We Dissent

One of the democratic candidates for president that I believe has the most potential to help this country live up to its promise is John Edwards. I had supported him in the 2004 primary season, and thought that he would add a great deal to the Kerry ticket. When he campaigned for as the candidate for the vice presidency, however, I felt that his talents were not able to be fully appreciated by the American public.

In the years since the defeat, I was encouraged to read that Edwards was reading more about Senator Robert Kennedy. In large part, it seemed that he was studying the lessons of RFK’s quest for social justice. But it was more: both men underwent transformations due to tragic loses. They learned those lessons that Joseph Campbell wrote of, when he quoted from an journal from a Danish expedition in the early 1920s. The anthropologists on the expedition interviewed an Eskimo shaman, who told them, "The only true wisdom lives far from mankind, out in the great loneliness, and it can be reached only through suffering. Privation and suffering alone can open the mind of a man to all that is hidden to others."

Recent events in the Edwards’ family life again shows us what strong, good, and decent people they are. A recent interview has shown how difficult these qualities can be for plastic journalists to deal with. They do not always translate well into sound bites or segments for the corporate media.

When I look at John Edwards today, I am reminded of a speech RFK delivered at the Berkley campus, University of California, on October 22, 1966. It was one of his most eloquent speeches, and it really marked the beginning of his challenge to the system that he had come to recognize needed a new type of leadership, so that it might live up to its promise.

I do not know what the "title" of the speech actually was. I am not aware of any books that have its text. But for the students, the faculty, and everyone else who heard it, I believe they would call it Robert’s "We Dissent" speech.

Here is part of it, and I dedicate this to John and Elizabeth Edwards:

"It is not enough to allow dissent. We must demand it. For there is much to dissent from. …. We dissent from the fact that millions are trapped in poverty while the nation grows rich. … We dissent from the conditions and hatreds which deny a full life to our fellow citizens because of the color of their skin. … We dissent from the monstrous absurdity of a world where nations stand poised to destroy one another, and men must kill their fellow men. … We dissent from the sight of most of mankind living in poverty, stricken by disease, threatened by hunger and doomed to an early death after a life of unremitting labor. … We dissent from cities which blunt our senses and turn the ordinary acts of daily life into a painful struggle. … We dissent from the willful, heedless destruction of natural pleasure and beauty. … We dissent from all these structures – of technology and of society itself – which strip from the individual the dignity and warmth of sharing in the common tasks of his community and his country."

This nation needs to listen closely to the message that John Edwards is delivering today. It is a similar message to that which RFK brought in the 1968 democratic primaries. It’s a message that gives voice to the hopes of the Other Americans. It’s the voice of dissent. We need it in the democratic party today.

Burdens of Proof

{1} "He gave me a little lecture about breaking a conspiracy like Watergate. ‘You build convincingly from the outer edges in, you get ten times the evidence you need against the Hunts and Liddys. They feel hopelessly finished – they may not talk right away, but the grip is on them. Then you move up and do the same thing on the next level. If you shoot too high and miss, then everyone feels more secure. Lawyers work this way. I’m sure smart reporters must too.’ I recall he gave me a look as if to say I did not belong in that category of smart reporters." – The Secret Man; Bob Woodward; 2005; page 91.


{2} "Deep Throat moved close to Woodward. ‘Let me explain something,’ he said. ‘When you move on somebody like Haldeman, you’ve got to be sure you’re on the most solid ground. Shit, what a royal screw-up!’

"He stepped even closer, speaking in a whisper. ‘I’m probably not telling you anything you don’t know, but your essential facts are right. From top to bottom, this whole business is a Haldeman operation. He ran the money. Insulated himself through those functionaries around him. Now, how do you get at it? …. This guy is bright, and can be smooth when necessary …. But most of the time he is not smooth. He is Assistant President and everyone has access to him if they want to take it. He sends out the orders; he can be very nasty about it.’

"Haldeman had four principal assistants to whom he delegated orders but not responsibility: Lawrence Higby – ‘a young-punk nobody who does what he is told’; Chapin – ‘smarter and more urbane than Higby, but also a dedicated yes-man’; Strachan – ‘soldierly and capable’; and Alexander Butterfield – ‘an ex-Air Force colonel who knows how to push paper and people.’ …..

"Deep Throat stamped his foot. ‘A conspiracy like this … a conspiracy investigation … the rope has to tighten slowly around everyone’s neck. You build convincingly from the outer edges in, you get ten times the evidence you need against the Hunts and Liddys. They feel helplessly finished – they may not talk right away, but the grip is on them. Then you move up and do the same thing at the next level. If you shoot too high and miss, then everybody feels more secure. Lawyers work this way. I’m sure smart reporters must, too’." – All the President’s Men; Woodward & Bernstein; 1974; 195-6.


Monica Goodling will "take the 5th." When her attorney, John Dowd, said that "one need look no fuirther than the recent circumstances and proceedings involving Lewis Libby" to understand why his client would exercise this option, many of us did look further – to the Iran-Contra and the Watergate scandals. Indeed, historians and political scientists recognize the advantages of looking to numerous "circumstances and proceedings" – just as good attorneys and journalists do. And the current scandal provides another good example of why we should let history be our guide.

Mr. Dowd has hinted at something many of us suspect: that there is at least one person who is providing the Senate with "inside" information on what is happening within the Department of Justice. It is likely that some investigators close to the Senate took stock of the people at the levels below the Attorney General, and below Ms. Goodling, and determined who would be most likely to have some appreciation for the integrity of the law. More, they likely have decided who would be most interested in self-preservation. These two descriptions might fit one person, or two, or more.

A good investigator will compare the various statements each person has made with previous statements, and with other things such as e-mails and information provided by others. Each piece of evidence becomes a thread that combines to form the rope that Mr. Felt said "has to tighten slowly around everyone’s neck."

I appreciate that every citizen of the United States should enjoy the freedoms and the protections provided by the Constitution, and of that Bill of Rights in particular. We should not allow our emotions to cloud our vision when it comes to the 5th Amendment – as Benjamin Franklin said, "When passions drive, let reason hold the reins."

Yet there is something disturbing about a senior official in the highest law enforcement office in this nation refusing to testify about his/her role in a Congressional investigation. The extent of the corruption that Felt’s rope ties to this administration is staggering. They have betrayed this nation.

Primary Concerns

"For ten years before coming to Washington, I taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago. I loved the law school classroom: the stripped-down nature of it, the high-wire act of standing in front of a room at the beginning of each class with just blackboard and chalk, the students taking measure of me, some intent or apprehensive, others demonstrating their boredom, the tension of my first question – ‘What’s this case about?’ – and the hands tentatively rising, the initial responses and me pushing back against whatever arguments surfaced, until slowly the bare words were peeled back and what had appeared dry and lifeless just a few minutes before suddenly came alive, and my students’ eyes stirred, the text becoming for them a part not just of the past but of their present and their future.

"Sometimes I imagined my work not to be so different from the work of the theology professors who taught across the campus – for, as I suspect was true for those teaching Scripture, I found that my students often felt they knew the Constitution without having really read it. They were accustomed to plucking out phrases that they’d heard and using them to bolster their immediate arguments, or ignoring passages that seemed to contradict their views. …..

"So if we all believe in individual liberty and we all believe in these rules of democracy, what is the modern argument between conservatives and liberals really about? If we’re honest with ourselves, we’ll admit that much of the time we are arguing about results – the actual decisions that the courts and the legislature make about the profound and difficult issues that help shape our lives. … More often than not, if a particular procedural rule – the right to filibuster, say, or the Supreme Court’s approach to constitutional interpretation – helps us win the argument and yields the outcome we want, then for that moment at least we think it’s a pretty good rule. If it doesn’t win, then we tend not to like it so much." -- Barack Obama; The Audacity of Hope; pages 86-88.

Last week, after Senator Obama appeared on CNN’s Larry King Live, a few participants on the Democratic Underground expressed the opinion that his performance would damage his candidacy. One discussion thread went so far as to say the show had eliminated him from serious consideration in the democratic primaries. I found that curious – perhaps these were the thoughts of those political students that Obama had noted were "demonstrating their boredom" – although I would wager that these were not the heart-felt opinions of individuals who were giving Obama serious consideration before the Larry King interview.

I thought it would be interesting to spend a few minutes looking at two issues that seem related to the debates regarding how well or how poorly Barack Obama may have done on the show in question. The first has to do with the significance the public places upon how polished any one candidate appears. It has to do with the marketing of a candidate: do we eliminate a candidate from serious consideration if they have an off night, where they seem to struggle to answer questions?

One of my favorite politicians was Senator Robert Kennedy. I have a "Kennedy ‘64" tie clip, shaped like New York State, that he handed out on the Chenango County Courthouse in Norwich, when he was running for the senate. Robert did not enjoy his brother John’s communication skills. Where JFK seemed always at ease, RFK often appeared slightly nervous. John’s appearance gave him an advantage in debates, as Richard Nixon found out. Robert was a powerful presidential candidate in 1968, although he lacked Eugene McCarthy’s debating skills.

There are advantages to being a gifted communicator. I think that all of the democrats who are in the presidential race are talented at communicating their ideas to the public. There may be times when each has the experience of being tired, possibly being hoarse, and of having an interview or speech that exposes them as being a human, rather than a plastic product such as Mitt Romney.

The more important issue has to do with each candidate’s understanding of the US Constitution. It’s too easy to say that all of the candidates in the presidential race, republicans as well as democrats, believe "in individual liberty and … these rules of democracy." In fact, as the Scooter Libby trial demonstrated, there is a group of Americans who believe that constitutional rights should apply to their exclusive group, but not to the larger population.

The Libby Defense Trust was composed of individuals who were very vocal about Scooter’s right to a fair trial. Yet these are the same people who self-righteously believe it is their right to deny constitutional protections to other people. And they become enraged when Libby was held responsible for some of the crimes he committed.

This view of exclusive ownership of constitutional rights came to a head in the 2000 presidential election. Not only did republicans coordinate the disenfranchisement of black voters in Florida, but the US Supreme Court endorsed their actions. In their selection of George W. Bush as president, the five "justices" decided that "the individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for President of the United States…" Harvard’s Alexander Keyssar (who wrote "The Right to Vote: The Constitutional History of Democracy in the United States") noted that this decision was "one of the stranger developments of the post-election conflict: the blunt expression of a legal argument denying that Americans actually possess a right to vote in presidential elections."

Kevin Phillips discussed this topic in "American Dynasty," a book that discussed the threat to democracy posed by "aristocracy, fortune, and the politics of deceit." At the end of chapter 3, he tells of how Antonin Scalia amplified his objection to democracy a year after selecting Bush for president. At a January 2002 Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, Justice Scalia expressed his opinion that the Constitution as written in 1787 reflected divinely inspired law, and that the state was an instrument of God. "That consensus has been upset by the emergence of democracy. … the reactions of people of faith to this tendency of democracy to obscure the divine authority behind government should not be resignation to it but resolution to combat it as effectively as possible," he said.

The republican tendency to exclude people from voting for president was not limited to the 2000 election. There were coordinated attempts to keep segments of the people of Ohio from voting in 2004. And while it no doubt pleases Justice Scalia that those who were disenfranchised in Florida in 2000 and in Ohio in 2004 were, by and large, the same groups denied protections by that 1787 version of the Constitution, it is vital to our democracy that we pressure the Congress to make sure that all Americans enjoy the right to vote for president in 2008.

True democracy is inclusive – not exclusive. We should be looking closely at the field of democratic candidates to see which ones are looking to protect citizens’ constitutional rights, rather than focusing on the packaging of the candidate. In each and every issue that is important in our culture today – no matter if we call these political or social issues – we do well to use the US Constitution as a guideline for framing the debate. This includes the war in Iraq; the "Patriot Act"; immigration; marriage; the attempts to put "bible studies" in public schools; the environment; and more.

Which candidates are advocating for the protection and indeed expansion of constitutional democracy? And which, if any, candidates are staking out positions that seem closer to the exclusive republican aristocracy that Scalia supports? These are among the most important issues we should consider in the primaries.

Modus Operandi

"Modus operandi" is a term used by investigators to describe the characteristic method used by a person in certain acts. It is Latin for "mode to work." In the media, we often hear it referred to as "m.o."

By finding patterns in the modus operandi of an individual criminal, or an organized association of criminals, investigators are able to identify suspects in unsolved crimes. It is the older sibling of "criminal profiling," and is a forensic science that the general public can easily understand and appreciate when they are exposed to coverage of criminal investigations in the media.

The current Bush administration scandal, concerning the "politically motivated" firing of federal attorneys, is an interesting example. Citizens who watch Fox News are likely to believe that the firing of these attorneys is simply the m.o. of all administrations. Each and every day, Fox journalists chant the mantra, "Clinton did it, Clinton did it, Clinton did it." Fox News reports that firing federal attorneys is simply the characteristic method used by every administration.

Much of the media has been more fair and balanced than Fox, however, and have noted that there is reason to suspect the Bush administration may have been doing something beyond "playing politics." There are reasons to believe the administration was attempting to manipulate the justice system. And progressive democrats recognize that this type of illegal activity is the Bush administration’s m.o.

Many of us have read Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.’s book, "Crimes Against Nature: How George W. Bush and His Corporate Pals Are Plundering the Country and Hijacking Our Democracy. (Harper Collins; 2004) In Chapter 5 (Science Fiction), we find the following: "When the administration can’t actually suppress scientific information, it simply issues a new set of facts. The White House has taken special pains, for example, to shield Vice President Dick Cheney’s old company, Halliburton, from sound science. ….

"Interior Secretary Gale Norton seems particularly inclined to manipulate science. …. During the late winter and spring of 2002, Norton and White House political adviser Karl Rove pressured National Marine Fisheries scientists to alter their findings ….. Norton has also ordered the rewriting of an exhaustive 12-year study by federal biologists detailing injuries that Arctic drilling would impose …. She reissued the biologists’ report as a two-page paper showing no negative impact to wildlife. She ordered suppression of two studies by the Fish and Wildlife Service …. She suppressed findings that mountaintop mining would cause ‘tremendous destruction of aquatic and terrestrial habitat.’ She forced Park Service scientists to alter a $2.5 million environmental impact statement that found that snowmobiles were damaging Yellowstone’s air quality, its wildlife, and the health of its visitors and employees. A federal judge has reprimanded her office for interfering with scientists in the case.

"Manipulating data leads to one pesky problem: scientists who stick to their guns. And when scientists resist the White House agenda, the Bush camp threatens, intimidates, or purges them. …. During the first few years of Bush’s presidency, the assault on science was still somewhat ad hoc. But by midterm, his advisers were moving to institutionalize the corruption."

The Bush administration’s modus operandi is institutionalized corruption. And there is no part of the administration that has not been corrupted. The Congress needs to move forward on the investigations – including but not limited to the federal attorney scandal, the Plame scandal, and the purposeful lying to bring our nation to war in Iraq – and they must enforce the law. There have to be consequences for the institutionalized criminal behavior of the Bush-Cheney administration.

The Plame Scandal

"We Americans all too often take for granted the luxury of living in and benefiting from the rights and freedoms guaranteed by our constitution. Several actions undertaken by this administration serve as a reminder that the social contract that binds us is fragile and requires our vigorous protection if we ever hope to preserve it. We have known this since the time of the drafting of the constitution over two hundred years ago when Benjamin Franklin remarked that the founding fathers had bequeathed to the nation ‘a republic, if you can keep it’." -- Joseph & Valerie Wilson; July 17, 2006

Valerie Wilson did a wonderful job of telling the congressional committee about her side of the story of the "Plame scandal" yesterday. And the House democrats did a great job of providing the American public with the truth about several of the key issues in that scandal. Several of the republican "talking points" were exposed as purposeful lies, aimed at confusing the issues involved in the falsehoods that brought this nation to war in Iraq.

In his book "The Politics of Truth," Joseph Wilson wrote about the "work-up" on him that was done by some in the Office of the Vice President, and shared with the White House Iraq Group and others. "According to my sources, between March 2003 and the appearance of my article in July, the workup on me that turned up information on Valerie was shared with Karl Rove, who then circulated it in administration and neoconservative circles. That would explain the assertion later advanced by Clifford May, the neocon fellow traveler, who wrote that Valerie’s employment was supposedly widely known. Oh, really? I am not reassured by his statement. Indeed, if what May wrote is accurate, it is a damning admission, because it could only have been widely known by virtue of leaks among his own crowd." (pages 443-444)

The truth of this became evident when neoconservative Victoria Toensing, who testified after Plame, claimed that Valerie was not "covert." How would a person with no connection to the CIA be in a position where she would believe she knows what Plame’s employment status was? Not only is Toensing purposely lying – and lying to a congressional committee should have consequences, especially when it has to do with a national security issue – but it proves beyond any doubt that Joseph Wilson’s claim is correct: the OVP?WHIG was pushing a lot of information on Valerie Plame Wilson to people not legally entitled to receive it.

More evidence came when Rep. Lynn Westmoreland (R-GA) was focusing on if Plame was a registered democrat. The idea that in the spring of 2003, VP Dick Cheney questioned Joseph Wilson’s report on the Niger yellow cake lies, because he was a democrat, and his wife who worked in the CIA department that sent Joe to Niger was a registered democrat, documents the extent of the "work-up." It also shows the diseased thinking of republican congressmen who attempt to justify the paranoid OVP actions as rational.

The administration’s lapdogs in the media have been saying that no one outside of Washington, DC cares about the Plame scandal. That seems to ignore the fact that Americans recognize the Plame scandal involves the White House committing crimes to destroy the lives of those people who dared tell the truth about the WMD "threat" that Iraq posed. It ignores that a majority of Americans do not support the Bush/Cheney war in Iraq. It ignores the fact that Americans mourn for the over 3,000 US soldiers who have died for the administration’s WMD lies. It ignores the outrage Americans feels when they hear about the mistreatment of wounded veterans. And it ignores the fact that Americans voted in a democratic majority in both the House and Senate, in order to change the direction this nation is heading in.

I urge readers to take three steps: {1} Write and/or call your elected officials, and tell them to investigate and impeach administration officials involved in the Plame scandal; {2} Write letters to your local newspapers, expressing outrage that the administration derailed a significant part of the intelligence communities’ efforts to protect our safety; and {3} Support the Joseph and Valerie Wilson Legal Support Trust.

Learn more about their civil case against Cheney, Libby, Armitage, and Rove by going to:

http://wilsonsupport.org/

Contributions may be sent to: Joseph & Valerie Wilson Legal Support Trust; P.O. Box 40918; Washington, DC 20016-0918. The Wilsons have stated that if their civil case results in a payment larger than the costs associated with their legal activities, the equivalent monies contributed to the Trust will be donated to one or more charitable organizations that work to protect government whistleblowers’ First Amendment rights, and to protect them from retaliatory actions.

Lessons from Mike Douglas's Hobnailed Boots

"The U.S. vs. John Lennon is the compelling and provocative story of John Lennon’s evolution from beloved Beatle to outspoken artist and activist to iconic inspiration for peace, and how, in the midst of one of the most tumultuous times in American history, Lennon stood his ground, refused to be silenced and courageously won his battle with the U.S. government." – from the back of the DVD case

Yesterday I had the pleasure of watching "The U.S. vs. John Lennon" in the comfort of my living room. One of the most interesting things about John and Yoko was their decision, made in the early 1970s, to communicate with the American public in their living rooms. It was an interesting progression from their Amsterdam "Bed Peace" campaign from the late March, 1969, and the bed-in at the Queen Elizabeth Hotel in Montreal a month later.

In Montreal, John and Yoko and friends (including Timothy Leary, Tommy Smoothers, and Dick Gregory), recorded "Give Peace a Chance." John and Yoko also continued their "acorn campaign," including offering a couple of acorns to Canadian Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau, who told reporters, "I don’t know about acorns, but if he’s around I’d like to meet him. He’s a good poet." (The Beatles Forever; Nicholas Schaffner; page 122)

John and Yoko’s tactics in media manipulation were effective. They were making daily commercials for peace. They were, John said, willing to play the role of clowns in order to get their message out. The song "Give Peace a Chance" (attributed to Lennon/McCartney, but a clear indicator of what direction John was heading in), was a powerful anti-war statement.

"The U.S. vs. John Lennon" documents that as Lennon went from "Give Peace a Chance" to "Power to the People," and became allied with anti-war activists, the Nixon administration became concerned. They were afraid that Lennon would be a vehicle by which radicals such as Jerry Rubin and Abbie Hoffman would reach a much wider audience.

Lennon’s genius for spreading his anti-war message would reach one of the most important, yet frequently overlooked stages when Yoko and he were the co-hosts of the Mike Douglas Show for the week of February 14-18, 1972. At a time when we need to spread the anti-war message to living rooms across America, and when many people are frustrated by the corporate media, I believe that we can benefit from examining the Mike Douglas Show from 35 years ago.

One of the myths that we often hear is that today’s media is inferior to that of the 1960s and ‘70s as far as reporting on issues such as the war, and on political scandals. This is largely because of the Woodward-Bernstein reporting on Watergate. Yet that scandal was largely ignored for a long period by the corporate media. When asked why the media had not covered the story for so long, CBS anchorman Dan Rather would say, "We didn’t want to believe that what happened, happened." (NBC Nightly News; 6-17-92)

"You have to realize that people like us never get on television," Jerry Rubin told a press gathering in February, 1972. Looking back, we see that the anti-war activists such as Rubin and Hoffman were only in the news when they participated in "street theater," or when they were arrested as a result of these actions. And even if we look back at the media coverage of Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr’s anti-war speeches, the reaction was extremely hostile. For most middle class Americans (Nixon’s "silent majority"), the anti-war movement seemed to be a threat to this nation.

John decided to accept an offer to appear on the Mike Douglas Show. This was a 90-minute late afternoon talk/variety show that was considered the most popular with "middle America" in the late 1960s and early ‘70s. The majority of its audience consisted of middle class housewives. "This is a show that really communicates with an older generation. We wanted to reach our hands out to them and say, ‘Don’t be afraid of us’," Yoko told reporters at the February, 1972 press gathering. "We were trying to show that not just slogans and demonstrations are gonna change the world, but we have to change the whole lifestyle."

Mike Douglas had allowed "controversial" guests on his show before. Among them were Martin Luther King, Jr., and also Malcolm X. "I remember talking with Malcolm X," Douglas later told reporter Stephen Peeples, "and I remember many of the things he would say I would totally agree with. But he was very much ahead of his time – people weren’t ready for it."

During the week the Lennons co-hosted the show, Douglas agreed that they could invite half of the guests. Thus, middle America had the opportunity to listen to "radicals" that they had previously only viewed as symbols of anger and unrest. It may be hard for younger people to appreciate what took place. Luckily, there is a boxed set from Rhino of the "Five Days That Changed the Course of Television." I strongly recommend that people watch those shows.

On Monday (2-14-72), after Mike Douglas opened the show with his version of Paul McCartney’s "Michelle," the musical performances included John backed by the Plastic Ono Band w/Elephant’s Memory (POEM) doing "It’s So Hard." Guests included consumer/student activist Ralph Nader.

John told people that, "We’d like to talk about love, peace, communication, women’s lib, war…." Yoko added, "…racism, prison conditions…" Douglas asked, "Drugs?" John replied, "Drugs, anything – whatever that’s what’s going on now."

Yoko: "And also to show the future direction, because the future direction is actually beautiful. Because people are getting very pessimistic these days, but actually it’s going to be very beautiful, and we want to show that to people."

On Tuesday, Jerry Rubin was a guest. "What [Nixon’s] really done is automate the war in Vietnam so that it’s machines killing people. Create a situation where 43 people can be murdered at Attica. Create a situation where four kids can be killed at Kent State, and people are afraid to stare…"

Douglas asked if he really believed Nixon was responsible? "It’s the atmosphere in the country … is one of just death …. I think his administration did, and he’s just a symbol of it, and so I’m working very hard with people all over the country to defeat Nixon…." John noted, "Non-violently."

On Wednesday, guests included Chuck Berry; Joseph Blatchford, the director of the Peace Corps; and research psychologist David Rosenbloom.

On Thursday, the guests included Donald Williams discussing his work with the Mid-Peninsula Sickle Cell Anemia Foundation; and Bobby Seale, the Black Panthers chairman discussing community organization.

On Friday, guests included George Carlin and Harvard Medical School biofeedback expert Dr. Gary Schwartz. John and Yoko did a wonderful version of their song "Luck of the Irish."

On March 6, less than a month after co-hosting the Mike Douglas Show, "immigration authorities unexpectedly refused to renew John’s visa, allegedly because of a technicality relating to his 1968 marijuana bust. But it seemed strange that around the same time, deportation procedures were instigated against dozens of ranking ex-Nazis only after great pressure was applied by the media – whereas John was singled out for having once kept some pot in the house. In the aftermath of Watergate it came out that arch-conservative Senator Strom Thurmond had sent a dossier on Lennon’s anti-Administration views to Nixon’s Attorney General, John ‘law-n-order’ Mitchell, with the suggestion that Lennon be somehow expelled from the U.S." (Schaffner; page 164)

The significance of John and Yoko co-hosting the Mike Douglas Show wasn’t that they converted Douglas into a radical, or that the housewives watching the shows joined the Weather Underground. It was that the anti-war activists had used the media in a manner that allowed them to reach "middle America" in a rational, non-threatening manner. Lennon understood "communication" better than perhaps any other person on the progressive left. And that is what made him such a threat – even, I believe, when he released his "househusband" LP in 1980.

Critical Path Revisited

"Our climate crisis may at times appear to be happening slowly, but in fact it is happening very quickly – and has become a true planetary emergency. The Chinese expression for crisis consists of two characters. The first is a symbol for danger; the second is a symbol for opportunity. In order to face down the danger that is stalking us and move through it, we first have to recognize that we are facing a crisis. So why is it that our leaders seem not to hear such clarion warnings? Are they resisting the truth because they know that the moment they acknowledge it, they will face a moral imperative to act? Is it simply more convenient to ignore the warnings?

"Perhaps, but inconvenient truths do not go away just because they are not seen. Indeed, when they are not responded to, their significance doesn’t diminish; it grows." -- An Inconvenient Truth; Al Gore

As I watched the movie "An Inconvenient Truth" last night, and considered Al Gore’s question regarding why "our leaders" appear unwilling to accept the reality of the climate crisis that confronts us, I was reminded of some information found in a book by Colonel L. Fletcher Prouty.
In 2004, in discussions on the Democratic Underground on the Plame scandal, I noted that Prouty (who was the person behind the "Man X" character in the Oliver Stone movie "JFK"), recommends that people always ask not only "How?", but more importantly, "Why?"

Prouty, who served as the chief of special operations for the Joint Chiefs of Staff during the Kennedy administration, authored the book "JFK." In it, he tells how "scholars of the evolution of warfare" have identified nine principles of warfare. The single most important is "objective." When we look back at the Vietnam war, we find that most of our military leaders were frustrated by the failure of Washington to answer the question, "What is our objective in Vietnam?"

A large number of people today believe that the leaders in Washington have again failed the nation, by being unable to identify, "What is our objective in Iraq?" We were purposely lied to about the "threat" that Iraq posed to the USA with its WMD programs. But, as the Plame scandal/Libby trial showed, there was no Iraqi WMD program that threatened the USA in any manner whatsoever.

Orwell knew that he "who controls the past controls the future." Hence we are witness to efforts by the administration to deny that they lied to the country about WMD, and to pretend that we invaded Iraq to "bring democracy" to its population. Yet that is no more true than the "mushroom cloud" warnings of 2002. Indeed, a group of people who would deny democracy in the United States during the 2000 election is unlikely to promote it in Iraq in 2007.

So what is their objective? Let’s look at some of the theories that Prouty identifies in his book. The first is the concept of a "power elite." Prouty notes that Churchill, in a conversation with friends, mentioned that there was a "High Cabal" that controlled events in the world. Prouty quotes R. Buckminster’s book "Critical Path" to explain the nature of this group:

"In our comprehensive reviewing of published, academically accepted history we continually explore for the invisible power structure behind the visible kings, prime ministers, czars, emperors, presidents, and other official head men, as well as for the underlying, hidden causes of individual wars and long, drawn-out campaigns not disclosed by the widely published and popularly accepted causes of these wars."

Prouty then describes how these "leaders are influenced by the persuasion of a quartet of the greatest propaganda schemes ever put forth by man." It is not the theories per say that he finds repugnant, but rather the twisted interpretation that the power elite uses to justify its sociopathic policies. Let’s look closer at each of these four, and consider it in terms of the power elite’s objective today.

[1] First is the concept of "real property." Prouty writes that this concept shifted to Europeans at the time that the explorers such as Columbus and Magellan found the world was round – and hence had a finite supply of resources – rather than an expansive flat with infinite resources. This resulted in a dramatic shift in tactics on the part of European powers: rather than looking to exploit others in trade, they began to colonize foreign lands, to ensure complete access to supplies of foreign resources.

One might consider the Iraqi oil supply had more to do with the Bush-Cheney invasion, for example, than the fictional yellow cake that was recently purchased from Niger. Likewise, in terms of preparing to meet the threat of environmental crisis, it is worth considering if the power elite has an objective? Is it more likely that they are simply confused by the science, and thus unable to recognize the reality of global warming? Or are they trying to pacify the masses, while they hoard the resources they believe will allow them to survive while others suffer and die?

[2] Prouty explains that the power elite is focused on the population theory of Malthus. This goes back to the basic concept that Thomas Malthus postulated in 1805: that humanity is increasing at a geometric rate while natural resources increase at only an arithmetric rate. Today, of course, we know that some resources are not increasing at all – rather, they are decreasing. Those who have watched "An Inconvenient Truth" (or read the book) know that Al Gore recognizes the problems that the rapid growth in the world’s population causes. Is it realistic to think that the power elite is unaware of these same issues?

Prouty writes that, "The Malthusian theory thus provides a rationalization for the necessity of somehow getting rid of large numbers of people, any people, in any way …" Look at the policies of this administration, and decide for yourself. What are their objectives? Preserving the environment, and protecting the public’s health? Or satisfying corporate greed? Were the neoconservatives in the administration protecting you from Saddam’s nuclear threat? Or were they invested in starting a long and deadly war between Islamic factions?

[3] Prouty describes how the power elite believes in the concept of survival of the fittest, contained in Darwin’s theory of evolution. This is distinct from the scientific reality of evolution per say. It is a twisted view that the power elite believes justifies their willingness to send, for example, the sons and daughters of the working poor to fight the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. We do not see any significant investment of the power elite’s children in these wars.

Is this a "class" issue? Of course it is. The power elite does not socialize with the middle clas, much less the poor. This president refuses to even attend the funerals of those soldiers killed in his immoral wars. Is it a "class" issue? Look at the scandal involving the quality of medical care provided for wounded soldiers. If the power elite cares that little about US soldiers, how in the hell can anyone believe that they view the Iraqi population as human beings?

Look at the lack of response by this administration in regard to the crises in Africa. Is that the behavior of responsible leaders? Or of a power elite that views the situation through the harsh, cold lens of "survival of the fittest"? Is it realistic to think this group will be motivated by human decency to confront the environmental crisis that Al Gore speaks of?

[4] Finally, Prouty notes "Heisenberg’s theory of indeterminacy, that is, that God throws the dice, and similar barriers to the real advancement of science and technology today." In other words, they have an excuse for every failure on their part. The war on Iraq has failed to reached the results that the administration promised? No problem – not their responsibility. Just send more soldiers to kill and be killed, and let the financial investment in death and destruction surge, as well.

Prouty states that Heisenberg’s "nuclear age theory" provided the power elite with the warning to make sure that "new scientific discoveries and new technology must never be permitted to overwhelm the status quo as precipitously as the hydrogen bomb had done." As James Carroll details in his fascinating book "House of War," the hydrogen bombs changed the manner in which the power elite around the globe could approach warfare. Consider the current tensions between the neoconservative movement and Iran. What is each’s objective?

When we think about the questions Al Gore raised, which are quoted in the opening of this essay, we might find it interesting to think about this quote from Prouty: "Men in positions of great power have been forced to realize that their aspirations and responsibilities have exceeded the horizons of their own experience, knowledge, and capability. Yet, because they are in charge of this high-technology society, they are compelled to do something. This overpowering necessity to do something – although our leaders do not know precisely what to do or how to do it – creates in the power elite an overbearing fear of the people. It is the fear not of you and me as individuals but of the smoldering threat of vast populations and of potential uprisings of the masses."

Few people have expressed this fear as clearly as Antonin Scalia, when he spoke from his heart at the January 2002 Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life. Scalia expressed his belief that God wanted the power elite to rule the United States, and that God’s desires were being challenged by people who did such evil things as vote for Al Gore in 200. Consider his words in the context of the theories Prouty identified: "The consensus has been upset by the emergence of democracy … the reactions of people of faith to this tendency of democracy to obscure the divine authority behind government should not be resignation to it but resolution to combat it as effectively as possible."

The truth is that the power elite is no more capable of taking the actions needed to deal with the environmental crisis Al Gore speaks of, than the Bush administration is capable of bringing democracy to Iraq. A system can only produce of itself: as Malcolm X used to say, a chicken cannot produce a duck egg. We need to look at the system, to identify its objectives, and to recognize what it is and is not capable of producing.

In Prouty’s book "JFK," he provides a valuable response to those who believed that Dallas represented a coup in the United States. He describes how it was actually the system’s realignment, in response to the Kennedy administration’s attempts to change that system. In the decades since then, we have witnessed how the power elite crushes individuals who have challenged it. Yesterday, it was bullets striking down RFK and MLK. Today, we see the tactic of character assassination, such as has happened to individuals like Al Gore, Joseph Wilson, and the "swift boating" of John Kerry.

Our best option today is to look in another direction for solutions to our problems. There isn’t a "leader" who will provide us with "the answer." We will find it within those "vast populations" and "masses" that Prouty mentioned, and that Scalia so fears. And our strength will be found in democracy, as defined by the US Constitution, and particularly in the Bill of Rights. For that Bill of Rights, as John Kennedy noted on October 29, 1960, "is the guardian of our security, as well as our liberty."

On "Reasonable Doubt"

What is "reasonable doubt"? And how will Judge Reggie Walton help the jury in the Scooter Libby trial understand the difference between "reasonable" and "unreasonable" doubt? These are the questions that the news media and bloggers will be considering today. I thought it would be fun to take a brief look at these issues, by examining some information from one of the best attorneys of our time, Vincent Bugliosi.

In 1981, Bugliosi authored an article for a legal journal on the distinction between the terms "not guilty" and "innocent," as they are frequently – and incorrectly – considered synonymous. In his book "Outrage," Bugliosi notes that this article was, according to the Index to Legal Periodicals and the Criminal Justice Periodical Index, the first such article on this important topic. This article ("Not Guilty and Innocent – The Problem Children of Reasonable Doubt") shows the connection between the common errors in perception in our legal system.

Bugliosi notes that sources ranging from legal text books to the US Supreme Court frequently err by stating that, "You are here to determine the guilt or innocence of the accused." (No. 11.06 of Federal Criminal Jury Instructions, by DeWitt & Blackmar). In fact, a trial is not about guilt vs innocence. Rather, it is about if the prosecution has proven the defendant is guilty, beyond a reasonable doubt.

If a juror believes the defendant is probably guilty, but that the prosecution did not prove that beyond a reasonable doubt, it is his or her duty to conclude the accused is "not guilty." It doesn’t mean they believe the defendant is innocent. Just that the prosecution did not prove it to the level of "beyond reasonable doubt." Hence, it is extremely important that the jurors understand what reasonable doubt is.

In the book "Outrage," Vince Bugliosi points out that in the OJ Simpson trial, members of both the prosecution and defense teams incorrectly told the jury that "reasonable doubt" was defined as "doubt based upon reason." (Only Chris Darden pointed out that this was not accurate.) This incorrect definition favors the defense in criminal cases, because by nature, people assume that they are "reasonable," and that this implies that any "possible" doubt is therefore "reasonable."

Bugliosi writes that, "In fact, the jury instruction obliquely alludes to this when it says that reasonable doubt ‘is not a mere possible doubt, because everything relating to human affairs is open to some possible or imaginary doubt’." Some attorneys, including Marcia Clark in the Simpson case, use extreme examples such as "I have a possible doubt that the sun will come up tomorrow. Do I have a reasonable doubt about it? No." By saying this, Clark helped the jurors incorrectly think any doubt that wasn’t comically far-fetched was reasonable.

Bugliosi states that the most confusing word in the phrase "beyond a reasonable doubt" is "beyond." This is because it implies "further" or "more than." He began to substitute the secondary definition of "to the exclusion of," rather than using "beyond."

On page 261-2, he writes, "In my cases thereafter, after explaining to the jury the true sense in which the word ‘beyond’ is used, I would say to the jury, ‘The prosecution, then, has the burden of proving the guilt of this defendant to the exclusion of all reasonable doubt. …. A sound, sensible, logical doubt based on the evidence in the case. …We have eliminated the word ‘beyond’ and we still have a very accurate definition and statement of the doctrine of reasonable doubt’."

In the epilogue, Bugliosi also addresses the concept of "unreasonable doubt," which is those things that defense attorneys are forced to rely upon to try to confuse a jury when they are defending an obviously guilty client. (pages 364-366) In such cases, defense attorneys who have previously earned reputations as highly talented – even to the point of being called members of a "Dream Team" – can come off as looking ordinary at best. I can think of no better example that Team Libby.