Friday, June 29, 2007

June 29, 2007 - Sicko

I couldn't resist. This afternoon I go down to our local movie theater, and view Michael Moore's new documentary, Sicko – which is about our nation's broken health-care funding system – on the film's opening day.

I generally avoid movies on opening day. I don't like crowds. But, I'm so passionately concerned with the subject matter of this film, I don't want to wait.

Evidently, lots of other people feel the same way. The theater is two-thirds filled, at 3:15 in the afternoon on a Friday – for a documentary, for crying out loud! This is also the first movie screening I've been to, for a very long time, in which the audience actually applauds at key points in the film. (Biggest applause line: British Labour Party elder statesman Tony Benn – comparing America's bloated military budget with our paltry health-care expenditures – "If you can find money to kill people, you can find money to help people.")

I'll admit that Michael Moore's films are often over the top. He's not averse to taking the occasional cheap shot at his opponents, for comic effect. Sure, there are a few of these low blows in Sicko, but by and large he just lets the ordinary Americans he interviews speak for themselves. They speak powerfully indeed.

Moore asks, over and over, some very basic questions about why we do things the way we do, in this country. Why, for example, do we permit doctors who review medical-insurance claims to be paid literally millions in bonuses for denying people medical care? Why does the law require insurance companies to value their fiduciary responsibility to their stockholders more highly than their responsibility to their policyholders? Why do we, as a nation, consider it efficient for the government to run our firehouses, but not our hospitals? How is it moral to allow private companies to waste 14 cents of every health-care dollar on paper-shuffling bureaucratic overhead for people under 65, when Medicare does the same job for seniors, for just 3 cents? Why is it that, of the 25 leading industrialized nations, 24 of them offer their citizens universal health care (guess which one doesn't)?

Central to the film is a risky publicity stunt Moore engaged in: taking several ailing 9/11 heroes to Cuba by boat. First stop: the waters outside Guantanamo Bay, where Moore calls out through a bullhorn, asking the guards if his passengers can receive the same medical care the Al Qaeda inmates are getting from our government, gratis (which is significantly better care than these uninsured or underinsured people get on the U.S. mainland). Next stop: a Cuban hospital, in which these disabled rescue workers receive pulmonary treatment free of charge – care they were unable to get in the U.S., because they weren't New York City employees, but rather, patriotic volunteers. Having been to Cuba, I can appreciate what Moore's trying to do, but he failed to mention one important detail: that ordinary Cubans must suffer every day through a dreadful shortage of medicines. Yes, they have excellent doctors, but the Cubans have nowhere to take the prescription scripts their doctors write for them, because the pharmacy shelves are typically bare. (The U.S. trade embargo is partially to blame for that, and Cuban government inefficiency for the rest.) Yet, for all that, Moore's absolutely right in pointing out that the life expectancy of U.S. and Cuban citizens is about the same, and the Cuban infant mortality rate is actually lower.

In France, Moore interviews a group of American expatriates who have nothing but good things to say about the French government medical benefits they receive, free of charge. These Americans abroad sheepishly confess to feeling guilty that they have so much less to worry about, medically, than their family members back home.

In Canada, he takes his camera into a government health-clinic waiting room, and asks the ordinary people sitting there if they can confirm all the bad things he's heard about unreasonable waiting times and inferior care. None of that's true, the Canadians tell him, matter-of-factly. Their system works, and they're proud of it.

There's much more I could say about the film – a little of it negative, but the vast preponderance of it positive. Go see it, with an open mind. Listen to the stories of ordinary people, whose lives have been ruined – and who, in some cases, have lost loved ones – due to medical-insurance profiteering. Then, as Moore himself does in the film, ask the really tough question: which system – universal health care, or private insurance – is more moral?

Go see Sicko. It just could be the most important movie you see this year.

(06.29.07) Recommends:

Concert Photography, Vol. 9.
a first opening band,
Fair to Midland,
a headlining band
,
Slim's,
San Francisco, Calif.
06.29.07.

So the cool folks over at Sneak Attack Media invited me out to see Fair To Midland at Slim's. I didn't know anything about the band, but their publicity photo has the band in a swamp with a banjo-wielding lead singer:



So eschewing the whole "don't judge a book by its cover/don't judge a band by its PR photos" I headed out to Slim's. The first thing I noticed was that the band is proud to be from Texas:



Texas is home to lots of good music, so in my mind I was expecting something along the lines of Southern headbanging bluegrass. Bluegrass, because of that banjo pic. Headbanging, because as I wandered through the crowd, my mind kept repeating one line: "I love you but I've chosen darkness..." This crowd was rocking mohawks (I'm not talking about those obnoxious hipster fauxhawk things, I'm talking honest-to-god three foot mohawks) and lots of black and etc. This seemed like handbanging people. Oh yeah, also headbanging because:



The bassist looked like a cross between Slash and Iggy Pop. So the band came out and started their aural assault on the crowd. The crowd really seemed into it (but then, maybe everybody was into just because it was one of those rare occasions where you can wear your three foot high mohawk and people would give nods of approval rather than rolling their eyes, or shielding their children). I was mainly just confused, and stubborningly holding out hope for some heavy metal bluegrass in the middle of the song.

Now, some of you readers may be scoffing at the notion of heavy metal bluegrass. My love of bluegrass is well documented on this blog. Same goes for my love of alternative forms of bluegrass. In fact, certain blog readers will recall my days as the manager of the infamous, debaucherous, peerless (naysayers may claim "wholly" "fictitious") China Man Bluegrass Band. I managed them starting from their legendary Shanghai Lonesome Sound Tour to the day of that untimely and fiery crash that ended the band in Sandusky, OH. Playing Chinese Bluegrass in the middle of Sandusky, OH. While it may or may not have actually happened, that, my friends, is Alternagrass. Around the same time as CMBB, I fell into the Bloodshot Records scene with Split Lip Rayfield and others playing that indie-rock-country-punk for which the label is known. I'm telling you, in the early 2000s cowboys with tattoos screaming Hank Williams songs was way more dangerous than MTV generated gangsta rap. And that's probably still true today. So all of this is a roundabout way of saying that Heavy Metal Bluegrass seemed completely plausible to me.

Meanwhile back at the show...

I'm not sure how this music is officially classified by those on the internet who have finely calibrated music labeling apparatuses (apparatti?). Does this music qualify as screamo? I think it does. The lead singer is very emo. I don't know if he's emo in real life, but when he steps on stage he has the role of Emo Lead Singer down pat.



But he also really reminded me of the lead singer of local heroes Magic Bullets. As by this I mean he was insanely frantic the entire set.

The wind up:


The delivery:


The pitch:


FTM left the stage, and all the mohawks went wild for the next band. But two songs into the headlining act I left Slim's, head down, slightly dejected. I guess heavy metal bluegrass will have to wait for another day. Until then, I still have Cookie Mongoloid.

The Occupation of Alcatraz: Photo Essay

Thousands of American Indians and their families occupied Alcatraz Island from November, 1969 to June, 1971. The story of this occupation is absolutely amazing and I thought today, on this Day of Action, that it might serve as inspiration.


A proclamation on Alcatraz Island tells new arrivals where they are.

Signs hung on the dock on Alcatraz Island read, from left to right, "Red Power. Indians," "Human Rights, Free Indians," "Remember this land was taken from us!" "Alcatraz for Indians."

For many people, the occupation was the first time they had been surrounded by other Indian people. The experience was one of cultural renewal, exhilaration, and a new-found sense of Indianness.

Indian women played a major role in the occupation. They served on the is land council and the security force and worked in the health clinic, the day care center, and the school.

Stella Leach, a Colville/Sioux woman, took a leave of absence from her job at the All Indian Well Baby Clinic in Berkeley, California, to participate in the occupation of Alcatraz Island, where she operated a health clinic for island residents.

Many of the occupiers brought their families hundreds of miles to live on the island. A preschool and a nursery were operated for those who had children on the island.

Indian occupiers work to bring supplies onto Alcatraz. The island has no natural resources, so all supplies, fuel, and water had to be ferried over form the mainland and transported up the island by hand.

One of the last occupiers leaves Alcatraz Island, June 11, 1971.

On the mainland, on June 11,1971, Harold Patty (left), a Paiute Indian from Nevada, and Oohosis (second from left), a young Cree Indian from Canada, join two friends in demonstrating that the spirit will continue.

Overcoming exhaustion and disillusionment, young Atha Rider Whitemankiller (Cherokee) stands tall before the press at the Senator Hotel after the removal. His eloquent words about the purpose of the occupation - to publicize his people's plight and establish a land base for the Indians of the Bay Area - were the most quoted of the day.

Read more about the Alcatraz Occupation here and see more of these fantastic of photos here

ETP Editorial: On the Prime Minister’s speech to Parliament

Check back with ETP for more news throughout the day

_________________________________


Court finds Siye Abraha GUILTY on one CHARGE, NOT GUILTY on THREE - sentencing July 4


- EPRDF LED PARLIAMENT TO REPLACE SEATS OF MISSING MPs(making sure there is no possibility of CUD leaders in Kality taking seats in parliament)
- Ethiopian Premier Admits Errors on Somalia
(Good morning Mr. Prime Minister, you’re finally waking up. Admirable. Now, Before you go back to sleep, would you like to face up to any errors on Ethiopia?)
- Ethiopian Soldiers Killed in Roadside Bomb Blast in Mogadishu
_________________________________

ETP EDITORIAL - The Prime Minister in his latest speech to the house of Peoples' Representatives devoted a significant amount of time portraying his government as being tough on Eritrea. Naturally, this was an attempt to put out the fire Sebhat Nega (Aboy Sebhat) ignited after his controversial radio interview in which he unwittingly exposed the objectionable principle in which TPLF has been operating under for years.

Several foreign news agencies bought into the story, some intentionally and others inadvertently. But there were few who got it right. Agence France presse (AFP) for instance, rather than echoing the "Ethiopia ready for Eritrea war" story - hit the nail on the head by going with "Ethiopia accepts border ruling"

Hidden in-between a clutter of words and phrases is the key point of the Prime Minister’s speech;

“despite flaws in the decision of the Boundary Commission, we have repeatedly and unequivocally declared our acceptance because it is the Commission's verdict.”
Two weeks ago Foreign Minister Seyoum Mesfin expressed his shock and indignation when the Associated Press ran a story which said Ethiopia, as stipulated by the ruling of the boundary commission, is prepared to give Badme to Eritrea. Now here, just a few days later, the Prime Minister is publicly testifying that AP’s story was spot on.

Badme is a thorn on the side of this administration because it is an unambiguous and constant reminder of how lightly it takes the lives of its citizens. Tens of thousands have died in the fight for Badme; people from all walks of lives answered the government’s call believing their country was in trouble; from East to west, south to north - they came. After all the sacrifice, the government with one stroke of a pen undid what they had done. Many were left wondering what the point of it all was.

No sane Ethiopian wants conflict with Eritrea. The people of Eritrea have endured decades of war and are now under the rule of a tyrannical government which arguably is as oppressive as the Taliban. They too don't want war; they want freedom, democracy and respect for human rights, just like we do. These two nations are family; sharing history and culture. The majority of Ethiopians as well as Eritreans want to live in peace, putting into practice mutually beneficial policies.

That being said however, when the leadership of a country constantly and openly advocates in favor of another, at a disadvantage to its own national interests, as TPLF’s core directorate has been doing for decades, then it is easy to understand the suspicion of some that maybe Ethiopia has clandestinely been colonized.

Also:
-[Video] Dr, Berhanu Nega on National Security
(Must see)
-EthioMedia asks, Who is in power in Ethiopia?

Thursday, June 28, 2007

June 28, 2007 - In Search of the Lost Node

This afternoon, I go to Ocean Medical Center for an ultrasound test ordered by Dr. Gornish. He handed me the test script on Monday, just after my aborted surgical procedure, but suggested I check with Dr. Lerner before scheduling it. It took me a couple of days to track Dr. Lerner down through phone messages, but eventually his benediction came back: do whatever Dr. Gornish suggests.

So, today I lie back on a narrow examining-bed in the dim light of an outpatient radiology procedure room, while a friendly, efficient technician squeezes warm goo around the base of my neck, then slowly sends her handheld transducer gliding over my skin. She concentrates on the right side, where the phantom lymph nodes are, but also takes a quick look at the left, for comparison purposes. She peers into a computer monitor, looking at the watery, black-and-white images. (They don't look like much to me, but diagnosis is in the eye of the beholder.) Every once in a while, an automaton beep emanates from the machine. This, I take it, means she's capturing a screen shot for the radiologist to look at, to compare with my earlier CT scan images.

I ask her if she can pick out the infamous, distended lymph node, behind the collarbone, and she says yes, she can. She points it out on the screen: a roundish area, darker than the surrounding tissue.

So, no miraculous disappearance. I didn’t think so, anyway.

After five minutes or so of this, the tech asks me to just lie there and stay comfortable, while she steps out to confer with the radiologist. A few minutes later, she returns. He wants a few more pictures. More goo, more images – then, she steps out again.

This time, she returns with the radiologist, Dr. Jeffrey DiPaolo, who smiles and introduces himself to me. We go through the scan routine a third time, this time with the doctor looking directly at the images on the screen. He instructs his assistant to tweak them here and there, before the two excuse themselves once again.

The technician returns: "You're all done," she says, cheerily. When will the results be ready, I ask? Possibly as early as tomorrow afternoon. It all depends on how fast the doctor's report gets transcribed.

A staffer from Dr. Gornish's office told me yesterday that he probably wouldn't get any word to me before Monday, so that sounds consistent. I wonder if he's going to be in the office on Friday – and, if so, if there's any chance he could get back to me before the weekend? It would be nice to hear sooner, rather than later: to find out what my next step on this journey will be. I'm getting tired of this interminable, one-day-at-a-time vagueness. It's been more than a month since Dr. Lerner told me I'd need a biopsy, and I'm still not any closer to having one, let alone knowing the results. This is playing havoc with my summer plans, particularly with knowing whether or not I'll get any significant chunk of time up at our Adirondacks place.

I could really use a vacation – although, as I should know by now, there's no vacation from cancer.
Rumour has it the natives will be restless tomorrow (Friday, June 29). Nobody really knows what's going to happen – there could be roads blocked, train routes compromised, taxes hiked way up on native cigarettes, anything at all.
[...]
Come the Day of Action, expect a plethora of grievances and calls for redress. Here are a few of the lesser-known ones:

WE DEMAND that something be done about the belief that Aboriginal people get everything for free. This might seem to be true if you count the bad water in Kashechewan, illness from black mould in inadequate housing, linguistical genocide, diabetes and rampant sexual abuse. But trust me, we've paid for all this.

WE DEMAND that the feds actually appoint a native person as the minister of Indian Affairs. We humbly ask: isn't the attorney general usually a lawyer? Isn't the minister for the Status of Women usually a woman? Doesn't the minister of Transportation have a driver's licence? Isn't the minister of Defence usually defensive?
[...]
WE DEMAND that white people (more politically correctly known as people of pallor) stop angrily saying, "They shouldn't do that!" in regard to protests and blockades, and instead exchange it for the more understanding "They shouldn't have to do that." It's technically more correct.
[...]
WE DEMAND that all commercials for Lakota medicine be pulled. Immediately.

WE DEMAND the Assembly of First Nations explain what it is it actually does – other than call for days of protest.

WE DEMAND that the police of this country stop shooting, assaulting and otherwise abusing the civil rights of native people. It's for law enforcers' own benefit. There are substantially more native people in this country than police, and we have more guns.

You know what, I think all people of pallor better go read the whole thing. There's something here for everyone.
Seeing red: This Indian’s plan to clean up the mess left by 500 years of illegal immigration by Drew Hayden Taylor.

Did I mention I heart Drew Hayden Taylor? HT to Stageleft

(06.28.07) Recommends

Web Royalty Redux.

I thought that today I would add a little more meat to the bones of yesterday’s post. I want to look at the mechanics behind the royalty rate increase "controversy."

The first thing to think about is how the Copyright Act is implicated when you, e.g., listen to a CD (I know that it is so old school to actually listen to CDs, but just play along). There are at least two copyrights in a CD: first, there is copyright in the "musical work" (what you think of as "the tune," both the underlying arrangement of notes and any accompanying words), 17 USC 102(a)(2); secondly, there is copyright in the "sound recording" (the actual recorded sound that comes out of your speaker), 17 USC 102(a)(7). The copyrights are not necessarily held by the same party: copyright in the musical work is initially owned by the party who wrote the music – the composer and lyricist – while copyright in the sound recording is initially typically held by the producer who arranged for the song to be recorded. Of course, the holder of the right may be determined by contract, with the record label often owning at least the latter copyright, if not both.

Okay, so now that we understand that there are two distinct copyrights in play, what rights actually attach to these copyrights? Copyright owners hold four basic rights, the right to: reproduce, prepare derivative works, distribute, and to publicly perform. 17 USC 106. The "musical work" copyright gets all of these rights. The "sound recording" gets the first three, and a modified version of the fourth. The modified version is the right to perform publicly by means of a digital audio transmission, and this right did not come into being until the Digital Performance in Sound Recording Act of 1995.

So what does all of this mean? Well, let's go through an example. When a terrestrial radio station plays a song, it is publicly performing the musical work and the sound recording. It pays the song writer (or whoever owes the musical work copyright) for its use of the copyrighted musical work, but it does not pay for its use of the copyrighted sound recording. Why? Because copyright in sound recording only applies to digital transmissions, which by the terms of its definition in the Copyright Act exempts terrestrial radio. When an internet radio station plays a song, it has to pay for use of both of the copyrights. Arbitrary, you say? Of course it is. But, anybody who has ever paid taxes or been pulled over for speeding when every car around them was going faster has experience with an arbitrarily written or enforced law. Arbitrary laws are nothing new in this country. But to be clear, this sound recording performance right result cannot be justified on the basis of copyright law; it is solely to be chalked up to the power of the terrestrial radio lobbying efforts (let me repeat this for all of you out there who think the recording industry is the root of all evil: radio broadcasters using the political process to reach a result that is favorable for their side, but that makes no sense from a legal standpoint).

The rate increase "controversy," then, is dealing with the price of that digital sound recording performance copyright. Webcasters (as is true with the musical work fee paid by terrestrial radio broadcasters) pay one statutorily based rate - a per performance "compulsory license" -- for each performance, rather than having to negotiate a different rate for each performance (if I didn't write that sentence clearly, think of it this way: rather than broadcasters having to negotiate, and therefore pay a lot more, to play an Elvis Presley song than an Elvis Perkins song, there is a single rate that is paid per performance, regardless of the song).

The Copyright Act provides a mechanism to reach that royalty rate. First, it encourages the copyright holders and the internet broadcasters to privately negotiate and reach a desirable rate on their own. 17 USC 114(e). Only after these negotiations fail do both sides come before a Copyright Royalty Judge who commences trial-type proceedings, 17 USC 114(f). This means that both sides put on witnesses and evidence, just like they would if they were having a trial, and at the end the Copyright Royalty Judge comes down with a ruling.

So let's apply this to the "controversy" at hand. At first, the copyright holders and broadcasters came together to negotiate. Some of the initial members of the internet broadcasters included: Microsoft, America Online, Yahoo, and Clear Channel Communications (it is worth keeping this in mind when you see coalitions such as Save Net Radio framing the issue as Big Govt vs. Mom and Pop Radio). Both sides presented a proposal, bolstered with evidence and witnesses. Included among the internet broadcasters' witnesses included economics professors, finance experts, and corporate executives. At the end of the trial, the Copyright Royalty Judges (there were three that presided over the hearings) came down with their ruling.

In this case, the copyright holders proposed a rate of either 30% of gross revenues or a per performance rate starting at $0.0008 and increasing to $0.0019 by 2010 (the statute calls on the Copyright Royalty Judges to set rates in five-year blocks), whichever was higher. The internet broadcasters offered various revenue-based percentages, and various per performance rates, starting at $0.00025 per performance (so note that when critics of the fee increase call the rate "outrageous" they are talking about a difference of $0.00055 per performance; I'd calculate the percentage difference in those two numbers but I don't have a calculator that allows me to enter that many digits on the right side of the decimal point). Both sides presented their proposals and evidence and witnesses, and after a 48-day hearing, the judges came out with the numbers I presented yesterday.

The biggest complaints I've read regarding this "controversy" are that this is an example of Big Govt v. "Little Mom and Pop" and that the music industry was the only player in setting the rates; that somehow the internet broadcasters were not at the table in the rate setting discussion. Plainly, both of these are just false.

And, on a personal note, whenever I see shadowy coalitions talk about "Little Mom and Pop," and then fail to mention that "Little Mom and Pop" includes parties such as Microsoft and Clear Channel, I start thinking that the "controversy" is nothing but a big budget PR campaign (see, generally: smoking is not bad for you, presented by shadowy coalitions brought to you by tobacco companies; lawyers are bad for you, presented by shadowy coalitions brought to you by insurance companies).

Think what you want to think about these rates, leave me comments, email me, etc. But at least take a few minutes to read the ruling before you buy into the conspiracy.

Stop the Big Media Takeover: Canadians for Democratic Media

Stop the Big Media Takeover Lately it seems a large media merger is in the news all the time. Recently we've seen the mergers of CTVGlobeMedia with Chum, Canwest with Alliance Atlantis, and Quebecor with Osprey. Generally media convergence means less media choice for all Canadians.

Media diversity is the cornerstone of democracy. But media ownership is more highly concentrated in Canada than almost anywhere else in the industrialized world. Almost all private Canadian television stations are owned by national media conglomerates and, because of increasing cross-ownership, most of the daily newspapers we read are owned by the same corporations that own television and radio stations.

This means a handful of Big Media Conglomerates control what Canadians can most readily see, hear and read. It means less local and regional content, more direct control over content by owners and less analysis of the events that shape our lives. It also means less media choice for Canadians and fewer jobs for Canadian media workers.

We must also be wary of the impacts mergers have on the diversity and neutrality of new on-line media. We need to reverse this trend before big media gets even bigger!<Democraticmedia.ca>


Right now until July 18th we can send our comments to CRTC about these issues. They are having a review of media concentration and if enough of us send in comments they could make stiffer rules for media companies.

Take just a few seconds to send a pre-formatted message

For more info, check out the new media reform campaign in Canada called Stop the Big Media Takeover

Please share this information with other freethinking Canadians.
___________________________

-[AUDIO] - Meles speaking about Kality prisoners
-Ethiopia calls West's appeals for CUD prisoners "shameful"
-OPEN LETTER TO THE UNITED STATES CONGRESS AND THE COALITION FOR H.R 2003 (Keif Schleifer, Executive Director of the Empowerment Initiative)
___________________________

Wednesday, June 27, 2007

(06.27.07) Recommends:

Reading Rules Before Complaining About Them.

I don't know how your web surfing has been going lately (btw, do people even use that word anymore -- websurfing? So quaintly 90s, right?) but I'm growing increasing exasperated at all these blogs complaining about the Copyright Royalty Board's implementation of new royalty rates that webcaster's must pay to play music. A bunch of web radiocasters engaged in a Day of Silence in protest. Coalitions have been formed, to get people aware of the "problem."

Here's the thing. Go ahead and Google this problem. What do you come up with? A bunch of blogs complaining of "outrageous rates" that are "putting webcasters out of business" and "taking food out of people's mouths" by charging "more in fees than we can possibly make up in revenue."

Which is all very concerning. Except that none of the blogs or articles say what the rates are, or what the rates were, or how much money they are losing. Editor's note: this is not a good way to convince people of your point.

So, for my sanity, if not yours, today I present the CRJ's Final Determination of Rates and Terms. Now, I'm not completely finished hashing through the opinion, but here's something that immediately jumps out at me: it includes the rates! And here are the rates:

$0.0008 per performance, 2006 (the fees are retroactive).
$0.0011 per performance, 2007.
$0.0014 per performance, 2008.
$0.0018 per performance, 2009.
$0.0019 per performance, 2010.

These numbers are conveniently left out of all anti-fee discussion I have seen. Why? I'm not sure, but here is a possibility. For people who live in the Bay Area, and pay...

$3.50 per gallon of the cheapest Rotten Robbie gasoline;
$4.00 per grande cuppashittychino;
$10.00 per cheapest six pack of beer;
$1000 per month for small one bedroom apartment;

...it would be awfully hard to work up the energy to write passionate blog posts about zeros and zeros of cents. But it's much easier when we can scream : the govt is interfering with our lives, harming the little guy and making the rich richer! Editor's note: Everybody stop your damn screaming.

Read the opinion first. I'll be sure to wake you up in the middle up it, because I'm pretty sure you'll fall asleep reading it -- it turns out the reality is much more boring -- and much less outrageous -- than the screaming blog posts suggest.

Copyright Royalty Judge -- Final Determination of Rates & Terms -- pdf.

Indigenous Peoples Fighting Ongoing Colonization and Genocide: Australia

Indigenous peoples all over the world are fighting valiant battles to protect what's left of their land, peoples, and cultures in the face of ongoing colonialism. While there are some small victories, the vast juggernaut of globalized corporate Capitalism simply steamrolls on. Helping this along is the paternalism of well-meaning liberals.

It is from the "white man's burden" that some of the most lasting harm has come. Apartheid in South Africa grew out of the same reserve system we have in Canada. Self-government for the natives in semi-autonomous communities - sounds almost progressive doesn't it? Well, we all know how that ended up.

Similarly, misguided but mostly benevolant people, who wanted to improve the lot of young native children through education, created Residential Schools - known as The Stolen Generation) in Australia. This was genocide dressed up as education, with devastating consequences. What happens when nearly an entire people is subject to state-sponsored physical, sexual, verbal, spiritual, and other forms of abuse - for generations? Anyone familiar with the effects of child abuse knows that it can persist through generations in complex ways.

Australia has done little to heal the damage, despite evidence of chronic social problems in Indigenous Australians communities. Instead of promoting healing, the Howard government introduced a a policy banning porn and alcohol for Aboriginals, ostensibly to protect children from abuse(even though the abuse is committed by both Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people). Howard's actions are reactionary, but he speaks the language of care, which unfortunately is often accepted by kind and decent people.
How does eliminating pornography teach a child to love her blood, her cells, her roots?
How does a ban on alcohol erase the desire to no longer be aboriginal?
How does controlling welfare payments teach aboriginal mothers to trust themselves and their love again? <BFP>

Not only are the Howard government's policies cruel and racist, but they are also not likely to be effective because they are targeting the consequences instead of the causes. Alcohol and pornography do not cause abuse. Rather, those with a history of abuse are far more likely to abuse alcohol and drugs and to have difficulty achieving healthy sexuality, among other terrible outcomes. Even I know better than to conflate correlation with causation.

But perhaps the Howard government does not care if it will be effective. Perhaps this has to do with gaining increasing control over Aboriginal communities and lands (possibly for more nuclear waste dumps or mining): "Australia’s national Government was using its powers to seize control of the Northern Territory’s Aboriginal settlements... The proposals mean scrapping the entry-permit system under which Aboriginal people have controlled access to northern Australia’s 660,000 square kilometres of Aboriginal lands - an area about of the size of Afghanistan - in recent decades." <Times Online> The Howard government is using well-intentioned Australians to promote his atrocious policies. But such paternalism, however pure the intentions, is still racist.

Most Australians don't like to be termed as racist.

The word is supposed to be for South Africans two decades ago, or for Americans before the civil rights era, or even for our earlier colonial ancestors, about two hundred years ago.

But what other reason could there be for the fact Aboriginal people have the same mortality rate of sheep?

And what other word could be used to justify the fact that being an Aboriginal Australia is more dangerous in terms of annual excess mortality than that people in US-occupied Iraq? <National Indigenous Times via Shmohawk's Shmorg>

June 27, 2007 - A Miracle?

As various people have learned of my experience in the operating room the other day, some have wondered whether it could be a miracle. Based on the very limited facts we have at the moment, it does seem like it could fit the profile of a modern miracle-story. That profile goes something like this:

Patient has cancer. Modern medicine prepares its usual array of therapies to treat the cancer. Friends of the patient pray for healing. Patient goes in to receive medical treatment, but the doctors are baffled: there is no longer any sign of cancer in the patient's body! Patient goes home praising God. Doctors are left scratching their heads in wonderment.

We've all heard such stories before. Even with its impressive arsenal of high-tech tests and scans, medical science is still unable to explain certain things that happen. When doctors make predictions – based on empirical evidence and past experience – about how a particular patient's cancer is likely to progress, they do tend to be right in a large majority of cases. Yet, there is a significant minority in which their predictions are a bit off. Among that small number of cases, there is a tiny – no, minuscule – number in which they're completely wrong: in which the cancer that had been predicted to spread not only goes into remission, but seems to completely disappear.

Is this the hand of God at work? Or, is it just something that simply happens on occasion, within the normally-accepted range of statistical error? A person's faith perspective plays a big role in how he or she answers such questions.

As for me and my faith perspective, I don't spend a lot of time sitting around, waiting for that kind of spectacular intervention to take place. Yes, I do believe in miracles, but I also do believe they're rare as can be. I'm far more likely to spend time thinking about a different sort of miracle, one far more widely-distributed in our world. C.S. Lewis has described it thus: "Miracles are a retelling in small letters of the very same story which is written across the whole world in letters too large for some of us to see."

Or, as the Welsh poet Huw Menai put it, in a little poem, "Paradox":

If the good God were suddenly
To make a solitary Blind to see
We would stand wondering all
And call it a miracle;
But that He gives with lavish hand
Sight to a million souls we stand
And say, with little awe,
He but fulfills a natural law!


Yes, we people of faith ought to cultivate an eye for the miraculous. Yet, we do well to look for miracles within the natural order, not outside of it.

I have cancer. Chances are, as a result, my life could end up being shorter than most. Am I happy about that? No. There are times when I'm still filled with anger and disbelief, that such a thing has happened to me. Yet, is it really such a theological scandal that one person among billions – a person who’s going to die eventually, anyway – could end up having a decade or two shaved off his lifespan? Do I consider this to be such a violation of cosmic justice that I look to God to spectacularly intervene, supernaturally removing every mutated lymphocyte from my body, once and for all?

No. I have no reason to expect such divine intervention. Why should I be more deserving of such a blessing than anyone else?

There are a few who seem to think I do deserve such a thing, because I'm a minister (much as, in the old days, the shoemaker's kids weren't expected to go barefoot). When I was talking with Dr. De La Luz on the phone last week, about anesthesia issues related to my sleep apnea, he picked up on my fear, and tried to comfort me. He said, cheerily, "I know the guy upstairs is looking out for YOU" – with a big emphasis on the "you," as though to say, "God's looking out for you, of all people." In the same-day surgery staging area the other day, one of the nurses – upon learning that I'm a minister – said something similar, about God surely being on my side. I always receive such comments graciously, in the spirit of caring and support with which they're meant – but, I don't believe them for a minute. (I've never put a "Clergy" sticker on the rear bumper of my car, either, hoping for preferential treatment from the police.)

Bruce Almighty is a rather silly movie – a Jim Carrey vehicle, so you know it's silly – which yet wrestles with some serious theological issues. The background is that God, played by Morgan Freeman, gets fed up with the laments of Bruce, played by Jim Carrey, about how badly his life is going. God decides to hand the reins of the universe over to Bruce for a little while, so he can glimpse the big picture. In one scene, Bruce gets to sit at a computer that's handling God's daily inbox of prayer requests.

"You've got prayers," says a cheery little message. Bruce decides to see just how many prayers are in the ol' inbox. "You've got 3,152,036 unread prayers," says the computer. Bruce tries to answer one or two, but realizes it's an impossible task. He selects "Answer All," then the word "Yes."

The scene then shifts to someone who had prayed to win a big lottery jackpot, and whose prayer has been answered – but then, so have the prayers of hundreds of thousands of other people. The payout is tiny. All those winners are mightily disappointed.

Bruce then seeks out God – who, in God's idea of a vacation, is taking simple pleasure in a janitor's daily tasks, mopping the floors of a vacant office building. "What happened?" asks Bruce. "I gave everyone what they wanted."

God sets the mop aside. "Since when does anyone have a clue about what they want?"

God then proceeds to show Bruce the implications of some of the prayer requests he's just answered in the affirmative. See that kid who's been bullied at school? God asks. You just gave him huge muscles. He'll soon become a bully himself. He would have become one of the world's great poets, giving voice to suffering and vulnerability, but now he's going to become a professional wrestler.

The bottom line is, we just don't know. When we shift our reasoning faculties into high gear and try to puzzle out huge cosmic questions like why one person died in the World Trade Center but why the person at an adjacent desk - who had a dentist’s appointment that morning – lived, we simply can’t account for it. Was one really more divinely favored than the other?

I'm trying to look elsewhere for miracles, these days, than in my own lymphocytes. Like the other day, for instance, when there was a torrential summer rainstorm with the sun still shining, and we all rushed out to the front porch to look for a rainbow, and sure enough, there one was. Or, when I walked out of the church after a meeting last night, and was gifted with the vision of a luminous, nearly full moon, hung in an iridescent purple sky. (I remember thinking that, if it weren't for the cancer, I probably wouldn't have slowed down to give that moon a second thought.) Or, when I marvel that there are people who love me, despite my faults.

Miracles? They're everywhere.

Decline in Rule of Law Seen in New Data Released by Freedom House, Ethiopian govt. major offender

Check back with ETP for more news throughout the day

____________________

Also:
- Washington Update
- Today's Top HEADLINES

____________________

Washington, D.C - A global decline in the rule of law, particularly in Africa and Asia, was a major political development, data released today by Freedom House indicated.

According to the subcategory findings from Freedom in the World 2007, the most notable change in freedom in 2006 was global deterioration in judicial independence, due process rights, protection from torture, and freedom from war and insurgencies. These declines occurred in geographically and culturally diverse countries such as Chad, South Africa, Somalia and Ethiopia, as well as Afghanistan, Philippines, Sri Lanka and Thailand.(More...)
____________________

Today's Top HEADLINES

- DIRECTION FOREIGN POLICY SHOULD TAKE UNDER NEW BRITISH PM - by Tom Porteous, director of Human Rights Watch

...The UK and the United States should stop working hand in glove with repressive dictatorships which are responsible for torture, arbitrary detention and suppression of non-violent opposition. This policy is playing into the hands of exactly those radical groups it is designed to contain, bolstering the popularity of forces that advocate political violence......it should also acknowledge and criticize the serious abuses carried out by governments that are recipients of UK development assistance such as Ethiopia, Uganda, Rwanda, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh.(More...)

- Lewit - No Court Session
- A Millennium Resolution: Never Take Wrong Historical Turns Again!
(Network of Ethiopian Scholars, NES)
- The Constitutional Rights of the Accused must be Respected!
(Ethiopian Human Rights Council, EHRCO)
- International Rally to Free Ethiopian Civil Society Leaders on Thursday (Join activists around the world on 28 June 2007 in calling for the acquital of anti-poverty activists in Ethiopia)
- Despite rain, hundreds of Ethiopians Rally in Wiesbaden
(EMF)
- World 'ignoring' Eritrea media crackdown
- Somali officials escape assassination attempts
- Brown takes over as UK prime minister
- CIA reveals Cold War secrets
- Nine killed in Israeli Gaza raids
- Protesters torch Iran gas stations

____________________

(For those of you who are not regular visitors to this website, ETP is not affiliated with any political party in the diaspora)

Washington Update

By Mesfin Mekonen

Markup of HR 2003, the Ethiopia Democracy and Accountability Act of 2007, delayed. The House Committee on Foreign Affairs committee postponed “markup” (the step immediately before a subcommittee vote) of HR 2003 in response to urgent communications from the State Department.

Officials from the Meles regime informed the State Department that going ahead with the markup would prevent the release of political prisoners. The Meles regime claims that if the markup is delayed it will release the prisoners within 10 days. Congressional staff expressed skepticism about the Ethiopian government’s true intentions, but said the U.S. Congress does not want to stand in the way of releasing the prisoners.

Meles has now made it absolutely clear to anyone who doubted it that he is holding Kinijit leaders, Journalists and civic group for purely political reasons and that he is treating them as hostages.

This blatant attempt to coerce Congress should reinforce its determination to enact HR 2003 and take other steps to encourage democracy and human rights in Ethiopia .

Members of Congress will be watching to see not only if the prisoners are released, but also whether they receive medical attention to help them overcome the horrors of their extended imprisonment, and that they are permitted to resume their efforts to create a peaceful transition to real democracy.

In addition to HR 2003, Rep. Chris Smith (R-N.J.) has introduced H.R.2228, the Ethiopia Freedom, Democracy, and Human Rights Advancement Act of 2007. Rep. Smith was the first member of Congress to introduce legislation promoting democracy and human rights in Ethiopia . The introduction of two bills with similar goals in the current Congress has created some confusion. Rep. Smith has agreed to support HR 2003 when it comes to the floor of the House.

It is essential that all Ethiopians contact members of Congress and tell them how important it is for them to co-sponsor and express their support for HR 2003. They could mention that the European Parliament in November 2006 passed a resolution demanding the release of the prisoners of conscience and the resumption of an all inclusive dialogue between the party in power and the opposition.

Amnesty International, in its May 2007 report, concluded that these "prisoners of conscience have not used or advocated violence and were peacefully exercising their right to freedom of expression, association and assembly, as guaranteed by the Ethiopian Constitution and international human rights treaties which Ethiopia has ratified." The Committee to Protect Journalists has condemned the regime in Addis Ababa for its brutal actions against journalists.

We continue to stay in close contact with Congress, as well as non-profit organizations such as the Just Foreign Policy Group, Amnesty International, Human Rights Group and CPJ.

Tuesday, June 26, 2007

(06.26.07) Recommends:

Miranda July.

She's like an artistic octopus: filmmaker, performance artist, musician (on no less than Kill Rock Stars), writer, and at least four other things to make the analogy complete. Her new collection of stories is "No One Belongs Here More Than You," and while it is still currently merely on my "To Read" list, I have unrealistically high hopes based on its promotional website -- easily one of the most perfect uses of the internet ever. Seriously.

Miranda July -- No One Belongs Here More Than You -- website.

MELES to US CONGRESS "IF YOU MARK-UP H.R. 2003, KALITY PRISONERS WILL NOT BE RELEASED"

Check back with ETP for more news throughout the day

___________________________________________

Also:
- International Day of Solidarity - 28 June; calling for the acquital of anti-poverty activists in Ethiopia
- Professor Donald Levine on the conviction and promised release of political prisoners
- CUD's tommorrow court session closed to the public (Lewit)

___________________________________________

[press release, Coalition for HR 2003 ]

The Coalition for HR 2003 has just learned that Zenawi, through his lobbyists and intermediaries, has communicated to House Africa Subcommittee Chairman Donald Payne and House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Tom Lantos that if the Foreign Affairs Committee goes forward with the mark-up of H.R. 2003, he will NOT release the Kality political prisoners.

On the eve of the mark-up scheduled for June 26, 2007, a steady stream of State Department officials, lobbyists and others have gone to the Hill or called to tell Chairmen Payne and Lantos that the fate of the Kality prisoners will depend on the Committee’s decision to mark-up H.R. 2003.

State Department officials have sought to persuade the two committee chairmen and other members that Zenawi is in the final stages of releasing the Kality prisoners, and that marking up the bill at this time would cause him unspeakable embarrassment. Members were told that by marking-up the bill at this critical time, Zenawi will “lose face” among his people and the international community. To help him “save face”, members were asked to delay the mark-up for at least two weeks.(MORE)

Today's Top HEADLINES

-Lewit - CUD's tommorrow court session closed to the public
-International Day of Solidarity - 28 June 2007 (Join activists around the world on 28 June 2007 in calling for the acquital of anti-poverty activists in Ethiopia)
-Final Day in Court?
-6 die in bomb explosion in Somali capital, witnesses say
-Somalia minister escapes from bomb attack
-Sheltering Ethiopian women
-Session on Darfur ends without action plan
-Israel to release Fatah prisoners
-Tony Blair Set to Be Named Mideast Envoy
-Immigration Gets a Second Senate Shot

On the conviction and promised release of political prisoners

Professor Donald Levine

Reports of the signing of a mediated consensus document by political prisoners at Kaliti brings a fresh blast of hope to all who care for human rights and for the future of Ethiopia. It offers a chance to get the country's progress toward democratization and development back on track.

It makes me feel like saying Ethiopia, you are coming home! You are returning to your honorable traditions: of hig makeber, of gaaddisa nagayaa, of shemgilna, of gurabet mekebabir, of beherawi andenet. You may be saying goodby to outmoded customs such as hamet, mesedadeb, political sem-inna worq, and politik be-temenja.

The timing is of course perfect. It opens the way to a genuinely joyous celebration in Maskaram of the Ethiopian millennium. It enables all concerned to face the future instead rather than continuing to obsess over past grievances, even though a future agenda will include efforts to redress those grievances. I am delighted to learn that my good friend and great Ethiopian patriot Zeleke Gessesse, of One Love Africa, is in Ethiopia preparing a special musical celebration of this supreme moment of peaceful reconciliation.

I hope all concerned will seize this moment as an opportunity to make renewed progress toward a genuinely democratic system. This means:

- the return of the CUD prisoners to a full and respected place as members of one of the opposition parties in the country;
- the release of all Oromos, Tigrayans, and any others who are being held as political prisoners;
- the creation of an independent structure to manage and ensure the independence of government-controlled media;
- open use of electronic media;
- institutional capacity-building in the judicial system to ensure that it is kept free from interference from political pressures stemming from any quarter;
- institutional capacity-building in the Election Commission to ensure that future elections will be free and fair; and
- a pledge by ALL parties inside and outside Ethiopia to renounce the kind of hate propaganda and violence that flourished around the time of the May 2005 election and since, and to engage in the kinds of peaceful communication that has characterized Ethiopians at their finest.
These changes will take time, but I urge everyone to do what can be done to ensure that irreversible steps toward them are put in place over the next few months.

Be-zimdina'nna wodajenet

Liben Gebre Etiyopia
aka Professor Donald Levine

Monday, June 25, 2007

June 25, 2007 - The Operation That Wasn't

Today I go to Ocean Medical Center for my long-awaited surgical biopsy (removal of a swollen lymph node near my right collarbone). I get all the way to the operating table, but then the operation is abruptly called off. Here’s the story.

I arrive at 2:30 p.m. (My original time was 1:30, but the hospital same-day surgery department phoned me to push my appointment back an hour, due to operating-room delays). I’m ushered back into the pre-op area, then prepped for surgery (don a hospital gown, get an IV line inserted, answer lots of medical-history questions). I meet Dr. Jeffrey Winkler, the anesthesiologist du jour, and discover that this doctor – unlike the one who sedated me last week, for my colonoscopy – has no problem with my using a BiPAP machine in the operating room. He does explain that I’ll be under “conscious sedation” – which means I’ll probably be aware of some of what’s going on in the O.R. With this kind of surgery, he explains, most of the pain control is local anesthesia, administered by the surgeon. The sedation is just to keep me comfortable, while all this is going on.

Two and a half hours after we arrived at the hospital, an orderly shows up to wheel me into the surgical area. After 10 or 15 more minutes’ waiting outside the O.R., a nurse wheels me inside, lines up my gurney next to the operating table, and has me slide over. Dr. Winkler is busy behind me, preparing to administer anesthesia. Dr. Gornish, the surgeon, comes in and greets me. “Let’s find this thing,” he says – all business – and he begins feeling around the base of my neck with his fingers. He seems to be taking longer than I’d expect, and soon I learn the reason why. He can’t locate the swollen lymph node he’d distinctly felt nearly a month ago, when I saw him in his office.

Dr. Gornish consults the diagram he drew at the time, then comes back and palpates me some more. Still no sign of the swollen node. It wouldn’t be responsible to proceed with the surgery under these circumstances, he explains. He could end up cutting me in the wrong place, then have to enlarge the incision until he found the suspect node. I could end up with way too much muscle and nerve damage. The best thing to do, he thinks, is for me to go for an ultrasound-guided needle biopsy. It won’t produce as large a tissue sample for the pathologist to look at, but at least the procedure can be accurately targeted. First, though, he’ll write me a prescription for a simple ultrasound, for a quick look-see.

In moments, the O.R. team swiftly undoes all the pre-op preparations they’ve just taken me through. There’s some light-hearted kidding around, among these twentysomething nurses and technicians, about my having missed out on the drugs (not the first thing on my mind, to be sure). I never do receive any anesthesia – although Dr. Winkler does tell me that, just before the cease-and-desist order, he gave me an anti-nausea medication through the IV line. It should cause me no ill effects.

Someone wheels me back to the same-day surgery staging area. In the curtained-off cubicles around me are several other patients, the few stragglers remaining after a long day of surgery. The woman across from me is holding an ice pack to the side of her face. In the cubicle next to her is another woman with a vomit bucket on her lap. Both of them have that ashen, post-surgery pallor. The nurse calls Claire in, removes my IV, and tells me I can get dressed. I don’t know whether or not I should feel fortunate – especially considering the fact that I may have to go through this whole routine soon again. We’re home by 6 p.m.

What does all this mean? It’s anybody’s guess. Because the swollen lymph nodes have been visible on various scans since March, I don’t think they were merely the by-product of some transient infection – though I’m no medical expert. If they were cancerous, then did the cancer suddenly and inexplicably reverse itself? Or are they still hiding out, but too deep, now, to be detected by touch?

It’s too early to say. The only certainty is that more tests are in my immediate future. Tomorrow I’ll leave a message for Dr. Lerner at his office, and find out what he recommends.

One way or another, cancer is forcing me to live one day at a time.

This Blog is Rated R

Online Dating

This rating was determined based on the presence of the following words:

* bomb (3x)
* murder (2x)
* crap (1x)

Fuck. I've been found out.

Ok, so as a public service announcement, kids, you better get your parent or guardian to accompany you while you read my most dangerous ideas: perhaps Iraqis and Afghanis don't like it when we bomb them, war and capital punishment both bear a striking resemblance to murder, and there's something wrong with a world in which the working class must spend their meager earnings on crap they don't need but are programmed to think they want.

Via brownfemipower

Thanks to The Democratic Daily, June 24

Are you still being followed by the teenage FBI?

Posted by SteveAudio
June 24th, 2007 @ 2:31 am


Howie Klein of Blue America sent me this book:
So Angie’s back on the Blue America list and I hope you’ll join me in donating some money to her campaign. We’re not going to find a better candidate, not anywhere, to help us reclaim our country. Avalon Books sent us a box of the just-released YOUNG J. EDGAR: HOOVER, THE RED SCARE, AND THE ASSAULT ON CIVIL LIBERTIES. Each book has been autographed by author Ken Ackerman and it sells in stores for $28.95. Every Angie donation for $30 or more gets a Blue America thank you with a book (until the box is empty.) Add a cent to your donation if you don’t want the book. One more thing, Jacquie is already planning out an aggressive paid-media strategy for CO-04 in ‘08, so if you want to stick some dough in the Blue America PAC, please don’t be shy.
I’ve read the first chapter, and it’s already got me hooked. Why would a book about J. Edgar be fascinating all these years later? Here’s a quote from the book:
But back in 1919, just four years earlier, it had all made perfect sense-the Red Scare, the Raids, the fear. Most thinking, informed Americans agreed. World War I had ended, but the country was still fighting, against anarchists and communists at home just as surely as it had fought the Kaiser’s Germany in Europe the year before. American soldiers still faced bullets on Russian soil in 1919, and Bolshevism was sweeping the world. Anarchists had exploded bombs in American streets, and people had been killed. Radicals had infiltrated labor unions and threatened to topple major industries. The country demanded safety and someone had to act.
A. Mitchell Palmer and his team had taken responsibility. Had there been excesses? Certainly. But that didn’t change the fact. The principal fact was the bombs, and the danger of more bombs, and the duty to protect Americans. Everything else took a back seat.
The parallels to today’s Global War on Whatever We Define As Terror are pretty obvious. Americans, in an understandable yet selfishly shallow way, excuse many sorts of bad behavior when they feel threatened, and the Right today does all it can to give a megaphone to threats real and imagined.
The book’s author, Kenneth Ackerman, said this in an editorial in my hometown LATimes:
Yet when Hoover showed up for his first day of work at the Department of Justice in June 1917, he was a bright 22-year-old, just out of law school. He still had boyish good looks and was cocky and driven. The country had just entered World War I, and Hoover had avoided the wartime draft. Instead, he was ready to help win the war at home, to save the country from spies and subversives.
What changed this young eager beaver into the crass, cynical tyrant of later years?
The fact is, Hoover learned his attitudes and worldview from teachers at the Justice Department during his early years there, when the country was going through a period much like today’s war on terror.
Indeed. Here’s Kenneth Ackerman’s website: http://www.kennethackerman.com
SteveAudio.blogspot.com

2 Responses to “Are you still being followed by the teenage FBI?”

  1. Pamela Leavey Says:
    Steve
    I just got an email the other day about reviewing this and I’m waiting for a copy to arrive. I’m reading David Talbot’s “Brothers” which includes a lot of stuff about Hoover, the FBI and the CIA. There’s a lot of similarites between then and now in “Brothers” as well. History is said to repeat itself. Sadly.
  2. Darrell Prows Says:
    The human race is afflicted with a particularly virulent form of the authoritarian gene. It expresses itself in an overriding need to push other people around. My shorthand for the syndrome is “Military Mentality”. Not everyone who has the jobs (military, police, prisons) has the gene, but pretty much everyone with the gene has one of the jobs.
    The Founders were insightful enough to try to neutraize this by putting civilians in charge of the military. As for the rest, what we really need to do to protect ourselves is to not criminalize anything unless there is a real strong reason for doing so. Instead, we have a set of rules and regulations in our society so gargantuan that each of is almost guaranteed to violate something almost every day.
    From that is where people like J. Edgar get their power.

From Washington Post Book World, June 24.


In Brief: Junior G-Man

Sunday, June 24, 2007; BW14


As Kenneth D. Ackerman explains in Young J. Edgar (Carroll & Graf, $28.95), the future FBI director first made his mark after the most dramatic outburst of terrorism to hit the United States before 9/11. On June 2, 1919, bombs went off in nine American cities, including Washington, D.C. In most cases, the target was the residence of a political figure or man of wealth. In Washington, it was the R Street house of Attorney General A. Mitchell Palmer; the house was badly damaged, anarchists were blamed, and Palmer pledged that "for the rest of his time in office, he would commit his Department of Justice to the singular task of tracking down and stopping this Red Menace." He put his young assistant Hoover in charge.


Among the results of this campaign were the infamous Palmer Raids, which left their namesake, who had once entertained notions of succeeding Woodrow Wilson as president, so discredited that the man who got the Democratic nomination in his stead, James M. Cox, told Palmer not to campaign for him. Cox lost to Warren G. Harding anyway, but Hoover, in Ackerman's words, "repackaged himself for the new regime." His slickest maneuver was one that became a trademark: playing up the information to which his office made him privy. The new attorney general, Harry Daugherty, "became a convert" to Hoover's view that the Red Menace had to be extirpated, and subsequent attorneys general, all the way up to Hoover's death in 1972, fell into line. In Ackerman's view, Hoover "was precisely the wrong person" for the job of leading this crusade: "Despite his clear genius for organization, Edgar lacked the other essential qualification for the job, the life experience and human context to appreciate the responsibility that came with power."