I am starting my new series on a topic that for some reason, or reasons, has been designated as another of those ‘no no’ subjects. Even the mentioning of this topic is enough to get one labeled as an extremist, radical, nutty, kooky…Why do most people react this way? As with other issues here too we are looking at multiple factors.

For the government, the establishment, side of it, the reasons are obvious, and fit any government that is, has been, or was ever considered a police state. Have you ever come across a police state that actually considered itself to be a ‘police state’? Exactly, I didn’t think so. The governing/ruling powers of police states always seek to legitimize their police measures; whether made necessary by external threats, domestic threats, economic threats, security or terrorism threats…there is always a big threat(s) they point to and base their justification upon, and they always, and I mean always, claim that their measures are for the good of the public, for the security of their people, for the protection of their constituents. They portray their dissenters as collaborators in whatever ‘threat’ they claim they are fighting against, and silence their critics either with extreme authoritarian measures, or, if they are able to, by simply labeling them as radical, nutty, and kooky, enough to marginalize them and neutralize their potential effect.

The same holds true for the media side of this phenomena. After all, one of the major characteristics of a police state is social control and indoctrination through control of the media. These states utilize the media to spread their propaganda, to manufacture consent, to evilize chosen enemies, to paint dissent as unpatriotic, the dissenters as the enemies of the state, and of course the critics as the radical and nutty minority.

Now how about the people? Why are the majority of our people so quick to write off even the possibility of us becoming a police state, and do so in a similar manner as the government and media as described above? Aside from being indoctrinated by the establishment’s calculative presentations, most people seem to be guided by their own biased beliefs and misplaced values. It may be from misdirected patriotism, when their love of our nation subconsciously is coupled with the love of whoever may be ruling it. It may be the simple act of denial; just as parents blinded by their parental love and pride refuse to see and acknowledge the negative realities in their children, there are those who willingly put on blinders before their eyes just so that they don’t see the ugly realities inflicting the country they love and value. Maybe it is a case of extreme pride being misdirected towards those misperceived…

Whatever the reasons, the almost uniform response to those who even attempt to raise the police state question seems to be the same. Perhaps this is the reason why the very few outspoken legal experts, historians, and civil liberties activists, carefully, almost timidly, choose their words when it comes to the question of a police state in the USA. What I hear, what I read is usually along the following lines:

We may be moving toward a police state.

At this rate we may become a police state.

Are we on our way to become a police state?

These people talk about a ‘police state’ as if there is this exactly defined state with even more exactly defined prerequisites, so that when this state is reached it can be uniformly declared by all as a police state at the exact same time. However, most of these same people, when I talk with them privately, in a hushed voice tell me that they actually think we are there, or almost there. They are so afraid to come out and say it. They are terrified at the prospect of being attacked, labeled, and marginalized. So this is why you get the careful phrasing, and when you get close, the hushed voices.

Anyhow, I am not known to shy away too much from being labeled, attacked, and/or ostracized. I have serious concerns for my country, where it is today, and where it’s headed. I have questions that I’ve been seeking answers for, which I want to share and discuss with you, openly and loudly, not in whispers. My main question pertaining to a police state is ‘aren’t we there?’ rather than ‘are we there?’ I keep scrutinizing the broad definitions and characteristics of a police state in every encyclopedia and other source I can get my hands on, then I check and compare those aspects with what we have today as a national security state, and every time I do this my checkmark list tells me we seem to be ‘there’ already:

On Invoking, Creating and Maintaining Perpetual Wars:

Our ambigious unending War on Terror, Wars in Afghanistan and Iraq

On Control and Monitoring Mass Communication:

NSA’s domestic spying on US Citizens are made legal & advocated as necessary

On Search & Seizures with No Probable Cause or Judicial Oversight:

FBI’s National Security Letters to be used on American Citizens with its Gag Order Provision

On Controlling & Restricting Citizens’ Mobility:

TSA’s ever expanding secretive No Fly List with the ‘known’ inclusion of One Million Americans

On Government Operating in Extreme Secrecy:

Government expenditures of nearly $10 BILLION to maintain tens of millions of secret documents and operations, and unconstitutional uses of Executive Privileges such as State Secrets Privilege

On Control and Usage of Media as Government’s Own Propaganda Machine:

The American Mainstream Media today is an extension and mouthpiece of the Federal Government

On Silencing & Persecution of Dissent:

Our government’s well-established record of its treatment of whistleblowers and critics, whether by gag orders or other overt and covert measures

On General Disregard for Human Rights and Related International Laws:

Our Government’s documented record on Rendition and Torture

I can easily go on and list more items, and justify every single one of them with supporting documents, cases, and reports, but for now the above criteria should suffice for our upcoming discussions and analyses. While I am at it I want to preempt one expected argument I have heard more than once:

‘Of course we are not a police state, since you and others can write and talk about these issues without getting arrested or executed. Just look at all these bloggers and independent media…’

First, that’s confusing a totalitarian government with a police state. You don’t have to be a totalitarian state in order to be a police state. In fact police states can and do emerge in democratic countries – with the consent and acceptance of the populace. Totalitarianism is simply an extreme version.

Next, not being ‘there’ yet in this regard does not mean we don’t fulfill most if not all other criteria to be considered a police state. Nations gradually creep towards becoming a police state, in various stages and by various degrees.

Finally, this aspect may actually be an indicator of an even more pathetic situation. Meaning, by having complete control over the mass media and utilizing successful propaganda and indoctrination the government doesn’t even feel the need to go after the irate vigilant minority. They let their PR machine marginalize these voices and ensure their exclusion from the broad medium of communication channels.

Okay, now it is your turn. Don’t be shy, and please don’t censure yourself. Where do you see us as a nation? How do you define a police state? Do you think we are already there?

And take a few seconds to participate in our survey on the left column.

This site depends exclusively on readers’ support. Please help us continue by contributing directly and or purchasing Boiling Frogs showcased products.

The Art of Pimping Reaches New Heights

I’ve been planning to write a piece on the role of ‘Corporate’ in the US Mainstream Media for Part IV of our ‘Dissecting MSM Series.’ Then, right before the Fourth of July holiday, this stinking scandal came out via Politico:

“Publisher Katharine Weymouth said today she was canceling plans for an exclusive “salon” at her home where for as much as $250,000, the Post offered lobbyists and association executives off-the-record access to “those powerful few””

By ‘those powerful few’ they mean, and they actually list: Obama administration officials and members of Congress, and also include Post’s own hotshot reporters and editors.

So, how did Politico get a whiff of this sensational leak?

“The astonishing offer was detailed in a flier circulated Wednesday to a healthcare lobbyist [Emphasis Added], who provided it to a reporter because the lobbyist said he felt it was a conflict for the paper to charge for access to, as the flier says, its “health care reporting and editorial staff.””

Yep, it’s that bad. They’ve gotten so shameless and awful that even lobbyists are blowing their whistles! We all knew how bad things were with our mass media, but you must admit this exceeds even our expectations.

“With the Post newsroom in an uproar after POLITICO reported the solicitation, Weymouth said in an email to the staff that “a flier went out that was prepared by the Marketing department and was never vetted by me or by the newsroom. Had it been, the flier would have been immediately killed, because it completely misrepresented what we were trying to do.” “

How is this for a pathetic twisting? Come on, you’d think with all their ‘fiction’ reporters and editors and their ‘highly imaginative’ writers, they’d come up with a better excuse than this pathetically lame line!

“Executive editor Marcus Brauchli was as adamant as Weymouth in denouncing the plan promoted in the flier. “You cannot buy access to a Washington Post journalist,” Brauchli told POLITICO. Brauchli was named on the flier as one of the salon’s “Hosts and Discussion Leaders.””

And here, this Brauchli guy gets even better:

“Brauchli said in an interview that he understood the business side of the Post planned on holding dinners… Brauchli said that Post employees on the business side — not the newsroom — would have been responsible for seeking participants for this event.”

‘Business’ Side’??!! As if there is any other side to this long-tainted industry? As far as we know, and we’ve known all along, when it comes to our popular press there is the ‘Big Business Side’ and in our government the entrenched ‘Pro-Establishment Side’; and since both happen to be on the same side, that makes it only one side.

I love the flowery adjectives used in the following two paragraphs:

“”Underwriting Opportunity: An evening with the right people can alter the debate,” says the one-page flier.”Underwrite and participate in this intimate and exclusive Washington Post Salon, an off-the-record dinner and discussion at the home of CEO and Publisher Katharine Weymouth. … Bring your organization’s CEO or executive director literally to the table. Interact with key Obama administration and congressional leaders.””

“The flier promised the dinner would be held in an intimate setting with no unseemly conflict between participants. “Spirited? Yes. Confrontational? No,” it said. “The relaxed setting in the home of Katharine Weymouth assures it. What is guaranteed is a collegial evening, with Obama administration officials, Congress members, business leaders, advocacy leaders and other select minds typically on the guest list of 20 or less. …”

“Intimate & Exclusive” in ‘a relaxing setting’ of a ‘home.’ How relaxing? It doesn’t say. But since it is guaranteed to be ‘intimate, relaxing, and homey,’ I envision dimly glowing red lanterns and soft springy lounge sofas decorating this ‘reserved saloon’ at Weymouth’s nest. Seriously, it reads like an ad for one of those high-priced hookers connection events held for ‘discreet’ public figures. Don’t you agree?

‘Interact with Obama Administration & Congressional Leaders’: Well, based on the flier, the high-priced hookers who will be provided ‘intimately & exclusively’ for an annual fee of $250,000 happen to be all the president’s men & our elected officials. Please don’t take me wrong. I don’t intend this to be insulting. Not at all. After all, business is business, and prostitution happens to be the oldest of all. Now I know our government considers this old established line of business, at a lower level, street-vendor style, illegal; against our laws that is, but that’s another story for another day. For this piece, I intend to focus on the business side of this story: The Corporate Media and their intimate, exclusive, and obviously lucrative pimping for Big Business (those that ‘really’ count’), offering up Statesmen members of our legal and prestigious Red Light District.

Back to dissecting the rest of this highly enlightening expose:

“The first “Salon” was to be called “Health-Care Reform: Better or Worse for Americans? The reform and funding debate.” More were anticipated, and the flier described the opportunities for participants:

“Offered at $25,000 per sponsor, per Salon. Maximum of two sponsors per Salon. Underwriters’ CEO or Executive Director participates in the discussion. Underwriters appreciatively acknowledged in printed invitations and at the dinner. Annual series sponsorship of 11 Salons offered at $250,000 … Hosts and Discussion Leaders … Health-care reporting and editorial staff members of The Washington Post … An exclusive opportunity to participate in the health-care reform debate among the select few who will actually get it done. … A Washington Post Salon … July 21, 2009 6:30 p.m. …”

So, since lately healthcare reform debate has been a hot issue, and since timing is everything when it comes to ‘business,’ our entrepreneurial Washington Post justifiably picks it for it’s first ‘intimate saloon’ offering.

They sent invitations to Big Business CEOs and Executive Directors; the movers, shakers, and ultimate decision makers in those issues ‘cosmetically debated’ in our congress and ‘cunningly promised’ by our presidents; you know, our ‘real Mastahs.’ Oh, before I forget, I just caught the following typo or mis-wording in the invitation’s header: ‘”Health-Care Reform: Better or Worse for Americans?”’ What they meant was better or worse ‘for your businesses.’

As Weymouth has already admitted, the flier, the invitation, was prepared by the ‘marketing’ division of The Washington Post, so I’m sure the price of $25,000 per ‘saloon’, and of course the enticing discount of $250,000 for advance purchasing, was determined wisely, professionally, and based on well-researched and surveyed analyses. Meaning: the current going rate for our representatives and president’s men offered and guaranteed on an intimate and exclusive basis in a private relaxing homey saloon is a quarter million dollars per year.

I can’t help but envisioning Madame Nancy half sitting half laying on a fluffy chaise lounge, her face half obscured by the shadows in the dim light cast from the red lanterns above, softening her famous crusty deep wrinkles. She is making circles on the rim of her exquisite crystal champagne glass, another sophisticated touch offered by Weymouth at her intimate saloon sessions. Next to her, a balding CEO dressed in a Ferré tailored yet softly crafted suit is kneeling just enough to reach her right ear, whispering intimately and exclusively, while three junior congresswomen a few steps away watch intently, as part of their training. Seated a few sofas away are Walter Pincus, a big Chunky BlackWater Man, and Senator Johnnie the Arms’ Committee Man. Neither of the men is drinking the ‘fu fu’ bubbly, instead they hold their crystal glasses filled with a Real Man’s Johnny Walker; straight up. They don’t whisper either; after all, they are not girlie men. Their topic of the night: ‘How to dodge accountability yet look great in the papers.’ There’s no disagreement, of course. All three know: It’s been done before and will be done again, and then again.

The three-way partnership is one of those rare perfect ones: Win, Win, and Win. The big corporate clients secure all they need, the members of Washington Red Light District guarantee another term or two, and the Pimping Press remains as the connecting bridge, sustaining its own survival while insuring that of the other two. As for us, the majority, the people? We’ve never mattered before and we don’t matter now.

Cartoon by Paul Jamiol

Reflections on this Fourth of July

‘We must be free not because we claim freedom, but because we practice it.’- – William Faulkner

We have two more days to the 233rd anniversary of our Independence Day. I know this is a day that is commonly associated with fireworks, good old fashioned hot dog and burger barbecues, heavenly kegs of beer, picnics, and baseball. I know many recognize this day as the anniversary of the American Colonies’ announcement declaring themselves as free and independent states, separated from allegiance to Great Britain. However this day is far more than just that. This day marked our nation’s definition of legitimate government and the proclamation of a political system under the sovereignty of the people. Thus, this is an occasion calling for more than hot dogs and fireworks. This should be an occasion to reflect upon where we are today, to take a hard look at the current state of our liberty and the rights we were fortunate to inherit, and to renew our pledge to revive and defend those precious principles of liberty and justice.

On this anniversary of our liberties let us put aside our blinding pride; let us remove our tainted patriotism spectacles; let us free ourselves from the irrational leech of fear; let us strip ourselves from the gown of denial worn for way too long, and reflect…

Pay special attention to our current national security apparatus, and remember the last time you found yourself within its control: whether when you encountered it while being stripped and searched at the airport, or paused in the middle of a sentence during a phone call due to the ‘others’’ present danger, or hesitated to sign a petition due to fear of inclusion on one of ‘their’ lists. I know you remember such encounters; as do I. Next, read and truly register a few words of wisdom by the fathers of our nation’s liberties, such as this: ‘Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.’ Let us ask ourselves whether we deserve either. The answer should not matter in the least, since it seems that today we have neither.

Engage in a bit of nostalgia on this great day, and remember the long-gone days when those in our government were called ‘public servants.’ Then ask yourself when and how that morphed into such ostentatious forms as the now popular bureaucratic ‘Czar.’ Let us push our imagination and ponder what the founding fathers would have thought of the very idea of royal titles within the nation they created, and the coronation of those who were intended by them to be ‘servants’ of the people. Here is one from Franklin: ‘In free governments the rulers are the servants and the people their superiors and sovereigns.’

Take notice of our mighty military and even mightier paramilitary intelligence and police agencies today; this awe inspiring beast of our government industry sustained by equally awe inspiring sums taken from every one of our pockets. Next, let us savor the words and pay a deserved special tribute to the father of our nation, George Washington, who said ‘Over grown military establishments are under any form of government inauspicious to liberty, and are to be regarded as particularly hostile to republican liberty.’

Consider the fact that our great Constitution was not written and not meant to be circumstantial nor conditional. For those who sincerely believe in compromising those liberties granted to us by our Constitution under the illusion of gaining security: Try to present a persuasive argument to justify those liberties we lately have given up, those taken away from us in the name of a vague war without end. Let’s make sure it is solid enough to stand on its own and able to counter Jefferson’s “A Bill of Rights is what the people are entitled to against every government, and what no just government should refuse, or rest on inference.”

Finally, recall the words of the Constitution Oath that all federal employees, all federal judges, all military personnel, all new citizens are required to take, step back, and pay special attention to these lines: ‘support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies- foreign and domestic.’ Now ask yourself who is meant by ‘domestic’ enemies.

Here comes our Fourth of July. Surely what is left of our Bill of Rights is worth celebrating, and just as surely what has been taken away is worth fighting for. So let us enjoy that cold beer, savor that hot dog, and while doing that let us reflect and renew our pledge to fight for those irreplaceable American liberties that have been taken from us; the fight against our ‘real’ foes. Are we prepared to make the same pledge those founding fathers made 233 years ago?

“It is the duty of the patriot to protect his country from its government.”- – Thomas Paine

# # # #

Happy Fourth, all!