Actress and lesbian Cynthia Nixon has caused a firestorm in the gayosphere by saying that for her, sexual orientation was a choice.

Obviously, this view undermines the arguments of gay political orthodoxy, and gives the right wingnuts who run “gay rehabilitation prayer camps” support that they were right all along–”See Harold, I told you he was just doing it to be ornery.”  Of course, the truth is  probably like most things: The truth is somewhere in between. It may be for her, but it isn’t for most gay people.

At any rate, this becomes pretty scary when coupled with another news item from the week, news that conservatives are conservative because they are stupid.

Low-intelligence adults tend to gravitate toward socially conservative ideologies, the study found.

And this isn’t some progressive spoof either, it’s a peer reviewed study based on longitudinal market research in the U.K. Now on first blush, you’d think this would bring a smile to our liberal faces. And it did. I admit it. (Although I started to send it to my conservative friends, but didn’t, since I thought it might be cruel. Probably not, since they don’t believe in science and statistics anyway.)

But the more you think about it, the bigger problem it is for us. Because if people are conservative because they’re stupid, then that’s a problem because one of our core tenets is: It’s off-limits to persecute people for things they have no control over like skin color, sexual orientation, intelligence, etc. I can see it now. At some Florida supermarket somewhere, a small boy is pointing to a seventy year-old woman wearing a halter top, hot pants and a Newt Gingrich button and his mom is saying, “Shhhhh! Don’t point, Alex. She’s a Republican, but she can’t help it.”  And this means that we have to stop mocking Rush and all right-wing positions on climate, gun control, taxes and the like, because they are too dumb to understand why their ideas are bad.

Just outside Chicago, one hospital is advertising its obesity clinic with billboards that say, “It’s a disease, not a decision.”

Romney-Santorum 2012. It’s a condition, not a choice.

by Marti Smith

“If all we feel is outrage, then we have not found a remedy.”- Jim Geringer, Governor, State of Wyoming, following Matthew Shepard’s death

Since I was a young girl and old enough to understand who I was, I have known discrimination. It hardens your heart and dampens your soul until you conquer the fear. Some don’t make it and commit suicide. To have the media, family, co-workers and friends tell jokes and make hurtful remarks is the life of a GLBT person. Unless you are a person of color, you likely don’t know what it is like to live a life of separation. As a GLBT person you are not allowed to do basic things like date, or attend the prom. You can’t hold hands or show affection in public for fear of retribution, or get relationship advice, or bring your boyfriend or girlfriend home to meet the parents. If you do, then you risk abandonment, ridicule, or even physical harm. There are churches who condemn us, and even reject us from attending. We are made to seem sub-human, and even demonic. You can’t experience the life you were born to live….freedom to choose, freedom to live, freedom to marry.

I had to leave a job I loved in my early career for fear of being found out. For the first half of my life I was closeted so I could keep my job. I lived in a small community that did not accept GLBT people as teachers, coaches or principals. After moving to Denver in the late ’80s, I sat in a hospital room with a gay friend (who was a terrific elementary teacher). He had been cornered by several young people who were trolling for a gay person to beat up. They beat him with a baseball bat and kicked him in the head until his eyes were so swollen he couldn’t see. For three days he was in a coma. I stayed with him until the swelling went down in his face and he wasn’t afraid someone would come back and kill him. He was a small man, and one of the kindest people I have ever known. His father was a Baptist preacher, and he was excommunicated from the family (with the exception of his sister). He thought moving to a bigger city would help.

The charge for nearly killing Mark was reduced to a misdemeanor. Those who beat him paid a $50 fine and were turned back out on the street to harm another day. Although animal abusers still don’t receive harsh enough punishments, you can get a lighter penalty for committing a hate crime against gays, even today. We are often treated as less than animals by those who are there to protect the innocent. That is the life we live, rather than the one God intended for us. For some of you, this is preaching to the choir. For others, I am glad you can’t relate. No one should have to understand it.

I once went shopping in a furniture store with an African-American (straight) male friend. He told me he was going to look at some cabinets on the other side of the room. He told me to pay attention to the store clerks. I followed his suggestion. They followed him everywhere he went and totally ignored me. It dawned on me in an instant. They subconsciously expected him to steal something. I tell you this story just to point out that discrimination has a lot of faces. It is doled out in jokes, behaviors and in other very scary ways. These are judgments…..very hurtful judgments that impact lives. My friend could not have put a cabinet in his pocket, and factually, Kevin is a terribly honest and trustworthy person. If I had children I would trust him to take care of them. He didn’t deserve that treatment, nor does any other person or group.

The truth of the matter….In the U.S., 75% of students have no state laws to protect them from harassment and discrimination in school based on their sexual orientation. In public high schools, 97% of students report regularly hearing homophobic remarks from their peers. Of the estimated 1.6 million homeless American youth, between 20% and 40% identify as LGBT. That is a huge number considering the overall percentage of GLBT people. One study revealed that 26% of gay teens who came out to their parents/guardians were told they must leave home; LGBT youth also leave home due to physical, sexual and emotional abuse. Also, LGBT youth report they are threatened, belittled and abused at shelters by staff as well as other residents. There are smaller numbers of GLBT people who are pedophiles by far than the straight population, and virtually none in the female lesbian ranks. (That is a statistical fact.)

Why are civil unions not enough for gay rights activists? The federal government accords 1,138 benefits and responsibilities based on marital status but not on civil union status. A few of those benefits are unpaid leave to care for an ill spouse, social security survivor benefits and spousal benefits, and the right not to testify against one’s spouse. The same man I told you about earlier (Mark) owned a home with his male partner. They had wills leaving everything to each other. My friend died of a brain tumor. His family sued for his half of the house and won. His partner was evicted and thrown out on the street until the home was sold…..by court order in Denver. If you are unlucky enough to find a GLBT hater judge, they have the power to punish the innocent. If someone you know thinks it can’t happen, it does.

More facts:

• There are already thousands of children living in gay couple households. The 2000 U. S. Census reports 33% of female same-sex couple households and 22% of male same-sex couple households already have at least one child under the age of 18 living at home.
• According to the American Psychological Association Policy Statement on Sexual Orientation, Parents, & Children, “there is no reliable evidence that homosexual orientation per se impairs psychological functioning. Second, beliefs that lesbian and gay adults are not fit parents have no empirical foundation.”
• The American Psychological Association states “research suggests that sexual identities (including gender identity, gender-role behavior, and sexual orientation) develop in much the same ways among children of lesbian mothers as they do among children of heterosexual parents.”
• There is no conclusive evidence that homosexuality is linked to one’s environment. In other words, growing up in a gay couple household will not “make” a child gay. Read Nature vs. Nurture: Born or Made Gay.

Why do we want marriage? Other than basic reasons like benefits and protections under the law, we just want the ability to live freely. I have been with my partner for 17 years. Like many of you, I knew in an instant…a holy one. I don’t want to harm anyone or take away anyone’s freedoms. I am no threat to the “sanctity of marriage” – in fact, I think we might give it more credibility, given the fact that about half of straight marriages end in divorce and many of the ones that survive are anything but sanctified. At the end of our lives I want to be able to have my partner by my side. If I am in an ICU we will have to sit in the hall because we are not “family.” Many GLBT people pass from this life alone.

I am thankful I was born the way I am. God gave me this gift so I could stop judging. I had a choice to love or hate. I chose love. Some days it is more of a challenge than others.

Below is a video from Mayors for the Freedom to Marry – a group aligned with the Freedom to Marry Campaign and featuring 80 mayors from 25 states – that explains why this courageous group of municipals leaders believes that this is not only the right thing to do, it’s the smart thing to do. I encourage you to watch the video and sign the pledge.

I also ask you to pass these links along to your friends, your family members and those in your various community and religious organizations. If you share your conviction in this initiative it means many more signatures and a greater momentum towards an important milestone in American social justice. If only GLBT people sign the petitition it will be ignored, and if the history of the struggle for equality in the US has taught us anything, it’s that, as the famous Solomon Burke song teaches: “none of us are free, one of us are chained.”

Thanks to the Mayors for the Freedom to Marry, and thank you for reading and supporting fairness for all Americans.

Click here to view the embedded video.

#25: The Land of Lincoln: Travels in Abe’s America by Andrew Ferguson (2007)

The Lincoln Memorial looked like frost tonight. The flurry that had blanketed the lawn white earlier in the day had been glazed with rain and then turned to ice, so the whole landscape shimmered under the Memorial’s lights.

Frost or no, the Memorial still has that beacon-in-the-dark look, which is, I suppose, its main purpose. It is, as I’ve noted before, as close to a temple as we have in America. The man who sits inside has become such an icon he’s lost humanity.

I’m here because I’ve just finished journalist Andrew Ferguson’s Land of Lincoln, an exploration of the man and, in the end, a defense of that icon. I’m here for the icon, too.

When Abraham Lincoln died, Secretary of War Edwin Stanton famously said, “Now he belongs to the ages.” More than that, though, Lincoln belongs to all of us—and we can each make him into the person we want him to be.

That’s what journalist Andrew Ferguson sets out to explore in Land of Lincoln. The state of Illinois may claim that as its motto, but Ferguson discovers Lincoln’s presence in the most unexpected of places. “I wanted to know what we know about Lincoln, and I wanted to know how we know it,” he says.

Land of Lincoln chronicles Ferguson’s quest to discover the true Abraham Lincoln—the one who doesn’t belong to the ages, the one who’s not chiseled from granite and sitting vigil in a temple-like memorial, the one who’s not known just for writing “Four score and seven years ago.”

“More books have been written about Abraham Lincoln than about any other American—nearly fourteen thousand in all,” Ferguson writes, “and at least half of those books begin by saying that more books have been written about Abraham Lincoln than any other American. This book, you’ll notice, is one of them.”

Ferguson’s book is simultaneously charming and earnest. It’s hard not to be amused when he hangs out with 175 Lincoln impersonators in Santa Claus, Indiana, during their annual convention. “It began with the beard,” one impersonator explains to Ferguson.

“Talking to other Abes, I discovered that this is how it almost always happens,” Ferguson writes. “A fellow, minding his own business, decides to grow a beard. Soon, multiple people are telling him that he bears a striking resemblance to Abraham Lincoln. It doesn’t matter that very often these people are wrong. So strong is the lure of Lincoln that when people tell a man with a beard that he looks like the greatest of all Americans, he believes it.”

Ferguson goes to Gettysburg to sit in on a leadership institute’s Lincoln-themed training session. (The book Lincoln on Leadership, after all, is one of the best-selling business books of all time.) Gettysburg, he notes, has “a dazed, dull feel to it—the consequence, I suppose, of taking a scene of blood-drenched horror and unspeakable heartbreak and trying to make it a pleasant vacation spot.”

Ferguson travels to the area around Lincoln’s boyhood home where he watches a musical theater production based on the young Lincoln’s life. He visits the Lincoln Presidential Library and Museum in Springfield, Illinois, where Disney “imagineers” created a museum that creates a powerful emotional experience but somehow manages to avoid information. The primary purpose, says Ferguson, is to make Lincoln “fun.”

“Get their hearts and their heads will follow,” the imagineer tells him. “You lead with the emotions rather than the intellect. And remember, it’s not any old emotion—the emotion they feel is the one we want them to feel.”

Ferguson visits historical sites, National Parks, and museums. He examines statues. He follows the old Lincoln Heritage Trail. The Land of Lincoln, Ferguson discovers, exists as much in our national subconscious as it does in any geographical spot. This was useful for me because, like Confederates in the Attic, the book becomes a portrait of a cultural landscape.

The supporting cast proves to be highly colorful. Ferguson meets people cult-like in their devotion to Lincoln. He talks with Lincoln scholars, Lincoln collectors, and even Lincoln critics. “Who could object to Lincoln?” Ferguson asks. “He seems too big even to have an opinion about.” Yet when the National Park Service installed a Lincoln statue at its Civil War battlefield park in Richmond, commemorating a visit Lincoln made to the city in April 1865 when the city surrendered, controversy erupted.

Throughout, Ferguson continues to ask, “Who is Lincoln? Why is he important to us today?” He never draws firm conclusions but instead presents a wide array of evidence for readers to consider—just as he himself considers it, too.

“What if Lincoln the man was, as I’d come to suspect, unknowable, as most men are 140 years after their death?” he writes. “And what if the icon—big, grand, unmistakable—is more real than the much smaller, custom-fit Lincolns that each of us creates for ourselves?”

Serious in its goals but light in its tone, Land of Lincoln successfully weaves together history, travel, cultural studies, and even memoir to sketch a thoughtful portrait of one of America’s most known—and perhaps least knowable—figures. Land of Lincoln doesn’t try to debunk any myths but instead tries to figure out how the man grew into myth. Both have value.

Ferguson finishes his journey on the steps of Washington, D.C.’s Lincoln Memorial. “It’s the unavoidable Lincoln,” he says. “Anyone who wants to understand the Land of Lincoln has to account for it.”

That’s why I’m here tonight. I’m accounting for it. I come here two or three times a year, in fact, and I always make it a point to see what Lincoln has to teach me.

Juxtaposed against the experience was a stop earlier in the evening at the new Martin Luther King, Jr., Memorial. Prior to that, I’d visited the National Holocaust Museum to see an exhibit on Nazi propaganda. I was chilled to realize that Hitler, King, and Lincoln all really do belong in the same league when it comes to their skill as communicators, although they employed those skills for very different purposes. I’m still, I admit, wrapping my head around that.

To start the day, I visited Ford’s Theatre, a site Ferguson skipped, but a place I wanted to visit so I could see the newly installed exhibits in the theater’s museum and in the new museum across the street adjacent to the Peterson House (the house where Lincoln died). The exhibits are marvelous and thoughtful, but a quote from one exhibit panel in particular jumped out at me. As the Lincolns were getting ready to head to the theater on the evening of April 14, 1865, the president said to his wife:

“Mary, I consider this day, the war, has come to a close … we must both be more cheerful in the future—between the war and the loss of our darling [son] Willie—we have both been very miserable.”

Scholars spend a lot of time trying to find “the real Lincoln,” as Ferguson points out, but here was a simple quote from Lincoln himself that humanized him for me more than any scholar’s work.

I juxtaposed that against the great marble man sitting in the Memorial. It’s useful to see Lincoln as human, but ultimately, his status as an icon is perhaps more important to us—we who live in a cynical age that dismisses heroes and revels in its iconoclasm. If we’re ever to stop our bitterly partisan political bickering, if we’re all to lend a hand “with malice toward none, with charity toward all,” if we all want a good and decent future for our children, then we all need to aspire to be those very best things that America has always stood for.

Lincoln, I think, personifies that. He really does stand like that beacon in the night. We just have to get over ourselves long enough to admit that it’s okay to aspire for values that we’re usually quick to paint as quaint and old-fashioned. We have honest differences about how to achieve those things, but we’ll never figure out solutions if we don’t stop yelling at each other and decide to talk. “Though passion may have strained it must not break our bonds of affection,” Lincoln said in his first inaugural. Hear, hear!

“Maybe that’s why icons are dismissed as unreal these days,” Ferguson said. “Icons aren’t complicated enough for the wised-up world. Nuance fits the times. We can be consumed by nuance, argue about it on TV, blog about it, fill our scholarly monographs with its infinite refractions—even when, like the forest and the trees, our obsession with it obscures the bigger, unarguable facts that are plain in front of us.”

That’s what Lincoln has to say to me tonight: Aspire to be a better person. Aspire to be a better people. Aspire to be a better nation.

Otherwise, “We shall nobly save or meanly lose the last best hope on earth.”

I’d hate for our own cynicism to be the death of us.

On tonight’s episode of Modern Family (perhaps TV’s best sitcom), one of the storylines deals with what happens when a young child starts using curse words. One of America’s more prominent gatekeepers of the public morality, the Parents Television council, immediately lurched into a galloping conniption. That they haven’t actually seen the episode, and hence, have no fudging idea what they’re screeching about, is beside the point.

“It’s not suitable language for a child that young in the real world, and it’s not suitable language for a child that young on television, either.”

Turns out the adorable little child actress is saying “fudge” instead of the more vapors-inducing “fuck.”

It all feels so familiar. Like back in the ’80s when Tipper Gore and her friends got their granny panties in a bunch over things like Ozzy’s “Ultimate Sin” which, despite the hot demonic chick in the video turns out to have been a love song about “how could you leave me?” The album, of course, featured other such Satanic themes as “nuclear war is bad,” so you can understand their pique. Anyhoo, Tippy and the rest of the Concerned Responsible People^® in Washington formed the Parents Music Resource Council, a forebear to the PTC, to by jingies slap some labels on all that objectionable comment.

This was a debacle from one end to the other, but their first really huge mistake was in summoning Frank Zappa and then handing him a microphone. What followed was a first-ballot induction into the Beatdown Hall of Fame.

Click here to view the embedded video.

Then later on, they compounded their error by calling Steven Dallas, who was then the manager of heavy metal band Deathtöngue. Here’s how that went down.

Yes, well. We seem to have no fewer narrow-minded zealots than we did a generation ago, nor does our current crop of zealots seem to feel any more obligation than their predecessors did to actually, you know, understanding what they were talking about.

I’m torn. Part of me wants to encourage the PTC to shut the fudge up. But another part of me enjoys watching the self-righteous idiocracy clown itself while the world watches.

In any case, I look forward to tonight’s episode. But I’ll watch it lying down so that I won’t bump my head if I faint.

_____

Credit: Berke Breathed, Billy and the Boingers Bootleg. Little, Brown, 1987. Highly recommended.

#17

If there’s one book I’ve wished I’d written, it’s Confederates in the Attic. Of course, Tony Horwitz already wrote it, nearly two decades ago (I can hardly believe it’s been that long). Here’s a guy who wandered around the South, talking to people about the legacy of the Civil War. He asked questions, had conversations, observed, listened, and explored the landscape for himself. He immersed himself in the story.

This, I tell my students, is what good feature writers do. They take the time to do the story justice—and a story as complex as this one requires a lot of time if you’re going to be thorough and fair. That’s what I respect most about Horwitz’s work on the book: he takes the time to make an honest attempt at trying to understanding that which, I suspect, can never fully be understood.

Horwitz had a lifelong interest in the war, but it had lain mostly dormant throughout most of his adult life. Then, one morning without warning, he awoke to the sound of gunshots in the street outside his home. A group of Civil War reenactors were filming a TV documentary on the battle of Fredericksburg, and during a break in the action, they collapsed in Horwitz’s yard. Horwitz brought them fresh coffee, and that’s when the questions began.

The “hardcore” reenactors “didn’t just dress up and shoot blanks,” Horwitz discovered. “They sought absolute fidelity to the 1860s: its homespun clothing, antique speech patterns, sparse diet and simple utensils. Adhered to properly, this fundamentalism produced a time-travel high….”

One reenactor brags about soaking his brass buttons overnight in a saucer filled with urine, which oxidized the brass to make it look like a button from the 1860s. “My wife woke up this morning, sniffed the air and said, ‘Tim, you’ve been peeing on your buttons again,’” the man told Horwitz. (Reenactor friends of mine have since told me urine doesn’t really work, but it sure makes a colorful story.)

What makes these men tick, Horwitz wondered. Why does the war hold such sway over them. In fact, he thought, why does the war hold such sway over so many people?

And thus begins one of the oddest of odysseys. Horwitz submerges himself in the South, since that’s where most of the war was fought, to find out for himself. The resulting exploration of place turns into a memorable cultural portrait of the South.

Horwitz decides to start in Charleston, South Carolina, at the site of Fort Sumter, where the war’s first shots were fired, but the War waylays him well before he gets there. On his way south, through North Carolina, he’s sidetracked into the world of the Sons and Daughters of the Confederacy, some of whom attend Civil War-related meetings seven nights a week. To commemorate “Lee-Jackson Day,” a holiday once widely celebrated across the South that combined the birthdays of long-dead Confederate generals Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson, the folks play Civil War trivia games.

At times, Horwitz acts as a fly on the wall as he takes in the things going on around him. But at his best, he is a full-blown participant, taking sides in the trivia games, dressing up for a reenactment, and offering his unique, submerged perspective on what he sees and experiences. Best of all, he strikes up conversations everywhere he goes, asking, asking, asking.

Horwitz tracks down the legend of Tara from Gone with the Wind. He meets the last living Confederate widow. He rushes through Virginia with a hard-core reenactor, Robert Lee Hodge, hitting as many Civil War sites as they can in a week, what Hodge calls a “Civil Wargasm.”

In one of my favorite encounters of the book, he talks with Shelby Foote, the Memphis writer who penned the sweeping three-volume The Civil War: A Narrative, and who gained national exposure as a kindly grandfather-looking “Voice of the South” in Ken Burns’ Civil War documentary. “It’s the sort of experience we never forget,” Foote told him. “I was in a lot of fistfights, maybe fifty in my life. The ones I remember with startling clarity are the ones I lost.”

While Horwitz discovers that the Civil War is very much alive throughout the South, he also discovers that it’s a Cold War. The lines are no longer just geographic, either: they’re racial, social, and economic, too.

That’s what helps make Confederates in the Attic more than just a fascinating collection of eccentric people—although that is what makes it so captivating. Horwitz manages to write an intensely thought-provoking book. Every eccentric brings a new shade of meaning to the discussion. For every hardcore reenactor like Hodge, who can lay on the ground and “bloat” to look like the dead Confederates in wartime photos, there’s a Michael Westerman, the nineteen-year-old victim of a racially motivated murder, killed while flying a Confederate flag from the bed of his pickup truck. Citizens of Richmond who debate the placement of a statue to the late tennis great Arthur Ashe bring up incredibly nuanced arguments that transcend notions of mere “pro” and “con.”

Horwitz doesn’t shy away from any of it. Confederates in the Attic astutely explores racism, political correctness, national and regional identity, and the relevance of our own history as a way to understand ourselves. Like any good journalist, Horwitz doesn’t pretend to have any answers, but he lays out as many sides to the story as possible so readers can think for themselves.

Horwitz does get a few facts wrong, and sometimes his interpretation is shaky (I take particular exception to the way he tends to portray Stonewall Jackson as a total crackpot). He leaves a few things out, and he stirs up trouble, too. I know some of the people involved in some of the stories, so I have the inside scoop on a few things. Horwitz commits no unpardonable sins, though, and I can forgive much because of the earnestness with which he approaches his quest.

“The present is just a split second,” Hodge tells Horwitz. “The past lasts forever. You can keep going back to it.”

Indeed, Confederates in the Attic is much the same. This marked my fifth or sixth time through the book. It stands as a landmark piece of feature journalism and was  easily one of the best books of the 1990s. Although almost twenty years old, I can keep going back to it, over and over.

————

Cross-posted at Emerging Civil War.

Fischer: ‘Allah is a demon god of darkness, violence, death, and destruction’
Right Wing Watch
December 23, 2011

Considering Bryan Fischer makes so much hateful noise, is it any wonder that it’s relatively difficult to get in touch with him? More’s the pity. I had hoped to correct him for his error and apprise him of a little bit of his own scripture. Maybe this post or one like it will come to his attention, not that I think it will actually do any good. Meanwhile, this post is reaching you. That is what matters.

Disclosure: I, myself, am not an adherent of any faith. I am an agnostic. That said, while I may not share the beliefs of Christianity as a whole, I do hold many tenets of the Christian faith in high esteem, as well as tenets of various other faiths. More to the point, I am also a realist when it comes to the political power held by Christians in modern-day America. In particular, I am keenly aware of the disproportionate amount of influence wielded by a segment of Christianity, those of an evangelical persuasion, comprising approximately 26.3% of adults in America. As an astute observer, you will recognize that this is a minority position.

If claims from the evangelical right were of no direct social impact on the remaining ~75% of adults in America (to say nothing of the ~75.6 million children), I wouldn’t have sufficient reason to dispute the beliefs, claims, or demands of evangelical Christians. Since claims from the religious right in America do have such tremendous social impact, I hold it a patriotic duty to highlight the issues I have with their arrogation unto themselves of dogmatic authority and political influence. I do not hold any such authority or influence, so I humbly submit the following for your consideration.

• Fischer makes the erroneous claim that the deity of Islam is not also the deity of Christianity (and thus, also not of Judaism).
• Fischer, a putatively devout Christian, impugns (read: blasphemes) the spirit of the deity of Islam, ergo, the deity of Christianity and thus commits the unpardonable sin of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit as widely understood by Christians on the scriptural authority of Matthew 12:31. See What is blasphemy against the Holy Ghost? by Tim Greenwood for an excellent analysis.

Before exploring each of those points in just a bit more detail, we need to ask ourselves why it even matters that Fischer espouses the views that he does. Consider, “Bryan Fischer is the Director of Issue Analysis for Government and Public Policy at the American Family Association, where he provides expertise on a range of public policy topics.” Consider also, that on an unrelated issue, AFA has been labeled a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center. While the SPLC designation is unrelated to Islamophobia, it would seem that the underlying rationale for such labeling would apply here…for “propagation of known falsehoods” and “repeated, groundless name-calling.” Note, SPLC is not making that claim, I am. Consider also, that Fischer can hardly hide behind a veneer of stupidity. Educated at Stanford University and Dallas Theological Seminary, his intelligence is manifest. Consider also that, “he has been featured on media outlets such as Fox News, CBS News, NBC, CNN, the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the BBC, Russia Today television and the Associated Press, has been a frequent guest on talk radio to discuss cultural and religious issues, and has written op-eds for political websites such as The Hill.” Consider as well that, as of this writing, AFA enjoys 77,411 page likes at Facebook, a none-too-shabby indicator of their reach.

That said, let’s briefly investigate each of the claims I make above.

Erroneous claim that the deity of Islam is not also the deity of Christianity

In the video, Fischer makes the following case:

• Where the spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty. (II Corinthians 3:17)
• The Lord indicated in II Cor. 3:17 is Yahweh, the spirit revealed in the Old and New Testaments
• The spirit of the Lord indicated in II Cor. 3:17 is not the spirit of Allah

Ergo, according to Fischer, Allah is not the Lord of the Old and New Testaments.

The historical record does not support this claim. In The God of Abraham, Jesus, and Muhammad, Jack Miles has this to say:

That Jews, Christians, and Muslims have always assumed their differences to be about the character rather than the identity of God is abundantly witnessed centuries later in late medieval Spain where the three religions mingled freely and the best scholars were bi- or even trilingual in Latin, Arabic, and Hebrew. During that era, a number of famous theological debates took place in which all participants transparently assumed that all other participants were speaking of-—and, of course, disagreeing about—-the same divine subject.

As for Islamic scriptural authority on this point, consider the Qur’an, 4:15 (with my apologies for not being as well versed in citing scripture from the Qur’an:

And who is better in religion than one who submits himself to Allah while being a doer of good and follows the religion of Abraham, inclining toward truth? And Allah took Abraham as an intimate friend.

For a further interesting take on whether or not the god of Islam is also the god of Christianity and/or Judaism, you may wish to read the debate at Throne & Altar entitled “Maverick Philosopher on whether Muslims worship the same God.” When one considers that the arguments for the identification for this shared deity are presented as a form of assault on Western secular/atheist thinking, it’s at least difficult to make the claim that the arguments are derived from any anti-Christian intent. Of note, one commenter there quotes para 841 of the “Catechism of the Catholic Church” thusly:

“The Church’s relationship with the Muslims: The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day.”

As one searches the Internet for sources on this topic, three things becomes quickly evident: that passions run high on both sides of the dispute, that citations to historical sources are as rare as humps on monkeys, and that the most strident arguments against such an identification stem from overwhelmingly sectarian evangelical Christian sources. As for me, I’ll go with the historical record, the claims inherent in Islam, and a majority position of Christianity and conclude that the god of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam are one and the same with confidence that I have a much broader body of reference by way of support.

Fischer commits the unforgiveable sin of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit

Having established firmly, to my satisfaction, that the god of Christianity is one and the same as the god of Islam, while conceding the obvious differences in how they are understood, I have also established that to malign the spirit of one of those gods is to malign the other simultaneously, to wit, blasphemy against the spirit of the god of Islam is blasphemy against the spirit of God, i.e., the Holy Spirit, in Christianity. Christianity’s own deity-made-flesh, Jesus, had this to say on the subject when the Pharisees accused him of casting out demons by the power of Beelzebul, ruler of demons:

27 If I by Beelzebul cast out demons, by whom do your sons cast them out? For this reason they will be your judges. ²⁸ But if I cast out demons by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God has come upon you. ²⁹ Or how can anyone enter the strong man’s house and carry off his property, unless he first binds the strong man? And then he will plunder his house.

³⁰ He who is not with Me is against Me; and he who does not gather with Me scatters.

³¹ “Therefore I say to you, any sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven people, but blasphemy against the Spirit shall not be forgiven. ³² Whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man, it shall be forgiven him; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, it shall not be forgiven him, either in this age or in the age to come.

As noted above, one Tim Greenwood provided an excellent analysis of what it means to commit such a blasphemy in his article, “What is Blasphemy Against the Holy Ghost?”

Well it’s really pretty simple. “Blasphemy” is something slanderous and/or injurious to one’s good name. And the Greek word for “against” can mean “according to the case against” or “to the charge of” which is legal language. So what I believe this is saying is that “speaking blasphemy against” the Holy Spirit is like when someone one knowingly and deliberately as a legal witness attributes the works, operations and/or gifts of the Holy Spirit to the Devil or attributes the works, operations of the Devil to the Holy Spirit.

The Pharisees did this when Jesus was casting out demons by the power of the Holy Spirit. They proclaimed: “He cast out demon spirits by the power of Beelzebub!” 

Jesus stopped their mouths right then and there and straightened them out.

Now Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is NOT someone that is just parroting someone else or speaking out of ignorance. Paul in 1Tim 1:12-13 said that He had even blasphemed the Holy Spirit, but that he had done this out of ignorance.

This is also NOT just something stupid that someone casually says once or twice. This is something that is said deliberately – in abundance – from the heart. How do we know that? We know that from the context of the rest of this passage.

vs. 33 Either make the tree good, and his fruit good; or else make the tree corrupt, and his fruit corrupt: for the tree is known by his fruit
vs. 34 O generation of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh.
vs. 35 A good man out of the good treasure of the heart bringeth forth good things: and an evil man out of the evil treasure bringeth forth evil things.
vs. 36 But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment.
vs. 37 For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned.

Perhaps Fischer will find his own faith-based exoneration in the exemption for ignorance. As I read the above, according to the tenets of his own scripture, this would simply not be the case.

In keeping with its own deeply heretical views, views that run counter to the teachings of their own god-made-flesh, Fischer may well be the ideal mouthpiece for their particular brand of virulence and hate. For anyone else of any faith or lack thereof following the issue of hate group AFA’s influence on American culture, it should be dramatically clear that they have either chosen very poorly or have clearly aligned themselves with what others of faith, be it Christian, Islam, or otherwise, would rightly see as diabolical forces. Fischer and his malign cohort may enjoy the same freedoms of speech and religion as the rest of us, but we would all be better served if more voices were raised in a righteous lament over their undue influence.

My challenge to you: whenever you encounter news of AFA’s influence over government or private industry, contact those officials catering to their hateful, un-Christian, and un-American views and let them know very clearly that AFA does not speak for you or your faith. Further, make it abundantly clear that further concessions to the AFA and their ilk will result in accountability, either at the polls, the cash register, or the opening bell on Wall Street.

Cases in point. As I’m scanning the headlines today looking for fodder, I find what appear to be three relevant articles. The first is a blog article by Robert J. Ambrogi, a media and technology lawyer in Rockport, MA, “1st Circuit Rules Public Has Right to Videotape Police,” August 28, 2011.  The second is an article by Richard Chirgwin published in The Register on December 6, 2011, “‘Blogger not a journalist’ says Oregon court: The $2.5 million defamation distinction.”  The third article, “Crystal Cox, Oregon Blogger, Isn’t a Journalist, Concludes U.S. Court–Imposes $2.5 Million Judgement on Her,” was posted by Curtis Cartier at SeattleWeekly Blogs on December 6, 2011.

On reading the Ambrogi article, I felt a certain exhilaration at discovering that no matter how the police may try to distort the law to shield themselves from accountability, the courts could and would come to the rescue of the common citizen, or, in this case, the “citizen journalist.” In Simon Glik’s words:

In 2007, while walking through Boston Commons, I saw a teenager being arrested by Boston police. After I took out his [sic] cell phone and recorded the arrest, I was myself arrested and charged with felony of “illegal wiretap”. This arrest was a vindictive attempt by some unscrupulous cops to suppress citizens’ right to record, observe and comment on police actions.

Ambrogi highlights the significant bits of the decision as they pertain to citizen journalism. For me, the joy-inducing line was, “The First Amendment right to gather news is, as the [Supreme] Court has often noted, not one that inures solely to the benefit of the news media; rather, the public’s right of access to information is coextensive with that of the press.” Now that is empowering.

As I was riding high on this new-found citizen power, the Internet quickly stuck pins in that bubble, the pins being the Chirgwin and Cartier articles. In the case reported by them, a “citizen journalist,” (at least as I thought I understood it from Ambrogi and the First Circuit) Crystal Cox, is sued by plaintiffs for defamation and the plaintiffs win. Cartier provides a bit more detail about the case than Chirgwin does, yet both home in on the same relevant aspect, that U.S. District Judge Marco A. Hernandez decided that Cox does not enjoy protection under Oregon’s shield law because she is neither media nor a journalist.

Here’s the language as quoted by Chirgwin:

[A]lthough defendant is a self-proclaimed “investigative blogger” and defines herself as “media,” the record fails to show that she is affiliated with any newspaper, magazine, periodical, book, pamphlet, news service, wire service, news or feature syndicate, broadcast station or network, or cable television system. Thus, she is not entitled to the protections of the law”, wrote US District Judge Marco A Hernandez in his judgment.

Here it is as quoted by Cartier:

. . . although defendant is a self-proclaimed “investigative blogger” and defines herself as “media,” the record fails to show that she is affiliated with any newspaper, magazine, periodical, book, pamphlet, news service, wire service, news or feature syndicate, broadcast station or network, or cable television system. Thus, she is not entitled to the protections of the law

On its surface, ignoring the punctuation for the moment, the quote pricked my bubble because it seems to fly directly in the face of what I thought I’d just learned from the Glik case. From Glik I understood that the First Amendment right to gather news does not inure solely to the benefit of the news media and that the public right of access to information is coextensive with that of the press. Yet here is a judge that seems to make the case that the right to gather the news does indeed inure solely to the news media and that the public right is not coextensive.

But am I just reading that all wrong? Maybe the right is to gather but not to report the news? Now wouldn’t that be odd? Journalists, by that measure, would only be protected in the role of researcher but not in the role of reporter.

It’s when I took the next apparently obvious step of reading Judge Hernandez’ judgment that I came to two conclusions. First, there’s occasionally something rather specious about Judge Hernandez’ reasoning and second, there’s something a bit peculiar in the reporting by Chirgwin and Cartier. The latter is where we go back for a moment and look at minor punctuation issues and their disproportionate effect on the sense of quotations.

Both Chirgwin and Cartier appear to be sounding an alarm (or maybe that’s just me seeing more RoadWidgets) by emphasizing Judge Hernandez’ distinction between Cox (bloggers) and journalists. There’s rather a bit more to it than that, however. Look at that variant punctuation again. “[A]lthough” and “…although” obviously imply something came before. Chirgwin’s comma at the end may not imply anything, but Cartier’s missing period certainly implies more follows. Here’s the actual quote from the judgment:

First, although defendant is a self-proclaimed “investigative blogger” and defines herself as “media,” the record fails to show that she is affiliated with any newspaper, magazine, periodical, book, pamphlet,news service, wire service, news or feature syndicate, broadcast station or network, or cable television system. Thus, she is not entitled to the protections of the law in the first instance.

Ah-hah! Granted, I feel I should be bothered to read the judgment anyway, else I’d just be reporting and opining on the reporting, but even were I not inclined before, I’d be inclined now since the judge obviously has so much more to say.

This case appears to bear out the old adage that a lawyer who represents herself and her client are both fools. In her pro se representation, Cox makes several arguments to defend herself while missing a very simple and obvious piece of the law. Judge Hernandez does a meticulous job of shredding the majority of those arguments without any apparent controversy. It seems Cox would do well to either better educate herself on such matters as the definition of “public figure” and when to submit certain types of motion or to get herself some qualified legal representation. She may have spared herself some grief, or not.

She argued that the plaintiffs shouldn’t even be eligible for damages for defamation because they never demanded a retraction, so she never had the opportunity for the non-compliance that would have justified the damages. As fairly noted by Judge Hernandez in support of his first ruling, Oregon law hasn’t caught up to the Internet yet, so blogs aren’t protected by the retraction statute, see O.R.S. 31.205, and O.R.S. 31.210. Here I take umbrage at what appears to be a lack of journalistic integrity on her part. If her only reason for not issuing a retraction (were she to have a reason) was that they didn’t ask, well, shame on her. As I see it, if I write something and later discover it to merit retraction, it behooves me to do so without waiting for a demand. In any case, her argument makes it sound like it’s possible she would have caved to such a demand for fear of the financial consequences, even were she to hold to her alleged factual basis. Or maybe she would have just rolled over on her alleged source.

Cox argued that the claim against her must be dismissed under Oregon’s Anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) statute.  In explanation of his third ruling, Judge Hernandez dismantles her argument on two fronts. First, she dropped the ball procedurally. Second, he’d already determined that plaintiffs are entitled to proceed on one of the offending blog posts, presumably because he sees a probability that the plaintiffs will prevail.

Cox then demonstrates a misunderstanding of “absolute privilege.” Perhaps an attorney would have made the difference for her on this point, but I doubt it given the case law cited by Judge Hernandez. He quite tidily points out that while statements made in a judicial proceeding enjoy absolute privilege, i.e., aren’t subject to defamation claims, at least in this context, republishing same may indeed expose the publisher to defamation claims. To top it off, he then points out that even were there some privilege afforded in that case, it wouldn’t apply because the defamatory statements in her blog post weren’t even such republications.

Implicating First Amendment rights, Cox tries to place the burden of proof on the plaintiffs as “public figures” when it comes to the  assertion that she published the allegedly defamatory statements with actual malice. In his fourth ruling, Judge Hernandez schools Cox for several pages as to the court’s role in determining public figure status and just how they do it. Adding insult to injury, he even goes so far to point out that it’s the defendant’s burden to prove that the plaintiffs are public figures, which she clearly failed to do.

Also implicating First Amendment rights, Cox tried to cover her bases on the public figure issue by further making the claim that, because she is “media,” even if the plaintiffs are not public figures they may not recover damages without first proving negligence on her part. In part B of his fourth ruling, Judge Hernandez does something I find rather peculiar. First, he states:

Defendant cites no cases indicating that a self-proclaimed “investigative blogger” is considered “media” for the purposes of applying a negligence standard in a defamation claim.Without any controlling or persuasive authority on the issue, I decline to conclude that defendant in this case is ”media,” triggering the negligence standard.

Then, while so declining to conclude she is media, he proceeds to indicate just how she is NOT media:

Defendant fails to bring forth any evidence suggestive of her status as a journalist. For example, there is no evidence of (1) any education in journalism; (2) any credentials or proof of any affiliation with any recognized news entity; (3) proof of adherence to journalistic standards such as editing, fact-checking, or disclosures of conflicts of interest; (4) keeping notes of conversations and interviews conducted; (5) mutual understanding or agreement of confidentiality between the defendant and his/her sources; (6) creation of an independent product rather than assembling writings and postings of others; or (7) contacting “the other side” to get both sides of a story. Without evidence of this nature, defendant is not “media.”

Here is the first (second chronologically) instance where I think both Chirgwin and Cartier dropped their own journalistic balls. If, as the First Circuit concludes (if I understand that correctly), the journalistic rights of individuals is coextensive with those of the press, then where, exactly, is the codification of these seemingly arbitrary distinctions of true journalism? Where Judge Hernandez does a great job citing case law after case law throughout his judgment, on this matter his citations are strikingly…missing. Now, I’m sure that bona fide journalists replete with degrees from duly accredited institutions, undisputed affiliations with legitimate media, and adherence to all manner of professional standards likely have some serious grounds for contending that bloggers are not true and genuine journalists. I’d also be willing to place a gentleman’s wager they would cite their sources.

When Judge Hernandez implicates education in journalism, does he only mean formal education under the auspices of an accredited program? He fails to say, but seems to imply such. Would he then discount the journalistic authenticity, if only on the grounds of education, of an editor of a small-town local rag who learned journalism the hard way, by practice?

When he questions her lack of credentials or proof of affiliation, does he mean to imply that such is sufficient to validate a journalist as a journalist? I submit for your consideration…Jason Blair. Excellent affiliation, to be sure, for someone now distinguished as a life coach.

When he challenges her adherence to standards, such as editing, fact-checking or disclosure of conflict of interest, does he bother to indicate her failings at a) editing with an example, b) fact-checking with an example, such as a reminder of her absolute privilege goof (even were she to have it, her defamatory statements were not republication), or c) conflict of interest disclosure with any indication of such a known conflict?

When he challenges her on the keeping of notes from conversations and interviews, did he bother to ascertain that she didn’t?

When he challenges her on the mutual understanding of confidentiality between defendant and source, does he conveniently forget her claim to protection under the shield laws for that very reason? If not, then why even suggest there was no mutual understanding of such, especially when she invokes that protection to her own detriment?

When he challenges her on the distinction between creation of an independent product and assemblage of writings of others, what exactly is he even saying about the nature of the created work? Should authentic journalists NOT assemble a collection of resources, connect the dots and make something of it? Or does he mean to find fault with intellectual property law that protects works like directories, which are solely such assemblages? Does he make a case that in her blog articles she only creates assemblages without contributing anything of her own? Does he consider that, were that the case, clearly the defamatory comments were necessarily extracted from others as sources?

When Judge Hernandez challenges her on whether or not she contacted both sides of the story, where is the assertion that she did not? For that matter, if this is such a critical issue, is he actually thus making the legal claim that Fox News is not media? If so, I would concur, but that’s beside the point.

Most especially, however, for a judge that makes a case again and again on whether there exists a burden of proof and, if so, where it falls, how does he magically determine that the burden of proof falls on her to meet his apparently arbitrary criteria?

As if to make up for these glaring oddities of jurisprudence, Judge Hernandez proceeds, in part C of his fourth ruling, to shoot down her contention that the offending blog post refers to matters of public concern and thus affords her First Amendment protections. He does so with more case law and more clear explanation. It’s rather as though part B of his fourth ruling is neatly bracketed with giant red neon letters stating “What lies between is different!”

The gentle reader may have noticed that I skipped blithely past his Honor’s second ruling. I like to think I saved the best for last.

Regarding the application of Oregon’s shield laws, Judge Hernandez goes so far as to open his comments with the citation to O.R.S. 44.520(1), which reads:

[n]o person connected with, employed by or engaged in any medium of communication to the public shall be required by . . . a judicial officer . . . to disclose, by subpoena or otherwise . . . [t]he source of any published or unpublished information obtained by the person in the course of gathering, receiving or processing information for any medium of communication to the public[.]

He goes further and clarifies the essence of “medium of communication” by including the following definition from O.R.S. 44.520(2):

“Medium of communication” is broadly defined as including, but not limited to, “any newspaper, magazine or other periodical, book, pamphlet, news service, wire service, news or feature syndicate, broadcast station or network, or cable television system.”

There’s the hook. There’s the line. Now for the stinker, which just happens to be the source of almost all the substance to be found in Chirgwin and Cartier:

Defendant contends that she does not have to provide the “source” of her blog post because of the protections afforded to her by Oregon’s Shield Laws. I disagree. First, although defendant is a self-proclaimed “investigative blogger” and defines herself as “media,” the record fails to show that she is affiliated with any newspaper, magazine, periodical, book, pamphlet, news service, wire service, news or feature syndicate, broadcast station or network, or cable television system. Thus, she is not entitled to the protections of the law in the first instance.

Were he to have omitted this one little paragraph, I think Chirgwin and Cartier would still be looking for an article to write. More’s the pity, because by including this little gem, Judge Hernandez opens up a line of inquiry which Chirgwin and Cartier left alone. Had Judge Hernandez just jumped to the next paragraph and stated his denial of the protections of the shield law in this case solely on the basis of O.R.S. 44.530(3) which rules out the shield law defense in civil cases for defamation, he could have dusted off his hands and moved merrily along.

No, he included this gold nugget so I’d have something to play with in these, my first faltering forays into the world of citizen journalism.

First, by including this bit of interpretive nuance, he fails to take into account what he only just included moments ago from O.R.S. 44.510(1): “[n]o person connected with, employed by or engaged in any medium of communication to the public…” [emphasis mine]. Please correct me if I am mistaken, but isn’t the Internet a medium of communication to the public? Further, if one posts content to the Internet without password protection, presumably to limit access to said content to a nominally private or more selective audience, isn’t it safe to say, especially in the case of blogging, that the content is intended for public consumption? On it’s face, (1) here starts down the path to suggesting that bloggers do, indeed, enjoy the protections of Oregon’s shield laws.

Second, by including this paragraph, he fails to take into account what he only just included from O.R.S. 44.510(2): “‘Medium of communication’ is broadly defined as including, but not limited to [emphasis mine],…” If a subset of Communications Media is such that the subset includes the elements A, B, C and D, but the set is broadly defined as including the subset but not limited to the subset, why does Judge Hernandez imply that such a limitation exists when he states that she fails to show affiliation with “any newspaper, magazine, periodical, book, pamphlet,news service, wire service, news or feature syndicate, broadcast station or network, or cabletelevision system.” This is the first of two occasions (the second previously examined above) where he places the burden of proof on the defendant to show that she is media by some arbitrary measure when there isn’t even a requirement to do so at all. Worse, it’s the more damaging of the two, insofar as he goes out of his way to suggest that bloggers, by no stretch of the imagination, are journalists, no matter the standard to which you hold them, and thus neither they nor their sources enjoy any shield law protections.

This, I would think, will have a chilling effect on First Amendment rights as they apply to the blogosphere. Unless, that is, we relegate ourselves to being mere unoriginal collators of others’ works. I don’t care. I’m keeping my Mitsuyota RoadWidget. It’s fun to drive. It’s empowering. And I hope to see someone drive one just like it right into the Supreme Court of the United States.

——————————————-

If I have committed errors or omissions typical of the rank amateur, I beg your indulgence and both encourage and welcome your esteemed corrections lest I become a blight on the face of the blogosphere. In keeping with the spirit of Judge Hernandez’ arbitrary section, “How Do You Tell a Witch Journalist?” I feel I should volunteer the following:

Education: I have read an article on a wiki. I’m not sure which one. I submit that this is hardly an accredited program. My only degree, advanced, at that, is from The School of Hard Knocks. This article is part of my post-doc work.

Credentials/Proof of Affiliation: For credentials, I submit that I possess an original long form birth certificate and a drivers’ license. No, you may not see them. As for affiliation, oh, hell, do I really need to implicate S&R so soon?

Proof of Adherence to “Some” Journalistic Standards: a) Editing – I have indeed strived to eliminate as many errors from this article as I am able. I cannot account for my stylistic excesses. b) Fact-checking – As evidence of some modicum of effort in that regard, I submit everything I have linked in this article. I admit that I have not bothered to look up Crystal Cox’s blog. If her pro se failings are indicative of other kindred failings in writing, life is too short. Besides, my issues, as presented, aren’t with whether or not she defamed or whether or not she writes well. c) Disclosure of Conflicts of Interest – I am a self-proclaimed blogger, investigative or not, and have written this piece in hope of publication at one blog of which I am not an editor and assurance of publication in my own. As far as I know, I will not receive any financial reward for this work.

Notes of Conversations/Interviews: While I did, indeed, talk to myself rather a lot during this effort, I made no recordings. I will, however, email the article itself to myself, if only because I am silly like that.

Mutual Understanding of Confidentiality Between Self and Sources: Nothing was related in confidence to me during the crafting of this article. I am sure, given the state of Internet privacy, or the lack thereof, that there is more information held on theInternet about me and my searches for information than I hold pertaining to my online sources. Further, I’m quite sure my information has been mined and will be sold in aggregate.

Creation of Independent Product: Views and opinions in this article that are not attributed to sources are my own independent product. If you did, somehow, manage to compel me to formulate these views and opinions, I really need to get my tinfoil hat adjusted.

Assemblage of Writings/Postings of Others: Well, yeah. Then I added a ton o’ stuff. Had I not, the article would be far less verbose.

Contact of the “Other Side”: No thank you. My Ouija board is packed up at the moment and quite far away. As for journalistic integrity, I meant to write a position piece in support of First Amendment protections and shield law protections for bloggers. I think at least one other side of the issue has been presented quite thoroughly, and in his own words, throughout, with reference to his full judgment.

Frank Balsinger is a rank beginner of a blogger and feels rather passionately about the last remaining shreds of his Constitutional rights.

I see them passing by the windows, looking in. Their faces, a mixture of curiosity and contempt I dare not interpret. My heart-beat is erratic. I am 10 kilos down. I sleep maybe two hours a night. I am exhausted.

These are the days and nights of the zombie business; too weak to live, too strong to die.

The cost of failure

It has been six years and I no longer wake up screaming, only unsettled and with a lingering pain that lasts through the day.

These days, when I pass by a business I can see is struggling, or closing-down-sale signs, I feel a frisson of pain. Almost the way men will feel when watching some poor guy take a nut shot. A little cringe of shared agony.

This economic crisis in the UK has seen countless high-street shops close. Bargain-seekers, like vultures, throng to the dying body, picking at the still-living flesh, seeking morsels of value. A new dining-room table for 90 percent less. A set of DVDs for a few pence. A $400 jacket for $10.

Once the customers are done then other businesses have a go. A point-of-sale system for next to nothing. Air-conditioning units. A complete catering outfit. My spotless coffee machine and refrigeration units.

It is a tiny tragedy. If the local economy is still good then perhaps the vacant store will be filled soon with a new shop, the ex-employees re-hired. If not, then another vacant space opens up in a high-street, gradually dying. The staff join the growing unemployment statistics.

All of this is necessary. All of this is the only way to heal. Even in the midst of my own experience I knew that this had to happen.

How else will the goods and equipment I was not using correctly find better utility? How will my staff find jobs that are sustainable? How will the daily agony of nursing my dying business end?

And consider the only other alternative: that such a zombie business must survive through charity from the state or private alms. The management knowing that there is no purpose to endeavour, for the business is not wanted. How do you motivate staff when there is no purpose? There are no customers.

In this way a private pain becomes distributed amongst everyone, whether they choose it or not.

No, far better that the company die, that the shop be refitted and repurposed, that the equipment find new uses and that the employees find better work.

As for the owner? It’s tough. You have a big hole in your curriculum vitae. Difficult to find employment again. Difficult to get back to “normal”.

It was my risk to take. I am sad at the failure. Sorry I couldn’t make it work. And I mourn a little every day. I don’t ask anyone to empathise or pity my experience. It wasn’t their risk. It wasn’t imposed on me. I took it on willingly and I accepted the consequences even if the world isn’t very forgiving of failure.

It isn’t particularly forgiving of success either.

The price of success

“Ten years from now, twenty years from now, you will see: oil will bring us ruin … Oil is the Devil’s excrement,” said Juan Pablo Pérez Alfonzo, one of the founders of OPEC, and Venezuela’s Oil Minister back in the 1970s.

This Paradox of Plenty distorts state expenditure, unbalances the economy, and leads to a higher currency valuation, reduced investment and greater reliance on imports. It also distorts the state, undermining the common law and creating incredible opportunities for corruption and inefficiency.

Brazil’s pré-sal oilfields, discovered in 2007, are already having an impact on their economy. The government has decided that the fields will be the exclusive monopoly of the state. The problem with any form of monopoly is that price discovery is lost. Prices rise as the state, awash in cash, pays through the nose for the goods it needs to support extraction, distribution and investment. This impacts on the whole economy, increasing inflation, inflating the value of the currency, suppressing exports and raising the cost of business.

The reason that economies should encourage competition is because a price of any good can only be found out by free trade. Price discovery through open competition. Every now and then some scientist comes out and says, “Human beings can’t run faster than x.” Then Usain Bolt comes along and proves them wrong. And he does so in competition with others.

There are rules. He must obey them. Within those rules he is free to push the barriers as far as he can take them.

The alternative is that some committee of worthies, or a public servant, has to pick a price for every good. How could they ever know what is correct?

Too many countries have thought that oil wells, gold mines or rain forests were licenses to print money. The sad part is that they are, with the same consequences for economic stability. Such commodities are tremendously volatile. At the top of the market they make a country seem wealthy but at the expense of creating an indolent population who are now too expensive to work. When the tide turns and prices fall the economy is left exposed. Chaos follows.

Gradually, economic thinking has trended towards treating such unusual and volatile wealth differently. Responsible governments no longer throw it into the trough of government spending. They create Sovereign Wealth Funds and use the money for structural investment. Norway’s oil fund is worth over $500 billion, even after a terrible investment year.

It’s a rainy-day piggy-bank for pensions and insurance. The rest of the time the money can be spent on critical infrastructure that improves the competitiveness of the rest of the economy.

Technology is especially volatile and the cycle of innovation, investment, boom and bust has shortened. Sadly, governments – and their citizens – still regard the wealth generated by technology as an entitlement. Hence the latest crop of enraged and baffled people camping outside stock exchanges singing the song that follows “This time is different”.

Yes, it’s that old ditty, “Capitalism is broken”.

The winners are the losers are the winners are the losers

Capitalism is the process by which cash is allocated towards its greatest investment return. Some people are sufficiently motivated (by money, recognition, power, innovation, sex, anything really) to dedicate their time, sacrifice other opportunities and take great risks to try new things. We don’t always notice them when they fail but, when they succeed, they surf the wave and take a very large proportion of the money generated from their success.

Since the product or process they invent is new it is impossible to know how big the market for it should be. The right size of market requires a discovery process no different from finding the right price. Speculators may then flock and vastly overvalue various me-too risk-takers. A bubble emerges and correction follows. Correction is messy, especially so for the would-be risk-takers who can go suddenly bankrupt.

It is a supreme folly assuming that such a bubble is a dependable way to finance state expenditure.

So, by all means, tax the wealthy, but treat whatever you get out of them as the Devil’s excrement and stick it in a Sovereign Wealth Fund for a rainy day.

In a free market the process of price-discovery should be quick. A good idea should be commoditised rapidly. A bad idea should be killed before it absorbs too much useful investment. The problem is that this rough and tumble is brutal, not only on the active participants, but also on dependants like governments (wanting a stable tax base) and employees (wanting a stable work environment).

Enter special-pleading. One of the earliest forms of this is protectionism in which we charge companies who wish to import a higher rate of tax on their products in order to promote local manufacturing. That doesn’t work as it leads to a trade war with the recipients of that country’s exports who raise taxes there.

Even if they didn’t, it simply raises prices for consumers. Removing the competitive pressure simply allows local companies to be less efficient and charge higher prices. They get rich at the expense of consumers.

Not all companies get to try special pleading. Those with large numbers of employees (the motor industry), are considered strategic (military manufacturing, agriculture, energy) or could cause economic carnage (banking) can all get an ear from the government and special favours when they need them.

The alternative is to let these companies fail. The consequences? Massive layoffs in manufacturing. Watching China’s military technology catch up with the US. Everyone loses the savings in their bank accounts.

And the protectionism works at both ends. Companies can claim unfair price discrimination and call for import taxes or subsidies on foreign competitors. Unions can call for unfair labour practices in foreign countries and similarly call for import taxes and subsidies.

There are a never-ending stream of protections, all of which undermine the price discovery process: never-ending patents, undying copyright, special access subsidies, distortionary tax loopholes, unfireable workers, mandatory prison sentences, peculiar license requirements for hairdressers.

The reasons don’t matter. The consequences are higher prices to support people and companies that are not competitive and you are storing up bigger problems for the future when you can no longer afford to keep subsidising, or paying the increased prices related to, this behaviour.

Structuring the post-crash economy

I’ve long said that, in order to restructure the economy to make it an actual free-market capitalist enterprise, it is necessary to be less dependent on the rich. That doesn’t mean “don’t tax them”. But it does mean ring-fence those taxes lest they distort your economy.

It is naïve to believe that the people who went out and over one weekend bought 4 million iPhones wouldn’t make Apple’s investors wealthy. It is just plain ignorant to imagine that those investors and entrepreneurs who spent years working on new cures for cancer, new ways of manufacturing microchips, improved plastic packaging, or the next big web application did so without some hope of success. And, if that business blows up to the point that it becomes an established product, it is foolish to imagine that they won’t benefit disproportionately.

Worse still is to imagine that, if you don’t wish to share in the pain of those who invest and lose, you should benefit from those who invest and win. Buy shares, become an employee or wait in line for the taxes they pay. But don’t think that you have a right to the disproportionate profits they generate just because they exist. Where were you during the painful period of risk?

The US has long been the home of such success. They are America’s oil well. A volatile gusher.

For those same people will be disproportionately hurt when that company is outcompeted or makes a critical error. They are the fountainhead and the fall is a killer.

The first step to unbundling them from their influence over laws and lawmakers is to remove their money from the general tax pot. Then make the laws symmetrical.

If you undermined your statutory legal system with special opt outs – if it’s legal to murder other people if you are important enough, or mug grannies if you wear the right hat – then you would expect a lot of frustrating muggings and murders by people who appear above the law.

The same goes for special-pleading. When you allow one group of people – no matter how worthy – a special right to a subsidy then you will know no end to it. Others will always come up with good reasons for such support. Soon you are not competing.

Don’t take that to mean that those harmed by a business failure shouldn’t be supported. But we know how to deal with that without giving the money to the business. It’s called unemployment insurance and it can pay income support and retraining where required. Maybe a portion of the taxes from the 1% can go into a fund to pay for such insurance?

The alternative to such insurance is to fund the businesses to keep them going. Which is a bit like preserving a condemned building with occasional props so that the tenants can keep living there. Why not let the building fall and the owner deal with the mess while you find the tenants somewhere else to live?

The problem with the jobs of the future

In 1943 it took 40 adults to harvest a single row of cotton on the average American farm. 1943 was also the year the first International Harvester cotton-picking machine made its debut picking one row at a time.

Political attitudes were different back then. Most cotton pickers were the children of slaves freed less than 100 years previously. Their lives hadn’t changed much since the end of servitude. Cotton-picking, whether performed by slaves or free men, is back-breaking, soul-destroying, low-paid hardship. Millions of people fled farms for America’s cities.

Americans remember the period after the Second World War as their glory days of mass production, rapidly rising productivity and tremendous social mobility. Nowadays, in our more enlightened times, a machine that put so many people out of work would probably be destroyed.

The degree of social change in the 1940s was far greater than even present-day China can aspire to. In 1945 it took 14 hours of labour to produce 100 bushels of corn on two acres of land. By 1987 it took 3 hours of labour to produce that same 100 bushels.

Industrialisation lowered costs and freed human beings to perform more interesting, better-paid work. It has also changed the gearing; the way in which such companies are structured.

GE, founded by Thomas Edison in 1892, has 300,000 employees today and $157 billion in annual revenue. Walmart, founded by Sam Walton in 1962, has 2.1 million employees and turns $400 billion.

Google, founded by Sergey Brin and Larry Page in 1998, has 23,000 employees and $23 billion in revenue. Facebook, founded by Mark Zuckerberg in 2004, has 1,700 employees and revenues of $800 million.

These new companies employ fewer people, make more profits for themselves and less money for others.

The implications are that the jobs of the future will require a greater investment in education, and of a higher standard. Businesses will be smaller and so there need to be more of them. Big infrastructure projects, or big manufacturing businesses, will never employ the numbers of people they used to. Our economies and technology are too sophisticated for this.

Understand this, though: if you continue to use the taxes you get from the rich to support mandatory government expenditure then you will distort your economy. It will be less flexible, less capable of creating space for these small new companies, less adaptable to external and internal pressures.

Neither America nor Europe is dominant anymore. This is the great global rebalancing back towards the East for the first time in a thousand years. They are competitive as anything and they’re in a race, whether you choose to compete or not. They’re not going to stop for a while so you can catch a breather.

This isn’t the end of it, of course. Stabilising economies is only one small step on the way to directing that economy towards growth and job creation. But it’s a bit like climate change; first you have to agree it exists before you can get to the rather more complex problem of what you do about it.

In each case, though, accepting the existence of climate change, recognising the need to de-risk an economy by treating its most volatile revenue sources differently and taking a long hard look at whether the common law is still “common”, requires the selection of moderate, open-minded and intellectually honest political representatives.

The questions for you: would you elect a politician who told you the truth; that your economy needs to become fit again – sloughing off acres of fat; that legislation needs to be adjusted; that such legislation will create disruption not only for the rich but for all? Would you be prepared to hear that the solution that will fix the problem will take 20 years to implement, so far is your economy from competitiveness?

Would you even listen?

Think of an airplane consisting of 100 seats which only breaks even on the cost for a single journey once there are 65 paying customers on board.  The blue seats in the image below are the 64 patiently waiting to start their travels.  The red chair waits for the 65th customer.

The 65th passenger

How much pricing power does the 65th passenger have?

The 65th fare is the difference between failure and success for the airline; whether the journey can take place or not for the travellers.

In most countries, airlines certainly don’t wait for break-even before taking off.  They accumulate losses on some flights and offset them with surpluses on others.  However, for any African travellers out there who have spent a day or two waiting for a mini-bus to fill up with passengers before departing, this example is rather real.

Even so, for airlines, that 65th passenger is not theoretical.  On average there must be breakeven otherwise the airline will fail.

That final passenger is the difference between survival and ruin.  If that passenger is never going to turn up then all the other passengers must accept not travelling or that they must make up the fare that will never be paid.  One fare divided up amongst 64 is only a 1.6% increase.  Maybe they can cover that.  But what happens if one person cannot?

Suddenly it’s 2 amongst 63…

As for the airline, what can it do?  Frequent flying programs, gold cards, seat upgrades, special benefits for those who are loyal.  In short, they favour the customers who pay the most.

The other passengers don’t own the plane.  They may grumble about such blatant favouritism but these perks don’t necessarily come out of their pockets (not that they can see, anyway).

This is the impact of marginal pricing. Small changes can reduce even prosperous economies to a similar state of dependency.

Welcome the 7 billion

In A tale of three islands, The Economist takes a look at the world population which reaches a tally of 7 billion on 31 October 2011.

“By 1968 John Brunner, a British novelist, observed that the earth’s people—by then 3.5 billion—would have required the Isle of Man, 572 square kilometres in the Irish Sea, for its standing room. Brunner forecast that by 2010 the world’s population would have reached 7 billion, and would need a bigger island. Hence the title of his 1968 novel about over-population, “Stand on Zanzibar” (1,554 square kilometres off east Africa).”

Which goes to show just how deterministic population growth is that Brunner could predict, with considerable accuracy, when the world population would hit 7 billion.

More interestingly is what The Economist says about population growth (which is stabilising) and its impact on economies.

“In 1970 the total fertility rate was 4.45 and the typical family in the world had four or five children. It is now 2.45 worldwide, and lower in some surprising places. Bangladesh’s rate is 2.16, having halved in 20 years. Iran’s fertility fell from 7 in 1984 to just 1.9 in 2006. Countries with below-replacement fertility include supposedly teeming Brazil, Tunisia and Thailand. Much of Europe and East Asia have fertility rates far below replacement levels.”

“A fall in fertility sends a sort of generational bulge surging through a society.”

That demographic bulge has three stages represented in the following three charts. The blue line represents population and the red line represents the demand on economic support not earned directly.  Children, obviously, depend on their parents (or the state for education / healthcare) while retirees may draw down their savings or depend on the state or relatives.

First, a linear fall-off with many children, a few of working age, and even fewer retirees.

The Youth Bubble

This is the situation for most of Africa and the Middle East and is where most of the next billion will be born.

The second stage is one which can result in tremendous economic growth.  A large working-age population has few children or retirees to support and so can invest dramatically in infrastructure and social wellbeing.  This is the era of the Baby Boomers in the US and much of Europe and also of a similar period during the 1980s to recently in East Asia.

The fewer dependents there are on those who are working, the lower the taxes they need to pay and the more of their income which can be saved.

The Working-Age Bubble

Watch that wave, though.  The bubble will retire.  That’s where we hit the problem.  As the first part of that wave starts to retire, draw down their savings and require more healthcare they start to place pressure on social insurance.

The Long-term Retired

The dependency ratio starts to change; fewer people of working age support more people who do not.  Worse, though (from a financial perspective) is that this massed period of retirement is coinciding with a burst in longevity.

A retiree at 65 used to rely on their (or the state’s) savings for maybe five years at the maximum.  Now they could be retired for 20.  A Baby Boomer who retires at 65 could be drawing funds from Medicare and Medicaid for far longer than any generation before.  And there will be a lot of them.

This generational shift goes some way to explaining why Europe and the US are finding it so difficult to escape from recession.  The burden on those working is increasing.

By way of comparison, Japan’s population over 65 is already 23.1% of the total and life-expectancy is about 80.  China, worryingly, is the fastest aging country in the world.  Its dependency ratio is projected to reach 64 by 2050, from 38 now.

Age is one factor.  The other is progressive taxation.

Don’t cry for the wealthy

There are, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 237 million people in the US of working age of whom 139 million (58%) are actually working.  This out of a population of 307 million.

This implies that 45% of the population covers the state benefits of the other 55%.  However, not all Americans earn sufficient to pay tax.  According to the US Inland Revenue Service 104 million file income tax returns.  There are 83 million people who earn between $20,000 and $200,000 a year and they earn 66% of total income and pay 54% of total income tax.

726,000 people earn over $500,000 annually, 0.7% of income tax-payers.  They earn 17.8% of total income and pay 27% of the total tax take.

I’m not sure where the 1%/99% line is supposed to sit.  However, income tax only pays for about 33% of the taxes raised in the US.  So the wealthiest 0.7% pay 9% of the total while making up 0.2% of the population.

Megan McArdle, writing in The Atlantic, says “I doubt Occupy Wall Street will be assuaged by learning that the top 0.1% now only receive 8% of the income earned in the US, even if that number is the lowest it’s been since 2003.”

But, as she says, it is important.

Professor Steven Kaplan of the University of Chicago has explained in lurid detail how the incomes of the top 1% have fallen in the past few years.  Nothing to worry about if you are wealthy; nobody is asking you to sob for the rich.

However, if 9% of the tax spent on entitlements like Medicare and Medicaid comes from a mere 0.2% of the population and their income drops 10% then billions of dollars just got added to the deficit.

Progressive taxation, and a massive dependency on the wealthy, puts them in charge of the economy.  The alternative is for everyone else to pay more.

“Why do you hate me, what have I ever done for you?”

We’re all on the runway waiting for that final passenger to take his seat.  That passenger is demanding special treatment or he won’t fly.  He wants tax breaks, subsidies, special security for his home and better education for his kids.

None of us, already in our seats, want to pay more for our flight.

The perks that the 1% demand don’t appear to come out of our pockets but they are opportunity costs that our economies can’t really afford.

If my example about marginal pricing has meant anything to you then you realise what this means.  The 1% don’t have to earn 100% or 80% or even 40% of all income to make greater demands on government.  What they earn is irrelevant; they just need to pay a disproportionate amount of the total tax take.  They need to make up the margin.

This they do.

The way we have structured our economies in the US, Japan and Europe (the “West”) means that we need the super-rich to keep being super-rich and pay for a disproportionate amount of our social services so that the rest of us can pay less.

In exchange, whether we meant to or not, we have given them negotiating power.  They get to travel first class, get tax loopholes and special meetings with senior political leaders.  As long as the rich earn sufficient to pay for our needs, we grudgingly accept this.

Now they are earning less and so the benefits they receive appear even more unfair.  Robert Frank in his The High-Beta Rich: How the Manic Wealthy Will Take Us to the Next Boom, Bubble and Bust, points out that the wealthy tend to gain more during the booms but they fall further during the busts.  From 2007-08 the top 1% lost 8% of their income as compared to 2% for the rest. Pegging a significant portion of tax collection to people whose incomes are this volatile dooms stability in your tax system.

That hasn’t stopped us hating them or Wall Street.  After all, there is a Chinese saying, “Why do you hate me, what have I ever done for you?”  What do they have to do for us to hate them less?  The Economist has some ideas.

We are all the one percent.

Yet the “West” is not Cameroon.  There the top 1% own almost half of the economy through their control of that West African nation’s oil wealth.  Everyone else is a peasant farmer.

Those peasants lack the skills, opportunities and protection of law to get ahead.

Not so in the West where the 1% make up far less of our economies.  We could actually depend on them less if we so choose.

It isn’t necessary for the 1% to earn less for them to have less power.  The economy is not a fixed-size pie.  Since 2000, the US economy has grown 42% in size.  The rich got richer because the economy got much, much bigger.  Unfortunately, so did the benefits paid by the state and the reliance on the wealthy to finance those benefits.

We don’t need the rich to be poorer in a flexible economy.  It is simply necessary for us to rely on them less to pay for our social benefits.

Indeed, right now – because of the global recession – everyone is earning less.  Even when the 65th person gets on the plane we still can’t afford to take off.  If the 99% refuse to pay more and demand more of the wealthy then we also give them more power than they have already.  Now is the perfect time to demand less and take that power back.

If you decide not to, and for as long as you depend on the wealthy, you are the one percent.  We all are.

When I was very young I read a collection of horror short-stories.  They were mostly childish waffle except for one which has left a life-long impression on me.

In the story, a successful author begins to receive a series of letters from all across Europe.  The message is the same, “You made me and I am coming to meet you.” Signed with the name of the principal villain in the author’s long-running series of books, the author assumes a prank but calls in the police.  Despite protection, one night the character arrives.

“Is there nothing good in me?” he asks.  “Is there no-one who would mourn my passing? Nothing I did that was good or kind? Am I beyond redemption?”

The author shouts at him, “No, I made you to be a symbol of all that I despise and all that I believe is wrong in the world.  There is no relief for you!”

“Then,” says the villain, “I must do what is in my nature.”

The story ends with police hunting for the author who has gone mysteriously missing.

The lesson for me, young as I was, is that no-one should be placed beyond the realms of compassion and empathy.  If a person is placed in a role from which there is no escape then the people who placed them in that role are as much responsible for their actions as that person.  Perhaps even more so.

Terry Pratchett, writer of the universally successful Discworld series of books, has been one of my favourite authors for more than 25 years.  Even his most evil characters are redeemable.  Pratchett’s compassion and tenderness with his characters is what draws me to them, long after the gags and fantasy have lost their ability to surprise.

As he grapples with Alzheimer’s he is also grappling with literature and life’s more intractable problems.  Adventures need villains.  If we are to be the hero then we must cast someone else in the role of monster.  We need to cheer on one side to the detriment of the other.

“Boromir may fall,” said Pratchett during the launch of his latest novel, Snuff, at the Theatre Royal in Drury Lane, London, last Tuesday.

Gamers will be thrilled to know that Pratchett is a keen Oblivion player.  “In the game your job is to kill Goblins who, for some reason, always attack your party mercilessly when you turn up in their caves carrying swords and looking for loot.  I wondered what it would be like to enter their world without having to fight.”

Alzheimer’s is slowly eating away at his fine motor skills.  He sits carefully.  His glass, filled with brandy, is held where he can see it.  He sets it down with full concentration, both hands on it and does not let go until it is placed centrally on the table.  And, to compensate, he is hyper-aware of his surroundings, trying to remember and notice everything.  It must be exhausting.

The only trace of his struggle is occasional long pauses as he keeps track of his thoughts.

“Boromir may fall, but the Orcs and Goblins are irredeemably evil.  And I began to wonder.”

A modder created a magic ring for him and so he entered the caves of the Goblins without having to fight.

In Unseen Academicals, his 37th Discworld novel, he redeems the Orcs.  Now, in Snuff, his 39th and 50th novel overall, he sets out to redeem the Goblins.

Lord Vetinari, Patrician of Ankh-Morpok, sets the theme of the book: “Predators respect other predators, do they not?  They may perhaps even respect the prey: the lion may lie down with the lamb, even if only the lion is likely to get up again, but the lion will not lie down with the rat.  Vermin, Drumknott, an entire race reduced to vermin!”

This topic of redemption is well timed.  All over the world, demonstrators blame their leaders, or the “1%” for all of society’s ills.

Consider this statement from the Occupy Wall Street, NYC General Assembly, “We come to you at a time when corporations, which place profit over people, self-interest over justice, and oppression over equality, run our governments.”

The Corporations, they claim, are owned by the 1% and the list of ills which are laid at their feet is lengthy (with a footnote to declare that these grievances are not all-inclusive):

• They have perpetuated inequality and discrimination in the workplace based on age, the color of one’s skin, sex, gender identity and sexual orientation.
• They have poisoned the food supply through negligence, and undermined the farming system through monopolization.
• They have profited off of the torture, confinement, and cruel treatment of countless animals, and actively hide these practices.
• They have used the military and police force to prevent freedom of the press.
• They determine economic policy, despite the catastrophic failures their policies have produced and continue to produce.
• They continue to block alternate forms of energy to keep us dependent on oil.
• They have purposely covered up oil spills, accidents, faulty bookkeeping, and inactive ingredients in pursuit of profit.
• They purposefully keep people misinformed and fearful through their control of the media.
• They have accepted private contracts to murder prisoners even when presented with serious doubts about their guilt.
• They have perpetuated colonialism at home and abroad.
• They have participated in the torture and murder of innocent civilians overseas.
• They continue to create weapons of mass destruction in order to receive government contracts.

Like the Spanish Inquisition before them, that one has had the thought that something is possible is all the evidence required to damn someone utterly.

Guilt is obvious, there is no appeal and there is certainly no need for anything so paltry as evidence or a trial.  The 1% are beyond redemption.  And when a body of people is beyond redemption then any form of collective punishment is seen as having divine sanction.  The vermin will be destroyed.

In this way minorities have been corralled and made sacrificial effigies for millennia.

Orcs and Goblins were invented so that we could definitively have something to hate and that we did not need to feel that we should empathise, that we should understand or to look for their needs and grievances.  If something is of its very nature evil then we have no complicity or involvement in their becoming what they are.

Real life is never that obvious or simple.

Pratchett, even as he grapples with the worst illness of the 21st century, demonstrates once more that fearful majorities are capable of terrible cruelty.

He does not condemn, he does not judge.  He offers compassion, empathy and the recognition that we are reflections and interconnections of each other.

So should we.

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

When a Hellfire missile fired from a drone aircraft operated by the Central Intelligence Agency struck ground in Yemen last month, it killed two American citizens. One was New Mexico-born Anwar al-Awlaki, 40; the other was Samir Khan, 25, who publishes media for Al Qaeda promoting terrorism.

Al-Awlaki, says the American government, is a terrorist. Officials say he had crossed the line between propagandist and operations planner. That earned him a spot on a kill-or-capture list nearly two years ago. Is he a bad guy? Probably. Did he deserve to die? Perhaps. But neither “probably” nor “perhaps” is the standard for conviction in American criminal trials — beyond a reasonable doubt.

So, reports Charlie Savage of The New York Times, the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel more than a year ago crafted a 50-page memorandum. It justified the killing of an American citizen without benefit of trial, reports Savage. According to the unnamed sources quoted by Savage, the document provided steps to bypass the Fourth and Fifth amendments regarding unreasonable seizure and due process of law. Such extralegal acts, coupled with the American military’s global reach, raise troubling questions few in power — or seeking power — are willing to address publicly.

The Obama administration has refused to detail its role in the killing of al-Awlaki. The memorandum itself is secret. Savage’s reporting, using sources who refuse to go on the record, notes that the document lays out only the case for capturing or killing the charismatic propagandist — no one else. That is, perhaps, until another American citizen is labeled a terrorist. And Khan? No secret memorandum permitted his killing. Merely collateral damage, reports Savage.

If the Obama administration believes it has a legally sufficient case for killing an American citizen without due process, then it ought to make it public. Now. Release the memorandum for inspection. After all, wouldn’t that be the change toward transparency we were told we could believe in?

The American Constitution, it seems, is caught between a rock — the threat of terrorism on American soil — and a hard place — the rule of law. We have seen how the previous administration treated due process using a contorted legal argument for enhanced interrogation, or what many argue is torture. The Obama administration has trumped that, using a secret memorandum to justify the killing of an American citizen.

As a nation, we are wading into an increasingly dangerous, ambiguous moral quagmire. At home, we have watched as the Patriot Acts have traded privacy for security. Abroad, we have begun to demonstrate a willingness to forsake our centuries-old value system embodied in the Constitution. Writes John Farmer Jr., dean of the school of law at Rutgers:

Moreover, the killing of Awlaki illustrates just how far the government has come over the past decade in its willingness to depart from prior legal and military doctrine to battle al Qaeda. In virtually every respect, the action taken against Awlaki — the targeted killing of an American citizen by a CIA-fired missile outside the battlefield zones of Iraq or Afghanistan — would have been unthinkable a decade ago.

We have the ability to kill whomever we wish. (It may take some time. But we got bin Laden.) We spend as much money on the American military as the rest of the world combined spends on theirs. According to Andrew Bacevich in his book “Washington Rules: America’s Path to Permanent War”:

The United States currently has approximately 300,000 troops stationed abroad, again more than the rest of the world combined (a total that does not include another 90,000 sailors and marines who are at sea); as of 2008, according to the Department of Defense, these troops occupied or used some 761 “sites” in 39 foreign countries, although this tally neglected to include many dozens of bases in Iraq or Afghanistan; no other country comes even remotely close to replicating this “empire of bases” — or to matching the access that the Pentagon has negotiated to airfields and seaports around the world.

Don’t mistake my comments for a pacifist’s rant. It is time to reflect on military actions taken in our collective name that offend the Constitution. But that won’t happen in a climate in which a presidential candidate proclaims that in his administration, America’s military will reign supreme. Here’s the GOP’s Mitt Romney last week:

The United States should always retain military supremacy to deter would-be aggressors, and to defend our allies and ourselves.

I’d like to believe that the United States will always be able to defend itself at home and abroad. But if Mitt wants more for the military, we have to ask: Don’t we have enough already? Is more the wisest use of money given so many pressing domestic needs?

Something important is missing in the plethora of presidential candidate debates past and future. Where is the intelligent reflection on the costs of American extra-constitutional actions and the size and function of its military? Where is the discussion of whom we have become — and why — and how, if possible, we can return to whom we once were?

But such discourse is unlikely. We have a president who faces a struggling economy and the conduct of two wars while pretending not to be a Republican. He has challengers who believe opposition to gay marriage, adherence to tax pledges, protection of the “job creators” in high income brackets, and whether Romney is a Christian should trump any other issues.

No one wants to talk about the erosion of privacy and the rule of law. Keeping America secure no matter the cost is the ticket to staying in or obtaining power. These issues surrounding America’s military might and presidentially condoned, extralegal actions taken with that might are ugly and complicated. It may well be there are no angels anywhere — merely demons of necessity on the one side and weaklings on the other, as a friend told me. But politicians, the public, the press, and pundits should raise the issues much higher on the national radar — or we might remain in James Forrestal’s state of semiwar permanently.

h/t: Dr. Sam Smith, Andrew Bacevich

Perhaps it’s because I am now just awakening to Du Bois’ work that I see the book in such a light. Perhaps that awakening colors my view, giving me wide-eyed wonder to a text that’s over a century old. Perhaps my middle-class, middle-aged whiteness, and my historical place in the Twenty-First Century, makes Du Bois’ work seem exotic and wonderful.

Perhaps.

But even as I’m awakening to Souls now, so too did America then, so too did the black folk themselves, “gifted with a second-sight in this American world” as Du Bois described it—“a world which yields him no true self-consciousness, but only lets him see himself through the revelation of the other world.”

Blacks, Du Bois argued, should see for themselves. That seems so self-evident now that to even say it seems ridiculous.

In 1903, though, blacks were still groping their way through the strange landscape of post-Emancipation America. The four decades since the abolition of slavery—which Du Bois likened to the Israelites’ forty years in the desert before they found the land of Canaan—had proven to be a hard journey marked by continued bondage imposed by economics and enforced by prejudice. Yet the journey itself “changed the child of Emancipation to the youth with dawning self-consciousness, self-realization, self-respect.”

His own soul rose before him, and he saw himself,—darkly as through a veil; and yet he saw in himself some faint revelation of his power, of his mission. He began to have a dim feeling that, to attain his place in the world, he must be himself, and not another.

Du Bois could have been talking about himself. Souls provided the voice for that awakening—a voice respectful, assertive, and powerful.

Du Bois’ book represented a marked break from the black leadership of his time, as personified by Booker T. Washington. Washington advocated a policy of “conciliation toward the white South,” Du Bois said—a policy that required capitulation and accommodation. Such a policy, Du Bois contended, did not represent forward progress. It did not represent justice.

Souls opened a conversation that would evolve over two decades, finally culminating in the Harlem Renaissance of the 1920s. Du Bois, by then, was the leading black intellectual of his day, and his advocacy of black identity sparked one of America’s great creative and intellectual periods.

“It is a rare and intriguing moment when a people decide that they are the instruments of history-making and race-building,” wrote historian Nathan Huggins in his seminal 1972 study of the Harlem Renaissance. “[B]lack intellectuals in Harlem had just such a self-concept.”

Huggins’ examination lauded the intellectual and creative output of the period but ultimately judged the Renaissance a failure because it failed to translate into the kind of political traction that might’ve advanced race relations. It was based, he said, on “naïve assumptions about the centrality of culture, unrelated to economic and social realities.”

The great innocence of the renaissance is most clearly seen in the irony that, where its proponents had wanted to develop a distinctive Negro voice, they had been of necessity most derivative. It would have required a much more profound rejection of white values than was likely in the 1920s for Negroes to have freed themselves for creating the desired self-generating and self-confident Negro art.

Yet Huggins himself conceded that “the black-white relationship has been symbiotic; blacks have been essential to white identity (and whites to blacks).” He called the interdependence “profound.”

Du Bois had recognized it, too. “It is a peculiar sensation, this double-consciousness, this sense of always looking at one’s self through the eyes of others, of measuring one’s soul by the tape of a world that looks on in amused contempt and pity,” he wrote in Souls. “One ever feels this twoness,—an American, a Negro; two souls, two thoughts, two unreconciled strivings; two warring ideals in one dark body, whose dogged strength alone keeps it from being torn asunder.” It’s no wonder Du Bois’ book tapped into the racial subconscious.

It’s ironic that Huggins suggested that blacks of the Harlem Renaissance needed to embrace a “much more profound rejection of white values,” considering Du Bois suggested the same thing about Washington. While respectful of Washington, he was critical of Washington’s slow path.

Looking back today, though, one is hard-pressed to appreciate how difficult even Washington’s path was. When he dined at the White House with President Roosevelt in October of 1901, Washington stirred up such a furor that neither man dared a repeat dinner. So, from Huggins’ vantage point of the early 70s, at the tail-end of fifteen years of revolutionary Civil Rights convulsions, the Harlem Renaissance may have looked like slow progress, too; Du Bois may have looked conservative in his views.

As I look back on Huggins, Du Bois, and Washington, surrounded as they all are by the contexts of the Civil Rights movement, the Harlem Renaissance, the Tuskegee Institute, even the legacies of Douglass, William Lloyd Garrison, and John Brown—I can see stepping stones, building blocks, interdependence and interconnectedness. “[T]he problem of the Twentieth Century is the problem of the color line,” Du Bois wrote. I can see the path of that line tracing backwards.

I hear voices, see words, feel connected. I continue to awaken to my own role in that long dialogue. I understand, just a little better, the “souls of black folk”—and in doing so understand, too, my own.

Part one of two…

I work in the world of marketing and corporate communications, and my track record of business-related posts (here and at my biz site, Black Dog Strategic) probably demonstrates how seriously I take ethical concerns. For instance, not long ago I made clear that I think understanding the truth of a bad news story aimed at a client comes before worrying about how to respond. Back in November, I took a hard look at the eroding credibility of public relations as a profession and suggested that maybe the behavior of PR practitioners had a lot to do with our slide into lawyer, hooker and used car salesman territory. At various points along the way I’ve ventured opinions on everything and everybody from Toyota to Tiger Woods (to Augusta National), BP to LBJ, Target to Dillard’s, and Rupert Murdoch to the Denver Post, which used to be a newspaper.

Sometimes I comment on what strike me as merely bad strategies. Other times it’s about indefensible behavior that calls into question people’s character. But this time we’re so far over the line that we’re not talking about ethics or professional standards or strategic judgment. No, today we’re talking about amorality and the rank sociopathology of an industry (or at least a significant segment of it).

Witness:

• Brown Lloyd James (BLJ) worked with a Libyan oilman to improve the image of Moammar Gadhafi.
• Bell Pottinger felt no need to resign their work with Bahrain even after the killings of seven protestors earlier this year.
• As things in Bahrain deteriorated, the government hired another US firm, Potomac Square Group, to provide strategic counsel to the nation’s Embassy in DC.
• Now, as Bahrain is taking fire for hassling Doctors Without Borders, it has retained yet another US firm, Qorvis Communications.
• BLJ also helped land a puff piece on the Syrian first lady in Vogue.
• The Monitor Group has worked on behalf of both Libya and Syria.

Of course, there are always things agencies can say in their defense. It was done before the brutal crackdowns began, or it was a fashion piece, or we only work for the economic development arm of the government, or we’ve stopped now, or it was on behalf of a truly worthy project in the country, or we thought they were committed to doing the right thing. Saying things, after all, and doing so smoothly and elegantly and cleverly and occasionally with the slightest dab of misdirection, is what folks in my industry do.

But sometimes nothing you can say is sufficient. If the thing you’re defending yourself against is reflective of a larger pattern, then we know all we need to know. However – what if, instead, a particular PR firm that has heretofore represented nothing but noble and charitable clients, working tirelessly to improve the world, what if this firm chooses to represent a bottom-of-the-barrel client?

Past accomplishments obviously factor into how we evaluate a crime. Businesses (and individuals) can earn a great deal in the way of presumed innocence, and intelligent observers can usually tell the difference between a one-off mistake in judgment and a pattern of anti-social behavior. Still, there are some decisions that no amount of accumulated good faith can overcome, especially when only a barking moron could have failed to understand the magnitude of the problem beforehand.

Perhaps we can examine client lists and histories and find excuses to mitigate behavior if we try hard enough, but is there some reason why we should? At some point don’t we have to stop the rationalizing and acknowledge that Libya and Syria, at least, are nations with long histories. Long, long histories, and I’m not talking histories of charity, philanthropy and democracy, either. No, we’re talking about things like brutal oppression (you know, like the campaigns they’re waging against dissidents at present) and support for terrorist organizations. There’s simply no way to conclude that the decisions to represent these interests was about anything other than money. If you’d represent Gadhafi, you’d represent Satan if he showed up with a suitcase full of unmarked bills.

The good news is that these firms are taking heavy fire for their actions. Rosanna Fiske, chair and CEO of Public Relations Society of America and an Associate Profesor at Florida International, pulls no punches in a comprehensive beatdown at The Hill.

They were, in effect, counseling enemies of global democracy; ruthless despots who cut down their own people to save whatever feeble remnants of their legacies may remain. When asked to explain their questionable work, most offer a ham-handed response to the effect of: “We’re just the messengers.” This explanation is an insult to all who value transparent and ethical communications from governments and private businesses alike.

In trying to improve tyrants’ images and reputations, these firms are damaging America’s international reputation.

…

Ethical public relations places an emphasis on counseling reputable organizations and individuals in developing and maintaining beneficial relationships with concerned stakeholders. The Libyan, Syrian and Bahraini governments have not shown the slightest inclination to cultivate this type of cooperative relationship. Yet all three have seduced American public relations firms into working on their behalf.

One has to question what the attraction is. Is it all for the allure of working with a big-name client and the money?

Efforts to “enhance international appreciation of Libya and positive news coverage of the country,” as the Monitor Group engaged in, or to secure a fawning Vogue magazine profile of Syrian first lady Asma al-Assad, asBrown Lloyd James reportedly accomplished (Vogue eventually removed the profile from its website after heavy international protest from readers), do little to build Americans’ trust in these governments. Most disturbingly, the work insults the very freedoms that allow these firms to engage in such questionable services in the first place.

Kudos to Fiske for using her very prominent platform to draw a line in the sand regarding this sort of sociopathic activity by firms like those cited above. I’m going to take it a step further, though. If one of these agencies represented my business I’d fire them on the spot (and post an explanation on my corporate site explaining precisely why). In this spirit, then, there might be some value in calling attention to the other organizations out there doing business with these firms. Should an existing client decide that they don’t want to be associated with the kind of ethics normally associated with arms dealers, or should a customer want to call or e-mail one of these companies with a complaint, well, that’s the 1st Amendment in action, isn’t it? And since we don’t live in Syria, Libya or Bahrain, we’re theoretically in favor of the exercise of free speech…

So, here are the client lists of the PR counselors in question. This list is compiled from the firm’s own sites and other sources, effective August 16, 2011.

Brown Lloyd James

New York:

MEDIA AND ENTERTAINMENT

• Al Jazeera English
• Andrew Lloyd Webber and The Really Useful Group
• Forbes
• HartSharp Entertainment
• Lee Strasberg Theatre Institute
• Russia Today (RT)

CHARITIES AND NGOs

• AARP
• Autism Speaks
• BRAC USA
• British Memorial Garden
• Carnegie Mellon University
• China-US Exchange Foundation
• Institute of International Education – Goldman Sachs
• Loomba Trust
• Marine Conservation Alliance
• Pew Environment Group
• Reach Out to Asia
• Shafallah Center for Children with Special Needs(Qatar)
• The Open Hands Initiative

CORPORATE, BUSINESS AND RETAIL

• AstraZeneca
• Challenger, Ltd.
• Christie’s
• Doha Bank
• IBM
• State Farm
• United Group for Projects (Qatar)
• WILL Interactive

GOVERNMMENT AND PUBLIC AFFAIRS

• City of London Corporation
• Embassy of the State of Qatar
• Independent Inquiry Committee into the United Nations Oil-for-Food Programme
• Independent Panel Review of the World Bank Group DII
• The State of Qatar

London:

MEDIA AND ENTERTAINMENT

• Al Jazeera English
• Andrew Lloyd Webber and The Really Useful Group
• Associated Newspapers – Metro, Evening Standard, London Lite
• Forbes
• HarperCollins Publishers
• Telegraph Media Group – The Daily Telegraph, The Sunday Telegraph

CHARITIES AND NGOs

• The Prince’s Teaching Institute

CORPORATE, BUSINESS AND RETAIL

• The Black Farmer
• Broadcasters’ Audience Research Board (BARB)
• Disneyland Resort Paris
• Monaco Government Tourist & Convention Authority
• OKA Direct
• The Royal Opera House
• The Royal Opera House Manchester
• The Walt Disney Corporation

GOVERNMMENT AND PUBLIC AFFAIRS

• Girls’ Schools Association
• Judicial Appointments Commission
• Lord Levy
• Maison de Monaco
• Oxford University
• The Principality of Monaco

Doha

MEDIA AND ENTERTAINMENT

• Al Jazeera English
• @bahrain

CHARITIES AND NGOs

• Al Fakhoora
• Carnegie Mellon University in Qatar
• Georgetown University- School of Foreign Services in Qatar
• HH The Amir’s Katrina Fund
• Shafallah Center for Children with Special Needs

CORPORATE, BUSINESS AND RETAIL

• Carbon Trust
• Centrica (British Gas)
• Doha Bank
• Qatalum
• Qatar Financial Center
• Qatargas
• Qatari Diar
• United Group for Projects

GOVERNMMENT AND PUBLIC AFFAIRS

• Education City – Qatar Foundation
• Ministry of Foreign Affairs
• Qatar Tourism and Exhibitions Authority

Bell Pottinger

• The government of Bahrain.
• Emirates Airline
• Fortnum & Mason
• Milklink
• BPEX
• EADS
• Airbus
• RSA Group
• PowerPerfector
• Trafigura
• Almac Group
• DWF
• The government of Sri Lanka
• Britvic
• Cadbury’s
• Currencies Direct
• Davenport Lyons
• DP World
• Emirates Airlines
• HP
• Innovation Expo
• It’s Your Choice
• Kellogg’s
• McAfee
• Milklink
• Müller
• Seven Seas
• Skills for Business
• Sky
• SynCo Bio Partners
• Unilever
• TAG
• Viridor Waste Management
• VISA
• Vodafone
• Waitrose

Potomac Square Group

• No information available.

Qorvis Communications

• George Washington’s Mount Vernon Estate & Gardens
• Intel
• Kennedy Krieger Institute
• Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America
• Plasan
• Revolution Health
• Rosslyn Business Improvement District
• The Washington Post
• Virginia Lottery
• Youthaids

Monitor Group

• According to Wikipedia: “The Monitor Group does not disclose its list of clients. Even when discussing clients in-house, Monitor uses acronyms to protect client’s identities, a mark of Monitor’s hyper-confidentiality. Some engagements that have appeared in the press due to their public nature include a major initiative with the Libyan government and an organizational effort with the University of California.

Anybody who can help me fill out the client lists for The Monitor Group and Potomac Square Group, please drop me a note.

Next: Tips for PR Pros Thinking About Hiring on With Distressed Brands…

Colorado’s Department of Public Safety is employing analysts at the Colorado Information Analysis Center to monitor sites like Twitter and Facebook with an eye to gleaning information about potentially disruptive events before they happen. By monitoring social media conversations in real time, the CDPS analysts hope to be able to identify emerging threats within minutes of the first discussion by online plotters — which should hopefully allow law enforcement to preempt, for example, apparently spontaneous outbursts of civil disorder.

Lance Clem, spokesman for the Colorado Department of Public Safety, told Colorado journalists: “Because we know people organize this way, we’re listening,” adding, “People will describe online, or in some of the chatter that they send back and forth, indicating what they will do.” The CDPS program actually dates back to 2008, with online monitoring in the lead-up to Democratic National Convention in Denver.

Hmmm. Well, is this the same thing as Cameron’s notion that shutting down the Facebooks and Twitters is a good idea in times of civil unrest?

I don’t think so. What the CDPS is essentially doing (assuming this is the whole story) is listening in on public (or semi-public) conversations. If you and I are sitting around in a mall food court plotting a looting spree, we have no expectation of privacy if the guy at the next table has good ears and happens to be, you know, a police officer. Facebook and Twitter are like that – users can control who has access to their streams. If you aren’t one of my friends you can’t read my Facebook posts, although I have the option of making that feed available to the public. My choice. Ditto Twitter. In real life, if I don’t want something out there for everybody, you and I can talk in my living room.

If police departments didn’t monitor public chatter they’d be remiss in their duties. And if they feel the need to access private conversations, well, we have established processes for asserting probably cause and obtaining warrants, right?

None of this excuses the state from its responsibilities to promote an atmosphere free of the kinds of dynamics that breed civil disorder, of course, and anybody who has lived here as long as I have can probably tell you a story or two about how they wouldn’t necessarily trust our law enforcement to anything much more serious than guard string. So this shouldn’t be taken as a stirring endorsement of the trustworthiness of the local gendarmerie by any stretch.

But, in principle, what the CDPS appears to be up strikes me as perfectly valid.

Analystas

One sobering development, though, should make British citizens sit up and take notice. For that matter, those of us in America and in every other democracy in the world (to the extent that the US can be called a democracy) need to be paying very close attention to the latest move by Brit Prime Minister David Cameron, who is calling on Parliament to consider enacting social media bans.

Amid continuing rioting in multiple cities across the U.K., British Prime Minister David Cameron said in Parliament that legislators should consider laws allowing officials to ban individuals from social media sites like Twitter and Facebook, if there is a chance those individuals intend to use the sites to plot violence. Cameron’s proposal, coming as thousands of British police attempt to reestablish order in blighted inner cities, acknowledges the central role played by social media in initiating, organizing, and spreading civil disorder — but immediately drew criticism as a misguided over-reaction, which does nothing to address the real causes of the violence.

Cameron told lawmakers that home secretary Theresa May will meet with executives from Facebook, Twitter, and Research In Motion, which makes Blackberry devices, to determine the feasibility of a social media ban on miscreants. This could include banning individuals who have already used social media to plan violence, and constant monitoring of social media to spot (and preempt) new episodes of violence in the planning phases.

Cameron explained to Parliament: “Everyone watching these horrific actions will be struck by how they were organized via social media. Free flow of information can be used for good. But it can also be used for ill. And when people are using social media for violence we need to stop them. So we are working with the police, the intelligence services and industry to look at whether it would be right to stop people communicating via these websites and services when we know they are plotting violence, disorder and criminality.”

There’s more at The Guardian.

Now, at a glance, there’s not a lot here to scare a dedicated law-and-order type. We’re just talking about cutting off miscreants, right? And no, I don’t think thugs and looters have any particular right to advanced technology in the pursuit of criminal activity.

The problem is that this only works if you trust the government when it comes to defining the terms. I mean, instead of the UK and Cameron (whom we trust because they’re a lot like us) let’s imagine if this had come from former Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak as the Arab Spring was collapsing around his ears. Imagine if it were Moammar Gaddhafi or Syrian President Bashar al-Assad (who’s currently in the process of stomping the shit out of his own protesters) insisting on a meeting with Facebook, Twitter and RIM. Imagine if there were enough North Koreans who haven’t been starved to death to work up a good riot – how would we feel if it were Kim Jong-Il instead of Cameron?

Most of us have a clear enough idea in our heads about the difference between a democratic protester and a criminal. Or, at least, we think we do. Usually, though, the difference can be quickly inferred from a basic look at who we support politically. History has taught us that the distinction between “freedom fighters” and “death squads” is often one of perspective.

So how, then, do we receive Cameron’s agitation for a social media smackdown? Is he an honest man looking to address the tools of common street crime? Or is he a hegemon looking for means of tamping down political protest that has boiled over in the wake of the failure of government policies?

Many Americans probably can’t fathom our leader, President Barack Obama, even contemplating such a move. Of course, once upon a time we wouldn’t have conceived of backscat security porn machines, granny shakedowns, diaper searches and gate-rape at our airports. Telecom carriers colluding with the NSA to spy on average citizens would have been unthinkable. The Patriot Act would have sparked a call to the barricades. Now we learn about the goddamned Super Patriot Act, which smells like a Soviet version of Dean Wormer’s double-secret probation activities against Delta House. And of course, we have to acknowledge that, pretty campaign rhetoric notwithstanding, Mr. Obama has expanded Bush-era affronts to our freedom, and we might also note that the roiling field of GOP probables looking to challenge a very vulnerable Obama in 2012 features precisely zero candidates known for their commitment to civil liberties.

At this point, perhaps the question isn’t whether the US government might contemplate shutting off social media in times of unrest. The better question might be whether they already have and this is where Cameron got the idea. Heck, is it possible that Cameron is, in part, floating a friendly trial balloon for his friends in DC? Maybe I’m being paranoid, but it’s been a long time since our government did anything on the civil liberties front to earn a presumption of innocence.

Given the direction our economy is heading and the zeal with which both parties are willing to collaborate against the middle and working classes in order to protect the financial interests of large corporations and our wealthiest citizens, it’s also not unreasonable to wonder whether the riots in the UK might be a foreshadowing of things to come over here. Which is to say, this is anything but idle navel-gazing.

And now, for the knee-buckling irony part of the discussion. What if we were to develop some street-level unrest in the US? And what if the government were to seek to shut down the social media channels being employed by organizers (or, for the sake of argument, let’s say they just moved to shut it down for everybody, you know, just until order was restored – and really, restoring order is all that Assad is looking to do, right)? Who would stand up for the cause of free speech?

Well, Google is a Fortune 100. Facebook is pretty big. RIM is smaller and dying, but still they have some heft. With a market valuation of $4 billion or better Twitter is nothing to sneeze at. And these companies represent a certain degree of influence where our political landscape is concerned. So they might be expected, in the name of shareholder value, to go to the mat in defense of their customers.

Or they might fold like a cheap lawn chair. Who knows. But they’d be the only potential dissenters whose voices had a hope of mattering.

Stay tuned. This one has the potential to get interesting. You know, interesting in the sense of “may you live in interesting times…”