IRS Targeting of Conservative 501(c)4 Groups: Much Ado About Very Little. Gary LaMaster joins Democratic Perspective co-hosts Mike Cosentino and Steve Williamson with the lowdown on Darrell Issa and the Republican Party’s latest phony scandal. Was the IRS really targeting only Republican Super PACs? No. Was this a conspiracy hatched in the White House? No. Were we surprised? No, no, no….
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Subscribe: RSS
The Questions We Should Be Asking about Telecommunications Data Mining by Government and Business: In the wake of Edward Snowden’s recent revelations, Democratic Perspective‘s Mike Cosentino, Chuck Williamson, and Steve Williamson discuss some of the broader implications of data mining operations by government agencies and business corporations. What they know about us, how they’re putting that knowledge to use, and why we should be concerned.
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Subscribe: RSS
Now that NSA (National Security Agency) snitch, Edward Snowden, is on the run from Hawaii to Hong Kong to Moscow and parts yet to be determined, his actions have raised even more questions. Democratic Perspective addressed many of these on June 24, 2013.
To help address some of the questions, we enlisted the help of Chuck Williamson who, prior to working in the banking industry, served in a military surveillance unit in Vietnam. As a result, he is intimately familiar with information gathering and analysis.
Yet even with Chuck’s expertise, we must acknowledge that we have more questions than answers.
1. Why was Snowden, who worked for a private contractor, allowed seemingly unfettered access (if you believe his claims) to so much information? How much was he able to download on his computers?
2. What does Snowden intend to do with the information? Why did he flee to our nation’s biggest rivals? His actions give the impression that he may intend to sell or share that information with China and Russia.
3. What is the legitimate role of Glenn Greenwald of The Guardian newspaper in reporting this story? Did he go beyond merely reporting the story? Is he, in reality, an accomplice? If so, is he protected by the first amendment?
4. Does the data collection go beyond the sharing of Metadata by search engines, Internet Service Providers, and phone companies?
5. Who is really surprised that the government is collecting data in order to prevent terrorist attacks? The citizens of many other nations seem less surprised than our own. Indeed, a survey of most Europeans indicates that they were already aware of, or expected, the collection of data.
6. How much is the reaction of US citizens shaped by our ideological divide? Ironically, Glenn Beck and Sen. Rand Paul are on the same side of the issue as many liberal Democrats, and Dick Cheney is on the same side as the Obama administration.
7. How important are generational divides in the debate? It appears that those who grew up with the Internet believe that the government should share all information with the public in much the same way they believe that music, photos, editorial content and movies on the Web should be free.
8. Since most of the data collected by the government is already being collected by private corporations (AT&T, Verizon, Microsoft, Apple, Google, Facebook, banking institurions, retailers, etc.), is the government really violating the fourth amendment?
9. How much information should corporations be allowed to collect? Is it okay that Facebook knows many details of our private lives? Is it okay that companies, such as Amazon, know our buying habits? Is it okay that banking institutions and credit card companies collect data on all of our financial transactions?
10. What role should private corporations, such as Booz Allen Hamilton, play in our government operations, especially secret operations? Should the government be using private contractors in such sensitive operations?
All of these questions and more have been raised by the Snowden story. It’s time (probably long past time) that the American public and our representatives have an open and honest discussion about these issues.
In that regard, Edward Snowden has done us all a big favor.
On June 17, 2013, Bill Timberman, Mike Cosentino and Steve Williamson of Democratic Perspective examined implications of Edward Snowden’s revelations about the National Security Agency. At issue is whether or not the NSA’s surveillance program is unreasonable as defined by the 4th Amendment to the Constitution.
As Bill said, “Unreasonable is the key word.”
The following is based on a document Bill prepared for the show. Hopefully, it will help you decide whether or not the NSA program meets that definition.
Snowden’s initial revelation was that of a NSA program than collects and stores data from all telephone and Internet sources, including data from American citizens. His claim led the government to acknowledge existence of the program, noting that it had been authorized by the FISA (Foreign Intelligence and Surveillance Act) Court.
More recently, Snowden claimed that, while working as an analyst for Booz Allen Hamilton, a private company under contract to the NSA, he had access to communications from any individual in the U.S. NSA Director, General Keith Alexander, denied that claim. However, in a secret congressional briefing, the NSA has admitted that analysts like Snowden do indeed have the authority to listen to the content of phone calls, and to read the content of e-mail and chat messages.
Of course, all of this has angered civil liberties advocates, who believe the program is a violation of the Fourth Amendment; that such surveillance was explicitly forbidden by the FISA of 1978 and remains illegal even under the 2007 FISA amendments, which were extended indefinitely in 2008.
So what do we really know about the NSA program?
For starters, we know that the attacks on 9/11 did, indeed, change everything. When 19 men armed with box cutters brought down the World Trade Center towers, attacked the Pentagon, and killed almost 3000 people, we learned that enemies with no conventional military capabilities can leverage our own technologies against us. Unlike conventional enemies of past wars, these enemies can actually be hidden inside the US or allied countries, with no easy way to identify them. They don’t wear uniforms, they don’t stay in one place, and they’re difficult to distinguish from ordinary citizens.
The government’s solution to identifying terrorists before they can attack us is to use advanced computer technologies to collect and analyze essentially all telecommunications in the US and the rest of the world.
The first attempt was the Total Information Awareness program, set up by Admiral John Poindexter in 2003. Although TIA was defunded by Congress in 2004, it has served as a model for the development and deployment of similar surveillance programs by the NSA, CIA, and the Defense Intelligence Agency.
The current NSA program diverts all Internet backbone traffic passing through the US and stores it, along with communications from satellites and other sources, on its own servers. It then uses sophisticated computer software (PRISM) to analyze the stored contents for signs of communications between potential terrorists.
Although the government states that “no one is listening to your phone calls,” the Metadata it collects includes all of the information about a telecommunications message other than its actual content: Who sent it, who received it, where they were located, when it was sent, how long it was, and so forth. Of course, with technology, this provides a great deal of information about you.
For example: Suppose a woman calls her doctor for an appointment. A day later, she makes an appointment with a medical testing laboratory. A week later she calls an oncology specialist for an appointment. Several days after that, she consecutively calls her parents, her grown children, her ex-husband, a number of presumed friends and relatives, people she’s called regularly in the past, and then finally the family’s financial advisor, lawyer, and a hospice service.
Even without actually listening to the content of her calls, it wouldn’t be that hard to figure out that she might have been diagnosed with terminal cancer.
Alarming as that may be to civil libertarians, a much larger issue is the potential misuse of the NSA’s data collection and analysis programs to marginalize, demonize, or even criminalize legitimate political opponents of the government.
There is certainly ample historical precedent for this sort of abuse. Some may remember McCarthyism of the fifties, or Nixon’s enemies list. With miodern technology, Nixon wouldn’t need his “plumbers” to raid the Democratic offices to learn of their strategies. Theoretically, he’d just have to call the NSA director. Of course, there’s no widespread or conclusive evidence of such abuses today, but there are some disturbing signs.
An antiwar nun was put on the no-fly list, a US documentary filmmaker had her laptop and cellphone seized, and was detained “upwards of 40 times” as she traveled in and out of the United States. There is also evidence that people planning peaceful demonstrations at the Republican convention of 2008 in St. Paul, Minnesota were identified and located from their Internet communications, rounded up and put in preventive detention as potential terrorists 24 hours before the convention began.
So is Snowden a hero, or a traitor?
Probably neither, but history will ultimately be the judge. Whichever is the case, he has generated a public debate about surveillance programs that is long overdue.
What Do We Really Know About Government Surveillance Programs? Democratic Perspective co-hosts Mike Cosentino and Steve Williamson are joined by Bill Timberman to review the significance of Edward Snowden’s recent revelations about the NSA’s surveillance programs. What do we really know about the scope, targeting, and effects of the government’s so-called signals intelligence (SIGINT) operations? Is what we don’t know about them a threat to democracy, as advocates for civil liberties fear? Clarity in such highly politicized matters is hard to come by, but Democratic Perspective believes that the attempt has been worth the effort.
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Subscribe: RSS
On June 10, 2013, Democratic Perspective hosted University of Wisconsin Sociology Professor, Erik Olin Wright about his book, Envisioning Real Utopias.
Asked to define the term “utopia” Wright said, “It’s meant to be a provocative oxymoron. The Greek roots mean no and perfect – the perfect no place. I put real next to it to imply we should try to create real places in the world that have empirical traction that are viable and yet constitute a fundamental alternative to the way we do things.”
“We’re facing very grave dangers globally,” he stated. “It all seems out of control. The powers that be, themselves, don’t seem to be in control of a system that constrains the kind of lives that people want to live. Yet it just seems impossible to imagine how you can get out of this box; how you can create an alternative.”
Reminded of the problems with some of the alternative experiments of the 20th Century such as socialism, Wright countered, “The word socialism became associated with statism…the way the state controls our economic affairs rather than ordinary people democratically participating and controlling their lives.”
“I see socialism as fundamentally an extension of the idea of democracy,” he continued. “Democracy is just the simple principle that people, to the extent possible, should have meaningful participation in decisions which affect their lives… a term that kind of captures that idea is self-determination. That’s what I want for an economic order is an order of self-determination of individuals.”
“Now, I focus on the political economic side of these issues,” said Wright. “I don’t think that’s sufficient to solve all of our problems, particularly problems of race and gender, and the inequalities that are rooted in those systems of social interaction have a certain autonomy. But the harmfulness of gender inequality and racial inequality gets intensified by the way they intersect economic inequalities.”
How do we get from here to there?
“Of course, that’s the big question,” he responded. “I think it’s important to distinguish captialism from markets. Capitalism is a particular way of organizing markets. It’s a way of organizing markets in which capital, itself, is privately invested for purposes of maximizing returns. A cooperative market economy is one in which the entities that do the production are all owned by their employees; no outside investors; democratic governence within the firm.”
Wright explained, “One of the advantages of worker-owned cooperatives is that they are geographically rooted. You don’t have to worry about a worker-owned firm deciding to move its production to Mexico because they live there. That also makes it easier for those firms to be democratically accountable to the wider community…not just to their members…because they don’t have the possibility of escaping.”
“So a worker cooperative, as the central form of economic organization, creates a very different macro environment for the micro activities that individuals and firms engage in,” he added. “My feeling is what we have to do is to think about the ways in which, particularly in local and regional economies, we can create more space for cooperative forms of enterprise. Some of this involves public policy around credit markets, for example. We could have public policies that would favor geographically-rooted worker cooperatives as a form of enterprise.”
“I think the key idea is democracy,” Wright continued, “The idea of bringing democracy down to Earth in the fabric of everyday life, including in workplaces. And democracy combined with pluralism of institutions, experimentation, the many different forms this can take rather than just a one-size-fits-all vision of how you should transform the world. You can begin by building in communities, in neighborhoods and doing all sorts of things that are completely unexpected.”
Erik Olin Wright: Why Real Utopias? Democratic Perspective’s Mike Cosentino, Bill Timberman and Steve Williamson talk to University of Wisconsin Sociology Professor Erik Olin Wright about his 2010 book Envisioning Real Utopias.
As Professor Wright sees it, political and economic systems should be judged by the degree to which they foster and protect a people’s right to participate in the decisions which affect their lives. Measured by this standard, a capitalist economy combined with a representative democratic government, such as we have in the United States, still leaves a good deal to be desired. T0 arrive at something better, we first have to imagine it — that’s the utopia part. Then we have to test it in the world — that’s the real part. Professor Wright’s book, a work many years in the making, examines how we might go about doing both. In this interview, we ask him not only about the thinking that led to Envisioning Real Utopias, but also the conclusions that he came to in the course of writing it.
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Subscribe: RSS
On June 3, 2013, Democratic Perspective hosted the leadership of Sierra Club’s Grand Canyon Chapter including Executive Director Sandy Bahr, Conservation Chair of the Sedona-Verde Valley Group, Brian Myers, and Carole Piszczek, Sedona-Verde Valley Group Secretary.
We began by asking about the history and mission of the Sierra Club. Bahr said, “The organization began around 100 years ago because the Sierra Club’s founder, John Muir, felt that people should get out to see the natural world. The Sierra Club also does a lot of advocacy at the Arizona legislature on behalf of parks, wildlife, water and other aspects of our environment. There is a grassroots presence, as well. We rely on volunteers. Volunteers are the leaders. There are 12,000 members in Arizona.”
Referring to the legislature, Bahr said, “The last three sessions have been the most challenging we’ve seen.” She mentioned the anti-UN bill which would ban any city or county from implementing any of the recommendations of Agenda 21, the non-binding UN initiative for a sustainable planet. When asked why the legislature would be opposed to sustainability, Bahr said, “I don’t really understand it. But there has always been concern on the right about the UN.”
Bahr said the political right is concerned about the creation of bike paths and reducing energy consumption for homes. This is particularly puzzling since, according to Bahr, “The foreclosure rate on energy efficient homes is much lower.”
As for her activities as a legislative lobbyist, Bahr said, “I usually try to get a meeting. If they won’t meet with me, I try to buttonhole them. I also testify in legislative hearings.”
Bahr stated that the Arizona Legislature has changed over the past few years. “There used to be bi-partisan support for the environment,” said Bahr. “Back in the early nineties, there was an ALEC (American Legislative Exchange Council) bill that protected companies that polluted by offering secret audits and immunity,” she continued. “Former Governor Fife Symington (a Republican) vetoed it. But last year, it got through and (Governor) Brewer signed it.”
As for the legislative representation for the Verde Valley (LD-6), Bahr described them as closed-minded. “Some make a show of listening to you, but still do what they want,” she said. Asked if it’s still worth talking with the legislature, Bahr responded, “Yes. We can sometimes stop or change bills. But the Arizona legislature has passed bills that say Arizona would not enforce federal bills.”
Turning to Brian Myers, we asked about environmental issues affecting the Verde Valley. He mentioned protection of the Verde River and stopping land exchanges around Sedona. “After all, the main economic engine for the Verde Valley is tourism,” said Myers.
Bahr noted that the Sierra Club issued a report about the Verde River – “Going With The Flow” which can be viewed on the Sierra Club website. The report warns that the Verde River’s base flow could dry up with 10 years. It’s threatened even more by Prescott and the Prescott Valley’s plan to pump water from the Big Chino aquifer. Bahr and Myers noted that the river “can’t sustain the native fish population without continuous flow.”
Another hot button environmental issue in Arizona is the planned copper mining near the town of Superior, AZ. Rep. Ann Kirkpatrick (D) and Rep. Paul Gosar (R) have co-sponsored legislation to exchange federal land which the Apache consider sacred to Resolution Copper (Rio Tinto Mining) for mining. As for claims that the new mine will create many jobs, Bahr said, “Each time they come out with a new bill, they go up, up, up. Will there be jobs? Yes, there will be jobs. Will they be sustainable? We don’t think so.”
According the Bahr, the mine will destroy a picturesque area known as Oak Flat, which was first protected by President Eisenhower by executive order. It will also impact the ground water, since the mining company will have to “de-water” the mine. “It’s not a good deal for the American people,” said Bahr. “It’s just a rip-off.” As for what people can do to help, Bahr said, “The most important thing people can do is speak up.”
For more information, visit the following websites: Sierra Club, Grand Canyon Chapter, Sedona-Verde Valley Group.
The LGBT community’s struggle for equality has rightfully been called the civil rights issue of our time. On May 20, Democratic Perspective co-hosts Mike Cosentino and Steve Williamson discussed the issues with LGBT leaders from Northern Arizona. Our guests included Susan Hughes, President of the Sedona/Verde Valley PFLAG (Parents and Friends of Lesbians and Gays), Mark Luckey, from Sedona Gay Pride, and Alan Freedman, author and LGBT ally.
To put things in perspective, Steve and Mike pointed out that only a few years ago, discrimination against gays was one of the three pillars of conservative politics – God, guns and gays. But today, 13 countries, 10 states and Washington D.C. recognize gay marriage. And there are several more states that recognize gay civil unions.
When asked about the growing support of same sex marriage, Mark Luckey stated, “It takes a lot of time to change perspective of peoples’ attitudes toward the LGBT community. We’ve been fighting this struggle since before the seventies…”
“We’re not asking for any special rights,” he continued. “We want to have the opportunity to live the way everyone else in the world lives with freedom and who we are and without being discriminated against on a daily basis.”
Alan Freedman noted, “This is not just something being spurred and energized by our young people. There’s been a sea change in the hearts of our aging population, as well, insofar as issues of equality.” To further the point, Susan Hughes said, “I’m here representing PFLAG, but I’m also a member of Church of the Red Rocks… the congregation voted 91 percent to become an open and affirming congregation a year and a half ago.”
Obviously, things are changing, but as Luckey pointed out, there’s still a long way to go. “In the United States there are still states where you can be fired from your job just for being gay, he said. “Those laws are still on the books.”
“The discrimination is always there,” he continued. “I get up in the morning and I put my shoes on and I wonder who’s going to say something derogatory to me that day. I don’t think other people in the world always feel that. I don’t know if you guys heard about what’s happened in New York City…the gentleman got shot in the face? And it was an anti-gay thing. So those fears are always with us. That’s why I’m a spokesman for Sedona Pride. That’s why I reach out to teens who are struggling with their identities and help guide them through that.”
What Luckey does for teens, Hughes’ group does for parents. “PFLAG is a support group, particularly for parents who may not know where to go when their child comes out to them and need someone to talk to. That’s what our organization is here for.”
Demonstrating the struggle of parents, Freedman told the story of learning his daughter was gay. “A number of years ago, I was very much involved at a high profile level with a portion of the conservative right wing church…and of course, we bought into hook, line and sinker all of the theology and the posturing that still in large measure exist in the conservative church today……to say that we were devastated would be a profound understatement.”
“After I went through a long period of mourning, if you will, I got into bed one evening and I noticed a book (Is a Homosexual My Neighbor?) … I absolutely couldn’t put it down. By the time morning had arrived, I had gone from being a person of judgment to a person of questioning – deep, open, honest questioning. Several months later, I was absolutely convinced that equality was not only the only way for us to go as a country and as a world, but was also divinely sanctioned.”
Turning the tables on our hosts, Alan asked: “When did you decide you were straight?” When Mike answered that he really never decided, Alan asked, “Do you think that could be the same for gay folks?”
“We’re all people,” noted Susan. “We don’t need to have definitions, particularly of our sexuality. It doesn’t matter.”
But, unfortunately, it still does. “There are 1,100 or so laws on the books in the United States that are discriminatory towards the gay community,” noted Luckey. “In the State of Arizona, you can actually be kicked out of the hospital while you’re visiting your partner if that particular hospital is not supportive of your relationship.”
Freedman agreed. “Suffice it to say that we’re watching the Supreme Court very closely with respect to the Prop 8 issue in California as well as DOMA, the Defense Of Marriage Act. Hopefully, they will find themselves at the end of the day on the right side of history.
As for the religious objections to homosexuality, Freedman stated, “There are seven scriptures I refer to in my book, The Walk, when we’re referring to the LGBT community. I call them the ‘homo scriptures’ and I’ve done that by design because these are the scriptures that always are turned to in defining God’s view on the LGBT community. Instead of referring to them from a literal perspective, I come at it from a historical, cultural perspective, and when you interpret them that way, you get a totally different rendering.”
For more information about LGBT-related organizations in Northern Arizona, click on the following links: PFLAG Sedona/Verde Valley, Sedona Pride
Sustainable Development and Environmental Quality: Why They Matter. Democratic Perspective’s Gary LaMaster and Steve Williamson are joined by three members of the Sierra Club of Arizona: Sandy Bahr, Director of the Sierra Club’s Grand Canyon (Arizona) Chapter, with Brian Myers, and Carol Piszczek, the Chair and Secretary, respectively, of the Sedona-Verde Valley Group, to discuss the Sierra Club’s history in Arizona, its activities in defense of environmental quality and sustainability, and its challenges in dealing with an Arizona Legislature which seems fundamentally opposed to both.
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Subscribe: RSS
