No commentary here. Egyptian activists are asking people to pass this along to get around corporate media censorship in Egypt and the US.

URGENT MESSAGE FROM EGYPT:

To all the people of world
The people in Egypt are under governmental siege. Mubarak regime is banning Facebook, Twitter, and all other popular internet sites Now, the internet are completely blocked in Egypt. Tomorrow the government will block the 3 mobile phone network will be completely blocked. And there is news that even the phone landlines will be cut tomorrow, to prevent any news agency from following what will happen.

Suez city is already under siege now. The government cut the water supply and electricity, people, including, children and elderly are suffering there now. The patients in hospitals cannot get urgent medical care. The injured protesters are lying in the streets and the riot police are preventing people from helping them. The families of the killed protesters cannot get the bodies of their sons to bury them. This picture is the same in north Saini (El-Sheikh zoyad city) and in western Egypt (Al-salom). The riot police is cracking down on protesters in Ismailia, Alexandria, Fayoum, Shbin Elkoum, and Cairo, the capital, in many neighborhoods across the city.

The government is preparing to crackdown on the protesters in all Egyptian cities. They are using tear gas bombs, rubber and plastic pullets, chemicals like dilutes mustard gas against protesters. Several protesters today have been killed when the armored vehicles of the riot police hit them. Officials in plain clothes carrying blades and knives used to intimidate protesters. Thugs deployed by the Egyptian Ministry of Interior are roaming the streets of Cairo, setting fire on car-wheels as means of black propaganda to demonize protesters and justify police beatings and state torture

All this has been taken place over the past three days during the peaceful demonstrations in Cairo and other cities. Now, with the suspicious silence of the local media and the lack of coverage from the international media, Mubarak and his gang are blocking all the channels that can tell the world about what is happening.
People who call for their freedom need your support and help. Will you give them a hand?

The activists are flooding the net (youtube and other sites) with thousands of pictures and videos showing the riot police firing on armless people. The police started to use ammunition against protesters. 15-year old girl has been injured and another 25 year old man has been shot in the mouth. While nothing of these has appeared in the media, there is more to happen tomorrow. Will you keep silent? Will you keep your mouth shut while seeing all these cruelty and inhumane actions?

We don’t ask for much, just broadcast what is happening

Written by: Mariam Hussien

Learn More About Leonard Peltier

Julian Assange is innocent of all rape charges. That is an obvious fact. The charges are the result of a brazen campaign of retaliation by some of the many governments and corporate interests who are furious about damaging secrets being revealed by Wikileaks.

We also know that women don't make rape charges for frivolous reasons. To get women to make false rape charges in any case would be difficult. To get women to make false rape charges in a high profile case like this, it would require incredibly intense forms of coercion by the interests who are retaliating against Wikileaks. These women can no more be legitimately criticized or held responsible for what they are saying than victims of torture and people being held hostage by terrorists. It's the people who have committed heinous acts to coerce these women who should be the targets of our ire and of criminal prosecution.

What I just said isn't some kind of incredibly deep insight. It's a statement of obvious facts combined with basic logic. The Swedish prosecutors are perfectly aware of what is really going on. So are Sweden's political and economic elites.

So, the only question that remained for me was what to do about this. The only means that a middle class person across an ocean like me can think of to do is to retaliate against Sweden's reprehensible actions is taking some of my business away from that country's omnipresent corporation: Ikea. I know it isn't enough, and I would love to know other legal means to fight back against Sweden's power elites.

I also am sickened by the unpatriotic actions of MasterCard and Visa to refuse to process transactions for donations to Wikileaks. Talk about an utter lack of any sense of business ethics. I freely admit that I am too dependent on those two evil corporations to go cold turkey, but I am going to do the vast majority of my Solstice shopping by cash or check.

I already decided to avoid Solstice shopping at Amazon and to close my account there in response to their heinous decision to close down the Wikeleaks website. Fortunately , there are mirror sites, but that doesn't let Amazon's unpatriotic actions off the hook.

If I lived in Connecticut, there is no way I could ever vote for Joe Lieberman after his witch hunt against Wikileaks. I don't know how anyone could be as disgusting and corrupt as that man. His contempt for this country and the American people is horrifying. But, what would you expect from someone so disloyal to this country that he gleefully supports irradiating millions of Americans with highly carcinogenic doses of XRays just so a well connected Republican corporation can grab unearned profits.

If you are surprised by my use of the word "unpatriotic" to describe Wikileaks' American attackers, including that quisling Joe Lieberman, consider this. I see true patriotism to be loyalty to my country, not loyalty to corrupt corporations, wealthy elites, and politicians that reside here and leech off the rest of us.

 

Some corporate shills have been trying to create the media perception that the only people who opposes the highly carcinogenic body scanners in airports are Glenn Beck loving teabaggers. Nothing can be further from the truth. In fact, liberal organizations have been opposing these monstrosities on civil liberties grounds for some time now. Hopefully, awareness of the carcinogenic nature of the porno scanners will become more widely known as well.

The Privacy Coalition has a list of organizations that signed onto a letter sent last year to Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano opposing the XRay scanners. Most of the groups that signed on were liberal. Here are the liberal groups that signed onto the letter.

American Civil Liberties Union
Americans for Democratic Action
Center for Democracy and Technology
Center for Digital Democracy
Constitution Project
Consumer Action
Consumer Travel Alliance
Consumer Watchdog
Consumer Federation of America
Cyber Privacy Project
Discrimination and National Security Initiative
Electronic Privacy Information Center
Fairfax County Privacy Council
Feminists for Free Expression
Florida Breast Cancer Resource Network
Identity Project (PapersPlease.org)
National Center for Transgender Equality
National Workrights Institute
Pain Relief Network
Patient Privacy Rights
Privacy Activism
Privacy Rights Clearinghouse
Privacy Times
The Multiracial Activist
Transgender Law Center
Woodhull Freedom Foundation
World Privacy Forum

The scanners are blatantly unconstitutional. They are unreasonable searches and they certainly don't involve search warrants. The use of the carcinogenic porno scanners is based on the presumption that every person who flies is a terrorist and must prove their innocence, which violates the American principle of innocent until proven guilty.

Even more important is the fact that the scanner' use will result in a massive increase in cancer rates in this country in another ten to twenty years. I personally don't want to be part of that spike in cancer cases? Do you?

The pathetic thing is that we are throwing the lives of thousands if not millions of Americans as well as our constitutional rights in order to try to get a dubious degree of safety from a tiny risk, terrorism. Unlike terrorism, where the risk is remote, cancer is the second leading cause of death in this country.

Photo: stephanie says
 

From Democracy Now 12/2/10:

Amazon Drops WikiLeaks Website

WikiLeaks’ website meanwhile was temporarily shut down on Wednesday after the online giant Amazon dropped it from its servers. Independent Senator Joe Lieberman, chairman of the Senate Homeland Security Committee, said Amazon had acceded to his demand to stop hosting WikiLeaks. In a post to its Twitter account, WikiLeaks said, "If Amazon are so uncomfortable with the first amendment, they should get out of the business of selling books." In Washington, U.S. State Department spokesperson P.J. Crowley criticized Assange for calling on Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to resign over her orders for U.S. diplomats to spy on foreign officials.

Every patriotic American supports what Wikileaks is doing. Period.

Update: I canceled my Amazon account today. This brings up a problem unrelated to Amazon's anti American decision to take down the Wikileaks site. Instead of allowing users to enter their data during each transaction, which is the safer and more responsible practice, Amazon requires users to set up an account. The result of their policy and their accounts setup is that anyone with password cracking software can get into your account and get a huge amount of information that would be incredibly useful for identity theft. Even if you aren't bothered by Amazon's censorship of web whistleblowers, protecting your identity online should be a major consideration.

 

Now that President Obama's Cat Food Commission's initial draft of draconian social service cuts has come out, it is getting a lot more attention. The goals of the Cat Food Commission seemed initially to be focused on a jihad against Social Security and Medicare. That crusade is definitely part of the agenda, but the Cat Food Commission has a broader goal.

The Cat Food Commission is a broad based attempt to transfer income and wealth from the elderly, the middle class, and the poor to the rich.

Here are some of the specific recommendations from the Commission's draft report:

From CommonDreams.org 11/10/10 (bolding mine):

• 75% of the solutions in the co-chair mark are spending reductions, 25% are tax increases.

• They want to add co-pays to the Veterans’ Administration and TRICARE, as well as pushing individuals covered by TRICARE into an employer policy. They also want to freeze noncombat military pay for three years. And, they want to end schools for families on military bases, instead reintegrating soldier’s kids into the public school system (because that’s so easy for a military family that moves every other year).

• They would cut the federal workforce by 10%, freeze all salary increases and bonuses for three years, and reduce Congressional and White House budgets by 15%. Surely this is the way to a better and more efficient federal workforce.

• They would eliminate all funding for commercial space flight, as well as the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, and increase fees at national parks and the Smithsonian museums.

• Increase co-pays in Medicaid and cost sharing in Medicare. In addition, the plan would cap Medicaid/Medicare growth, so that the government would have to either increase premiums and co-pays or raise the Medicare eligibility age if the cost grows above the baseline.

• Massively overhaul the tax code. They have a couple different options on this. In the first, there would only be three brackets: at 8%, 14% and 23% for the top bracket. All tax expenditures – $1.1 trillion, including the Earned Income Tax Credit and the child tax credit, would be eliminated. The corporate tax rate would go down from 35% to 26% as well. Option 2 borrows from the Wyden-Gregg tax reform, establishing rates at 15%, 25% and 35%, increasing the standard deduction, capping the mortgage interest deduction (and eliminating it for second homes), limiting the charitable deduction, eliminating other tax expenditures, and capping the employer deduction for health care. Corporate rates would also go down, with loopholes removed.

• They would increase the gas tax by 15 cents a gallon beginning in 2013, to pay for transportation projects.

• They would pay for the “doctor’s fix” by cutting other reimbursements to hospitals and drug companies, as well as through tort reform (yeah, that’ll do it). They would also speed up a lot of the cost controls in the health care law. They also ask, if health care costs are still rising after the implementation of the exchanges, for Congress to consider a variety of options, including this:

Add a robust public option and/or all-payer system in the exchange

• Reduce farm subsidies by $3 billion per year.

• On Social Security, gradually increase the retirement age to 69 by 2075. They would also institute progressive price indexing to cut scheduled benefits for middle and high-income earners. They would index cost of living increases to inflation and not wages. They would also increase the payroll tax to capture 90% of wages, rather than the current 86%. Social Security savings would stay inside the program to keep it solvent, not be used for deficit reduction.

I've read from multiple sources that they also want to eliminate the home mortgage deduction for all homes.

Here are some things that are not included in the agenda of this alleged "deficit commission."

- Cutting off all funding to the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.

- Closing the majority of military bases abroad.

- Getting rid of the Bush tax cuts for the rich.

- Getting rid of the Clinton and Reagan tax cuts for the rich.

- Raising corporate taxes.

- Instituting luxury taxes.

- Instituting an SUV tax.

- Repealing all corporate controlled trade agreements and withdrawing from the World Trade Organization, making it possible for our government to expand revenue from tariffs, traditionally one of its major funding sources.

- Initiating a tax on all short term stock, bond, mutual fund, commodities, hedge fund, derivative, and other transactions involving financial instruments. (Call it the Bubble Prevention Tax.)

- Cut back on wasteful and unconstitutional homeland security spending

- An end to covert operations in Iran

- End of all aid to Israel

- End of aid and support for the fascist dictatorship in Colombia

- Legalization of Marijuana

- Sentencing crack like other cocaine

- Legalizing other victimless crimes such as gambling and prostitution.

- Taxing capital gains (other than primary home sales) like income actually earned by working

A "deficit commission" that proposes cutting taxes for the rich and corporations is not a deficit commission. Many have pointed out that wealthy and corporate interests are turning the same Shock Doctrine tactics that were used on non Western countries onto Europe and North America. We need to do more to fight back.

Photo: Sunfox

Guns kill ten times more Americans every year than were killed in the 911 attacks. Cars kill even more Americans than guns. Cigarettes and fast food each kill several times as many people as guns. Yet, what are we supposed to be so frightened of that we allow ourselves to be treated as less than human every time we go to the airport? Terrorism?

Enough!

In case you haven't heard of John Tyner, here's a brief description of his act of heroism. (WLWT.com)

A man who refused a body scan and pat-down search at a San Diego airport has become an Internet sensation in the debate weighing fliers' security versus their privacy.

John Tyner posted a cell phone audio recording of his half-hour encounter Saturday at Lindbergh Field.

The software engineer couldn't board a flight after refusing a full-body scan that reveals an image of what's under his clothes. He also wouldn't allow a Transportation Security Administration worker to conduct a groin check. Tyner told the worker, "If you touch my junk, I'm gonna have you arrested."

Tyner's blog said he left the airport -- but only after being threatened with a lawsuit and fine for failing to complete security screening.

The fear of terrorism is leading to airport insanity. Remember when Bush was babbling about "they hate us for our freedom." Well, the War on Terror has been used to systematically chip away at our freedom. Airport screening is an extreme example of it.

The body scanners use either X Rays or Gamma Rays, both of which are highly carcinogenic and cause birth defects. So, if you don't want to subject yourself to this, you have to go through pat downs, which often are taken to sexually harassing extremes.

The reality is that terrorists find ways around every airport screening technique. So, even if terrorism was a major risk, this still would be a failed policy, from a security standpoint.

If this country relied more on in person intelligence than on flooding intelligence services with an overload of useless information gathered through everyone's emails, text messages, and phone calls, that would do a whole lot more to prevent terrorist attacks than humiliating and sexually harassing passengers or sending carcinogenic radiation through their bodies.

But, fighting terrorism isn't the real goal. The real goal is to make us so scared that we don't start thinking and questioning what is being done to us as Americans and as human beings. The people making money off of wars and corruption would like nothing better than for us to all snivel at the thoughts of the terrorist boogie man.

We live in a society that is so narcotized by corporate products that we seem incapable of admitting that Crappy Meals are literally more dangerous than terrorists. We doze at the real threats while scurrying like mice at the small stuff.

 

The teabaggers like babbling about the Constitution and what the founders believed, yet they get it wrong a lot of the time. They like ranting about America being a "Christian Nation," even though anyone familiar with the Constitution or American history would know otherwise.

The First Amendment explicitly forbids the establishment of religion.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Note that the First Amendment says Congress can't make a law respecting the "establishment of religion." It does not say "establishment of a particular religion" or even "establishment of religion." The latter two are common lies told by Christian religious extremists who don't like the wall of separation between church and state mandated by the text of the First Amendment. So, they just lie about what it actually says.

Logic is often considered evil by the rightist teabaggers. Yet, the rest of us would point out that it isn't logical to think that founders who wrote and ratified the First Amendment would see our country as a "Christian nation." But, that doesn't keep the teabaggers from lying and saying it was the original intent.

One of our nation's first treaties was the Treaty of Tripoli. The main significance of the treaty to our lives today can be found in one part.

ARTICLE 11.

As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,-as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen,-and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

This treaty was signed by President John Adams after being ratified by the US Senate. It should be noted that Adams is quite trendy on the right these days, but most of his conservative admirers know nothing about the Treaty of Tripoli (or much else).

Even worse for those who want to believe that America was founded as a Christian Nation was this part of his statement at signing the treaty. (bolding mine)

Now be it known, That I John Adams, President of the United States of America, having seen and considered the said Treaty do, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, accept, ratify, and confirm the same, and every clause and article thereof. And to the End that the said Treaty may be observed and performed with good Faith on the part of the United States, I have ordered the premises to be made public; And I do hereby enjoin and require all persons bearing office civil or military within the United States, and all other citizens or inhabitants thereof, faithfully to observe and fulfill the said Treaty and every clause and article thereof.

Atheists, agnostics, and non Christian religious leaders are sick and tired of this nonsense about America being a Christian nation. You teabaggers need to stop spewing this bullshit.

Why is an Astroturf scam like Teabagger Inc. pushing these lies about the Constitution and the founders? The rich bastards and corporate leaders behind the scam want to keep people too busy ranting on about religious hatreds to notice how we are being robbed by the very interests behind all the nonsense being fed the drooling knucklewalkers who have been suckered by the con job.

Photos: naama

typebalance

 

When I saw this Murdoch Street Journal column by Peggy Noonan linked on Google News, I knew it would be fab fodder for Tengrain at Mock, Paper, Scissors. He doesn't disappoint. (Distributor Cap did some fun illustrations too, I might add.)

However, when I saw the title of the babblethon, "We Pay Them to Be Rude to Us," I thought it might be fodder for political commentary. Noonan didn't disappoint either. So, I broke my rule about linking to Rupert Murdoch's media empire to dish her crap.

What I find so intriguing about Ms. Noonan's meandering prose in this case is that she complains about things that are the fault of the rightist era brought into place in this country by her idol, the execrable Ronald Reagan.

Once we were a great industrial nation. Now we are a service economy. Which means we are forced to interact with each other, every day, in person and by phone and email. And it's making us all a little mad.

Ronnie was the person who pushed a "free trade" agreement with Mexico that eventually was implemented by fellow rightist, Bill Clinton. Instead of calling for higher tariffs to keep corporations from exporting industry abroad. Ronnie was a cheerleader for deindustrialization. All the rightists who have been in the office have supported corporate controlled trade too. Yet, she doesn't see the connection between the right and our service oriented economy.

Noonan also complains about a letter she got a few years back.

I wrote of the same experience a few years ago and got a letter from a saleswoman in a big department store. She said, I paraphrase: "You misunderstand, it's not that we haven't been taught how to behave, it's that we have. We are trained to make and maintain eye contact, we are taught to intrude, we are instructed to act in a way that people used to recognize as rude behavior."

This is mainly the result of conservative policies. The primary cause is the draining of income from the poor and middle class and the diversion to the rich. That has increased shoplifting, whose prevention is the main goal of all that "friendly" but really watchful behavior by salespeople.

Peggy Noonan later complained about the tightened security in airports that is the result of the right's foreign policies and the efforts to create a terrorized populace at home. Her specific complaints about a screener are loaded with irony, given her position to the political right.

When I'd first gone through the machine and then been manhandled, a month before, I was so taken aback that I blurted "Wow, that was embarrassing." I said it softly, in a way that invited mild commiseration of the "I know, I'm sorry I have to do this" sort. Instead, with full Dead Face, the TSA woman said, "Have a nice day." As I walked away I thought: She has been taught by consultants how to "handle" people like me. Her instructions are that if anyone accepts her ministrations with anything but passive surrender, she is to show she is impervious and keep the line moving. She is probably taught this in a class given by government contractors who are paid by taxpayers to handle taxpayers. Meaning I pay her to be rude to me.

I'll have to number these.

1) Customer service oriented at shutting up consumers and getting them to take it is part and parcel of deregulation that has affected nearly every sector of our economy. Smiling while not giving a flying fuck has become a cultural norm in a society where corporations have way too much power. Why should corporations give a shit when government policy keeps the balance of power in their favor?

2) Contempt for consumers has grown as retail outlets consolidate. Much of the consolidation of that sector and others is illegal under antitrust law. But, conservative administrations refuse to engage in much beyond the most token enforcement of antitrust law. Corporations that don't need to fight for customers have created a situation where The Customer Is Serf, and that too has permeated the culture.

3) The excessive reliance on government contractors is the result of privatization of so much of our government, another rightist policy.

4) The disregard for privacy is one of the most prominent political tenets on the right. Ronnie's opposition to abortion was a prime example of it and set the stage for other violations of privacy. This all has gotten much worse after 911 where the right's politicians were more interested in using the attacks as an excuse to violate the privacy of innocent Americans than to actually improve our nation's defenses against terrorism. Anti regulatory sentiment also has kept regulations from being passed to restrict the voracious appetites of corporations for peoples' private information.

The Upshot

Ms. Noonan is pained by the effects on her person by living in a rightist society. I would be sympathetic towards her if not for how she has been one of the most obnoxious enablers of the very things she rails against. She recognizes that we all want an evacuation slide like the one taken by the heroic Steve Slater. But, she is so beholden to the very system that is making us all wish we could bail out sometimes.

Photo: WexDub

Update: Sean Fenley skewers Noonan for another recent column where she refuses to take responsibility for the rightist policies that are making most Americans justifiably outraged these days.

 

Photo: ryanjreilly

I am so sick of politicians and pundits attacking Wikileaks. As an American citizen and voter, I have an inalienable right to know about the war crimes and actual military status of the Afghanistan war. I am sick of politicians in both major political parties fraudulently classifying data that should be public in order to cover up their criminality and incompetence.

Pro torture Sen. Chuck Schumer, who represents Xe, Halliburton, and Big Oil in the Senate, really has gone off the deep end this time. He actually is going on a jihad against the courageous people at Wikileaks who are exposing the lies and the war crimes that are being committed in the Afghanistan war. Schumer's morally bankrupt and unAmerican press release includes all sorts of disturbing and unconscionable statements.

After last week’s controversial leaking of sensitive documents related to the U.S. war in Afghanistan, U.S. Senator Charles E. Schumer (D-NY) announced Wednesday that Wikileaks would never qualify for any protection under the media shield legislation that awaits action in the Senate, adding he is already drafting new language to incorporate into the bill to make that explicit.

Schumer, the Senate’s lead author of the measure, said two parts of the existing bill already ensured that Wikileaks could never assert the privilege created by the legislation. First, the site does not fit the bill’s definition of a journalist, which requires that the covered party regularly engage in legitimate newsgathering activities. Second, the bill allows a judge to waive the privilege altogether if critical national security concerns are at stake.

But Schumer said he would be working with Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), the Senate Intelligence Chairman, anyway on language that could serve as a further safeguard against the possibility of Wikileaks ever seeking protection from the bill.

“Neither WikiLeaks, nor its original source for these materials, should be spared in any way from the fullest prosecution possible under the law,” Schumer said. “Although the bill in no way shields anyone who broke the law from prosecution, we are going the extra mile to remove even a scintilla of doubt.”

Schumer was perfectly aware of the indisputable fact that Wikileaks was engaging in completely legitimate news gathering activities. Exposing government lies and corruption is the most important function of a free press.

Schumer's provision allowing "a judge to waive the privilege altogether if critical national security concerns are at stake" is an enormous loophole designed to promote government coverups. The Obama Administration and most members of the House and Senate already have brazenly lied and said that the Wikileaks revelations pose a threat to our national security, demonstrating that the loophole is so enormous that it effectively nullifies the shield law he is pushing.

If Schumer had the slightest integrity he would be denouncing the Obama administration's efforts to retaliate against whistleblowers on both the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. But, Schumer is so murderously racist, he will support any deception and misuse of the classification of government data in order to feed his bloodlust. Schumer is so beholden to moneyed interests that he won't do his job as a Senator to expose and fight corruption. I refuse to ever vote for that bought bigot again. The culture of corruption in DC is rampant among both the Democrats and the Republicans.

I am so sick of the corporate media lying and saying Schumer is a liberal when he has proven himself to be a Bush/Cheney/Obama/Clinton/Palin/Beck far right Republican. Corporate newspapers constantly whine about losing circulation. Yet, they keep expecting newspaper readers, the vast majority of whom are liberal, to pay for a constant barrage of rightist propaganda and lies.

Chuck Schumer and Feinstein should resign in disgrace. Neither of them is fit to hold public office.

 

I never know whether to laugh or cringe when some corporate media hack claims that the DailyKos is a "liberal" or "progressive" website. It's run by highly partisan, conservative Democrats who are trying to move liberals to the right at every opportunity.

Seldom has it gotten so cynical or disturbing as a posting by "angry mouse" with the misleading title "Why liberals should love the Second Amendment."

There are so many disturbing things about this. She goes along with NRA terrorist propaganda about the Second Amendment, claiming it is about personal ownership of handguns while ignoring what the 2nd Amendment actually says.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

As you can clearly see from the text, the 2nd Amendment only applies to government sponsored militias that are well regulated. Claims that the 2nd Amendment applies to private gun ownership are deceptive NRA terrorist propaganda that cost the lives of almost 30,000 Americans every year, and which results in far more frequent rapes and robberies. That's right. Having guns legal causes the equivalent of ten 911s every year, from murders, other homicides, suicides, and accidental shootings.

Angry mouse also makes the following nonsensical and dangerous claim about the constitution:

No. 1: The Bill of Rights protects individual rights.

Claims that the first ten amendments of the Constitution only protect "individual rights" involve a specious distinction that originates from the minds of rabid segregationists and has nothing to do with the text of the Bill of Rights. This farcical claim has been used venomously by white supremacists and misogynists to attack Affirmative Action and civil rights in general.

It's also willfully ignorant of who and what human beings are. Human beings are individuals, but we also are social organisms who belong to groups. Parsing out "individual rights" (which also is a rightist code phrase) has the effect of creating numerous civil and human rights violations against individuals who belong to groups in society that face discrmination.

It really should be astonishing that the author actually makes the claim that gun ownership is a "civil liberty." This is fatuous nonsense. Taking away peoples' guns is merely a minor inconvenience. Let's look at the main reasons why people own guns.

1) Misuguided attempts at self protection that actually do far more to endanger the gun owners and the people who live around them.

2) The commission of robbery, rape, murder, and other serious crimes.

3) Killing animals. This is often referred to as "sport hunting," despite the fact that it is too one sided to honestly be referred to as a sport. If people want to hunt for sport, they should be using spears or clubs, not guns.

There simply is no basis for thinking that any of these remotely resembles a "civil liberty." This nonsense comes from the Tom Delay brand of "civil liberties" that considers the ability to put toxic pesticides on food a "civil liberty."

The author turns the civil liberties issue on its head. Gun owners are the ones who are violating the civil liberties of gun crime victims like myself. Present and future gun crime victims have an inalienable right to live in gun free societies. There is no greater violation of civil liberties than living as a gun crime victim in a society where you are surrounded by guns.

How many more people are going to have to get robbed, raped, and murdered before the gun extremists care?

The gun nut who wrote the rant then went on to make the most dangerous claim of all.

No. 3: It doesn't matter that it's not 1776 anymore.

When the Founders drafted the Bill of Rights, they could not have imagined machine guns. Or armor-piercing bullets (which are not available to the public anyway, and are actually less lethal than conventional ammunition). Or handguns that hold 18 rounds. A drive-by shooting, back in 1776, would have been a guy on a horse with a musket.

Of course, they couldn't have imagined the internet, either. Or 24-hour cable news networks. Or talk radio. When they drafted the First Amendment, did they really mean to protect the rights of Bill O'Reilly to make incredibly stupid, and frequently inaccurate, statements for an entire hour, five nights a week?

Actually, yes. They did. Bill O'Reilly bilious ravings, and Keith Olbermann's Special Comments, and the insipid chatter of the entire cast of the Today show are, and were intended to be, protected by the First Amendment.

By this "logic," everyone would have a Constitutional right to nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons, all of which are "arms." This is just plain nuts.

There is an entire industry of death merchants who profit off of this dangerous and irresponsible propaganda. Claims that the 2nd Amendment protects private ownership of guns or that gun ownership is a "civil liberty" are as deceptive as Big Oil and Big Coal's propaganda about Global Warming. Meanwhile, the resulting rapes, robberies, and murders continue.

This is dangerous Rand Paul/Sarah Palin wingnuttery at its most extreme. If I wasn't already aware that the DailyKos is a rightist website, I would be shocked. I have to say, though, if there were truth in advertising laws for politics, the DailyKos would be legally required to stop referring to itself as "progressive" and refer to itself as "rightist" or "corporatist."

 

Press censorship is a rather heavy handed way of dealing with bad press, but it was precisely the tactic used by British Petroleum and the Obama administration after so much attention has been drawn to their lack of action to stop the oil spill and clean it up. If anything, the restrictions added to criticism and public distrust of the efforts (lack of efforts?).

So, the Coast Guard is revising the censorship somewhat. From their 7/12/10 Press Release:

National Incident Commander Admiral Thad Allen today announced new procedures to allow media free travel within the 20-meter boom safety zones if they have followed simple procedures for credentialing, and provided they follow certain rules and guidelines.

"I have put out a direction that the press are to have clear, unfettered access to this event, with two exceptions -- if there is a safety or security concern," said Allen. “This boom is critical to the defense of the marshes and the beaches.”

"We need to discriminate between media, which have a reason to be there and somebody who's hanging around when we know that we've had equipment vital to this region damaged," Allen said.

Previously, media were required to contact local authorities each time they wished to access booming operations. The 20-meter safety zone was created to prevent boats from going over the top of booms; it is not intended to limit media access.

This step will further expand media access to frontlines of the BP oil spill response, and ensure that media representatives have the access they need to report this historic response-while maintaining the effectiveness of more than 560 miles of protective boom currently deployed to protect sensitive shorelines along the Gulf Coast.

A credential will be issued for media representatives to carry and display as needed for the duration of the response. Media representatives can obtain credentials by providing their name, media affiliation, and contact information to the Unified Area Command Joint Information Center at UACNOLAJIC@gmail.com.

There are still some serious problems. Limiting the permits to credentialed media will restrict the free press rights of private individuals. Given rightist bias, advertiser pressure, and cutbacks in corporate media outlets, limiting access to those who are part of that system will also restrict the public's right to know significantly.

Our government still disrespects and hampers citizen media because it isn't subservient to the same corporations that the corporate media are owned by and which own our elected officials. Partial restrictions on access protected by the First Amendment is still unconstitutional and still intended to reduce the amount of public awareness of how little is being done about the spill.

Today's Democracy Now coverage summarizes the point quite well.

Under the revised rules, credentialed journalists will have unfettered access but members of the general public and uncredentialed media must still abide by the 65-foot rule.

 

Charges from a former cleanup worker that the supposed cleanup of British Petroleum has been merely cosmetic, complaints about the lack of cleanup efforts by local Gulf residents, and negative media coverage have elicited an interesting response from British Petroleum and its enablers in government. They are trying to hound the press away or even criminalize attempts to cover the story.

The efforts to criminalize news coverage by the Obama Administration have gotten so bad that a Freedom of Information Act request has been made on the subject on behalf of Seize BP. (From Seize BPs 7/8/10 press release sent via email)

The Partnership for Civil Justice Fund, on behalf of SeizeBP.org, has filed a Freedom of Information Act request demanding the underlying documents that purport to substantiate the Coast Guard’s new ban on media access to areas affected by BP’s Deepwater Horizon oil catastrophe.

“This attempt to muzzle the press on behalf of BP is just the latest in a series of actions that indicate collusion between the federal government and a giant corporate entity that has created an environmental disaster due to criminal negligence,” stated Carl Messineo, a spokesperson for Seize BP and public interest attorney who filed the records demand.

In a July 1, 2010 news conference, Coast Guard Admiral Thad Allen, the national incident commander for the oil spill, explained that the new restrictions were initiated on the basis of his receipt of complaints from county commissioners that, absent access restrictions, damage could theoretically occur. Allen did not identify the sources of such complaints or the unnamed commissioners.

The penalty for reporters or journalists who may enter the new exclusion zones without permission is up to a $40,000 fine and potentially a class D felony conviction.

This Freedom of Information Act request demands: “disclosure of copies of all complaints or requests that formed the basis for, or which prompted, the new exclusion zones. To the extent that such complaints were made verbally, the request seeks disclosure of any documents memorializing or summarizing or logging or otherwise recording such complaints.”

This request also demands “disclosure of all communications with BP and its agents regarding restrictions or limitations upon media access.”

A lot of us on the left give Anderson Cooper for his usual lack of substantive news reporting, but he deserves a lot of credit for covering this press censorship when many in the corporate media have kept silent on the subject.



The press harassment and censorship extends to the local level to another British Petroleum catastrophe in Texas. (From Democracy Now! 7/9/10)

JUAN GONZALEZ: We now turn to look at a story about the oil giant BP that has received nearly no national attention. Just over three months ago, thousands of pounds of toxic chemicals began spewing into the skies from BP’s massive oil refinery in Texas City. The release began on April 6, two weeks before the explosion on the deepwater horizon oil rig, but it took BP weeks to even realize there was a problem. BP now estimates 538,000 pounds of chemicals and escaped from the refinery over 40-day period.

...

AMY GOODMAN: Well I wanted to go to the issue of the difficulty of reporting this. I want to bring in Lance Rosenfield, the freelance photographer hired by ProPublica to take pictures of BP’s Texas City refinery. While on assignment, he was followed by BP security, then detained by local police. He joins us now from Austin, Texas. Lance Rosenfield, welcome to "DEMOCRACY NOW!" Describe what happened to you.

LANCE ROSENFIELD: Simply put, I was hired by ProPublica to augment the story that’s Ryan Knutson is speaking of, and I was taking photographs. It was a two-day assignment so I had various parts to cover, including, basically giving a portrait of the town itself. So I’d found a decorative ‘Welcome to Texas City’ sign on a public highway south of town near the refinery. And, simply put, I was taking pictures of that sign. I pulled off the shoulder like I would normally do, of the public street, walked over to the median, took the pictures, and then walked back to my car. And I was going to go back to my hotel to file the pictures and I noticed I was being followed by security truck.

So I needed gas anyway. I did not feel like going—letting this guy, you know, follow me to my hotel. So I pulled into the gas station. He continued on, so I thought really nothing of it. Then police pulled in and essentially, you know, blocked me in as if I was gonna to try to go anywhere. And, got out, asked who I was. They had got reports that I was taking photographs. And I said, ‘Yes, I’m a photojournalist.’ And they said, ‘We need to see your pictures.’ I said, well, you know, ‘Without a warrant, I don’t feel like I need to show you the pictures.’ And he said, ‘Well, we can, we can – you can show ‘em to us now or we can do this later with Homeland Security.’ It seemed to me like a, some sort of additional threat.

So because I was on deadline, I made the decision to show them the pictures. I just wanted to get this over with, I knew I had nothing, you know, threatening on my photographs. I showed them the pictures and he took my information. At this time the, the security guard that was following me had turned back around, pulled into the parking lot. He was a BP security guard. And the BP security guard asked for my information as well. And I, I declined because he’s a corporate security guard. So he turned to the police officer who had just taken my information, including my Social Security Number, and gave—I’m not sure exactly what of the information that the police officer took—what of that he gave to the BP officer, but he gave him whatever he needed.

And, so I protested. I said I didn’t understand why that was happening. I didn’t – I was never on BP property. And, and so I asked, ‘Under what, what grounds he was able to share my information with a private corporation?’ And basically, I didn’t get a straight answer. I just got, ‘Well, this is Homeland Security procedure. We can call Homeland Security agent Tom Robison down here, you know, if you have a problem with it.’ And I said, ‘Well, I’m just trying to understand what legal grounds you have to do this, because I was never on BP property.’ So he said, ‘Well, I’ll just call Tom Robison.’

So he called Tom Robison, who at time I didn’t know who he was, of course. I’ve found out since that he’s, he’s a local police corporal who is a liaison to the FBI and Homeland Security. So—and he heads the local joint terrorism task force there in Texas City, and I guess, maybe the region. So, but at that time I did not know who he was—they just referred to him as FBI and Homeland Security.

They called Tom Robison. He actually gave me the phone, which I thought was a little unusual, but my natural reaction is to take the phone. Tom Robison got on the phone and asked what my problem was. And I said, ‘I’m just kind understand why this is happening with BP getting my information.’ He said, ‘You’re staying there. Don’t go anywhere until I get there.’ So I gave the phone back to the police officer. He said, you know, ‘You need to stay.’

And at that point, I felt like, you know, the police officer had looked at my photographs on my camera, he had determined that there was no threat. And at this point, why was I being detained? It wasn’t clear to me, other than the fact that Tom Robison wanted to come down. So he showed up and basically approached me in a very antagonistic and aggressive manner. Um, he was shaking, he was worked up, he was loud, he was boisterous, he asked what my problem was. He said his main concern was my attitude. And, you know, all I was trying to do was find out why BP was getting my information. And, you know, it was his antagonistic behavior that I had a problem with. I felt like he was harassing me. The BP security guard stepped in and they both, you know, were trying to relate my activity as a photojournalist to terrorist activity—

The Obama administration and corrupt local officials in the South are covering up British Petroleum's crimes against this country. This is absolutely disgusting and unpatriotic. This is inexcusable. Barack Bush is absolutely heinous.

Meanwhile, British Petroleum's incredibly evil CEO Tony Hayward is building an expensive villa in Spain to get away from the problem.

 

Few things are more offensive than religionists attempting to shove their beliefs down the throats of those who don't share them, whether it is fascistic Christians putting crosses on government property or arrogant Muslims who actually think they have any business telling non Muslims whether or not we can draw pictures of their pedophile prophet. (In the Koran, he admits to marrying and raping a little girl.)

I bring up the point of the so called "prophet" of Islam being a pedophile because it is important to denounce and repudiate child abusers. As someone who experienced physical and emotional abuse as a child, I know all too well that adults have a responsibility to fight back against the abusers and those who condone their activities, since children have no way of defending themselves. People need to speak out just as forcefully against the founder of Islam as they do against the Roman Catholic officials who rape children and protect the rapists.

Efforts to stop people from drawing any figure from any religion are a rather extreme example of religious privilege. People actually think that religion should be put on some kind of pedestal and that it should not be subject to the same kinds of critique and ridicule as other ideas or value systems. Religious privilege is inherently bigoted and discriminatory against atheists. Those who assert it should be utterly ashamed of themselves.

So, I'm joining in with others who are participating in Draw Muhammed Day. I'm doing it to send a message to Muslims and other religious believers.

Your religious beliefs do not apply to any other person, place, or thing. They only apply to you. Any attempt on your part to impose your religious beliefs on anyone else puts you on the same immoral level as the 911 hijackers and the people who commit acts of terrorism against abortion providers.

 

During my trip to Prague, I visited the Museum of Communism. Soviet propaganda art was magnificent, but it was a facade which failed to cover the misery, oppression, and death that the system of totalitarian socialism brought on the Czech people and others under its yoke. There is a tendancy among some on the far left to romanticize Lenin, partly because the sociopathic and mass murdering Stalin followed him. However, Lenin was a brutal and murderous dictator whose crimes were bad enough, though dwarfed by Stalin's.

The irony of attending that museum was just how many parallels I saw to what is going on with the right in its ascendancy here in the US. Things haven't gotten anywhere near as bad in the US, at least not yet. But, visiting the Czech Republic, a country now much freer than the US, certainly gives one a sense of perspective.

When I discuss the American right, I'm not just talking about talk radio, the Moonie Paper (Washington Times), and Rupert Murdoch's evil media empire. I'm not just talking about the Goppers and the conservative Democrats. I'm referring to the entire corporate and political infrastructure of the right from the New York Times to the local teabagger to the Bush and Obama administrations.

Some examples of the similarities between the American right and the Soviet empire follow.

Using WMD Propaganda to Frighten the Populace
Before I went to the Museum of Communism, an American expatriate talked about how the communists used weapons of mass destruction in their propaganda to terrorize the population about the West. The museum had a display about that very propaganda.

Sound familiar? If it doesn't, you haven't been paying much attention to what's been going on for the past decade or so.

Unlawful Detention
One of the many ways that the communists stayed in power was for secret intelligence agencies to detain people without charge and hold them indefinitely. Sounds like the inspiration for Gitmo to me.

Constant Spying
In communist Czechoslovakia, every means of communication was spied upon. Phones were tapped. Houses and public places were bugged. A human spy network pervaded society looking for opponents of the state. If you added in Internet and cell phone spying, you would get what we have now in the US.

Focus on Internal "Enemies"
Communist propaganda in Czechoslovakia portrayed anyone who disagreed with government policies or foreign domination as enemies of the state and the people. The hysteria over Islamic terrorists in the US is somewhat similar, and is pervasive among the more mainstream parts of the right. In both societies, there were opponents of the governments, and they did pose threats to the public safety. However, those threats were wildly exaggerated in order to try to keep the population timid and passive.

The threat of terrorism is real, but it is relatively small. Legalized gun ownership kills almost 30,000 Americans every year. That's ten 911's every year. Yet, the same right that tries to paralyze us all in fear over terrorism insists that gun ownership not only be legal, but be utterly unregulated.

The far right takes things one step closer to Soviet era communism. They treat political liberals, opponents of war, feminists, non whites, queers, and the non religious as internal enemies that must be destroyed. Some analysts discuss the Eliminationism found on the right, yet they haven't looked at the historical parallels between the this behavior and the same kind of internal demonization that was practiced by the Soviet era communists.

Constant Propaganda, Often with Some Elements of Truth
The US is one of the most heavily propagandized societies in world history. Advertising, even for corporate products, is highly ideological, promoting the view of human beings primarily as passive purchasers whose main source of self worth is found in what they buy. Our political system is dominated by campaign ads as well.

The "news media" in this country are overwhelmingly propagandistic, resembling the old Soviet Pravda. Like the Soviet media and the media in satellite states such as Czechoslovakia, information is highly censored and distorted in the US. Most political views are either censored or ridiculed in the corporate media here in a way that is so familiar to people aware of the practices in communist societies.

Yet, both societies' media used elements of truth to produce their message. No one can reasonably dispute the fact that the US has a war mongering government, and that banks and other corporate interests abuse the people horribly. Equally accurate is that there are Islamic religious extremists at home and abroad who want to destroy the United States. Yet, in each case, the potency of the threats were exaggerated wildly in order to keep people in line.

Contempt for Environmental Protection
The reaction of the right, including President Obama and Sarah Palin, to the horrific, but easily predictable oil spill caused by offshore drilling done by British Petroleum is shockingly similar to the Soviet Union's response to the Chernobyl. This should tell people something.

The right's contempt for environmentalist and environmental concerns is one of their most hot button issues. They act as if everyone who is concerned about the environment is an atheist/Muslim/communist/liberal/terrorist/pacifist or something. Yet, if you look at the set of regimes most contemptuous of the environmental protection, those would be the former Soviet Union and its satellite states.

The American right doesn't just show a Stalinesque contempt for the planet. It also uses paranoid, Sovietesque propaganda to demonize people who care about the environment. The conspiratorial propaganda against accepting the fact of global warming is highly representative of this phenomenon.

Another Parallel: Heterosexism
This wasn't mentioned in the Museum of Communism, but heterosexism was rampant in Soviet dominated Czechoslovakia. These visceral prejudices were rationalized by saying that homosexuality was "capitalist decadence." Here in the US, visceral bigotry is rationalized by passages from a Bible that the bigots largely ignore except in those passages that involve behavior that they aren't interested in participating in.

Heterosexism also has been used by communists and American rightists to demonize opponents and frighten dissidents.

Why Doesn't the American Right See the Parallels?
The similarities have been completely censored from corporate media outlets. You have to think for yourself and get access to alternative media to recognize them.

However, media manipulation isn't the whole story. Many on the right opposed communism because it was foreign and Russian, in their rather limited world view. The actual oppression was more of an excuse. "Freedom" to the right merely means the freedom to do what the right wants. Also, much of US anticommunism has been based on picking teams similarly to how sports franchises are worshiped. The USSR and its empire were the Boston Red Sox to Yankees fans and vice versa.

 

 

American rightists who seek to impose themselves on other countries are furious that a Canadian university canceled a speech by Osama bin Coulter in the face of overwhelming campus opposition. But what does the evil one herself think about free speech? (The Independent Florida Alligator 10/21/05 - Hat Tip: Dawg's Blog)

She also criticized the media for being liberal and Democrats for whining about their rights under the First Amendment.

"They're always accusing us of repressing their speech," she said. "I say let's do it. Let's repress them."

She later added, "Frankly, I'm not a big fan of the First Amendment."

The reactions by many of the right show how incredibly stupid they are. The Democratic Party doesn't even exist outside of the US, but that hasn't stopped many on the right fringe for attacking the Democrats for something they had nothing to do with. (e.g. The Lewis Crusade)

There is no secret that our own Democratic Party has a huge admiration for Canada and wants to turn the US into Canada.

Incidents like this just prove once again what the Democrats really are: Stalinists.

The title of this post was equally offensive and idiotic too, "All liberals are terrorists."

 

Congress has passed legislation extending the Unpatriotic Act, without even any modifications to protect peoples' privacy. The official name of this legislation which attacks American values is the "Patriot Act," and so many, even on the left, have gone along with this.

In two previous postings, I have referred to the Club for Growth (of Income Inequality). The official name lacks the part in parentheses. The organization has no real interest in spurring overall economic growth. If they did, they would oppose tax cuts for the rich which repress economic growth instead of making them mandatory for any politician they support. The Club for Growth (of Income Inequality) is made up of extremely wealthy Republicans, many of them in Manhattan. They spend large amounts of money running primary challenges against conservative, but not batshit crazy, Republicans in order to save much larger amounts of taxes.

This is part of a larger project by the far right to deceive the American public about the nature of their goals and practices. Here are some examples of deceptive organizational organizational names and what the organizations actually do.

"Family Research Council"
Promotes and disseminates propaganda promoting bigotry, discrimination, and violence against women, non Christians, and queers. Promotes religious extremism.

"National Right to Work Committee"
Opposes the rights of employees to form and maintain unions. Opposes legislation which protects employees who want to join unions from intimidation, harassment, and firing by union busting employers. Demonizes unions and union members with bizarre propaganda.

"National Right to Life"
Promotes bigotry, discrimination, and violence against women. Opposes life saving condom distribution and AIDS education programs. Promotes religious extremism. Demonizes abortion providers to such an extreme extent that it results in terrorist threats and attacks.

"Keep America Safe"
Works to frighten Americans so much that they will go along with policies that endanger our national security and economic well being in order to further enrich the super rich.

"Accuracy in Media"
Works to maintain and enforce the far right slant of corporate media propaganda and to censor information which would lead people to question far right ideology.

"Reason Magazine"
Uses bizarre and illogical rationalizations to promote wealthy and corporate interests at the expense of the middle class and the poor.

"Center for Individual Rights"
Promotes discrimination on the basis of race and sex.

"Concerned Women for America"
A militant, fundamentalist hate group largely controlled by men.

I'm sure you could list more organizations if you put your mind to it, but I've made my point. The far right knows it can not win political debates honestly and transparently, so they deceive and manipulate the public as much as possible in order to try to win in the political arena.

If you notice a similarity between the US right's practices and the fictional totalitarian socialist regime in 1984, you are quite correct. The author, George Orwell as a democratic socialist who saw the dangers in terms of what was around at that time, the late 1940s. He didn't foresee that the US right would adopt many of the practices of deception that are commonly described as "Orwellian" as an homage to his book, largely because the well funded rightist reaction of the late 20th Century was only in its infancy.

Major corporate media outlets happily go along with the deceptive naming of far right organizations because it advances the agendas of wealthy owners and advertisers. In today's USA, we are propagandized at as relentlessly as citizens of the old Soviet Empire. The main difference is that the field of propaganda has advanced since then, making it more effective.

 

I'm already afraid...of the Cheneys. (Hat Tip: The Joshua Blog)



The organization behind this, Human Rights First, did a good job of satirizing the constant state of fear that rightist and corporate interests want us all to be in. They have a petition to close Gitmo.

 

During the first year of his administration, Barack Obama followed Bush regime policies in most major areas, while making a number of small concessions to try to mollify Democratic voters. Here are some examples of major policy continuity:

1) Increasing total occupying forces in Iraq (troops plus mercenaries)

2) Continuing the policy of kidnapping people and sending them to other countries to be tortured ("extraordinary rendition")

3) Keeping the torture center in Guantanamo open

4) Expanding the Bush regime's hate based initiatives to take federal grant money from inclusive nonprofits and give it to nonprofits that discriminate on the basis of religion.

5) Continuing the policy of creating AFRICOM.

6) Refusing to withdraw from the World Trade Organization

7) Refusing to negotiate the end of corporate controlled trade agreements such as NAFTA

8) Attending "National Prayer Breakfasts"

9) Expaning the wars in Pakistan and Afghanistan

10) Supporting a huge corporate giveaway in the name of "healthcare reform" (remember the Bush regime's Medicare changes?)

11) Refusing to support legislation cracking down on bankster and brokester bonuses.

12) Continuing illegal spying on Americans without warrants.

I could go on, and on, and on, but you get the point. This year's administration budget proposal includes some important continuity with the Bush regime. Obama wants domestic spending (including veterans benefits) frozen while continuing enormous increases of military spending. The proposal does nothing to cut off funding for the illegal war on Iraq that goes against American values.

Yet, there is an aspect of the budget that actually does represent a major break with the policies of the Bush regime. President Obama is calling for Bush's tax cuts for the rich to expire. Even when the tax breaks expire, the parasitical rich in this country won't be paying anywhere near their fair share in taxes. But, any progress in this area is critically important. It represents a break with 30 years of corrupt policies that have robbed the poor and middle class to benefit wealthy campaign donors.

We need to pressure President Obama to break with more Bush regime policies. This is a good start, but Obama has a long way to go before he can call himself a Real Democrat.

 

This 8/19/09 Career Builder press release shows a relatively new and growing area of corporate misconduct.

Forty-five Percent of Employers Use Social Networking Sites to Research Job Candidates, CareerBuilder Survey Finds
Career Expert Provides DOs and DON'Ts for Job Seekers on Social Networking

Forty-five Percent of Employers Use Social Networking Sites to Research Job Candidates, CareerBuilder Survey Finds

CHICAGO, Aug. 19 /PRNewswire/ -- As social networking grows increasingly pervasive, more employers are utilizing these sites to screen potential employees. Forty-five percent of employers reported in a recent CareerBuilder survey that they use social networking sites to research job candidates, a big jump from 22 percent last year. Another 11 percent plan to start using social networking sites for screening. More than 2,600 hiring managers participated in the survey, which was completed in June 2009.

Of those who conduct online searches/background checks of job candidates, 29 percent use Facebook, 26 percent use LinkedIn and 21 percent use MySpace. One-in-ten (11 percent) search blogs while 7 percent follow candidates on Twitter.

The top industries most likely to screen job candidates via social networking sites or online search engines include those that specialize in technology and sensitive information: Information Technology (63 percent) and Professional & Business Services (53 percent).

The press release is written in neutral language, but this is really disturbing. Career Builder is focused more on helping job seekers cope with this environment, but civil liberties supporters should work to change that environment. Corporations seem to think they have more and more of an entitlement to snoop into employees' private lives. Now, they extend that to new hires. Privacy is eroding in an era of growing corporate power. Here's more:

Why Employers Disregarded Candidates After Screening Online

Job seekers are cautioned to be mindful of the information they post online and how they communicate directly with employers. Thirty-five percent of employers reported they have found content on social networking sites that caused them not to hire the candidate. The top examples cited include:

* Candidate posted provocative or inappropriate photographs or information - 53 percent
* Candidate posted content about them drinking or using drugs - 44 percent
* Candidate bad-mouthed their previous employer, co-workers or clients - 35 percent
* Candidate showed poor communication skills - 29 percent
* Candidate made discriminatory comments - 26 percent
* Candidate lied about qualifications - 24 percent
* Candidate shared confidential information from previous employer - 20 percent

The first three are incredibly disturbing. Now, corporations feel entitled to have control over what people say to their friends. The fourth is bizarre. Why should someone supposed to devote a lot of effort to highly skilled communication in an informal medium that is for people who are close to them?

There need to be much stronger privacy laws in the online era. Employers and interviewers should be prohibited by law from doing any of the following:

1) Making friends requests, either overtly or covertly.

2) Googling current or potential employees.

3) Asking for any social networking information not available to the general public.

Also, any hiring, promotional, and firing decisions based on these privacy violations should be subject to wrongful termination and invasion of privacy suits.

I've heard that young people are leaving Facebook, Twitter, and MySpace in droves. I'm beginning to see why.