Where to draw the line with journalism and classified information?

The New Neo Posted on by

Glenn Greenwald could be prosecuted.

I don’t think Glenn Greenwald will be prosecuted.

But do you think Glenn Greenwald should be prosecuted?

It depends in part on how damaging the information turns out to be. But isn’t there an argument to be made that if this offense is winked at, the next one will be worse? Is there any reason to let the security of the US hang on the judgment of journalists such as Greenwald and newspapers such as the Guardian as to what classified information is damaging to national security and what is not?

[NOTE: The law in question criminalizes the publication of:

…any classified information”” (1) concerning the nature, preparation, or use of any code, cipher, or cryptographic system of the United States or any foreign government; or (2) concerning the design, construction, use, maintenance, or repair of any device, apparatus, or appliance used or prepared or planned for use by the United States or any foreign government for cryptographic or communication intelligence purposes; or (3) concerning the communication intelligence activities of the United States or any foreign government; or (4) obtained by the processes of communication intelligence from the communications of any foreign government, knowing the same to have been obtained by such processes…

I refer you also to a previous and much more lengthy piece I wrote on the subject. Also note that Britain—the place where the Guardian and Greenwald are operating—has much more stringent laws on this than we do. But since the present violation involves US secrets rather than British ones I don’t see how British laws would apply.

Here’s an excerpt from my previous post, written in 2006, but I suggest you read the whole thing:

]Did McCarthy (or whoever the leaker actually was) really have no avenue but the press? If the leaker’s conscience was troubled by confidential information gained in the line of duty, didn’t that person also have a duty to go through internal channels or to Congress? Was this ever done in the detention center case, or did the leaker simply cut to the chase (and the press), assuming an internal investigation would go nowhere?

When that process is short-circuited, the leaker unloads his/her information in the most public way possible, which can end up being the most damaging way. Right now the only people deciding how bad that damage might be before it occurs are the leaker him/herself”“hardly the most objective judge of that”“and the press (ditto). Once the story is published, it’s too late: the cat is out of the bag, the horse is out of the barn.

The judiciary was meant to act as the check and balance on potential leakers and the press”“and in the past, of course, we also had more self-imposed restraint on the part of the press, especially in times of war. Now, however, not only does the press see itself in the role of government adversary and whistleblower, but personal repercussions are few and far between, short of treason (a very hard case to make in most situations).]

Annals of education: the end of “smart”

The New Neo Posted on by

You knew it was coming didn’t you? An article by Zeus Leonardo (great name, actually), a “scholar of critical race/whiteness studies,” and Alice A. Broderick, a disability studies expert, which explores:

…”smartness” as an ideological system and particularly…the ways in which it intersects with whiteness as ideology. Using Cheryl Harris’s analysis of whiteness, the authors argue that smartness works as a form of property, with all the advantages that come with membership in the group…

Conclusions/Recommendations: Analogous to Roediger’s claim about whiteness, the authors argue that smartness is nothing but false and oppressive, and as such, attempts to theoretically rearticulate or rehabilitate smartness may serve to illuminate, but ultimately fail to dissolve, the normative center of schooling.

Lest you think this is The Onion, it is not—unless you think the Teacher’s College Record, “a journal of research, analysis, and commentary in the field of education…published continuously since 1900 by Teachers College, Columbia University” is merely a front for the humor magazine.

And this video has got to be one of the saddest things I’ve ever seen. In it, an education professor (who happens to be a black man, an obviously intelligent guy) discusses research he did in which he interviewed about a dozen male black teachers who had been hired in predominantly black schools in order to be strong male role models, asking them about their experiences. If you watch the whole thing (it’s only about three minutes long), it seems his recommendation is that they go to the gender re-education camps. You’ll see what I mean; it’s pretty ironic, although he doesn’t mean to be.

Columbia is one of the most influential education schools in the United States. It not only churns out a great many graduates, but it sets the tone for a great deal of education-education in the country. This sort of thing has been going on for many decades somewhat under the radar. But it’s my impression it’s getting worse by the minute, like a virus that’s been spreading exponentially,

Why is Paula Cooper being freed?

The New Neo Posted on by

I read this entire article about the release of murderer Paula Cooper without learning a word about why it’s happening so soon.

I understand why her death penalty was set aside, which according to the article happened in 1988 (Wiki says it was in 1989 due to a SCOTUS case that barred execution of criminals 16 and under). I actually don’t have any difficulty with that part of the decision.

Cooper, who is black, was 16 in 1985 when she stabbed 78-year-old Bible school teacher Ruth Pelke 33 times in the course of a robbery committed with 3 other girls (net take was $10). Her death penalty sentence was changed to 60 years because of her age at the time of the murder (again, Wiki says it was changed to life, which makes much more sense to me, but Wiki also contradicts itself by saying later that her new sentence was 60 years).

So, why is Cooper being released now? When last I checked, 1985 to 2013 was only 28 years. Well, Indiana law says that offenders get a day taken off their time for each day of good behavior. Now, that’s what I call an incentive. But it means that most criminals will only be serving half their sentences, which seems unconscionable to me.

Who knew murder came so cheap in Indiana?

And yes, Cooper has had a very difficult life. That’s too bad, and very sad. But it really should have no bearing on these issues.

Happy Father’s Day!

The New Neo Posted on by

[NOTE: This a slightly edited version of a previous post of mine.]

It’s Father’s Day. A sort of poor stepchild to Mother’s Day, although fathers themselves are hardly that. They are central to a family.

Just ask the people who never had one, or who had a difficult relationship with theirs. Or ask the people who were nurtured in the strength of a father’s love and guidance.

Of course, the complex world being what it is, and people and families being what they are, it’s the rare father-child relationship that’s entirely conflict-free. But for the vast majority, love is almost always present, even though at times it can be hard to express or to perceive. It can take a child a very long time to see it or feel it; but that’s part of what growing up is all about. And “growing up” can go on even in adulthood, or old age.

Father’s Day—or Mother’s Day, for that matter—can wash over us in a wave of treacly sentimentality. But the truth of the matter is often stranger, deeper, and more touching. Sometimes the words of love catch in the throat before they’re spoken. But they can still be sensed. Sometimes a loving father is lost through distance or misunderstanding, and then regained.

There’s an extraordinary poem by Robert Hayden that depicts one of these uneasy father-child connections—the shrouded feelings, both paternal and filial, that can come to be seen in the fullness of time as the love that was always, always there. I offer it on this Father’s Day to all of you.

THOSE WINTER SUNDAYS

Sundays too my father got up early
and put his clothes on in the blueblack cold
then with cracked hands that ached
from labor in the weekday weather made
banked fires blaze. No one ever thanked him.

I’d wake and hear the cold splintering, breaking.
When the rooms were warm, he’d call,
and slowly I would rise and dress,
fearing the chronic angers of that house.

Speaking indifferently to him,
who had driven out the cold
and polished my good shoes as well.
What did I know, what did I know
of love’s austere and lonely offices?

They see you when you’re sleeping, they know when you’re awake

The New Neo Posted on by

Assuming this is true, I’ll also assume I’ll have more to say about it anon:

The National Security Agency has acknowledged in a new classified briefing that it does not need court authorization to listen to domestic phone calls, a participant said.

Rep. Jerrold Nadler, a New York Democrat, disclosed on Thursday that during a secret briefing to members of Congress, he was told that the contents of a phone call could be accessed “simply based on an analyst deciding that.”

But it’s more likely that Nadler misunderstood what the briefing was getting at (see the “update” here):

Here’s [Nadler’s] new statement to BuzzFeed:

“I am pleased that the administration has reiterated that, as I have always believed, the NSA cannot listen to the content of Americans’ phone calls without a specific warrant.”

Read the transcript of his exchange with Mueller to see where he erred. The NSA told him that they could get “specific information” about a suspicious phone number without a FISA warrant. Nadler somehow took that to mean that they could tap that phone number and listen in. As Kevin Drum and Julian Sanchez noted last night, though, “specific information” may simply have meant metadata and phone records for the number, not the actual contents of phone calls. To actually tap a line, they need FISA approval. That’s what Mueller was trying to tell him.

So as Emily Litella would say: “Never mind.”

But I think we should continue to mind, because if a vast apparatus with vast powers is assembled, there is every reason to believe it will be used, and that some day those who are just itching to abuse it will find a way to abuse it. And if that apparatus is secret, there would be all the more ability to do so under cover of that secrecy. It all rests on trust, and we have come to distrust our government more and more as time goes on.

On the other hand, all intelligence operations are secret. That’s their very nature. And so all are subject to abuse; that’s one of the most frightening things about them. And until the day comes when the lion lies down with the lamb (a day I can’t see ever coming) we need intelligence.

It’s a conundrum. But as I’ve said before, the advantages of this particular program don’t seem worth the dangers. Life contains dangers; enemies are out to get us. How much protection do we demand, how much liberty and privacy are we willing to give up to get it, and is that sacrifice even worth it because the protection we get is so imperfect and perhaps even inadequate?

In addition, banning these programs wouldn’t necessarily end them. What technology allows, people will probably find a way to accomplish, either legally through the NSA or illegally through some more clandestine means. Unless we all go off the grid simultaneously, I don’t see that electronic spying will ever stop (and even then, there probably would be other ways for people to get into our business). And I’m not just talking about the federal government, either.

Big politically correct Brother

The New Neo Posted on by

Mark Steyn; read it.

Along the way he points out that he wrote back in November of 2001:

The bigger you make the government, the more you entrust to it, the more powers you give it to nose around the citizenry’s bank accounts, and phone calls, and e-mails, and favorite Internet porn sites, the more you’ll enfeeble it with the siren song of the soft target. The Mounties will no longer get their man, they’ll get you instead. Frankly, it’s a lot easier.

Give that man the prescience award.

George Wallace, Republican

The New Neo Posted on by

…Not.

And so, Chris Hayes of MSNBC was right to apologize after referring to Wallace as a Republican. He said his statement had been “a “stupid, inexcusable, historically illiterate mistake.”

But it was a lot more. This was no random tongue-slip. It might not have been excusable, but it is most definitely explainable, because the left and many liberals have been engaged in historic revisionism for a long time with the purpose of branding the Republican Party as the racist one, and to obliterate the actual history of the Democratic Party.
Why should it be any surprise that their efforts have borne fruit? The surprise isn’t that Hayes said it; the surprise is that many people noticed and that he actually corrected it, because his “mistake” has become more common as time goes on and the propaganda campaign has worked its magic on the population.

I don’t ordinarily watch MSNBC; I’m not that much of a glutton for punishment. But even before I looked Hayes up on Wiki to see how old he was, I figured he had to be young. Sure enough: 34 years old. Of course, there are people that age who know something about history, but I don’t think such knowledge is very common.

You might think that a journalist whose specialty is politics and who has a gig on MSNBC might know something about history, or at the very least political history. But if you thought that you might be wrong. Hayes’ apology is ambiguous about whether his error was a mere slip of the tongue or a lack of the relevant factual knowledge in the first place (“I should have caught it”), but I cast my vote for “lack of the relevant factual knowledge in the first place.”

There’s a third possibility, of course: purposeful “error” for the sake of propaganda, knowing it will probably go unnoticed because most people are ignorant of history, and that it will feed into their wealth of misinformation and further demonize the Republican Party. This is an excellent possibility, but since Hayes’ resume is singularly devoid of anything that smacks of knowledge or training in history (he is a writer who majored in philosophy at Brown, a university which, to the best of my recollection, has no generally required courses), my strongest guess is that he knows rather little about it and has swallowed the propaganda whole himself. But here he is, shaping the minds of many.

[NOTE: For those are interested in history—journalistic history, that is—please read this discussion of ground zero of the “Republicans are racist” meme, the famous Lee Atwater interview.]

Zombie emails the NSA with a polite request

The New Neo Posted on by

Funny stuff here:

Dear NSA,

…If you have any pull with the American Psychiatric Association, could you please recommend to them that the psychological state formerly known as “paranoia” should be no longer defined as a mental illness? Asylums all across the country are filled with people whose only neurosis is the vague feeling that they are being spied on or followed by unseen powerful enemies. But now we know that everyone is being spied on every time they pick up the phone, buy something, use the Internet, or walk around in public ”” so it turns out that these “paranoid” patients aren’t delusional after all…

PS ”” Tell the IRS that the best times for for my upcoming audit are Tuesdays and Thursdays, but unannounced visits from the EPA, FBI, OSHA or ATF would be more convenient on Monday afternoons or Wednesday mornings. And, needless to say, you can eavesdrop any ol’ time.

Read the whole thing.

Lately I, too, have been thinking about the need to redefine paranoia. The old joke—“You’re not paranoid if they really ARE out to get you” applies.

However, it turns out that the American Psychiatric Association is way ahead of zombie and me, because it seems that the drafters of the DSM-V (the diagnostic manual that represents the very latest in mental health classifications), which just came out on May 18, 2013 and superceded the DMS IV-TR (2000), had already made a valiant attempt to eliminate the relevant category, known as “paranoid personality disorder.” The draft version of the DSM-V (unveiled in 2010) that eliminated the disorder created such a hue and cry among practitioners that when the DSM-V was finally published in 2013 the APA reinstated the diagnosis along with various other character disorders that had been slated for removal along with it.

One of them was narcissistic personality disorder, sometimes suggested as the proper label for our president and many other politicians. But lo and behold, it’s back too.

It was a mystery to many 2010 reviewers as to why the APA was trying to throw out these diagnostic categories that had stood the test of time. For example:

“[The DSM-V drafters] have little appreciation for the damage they could be doing,” [Dr. John Gunderson told the New York Times. …]

“It’s draconian,” he said of the decision, “and the first of its kind, I think, that half of a group of disorders are eliminated by committee.”

So, is the mystery now solved? Could it be—could it be?—that the APA has got a few thumb drives and spies of its own, and already knew what was going to come down with the IRS and NSA scandals? Were they merely planning ahead? And while they were at it, did they decide to try eliminating a major slur on the president by taking away NPD as well?

Inquiring minds want to know.

[NOTE: By the way, I wonder whether any of you have ever read Operators and Things: The inner life of a schizophrenic? It’s a wonderful book first published in 1958. It made a deep impression on me when I read it some years later at the age of twelve, and has been recently re-released (there’s also a free online version here).

No one seems to know who author Barbara O’Brien was. It’s a pseudonym, and she claims it’s a true story. Whether it is, or whether she’s a brilliant but little-known fiction writer, the book was described thusly in a review in the LA Times quoted on Amazon, “”O’Brien has produced a work of brilliance and power, evoking a combination of Kafka and Joyce, with a touch of Orwell.”

It doesn’t remind me of Joyce. But Kafka and Orwell? Definitely. And if you read it you might agree that it has some relevance to the subject matter of this post.]

It’s…

The New Neo Posted on by

…the mistrust, stupid.

As usual, Richard Fernandez gets to the heart of the matter. And the heart of the matter is trust, or lack thereof.

We don’t trust this administration. But even if we did, it’s always a bad idea to put too much power into the hands of government, and surrender too much liberty to it, because even if we do trust today’s leaders, we may very well not trust tomorrow’s.

[NOTE: Here’s another Fernandez article that’s well worth reading.]

What can we learn from this nasty high-profile divorce?

The New Neo Posted on by

The Hamms’ divorce makes “The War of the Roses” look like a love fest.

Lessons, anyone?

(1) For the rich and especially the mega-rich: pre-nups are your friend.

(2) If he/she will cheat with you, he/she is likely to cheat on you.

(3) Don’t marry a lawyer.

(4) When love turns to hate, watch out.

There are probably others, but no doubt you can provide them. I predict that some of you will say that one of them might be “Don’t get married.” Others would say (and I’d agree with them wholeheartedly) “Be very careful who you marry” (okay, maybe I’d say “whom,” but you get the idea).

Others might add, “Make divorce a lot harder,” but I’ve already expressed my opinion on that (see this, this, and this, for example) and I don’t think that clock will be turned back.

A further observation: sometimes people marry people who later become incredibly, relentlessly, and creatively vindictive. I’ve seen it happen time and again; luckily, not to me. I don’t pretend to have a representative sample that will stand up to statistical analysis, but in my tiny personal grouping—off the top of my head I count four glaring examples, although I know quite a few lesser ones—the ratio of female to male perpetrators was 3:1. And infidelity by the other spouse was not the issue in any of these particular divorces, so that didn’t account for the virulence of the battle.

Here’s my question about Syria

The New Neo Posted on by

Who are the rebels?

My strong suspicion is that there are few good guys here. It was the same question I asked about Egypt and Libya. In both places there were some “good guy” elements mixed among the Islamicist fanatics, although I suspected the latter would be the ones to end up with the power, just as they had long ago in Iran. And that seems to be the way it’s trending, although news from both countries has died down for the moment.

In Syria I also have grave doubts about the makeup of the “rebels”—a word I have come to hate and distrust. And, as in Iraq, if we aren’t committed to overseeing the aftermath of a rebellion (which we most assuredly are not), we should be careful of the forces we unleash.

However, in Syria there is a huge difference from Egypt, and that is that the current regime in Syria may be almost as bad and as unfriendly to us as anything that could replace it. In Egypt the situation was markedly different; although Mubarak was a tyrant, he was by no means high on the scale of tyranny in the region, and he was a fairly valuable ally. And yet Obama threw him under—yes, the bus. Qaddafi occupied a position in between Mubarak and Assad, in terms of both extent of his tyranny and his alliance with the US (in recent years, anyway, when Qaddafi had demonstrated a slight mellowing compared to the olden days).

As for the Syrian rebels, well, it’s a mixed bag, and I can only hope we can tell the players without a score card and are encouraging the ones who at least aren’t obviously affiliated with al Qaeda or executing teenagers for blasphemy (read the link and you’ll see what I’m referring to).

That area of the world is, quite frankly, a mess no matter how you look at it. I suppose it’s within the realm of remote possibility that any “rebels” who might defeat Assad and take over the country will be better their predecessor, but I really wouldn’t bet a dime on it.

Is the US singing this song?: