washington Post under the same law, which makes it a felony
…to possess or transmit "information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation."She’s chicken because she knows prosecution of the Times and the Post would raise free speech issues the prosecutors could not overcome. So you go after an unsympathetic individual without resources to make an example of him. That way you intimidate others and make sure like-minded people don’t follow his path. Anyone who believes Assange broke the law has to believe the Times and the Post broke the law as well.
Another interesting point comes up when you consider the language of the Espionage Act, which Feinstein wants us to do. All government officials – in the military, in the intelligence agencies, and in the administration itself – who planned torture, set up and maintained torture sites, transported people to those sites, prepared prisoners for torture, carried out torture, disposed the bodies of people who died from torture, arranged for torture with other governments, documented torture, transmitted and stored information about torture: every person who did that is guilty under the language of the law. They all possessed “information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation.” That’s exactly why the people engaged in torture wanted to keep the information secret. It was obviously harmful to the United States – much more harmful than the information in the State Department cables.
That’s why I wrote about this question in that brief post (http://sgreffenius.wordpress.com/2010/12/01/treason-betrayal-and-revolution/) about treason and betrayal. Treason isn’t committed by people outside of government who reveal things the government deems dangerous to its own security. Treason is committed by people inside government who betray the people they serve. No person who tries to replace the people guilty of that betrayal can be called a traitor.
/Steve
P. S. Note one more item, this one from Jon Stewart’s clip on Palin’s tweets: Assange isn’t even a United States citizen! By claiming a right to prosecute Assange, Feinstein claims a right to prosecute anyone in the world who possesses information we say is dangerous to the United States. Think about what that means.
It means we can hunt, capture, imprison, interrogate, prosecute, and sentence anyone in the world who we consider an enemy. I guess one shouldn’t be dismayed. We’ve already been doing that for nearly ten years. Now that Assange is under arrest, Feinstein would like to extend the hunt to a vulnerable journalist. Let’s see who’s next.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703989004575653280626335258.html?mod=WSJ_newsreel_opinion
