Wikileaks pisses off Hillary Clinton...and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad...and Sarah Palin.

Now, let's say that I were an average American citizen, who—let's say—wants to hold democratically elected (directly or [usually very...] indirectly) figures in its government accountable for their habitual excesses and deceptions.

Let's say that I've noticed it's difficult to do this, as my government—like most governments—is a bloated, cynical, bureaucratic, militarist nightmare. So much so that it apparently has no center of gravity morally or even strategically.

Let's suppose that, furthermore, control over media—and, therefore, over public discourse—in the United States is monopolized by a handful of multinational corporations, all of whom in effect collude with governments in order to maximize the financial and political benefits that accrue to a fraction of 1 percent of the world's population—a tiny, wealthy elite with the greatest interest in maintaining the status quo, with all of its injustices and irrationalities.

Let's pretend for a moment that all of the preceding is true.

Wouldn't I be likely to conclude that a single piece of information that manages to piss off Hillary Clinton and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Sarah Palin...well, wouldn't I be likely to conclude that such a release of information is a good thing?

Wikileaks leaks more leaks!

Some of the tidbits of information that have been leaked. And other stuff. (More and better-labeled links re this to come tomorrowish, as it is late as I type.)

A writer for The Guardian (UK) asks an appropriate question: "Why do editors committed to press freedom attack Wikileaks?" Possible answer: because they aren't actually committed to press freedom. Why not? Because they're nothing but the hired stooges of the multinational business interests that own the world's mainstream media...? Just a thought.

Of course, these Wikileaks-opposing editors would argue that, as our free-press-loving government claims, the release of these documents is dangerous, and not merely embarrassing.

But, as it turns out, there's no evidence that any Wikileaks releases have hurt anyone.

GOP Congressmen to America's 65,000 Unemployed: Stop eating food.

(This item by way of the back-in-business PhuckPolitics.)

On Thursday, the newly emboldened, self-congratulatory, and Wall Street-subsidized House Republicans "torpedoed a bill to extend benefits for the long-term unemployed" (The Washington Post). Just get an eyeful of this Old Boy's (Hair) Club (For Men):

It seems that the $12 billion price tag of intervening on behalf of those teetering on the brink of total bankruptcy and ruin is too steep for these steely-eyed Protectors of Industrial/Financial Interests The American Way. Look at the determination in their, uh, gut. The sense of honor and profundity in their Latte-sipping gait.

They just saved America $12 billion. Phew! I'd be drinking me some coffee, too. It's a tough job, pulling our nation back from the brink of financial apocalypse, but somebody's gotta do it.

Of course, the Bush Tax Cuts for the ultra-wealthy cost the nation $3 trillion (Alexander Stille), and that's only over the first eight years of the cuts' existence! Were those cuts to expire on schedule, as the Dems are apparently going to be too weak-kneed to insist—which, by the way, is insane, depressing and humiliating...if ever there were an issue on which the Dems should refuse to compromise....—"the projected cost of the Bush tax cuts to the federal budget over the next ten years is $3.9 trillion, an average of 1.4 percent of the country’s total economic activity (GDP) per year" (CAP). If the Republicans and their conservative Democrat accomplices succeed in actually extending the the tax cuts for the ultra-wealthy, the resulting drain on the US deficit would be an additional $4 million!

But, like I said, the Republicans should be proud of themselves that they've once again succeeded in cynically screwing over the struggling American families that are most vulnerable by sparing the US deficit that whopping $12 billion.

Progressives should oppose the intrustive pat-downs and sketchy scanners.

You know what? I'm with those who are complaining about the intrusiveness of these these "security measures."

I disagree, however, with the neocon creeps who think that racial profiling is a better idea.

And I also disagree with advocates of phony "free markets," who are being paid off by industrial interests to make the implausible argument that "privatizing" airport security is somehow going to solve the problem. It's awfully difficult to see how. That's because it's opportunistic gibberish.

I oppose these intrusive pat-downs and radiation-emitting scanners for one reason: they—like the majority of "security measures" that have been put into practice in airports—are little more than a decoy, Orwellian in character, whose audience are not "the terrorists" to whom their purportedly "sending a signal," but, rather: the American "middle class."
The functions of these "security measures" with respect to middle-class travelers are twofold:

1) To provide people with the illusion that their safety is being guaranteed. In reality, the "safety" that these devices and "procedures" are said to provide exceeds could never honestly be guaranteed. It's impossible. Don't believe me? Read this detailed piece of reporting that exposes the "Security Theater" in our airports, published in the Atlantic Monthly back in 2008.

2) To remind people, as frequently and as concretely as possible, that they should be scared, that they should not think for themselves, and that they require the guiding hand of a benevolent, external authority.

Now, if my second point sounds like the classic right-wing/libertarian argument that "government intervention in our lives is paternalistic," that's because it's pretty much the same claim. With a couple of important differences:

First, I submit that it is obvious that it makes little difference whether the paternalistic authority is embodied in a government agency or a privately administered company, which will have inevitably owed its monopoly in a given market(s) to the congressmen to whom they have donated their millions of dollars.

The second element differentiating my argument from that of the phony free-market types is that, if anything, private industry stands to gain as much, if not more from disingenuous and arrogant administration of "security" policy than does a government agency. This is because the sole motive of private industry is to gain profits. How, then, can it be argued that they would somehow be more likely to refrain from molesting old grannies, or demanding that a cancer survivor remove her prosthetic breast?

The whole thing stinks. I think progressives should be speaking up in opposition to the intrusive and unhealthy "security procedures." Speak up, and don't let the privateering/profiteering brigade change the subject! Speak up in defense of our Constitutionally protected civil liberties.