SURPRISE: NBC’s “The Professionals” and Joy Behar have no use for NSA leaker

EDITORIALS—
The ever-disgusting state of the “free press” —
“Guilty! Guilty! Guilty”— proclaim a thousand voices from their high perches.

bona fides totalitarian system of mass communications.

By Patrice Greanville

Glorified news reader Scott Pelley. It'll be a cold day in hell when he dares criticize the system.

Glorified news reader Scott Pelley. It’ll be a cold day in hell when he and his confreres dare criticize the system.

Not content with ganging up on NSA whistleblower Ed Snowden using its overpaid pundits, anchormen, and five-star “journalists” the corporate media can’t resist trotting out any available voice it can grab to add credibility to their character assassination. Students of CIA dirt recognize that media smears are dangerous, straight from its time-tested amoral propaganda manual, and that, by blackening the name or creating a lynching atmosphere toward certain political figures (or entire nations) such propaganda can easily pave the way for real attacks and physical elimination. The shameless dishonesty of the corporate media comes through in brilliant technicolor when we observe its highly selective stigmatizations.

hmadinejad and Syria’s Assad, have all been mocked and demonized, heavyweight criminals that the Washington mafia endorses are given a pass or even open support. This selectivity, of course, extends to entire nations and ideologies. And while plenty of articulate dissenters can be located in America and “the West” without much trouble, none are ever allowed inside the sacrosanct perimeter of the national debate, nor offered sufficient time to explain their positions.

[pullquote] As a leading member of the lynching mob, NBC has now trotted out even lightweight programs like “The Professionals,” supposedly the voice of the (educated) “man in the street”, to justify its one-sided condemnation of Ed Snowden. In that NBC is marching in lockstep with the rest of the “free press”, which will not tolerate injuries to the propaganda system protecting the global empire. [/pullquote]

Such consideration should give a responsible journalist pause, but the corporate media are not staffed with real journalists or people of sturdy decency but with thinly veiled propagandists for the corporate status quo, blatant fools or cynical opportunists. For the ultimate triumph of capitalist propaganda, US-style, has been to infect so many minds that just about anyone hired or allowed on television will already carry the loyalist virus, or some sort of disabling character deficiency in abundance, making any vetting for ideological purity somewhat superfluous.

The examples below come from television, the pre-eminent medium of mass disinformation and indoctrination in the United States, since print media —in sharp decline for decades—occasionally offer more nuanced and even closer-to-the-truth accounts of contemporary reality. (Warning: Half-truths may be more insidious than straight lies or omissions, but that’s another story.) Since in the United States, in particular, the “free press” enforces a sort of diffused McCarthyism in support of the imperial establishment’s goals and methods, it’s not surprising to find even the periphery of the great media constellation occupied with witnesses shouting their condemnation of Ed Snowden’s daring act.

Let’s examine a couple of these modern autos-da-fé.

Loyalist Genuflecters #1: NBC’s The Professionals

The role of this bunch is to represent “educated, reasonable opinion” supposedly mirroring the public’s attitudes toward specific issues. Unfortunately, from the start the very composition of the panel cast doubt as to its ability to reach even such modest goals. Let’s take a look at the current members:

DONNY DEUSTCH

Hyperegotist Donald “Donny” Deutsch (born November 22, 1957)^[1] is an American advertising executive and television personality. Deutsch is the chairman of Deutsch Inc., an advertising agency founded by his father, which he sold to the Interpublic Group of Companies in 2000 for US$ 265 million.^[2]

This guy’s specialty—apart from frequently being a strident, obnoxious jerk— is to be a crony to many of tv industry’s top honchos, and corporate media in general. Being part of the advertising industry, this is of course a natural fit, and that’s how he’s wormed his way into limelight. An intellectual mediocrity of the first order (perhaps his only true distinction), Deutsch, with more than a quarter billion dollars in net worth, is an unapologetically opinionated imperialist establishmentarian, with all the toxicity that that implies. It’s a fair bet that in a truly meritocratic media system this idiot would be invisible. Donny’s opinion? “Snowden’s a traitor with capital “T’!”

^{STAR JONES}According to her suspiciously inflated Wiki profile, Star Jones (previously Star Jones Reynolds; married to an investment banker), born March 24, 1962, “is an American lawyer, journalist, writer, and television personality. She is known for her former role as a co-host of the ABC weekday morning talk show The View from 1997 to 2006. She was one of sixteen contestants of the fourth installment of Celebrity Apprentice, coming in fifth place.[1]”

And there’s more. Impeccably and ostentatiously insensitive to the plight of animals, Jones was named to PETA‘s “worst dressed” list four years in a row.^[12] An anti-fur ad from PETA featured drag queen Flotilla DeBarge dressed as Jones in a spoof. Jones threatened to sue PETA and DeBarge as a result of the ad.^[13]As a bourgeois feminist avatar, Jones, on account of her fides as a dyed-in-the-wool careerist, was named the national spokesperson for the National Association of Professional Women in January 2012.^[14] Jones has since participated in chapter meetings in Florida, California and New York, where she recorded interviews that were aired nationally. Jones’ opinion of Snowden? “He’s criminal!”

DR. NANCY SNYDERMAN
Possessing true quality as a person, Dr. Snyderman is the odd man out on the panel. She’s normally the voice of reason on many issues that require some thinking. A woman of undeniable beauty (her movie star telegenicity didn’t hurt when it came to getting gigs on tv), Nancy L. Snyderman, MD (born 1952)^[1] is an American physician and broadcast journalist. Since 2006, she has been the chief medical editor for NBC News, and frequently appears on NBC‘s Today and MSNBC to discuss medicine-related issues. Snyderman is also on the staff of the otolaryngology-head and neck surgery department at the University of Pennsylvania, located in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. She is certified by the American Board of Otolaryngology in head and neck surgery, and specializes in head and neck cancer. Snyder’s take on Snowden? Actually her real opinion is not clear since she directed attention elsewhere.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Patrice Greanville is The Greanville Post’s founding editor.

_______________________________________

Loyalist Genuflecters #2: Joy Behar, on Current TV
A Panel of 3 with 3 attackers
Joy Behar’s show is deceptively named “Joy Behar’s ‘SAY ANYTHING!’. As this panel proves, it’s anything but. Readers should recall that Current TV (recently acquired by Aljazeera) was home to quasi-alternative views, embracing hosts like Keith Olbermann, Bill Price, etc. So much for corporate-owned “anti-establishment” media.
http://youtu.be/A6ACwXTeXdk

OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT

On the heels of House Speaker John Boehner decrying Snowden as a “traitor,” Joy Behar, Robert Zimmerman and Boris Epshteyn discuss NSA leaker Edward Snowden’s decision to flee to Hong Kong and the possible implications of his choice. Behar, Zimmerman and Epshteyn share the same view that Snowden should not have released confidential NSA files and speculate on his motives.

“Why escape?” questions Behar, while Zimmerman expresses concern that Snowden has jeopardized “important intelligence gathering of information and does create a climate that puts millions in jeopardy.”

Epshteyn thinks anti-Snowden sentiment is bipartisan sentiment: “What is great to see is the agreement that’s coming out right now, there is a consensus between Republicans and Democrats,” he says.

While others have shown support for Snowden’s decision to expose the NSA’s electronic surveillance of people worldwide, Zimmerman wants Snowden held accountable: “I don’t see any way that he CAN’T be convicted of serious crimes,” he says.

Epshteyn wonders if financial compensation fueled Snowden’s choice: “I wouldn’t put it out of the question that he’s getting paid by somebody,” says Epshteyn.
SOURCE: http://current.com/shows/joy-behar/videos/robert-zimmerman-on-nsa-leaker-edward-snowden-at-the-end-of-the-day-hes-a-coward/

<https://www.greanvillepost.com/videos/behar-snowden.flv>

Appalling ignorance: How many people have died as a result of the US invasion of Iraq?

‘Limited But Persuasive’ Evidence – Syria, Sarin, Libya, Lies
email_logo

By David Edwards, Media Lens
ComRes poll supported by Media Lens interviewed 2,021 British adults, asking:

Iraqi dead child. Just put it on Mr. Bush's tab, a war criminal who the American media and the Democrats are busily rehabilitating.

Iraqi dead child. Just put it on Mr. Bush’s tab, a major war criminal the American media and the Democrats are busily rehabilitating.

An astonishing 44% of respondents estimated that less than 5,000 Iraqis had died since 2003. 59% believed that fewer than 10,000 had died. Just 2% put the toll in excess of one million, the likely correct estimate. In October 2006, just three years into the war, the Lancet medical journal reported ‘about 655,000 Iraqis have died above the number that would be expected in a non-conflict situation, which is equivalent to about 2.5% of the population in the study area’. In 2007, an Associated Press poll also asked the US public to estimate the Iraqi civilian death toll from the war. 52% of respondents believed that fewer than 10,000 Iraqis had died.Noam Chomsky commented on the latest findings:‘Pretty shocking. I’m sure you’ve seen Sut Jhally’s study of estimates of Vietnam war deaths at the elite university where he teaches. Median 100,000, about 5% of the official figure, probably 2% of the actual figure. Astonishing – unless one bears in mind that for the US at least, many people don’t even have a clue where France is. Noam’ (Email to Media Lens, June 1, 2013. See: Sut Jhally, Justin Lewis, & Michael Morgan, The Gulf War: A Study of the Media, Public Opinion, & Public Knowledge, Department of Communications, U. Mass. Amherst, 1991)[pullquote] ‘It may be that most British people do not care what results arise from the actions of their leaders and the work of their tax money. Alternatively, it also could be that the British and US Governments have actively and aggressively worked to discredit sources and confuse death toll estimates in hopes of keeping the public from unifying and galvanizing around a common narrative.’ —Les Roberts, Lead Author, The Lancet Report [/pullquote]

Alex Thomson, chief correspondent at Channel 4 News, has so far provided the only corporate media discussion of the poll. He perceived ‘questions for us on the media that after so much time, effort and money, the public perception of bloodshed remains stubbornly, wildly, wrong’.In fact the poll was simply ignored by both print and broadcast media. Our search of the Lexis media database found no mention in any UK newspaper, despite the fact that ComRes polls are deemed highly credible and frequently reported in the press.Although we gave Thomson the chance to scoop the poll, he chose to publish it on his blog viewed by a small number of people on the Channel 4 website. Findings which Thomson found ‘so staggeringly, mind-blowingly at odds with reality’ that they left him ‘speechless’ apparently did not merit a TV audience.

Les Roberts, lead author of the 2004 Lancet study and co-author of the 2006 study, also responded:

‘This March, a review of death toll estimates by Burkle and Garfield was published in the Lancet in an issue commemorating the 10th anniversary of the invasion. They reviewed 11 studies of data sources ranging from passive tallies of government and newspaper reports to careful randomized household surveys, and concluded that something in the ballpark of half a million Iraqi civilians have died. The various sources include a wide variation of current estimates, from one-hundred thousand plus to a million.’

Roberts said of the latest poll:

‘It may be that most British people do not care what results arise from the actions of their leaders and the work of their tax money. Alternatively, it also could be that the British and US Governments have actively and aggressively worked to discredit sources and confuse death toll estimates in hopes of keeping the public from unifying and galvanizing around a common narrative.’ (Email to Media Lens, June 12, 2013. You can see Roberts’ comments in full here)

Indeed, the public’s ignorance of the cost paid by the people of Iraq is no accident. Despite privately considering the 2006 Lancet study ‘close to best practice’ and ‘robust’ the British government immediately set about destroying the credibility of the findings of both the 2004 and 2006 Lancet studies. Professor Brian Rappert of the University of Exeter reported that government ‘deliberations were geared in a particular direction – towards finding grounds for rejecting the [2004] Lancet study without any evidence of countervailing efforts by government officials to produce or endorse alternative other studies or data’.

Unsurprisingly, the same political executives who had fabricated the case for war on Iraq sought to fabricate reasons for ignoring peer-reviewed science exposing the costs of their great crime. More surprising, one might think, is the long-standing media enthusiasm for these fabrications. The corporate media were happy to swallow the UK government’s alleged ‘grounds for rejecting’ the Lancet studies to the extent that a recent Guardian news piece claimed that the invasion had led to the deaths of ‘tens of thousands of Iraqis’.

Syria – Dropping Del Ponte

A natural counterpart to the burying of evidence of ‘our’ embarrassing crimes is the hyping of the crimes of official enemies.

Thus, the media would have us believe that as many, or more, people have died in Syria during two years of war than have died in ten years of mass killing in Iraq (the favoured media figure is around 100,000 Iraqis killed). The Times reports ‘as many as 94,000 deaths’ in Syria. (Anthony Loyd, ‘War in Syria has plumbed new depths of barbarity, says UN,’ The Times, June 5, 2013)

Reuters reports:

‘The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights [SOHR], an opposition group, said on Tuesday that at least 94,000 people have been killed but the death toll is likely to be as high as 120,000.’

Figures supplied by SOHR, an organisation openly biased in favour of the Syrian ‘rebels’ and Western intervention is presented as sober fact by one of the world’s leading news agencies. No concerns here about methodology, sample sizes, ‘main street bias’ and other alleged concerns thrown at the Lancet studies by critics. According to Reuters itself, SOHR consists of a single individual, Rami Abdulrahman, the owner of a clothes shop, who works from his ‘two bedroom terraced home in Coventry’.

As we noted last month, clearly inspired by the example of Iraq, Western governments and media have bombarded the public with claims of Syrian government use of chemical weapons. In April, the Independent’s Robert Fisk judged the claims ‘a load of old cobblers’.

The state-media propaganda campaign was rudely interrupted on May 6 by former Swiss attorney-general Carla Del Ponte, speaking for the United Nations independent commission of inquiry on Syria. Del Ponte said, ‘there are strong, concrete suspicions but not yet incontrovertible proof of the use of sarin gas, from the way the victims were treated. This was use on the part of the opposition, the rebels, not by the government authorities’.

She added:

‘We have no, no indication at all that the Syrian government have used chemical weapons.’

Lexis finds 15 national UK newspaper articles mentioning Del Ponte’s claims since May 6. There has been one mention since the initial coverage (May 6-8) on May 11, more than one month ago. In other words, this is a good example of the way an unwelcome event is covered by the media but not retained as an integral part of the story.

On May 30, local Turkish media and RT News also reported that Syrian ‘rebels’ had been caught in a sarin gas bomb plot:

‘Turkish security forces found a 2kg cylinder with sarin gas after searching the homes of Syrian militants from the Al-Qaeda linked Al-Nusra Front who were previously detained, Turkish media reports. The gas was reportedly going to be used in a bomb.’

This was another badly ‘off-message’ story that was again given minimal coverage, not pursued and instantly buried. Lexis records no UK newspaper mentions. A senior journalist told us privately that he and his colleagues felt the story was ‘right’ but that the ‘Turks are closing [it] down.’ (Email to Media Lens, June 7, 2013)

Last week, yet more unsubstantiated claims of possible Syrian government use of sarin generated a front page BBC report with the remarkable headline:

‘World “must act” Over Syria Weapons’

And yet a BBC article indicated the lack of certainty:

‘There is no doubt Syria’s government has used sarin during the country’s crisis, says France’s foreign minister… But he did not specify where or when the agent had been deployed; the White House has said more proof was needed.’

A UK government statement observed merely: ‘There is a growing body of limited but persuasive information showing that the regime used – and continues to use – chemical weapons.’

Readers will recall that intelligence indicating the existence of Iraqi WMD was also said to have been ‘limited but persuasive’.

As Peter Hitchens notes in the Daily Mail, UK government policy is being ‘disgracefully egged on by a BBC that has lost all sense of impartiality’.

The Guardian quoted ‘a senior British official’:

‘Are we confident in our means of collection, and are we confident that it points to the regime’s use of sarin? Yes.’

Is the case closed, then? The official added: ‘Can we prove it with 100% certainty? Probably not.’

The Guardian also quoted ‘A senior UK official’ who said it ‘appeared possible that Syrian army commanders had been given the green light by the regime to use sarin in small quantities’. ‘Possible’, maybe, but the Guardian failed to explain why anyone would trust ‘a senior UK official’ to comment honestly on Syria, or why anyone would trust an anonymous UK official after Iraq.

Adding to the confusion, the Guardian quoted Paulo Pinheiro, who chairs a UN commission on human rights abuses in Syria. According to Pinheiro it had ‘not been possible, on the evidence available, to determine the precise chemical agents used, their delivery systems or the perpetrator’.

Jonathan Marcus, BBC diplomatic correspondent, wrote:

‘This is potentially a game changer: The French government now believes not only that the nerve agent sarin has been used in Syria, but that it was deployed by “the regime and its accomplices”.’

In a recent interview, Guardian journalist Glenn Greenwald commented:

‘I approach my journalism as a litigator. People say things, you assume they are lying, and dig for documents to prove it.’

Perhaps the BBC’s Marcus could take a leaf from Greenwald’s book of journalism and dig for evidence to show that the French government is lying when it says it ‘believes’ that sarin has been used by the Syrian enemy. After all, the US, UK and French governments also ‘believed‘ Iraq was a ‘serious and current’ threat to the world.

Far less gung-ho than the relentlessly warmongering BBC, a Telegraph headline read: ‘US unmoved by French evidence of sarin use in Syria.’

Chuck Hagel, the US defence secretary, said: ‘I have not seen that evidence that they said that they had and I have not talked to any of our intelligence people about it.’

The US officials’ comments ‘appeared to expose a growing a widening gap between the US and France over how to respond to Syria’s two-year civil war,’ the Telegraph noted.

Libya – Slouching Towards Truth

If the record of government and media lying on Iraq fails to inspire scepticism in regard to claims made about Syria, then we might also consider the example of the Western war on Libya from March-October, 2011.

In his excellent book, Slouching Towards Sirte, Maximilian Forte of Concordia University, Montreal, recalls President Obama’s March 28, 2011 justification for Nato’s military intervention in Libya that had begun on March 19:

‘If we waited one more day, Benghazi… could suffer a massacre that would have reverberated across the region and stained the conscience of the world.’ (Forte, Slouching Towards Sirte – NATO’s War on Libya and Africa, Baraka Books, digital version, 2012, p.661)

But when French jets bombed Libyan government forces retreating from Benghazi, they attacked a column of 14 tanks, 20 armoured personnel carriers, some trucks and ambulances. Forte comments:

‘That column clearly could have neither destroyed nor occupied Benghazi, a city of nearly 700,000 people… To date no evidence has been furnished that shows Benghazi would have witnessed the loss of “tens of thousands of lives”.’ (Forte, pp.662-663)

Professor Alan J. Kuperman, professor of public affairs at the University of Texas, observed:

‘The best evidence that Khadafy did not plan genocide in Benghazi is that he did not perpetrate it in the other cities he had recaptured either fully or partially — including Zawiya, Misurata, and Ajdabiya, which together have a population greater than Benghazi.

‘Libyan forces did kill hundreds as they regained control of cities. Collateral damage is inevitable in counter-insurgency. And strict laws of war may have been exceeded.

‘But Khadafy’s acts were a far cry from Rwanda, Darfur, Congo, Bosnia, and other killing fields. Libya’s air force, prior to imposition of a UN-authorized no-fly zone, targeted rebel positions, not civilian concentrations. Despite ubiquitous cellphones equipped with cameras and video, there is no graphic evidence of deliberate massacre. Images abound of victims killed or wounded in crossfire — each one a tragedy — but that is urban warfare, not genocide.

‘Nor did Khadafy ever threaten civilian massacre in Benghazi, as Obama alleged. The “no mercy” warning, of March 17, targeted rebels only, as reported by The New York Times, which noted that Libya’s leader promised amnesty for those “who throw their weapons away.” Khadafy even offered the rebels an escape route and open border to Egypt, to avoid a fight “to the bitter end.”‘

On February 23, 2011, just days into the Libyan uprising, Amnesty International sparked a media frenzy when it began condemning Libyan government actions, noting ‘persistent reports of mercenaries being brought in from African countries by the Libyan leader to violently suppress the protests against him’.

A few days later, Human Rights Watch reported that they had ‘seen no evidence of mercenaries being used in eastern Libya. This contradicts widespread earlier reports in the international media that African soldiers had been flown in to fight rebels in the region as Muammar Gaddafi sought to keep control’.

Genevieve Garrigos, president of Amnesty International France, later commented:

‘Today we have to admit that we have no evidence that Gaddafi employed mercenary forces… we have no sign nor evidence to corroborate these rumours.’ (Forte, p.685)

Garrigos repeated that Amnesty’s investigators never found any ‘mercenaries,’ agreeing that their existence was a ‘legend’ spread by the mass media.

Forte describes ‘the revolving door between Amnesty International-USA and the US State department’. In November 2011, Amnesty International-USA appointed Suzanne Nossel as its executive director. From August 2009 to November 2011, Nossel had been the US State Department’s Deputy Assistant Secretary for the Bureau of International Organisation Affairs.

Luis Moreno-Ocampo, Chief Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, caused more outrage when he told the world’s media that there was ‘evidence’ that Gaddafi had distributed Viagra to his troops in order ‘to enhance the possibility to rape’ and that Gaddafi had ordered mass rape. Moreno-Ocampo insisted:

‘We are getting information that Qaddafi himself decided to rape’ and that ‘we have information that there was a policy to rape in Libya those who were against the government’.

US Ambassador Susan Rice also asserted that Gaddafi was supplying his troops with Viagra to encourage mass rape. No evidence was supplied.

Forte notes that US military and intelligence sources quickly contradicted Rice, telling NBC News that ‘there is no evidence that Libyan military forces are being given Viagra and engaging in systematic rape against women in rebel areas’.

Cherif Bassiouni, who led a UN human rights inquiry into the situation in Libya, suggested that the Viagra and mass rape claim was the product of ‘massive hysteria’. Bassiouni’s team ‘uncovered only four alleged cases’ of rape and sexual abuse.

As Forte writes with bitter irony, the propaganda surrounding the Libyan war demands ‘vigilance and scepticism in the face of the heady claims of our own inherent goodness which can only find its highest expression in the form of aerial bombardment’. (Forte, pp.69-70)

Alas, vigilance and scepticism are in short supply within the corporate media.

This Alert is Archived here:
‘Limited But Persuasive’ Evidence – Syria, Sarin, Libya, Lies

Share this media alert:
| |

The second Media Lens book, ‘NEWSPEAK in the 21st Century’ by David Edwards and David Cromwell, was published in 2009 by Pluto Press. John Pilger writes of the book:

“Not since Orwell and Chomsky has perceived reality been so skilfully revealed in the cause of truth.” Find it in the Media Lens Bookshop

In September 2012, Zero Books published ‘Why Are We The Good Guys?’ by David Cromwell. Mark Curtis, author of ‘Web of Deceit’ and ‘Unpeople’, says:

‘This book is truly essential reading, focusing on one of the key issues, if not THE issue, of our age: how to recognise the deep, everyday brainwashing to which we are subjected, and how to escape from it. This book brilliantly exposes the extent of media disinformation, and does so in a compelling and engaging way.’

What Edward Snowden has revealed

The Guardian’s Glenn Greenwald besieged by reporters.

By Joseph Kishore, wsws.org

Edward Snowden, the former CIA information technology employee and contractor for the National Security Agency (NSA), has performed an immense service to the people of the United States and the world by lifting the veil on the military-intelligence spying apparatus, which operates in secrecy and in violation of the most basic constitutional rights.

The World Socialist Web Site calls on workers around the world to come to the defense of Snowden, who is now the subject of a ferocious assault by the American state.

The whistleblower quite justifiably fears for his safety. The Obama administration has launched a criminal investigation; leading political figures, both Democratic and Republican, have denounced his actions as “treason;” and political pundits have called for his execution. He is currently the subject of an intense global manhunt, as the American government seeks his capture and extradition.

Having revealed himself as the leaker in an extensive interview with the Guardian newspaper’s Glenn Greenwald, Snowden has fled the Hong Kong hotel where he had been staying for three weeks. “I could be rendered by the CIA. I could have people come after me,” he told Greenwald, adding he hoped that by coming out it would be “harder for them to get dirty.”

[pullquote] The financial aristocracy controls the entire political establishment—from the Obama administration and both political parties, to Congress and the courts. In defending the spying programs—along with other antidemocratic measures, including the claimed right to assassinate US citizens without due process—Obama has repeatedly insisted that he is not alone, that Congress has been informed. And this is true. [/pullquote]

In his interview with Greenwald, Snowden spoke powerfully and eloquently of the “architecture of oppression” that goes beyond even that which has been revealed in the documents released so far.

There is no constituency for democracy within the American ruling class or its political apparatus. However, Snowden’s comments and actions, and the powerful support he has received from ordinary Americans, demonstrate that there is a constituency for democracy in the American population.

In revealing the spying programs, Snowden says he was motivated by a desire to inform the American people about what is taking place. “It’s important to send a message to the government that people will not be intimidated,” he declared. “I don’t want to live in a society that does these sorts of things,” he added. “I do not want to live in a world where everything I do and say is recorded.”

The fury with which the political and media establishment has responded to the leaks reveals its justifiable concern that with each new revelation, the legitimacy of the American government and the entire state apparatus is further undermined—at home and abroad. The ruling class is driving toward a police state, but it does not yet have one. It fears for the stability of its rule.

Snowden’s actions are courageous and principled, but historical experience has demonstrated that the defense of democracy is not possible simply through individual actions. It requires a social movement of the working class, based on an understanding that the crisis of democracy is rooted in the class structure of American and world capitalism.

On the one side stands the financial aristocracy, which, in its social instincts and political outlook, is authoritarian. It looks on the population as a whole as a hostile force, and every citizen as a potential enemy. And with good reason. The corporate and financial elite is well aware that the policies it is pursuing are deeply unpopular.

The aim is to intimidate and blackmail an entire society. As Snowden noted, after the state has gathered, on a permanent basis, data from everyone, “You simply have to eventually fall under suspicion from somebody, even by a wrong call. And then they can use this system to go back in time and scrutinize every decision you’ve ever made, every friend you’ve ever discussed something with.”

Such methods will be employed against any and all political opposition. With the information it has already assembled, the government can readily construct a detailed social and political profile of nearly every individual in the United States.

It is not only the American working class that is a target. According to the “Boundless Informant” data-mining tool, some 97 billion pieces of intelligence were gathered worldwide from one NSA spying program in March 2013 alone. In addition to the 3 billion pieces of intelligence from within the US, there were 14 billion from Iran, 13.5 billion from Pakistan, 12.7 billion from Jordan, 7.6 billion from Egypt, 6.3 billion from India, and 3 billion from Europe.

The financial aristocracy controls the entire political establishment—from the Obama administration and both political parties, to Congress and the courts. In defending the spying programs—along with other antidemocratic measures, including the claimed right to assassinate US citizens without due process—Obama has repeatedly insisted that he is not alone, that Congress has been informed. And this is true.

For its part, the corporate-controlled media functions as an auxiliary arm of the state. It is left to individuals like Snowden to do what they can to reveal government criminality because the mass media not only refuses to do so, but actively seeks to prevent information from getting to the American people.

In the wake of the Snowden revelations, the media has played its inimitable swinish role. “Traitor or hero?” was the question that dominated the news coverage, with the vapid talking heads and CIA assets who pass for commentators generally coming down on the side of “traitor.”

In its response to Snowden, the media is reprising its reaction to the documents published by WikiLeaks and its founder Julian Assange, as a result of the actions of Private Bradley Manning. Manning is currently facing prosecution for “aiding the enemy” by revealing to the people of America and the world the crimes of the US military in Iraq and Afghanistan. The US media—including the New York Times and its former executive editor, Bill Keller—responded to the WikiLeaks revelations with a combination of slander, vilification and character assassination.

Counterpoised to this financial aristocracy and its agencies stands the working class, with its powerful democratic traditions. There is a growing disquiet over the attack on democratic rights, linked to the anger over constant war abroad and social reaction within the United States.

These spying programs are carried out in secret precisely because the ruling class knows it lacks a broad base of support. As Snowden noted in his interview, the documents reveal that “the NSA [and other government officials] routinely lie in response to congressional inquiries about the scope of surveillance in America.” The liar-in-chief is Obama himself.

A government of lies and secrecy is necessary precisely because the social interests that the state represents are in irreconcilable conflict with those of the vast majority of the population. Such a social system is not compatible with democratic forms of rule.

The power of the financial aristocracy, the military-intelligence apparatus and their political institutions can be overcome, but this is possible only through mass social struggle. The defense of Snowden and of democratic rights must be connected to the independent mobilization of the working class in the fight for socialism.

Joseph Kishore is a prominent member of the Social Equality Party, and senior editor with wsws.org, its information organ.

Whistleblowing: Exemplary Patriotism

by Stephen Lendman

Journalist (of the real kind) Gary Webb.

Whistleblowing reflects doing the right thing. It exposes wrongdoing. It does so because it matters.

Edward Joseph Snowden follows a noble tradition. Others before him established it. Daniel Ellsberg called his NSA leak the most important in US history. More on him below.

Expressions of patriotism can reflect good or ill. Samuel Johnson said it’s the last refuge of a scoundrel. Thomas Paine called dissent its highest form. So did Howard Zinn.

According to Machiavelli:

“When the safety of one’s country wholly depends on the decision to be taken, no attention should be paid either to justice or injustice, to kindness or cruelty, or to its being praiseworthy or ignominious.”

Tolstoy said:

“In our day the feeling of patriotism is an unnatural, irrational, and harmful feeling, and a cause of a great part of the ills from which mankind is suffering; andâ€¦consequently, this feeling should not be cultivated, as is now being done, but should, on the contrary, be suppressed and eradicated by all means available to rational men.”

Philosophy Professor Stephen Nathanson believes patriotism involves:

special affection for one’s own country;

a sense of personal identification with the country;

special concern for the well-being of the country; and

willingness to sacrifice to promote the country’s good.

Socrates once said:

“Patriotism does not require one to agree with everything that his country does, and would actually promote analytical questioning in a quest to make the country the best it possibly can be.”

The best involves strict adherence to the highest legal, ethical and moral standards. Upholding universal civil and human rights is fundamental. So is government of, by and for everyone equitably. Openness, accountability and candor can’t be compromised.

When governments ill-serve, exposing wrongdoing is vital. It takes courage to do so. It involves sacrificing for the greater good. It includes risking personal harm and welfare. It means doing what’s right because it matters. It reflects patriotism’s highest form.

Daniel Ellsberg, Bradley Manning and Julian Assange are best known. So is Mordechai Vanunu. More on him below. Few remember Peter Buxtun. He’s a former US Public Health Service employee.

He exposed the Tuskegee syphilis experiment. About 200 Black men were infected. It was done to watch their progression. They were left to die untreated. Whistleblowing stopped further harm. A. Ernest Fitzgerald held senior government positions. In 1968, he exposed a $2.3 billion Lockheed C-5 cost overrun. At issue was fraud and grand theft. Nixon told aides to “get rid of that son of a bitch.”

Defense Secretary Melvin Laird fired him. Fitzgerald was a driving force for whistleblower protections. He fought for decades against fraud, waste and abuse. He helped get the 1978 Civil Reform Act and 1989 Whistleblower Protection Act enacted.

Gregory Minor, Richard Hubbard and Dale Bridenbaugh are called the GE three. They revealed nuclear safety concerns. So did Arnold Gundersen, David Lochbaum and others. At issue then and now is public safety over profits. Mordechai Vanunu was an Israeli nuclear technician. He exposed Israel’s secret nuclear weapons program. He paid dearly for doing so.

He was charged with espionage and treason. In 1986/87, he was secretly tried and sentenced. He was imprisoned for 18 years. He was confined in brutalizing isolation. He’s been harassed and deprived of most rights since.

Daniel Ellsberg called him “the preeminent hero of the nuclear era.” In July 2007, Amnesty International (AI) named him “a prisoner of conscience.” He received multiple Nobel Peace Prize nominations. Vanunu said “I am neither a traitor nor a spy. I only wanted the world to know what was happening.” People have every right to know.

Mark Whitacre was an Archer Daniels Midland senior executive. He exposed price-fixing, wire and tax fraud, as well as money laundering.

He had his own cross to bear. He was prosecuted and imprisoned. He lost his whistleblower immunity. After eight and a half years, he was released on good behavior.

Jeffrey Wigand was Brown & Williamson’s research and development vice president. He went public on 60 Minutes. He exposed deceptive company practices. He was fired for doing so.

B & W enhanced cigarette nicotine content. It was done without public knowledge. At issue was increasing addiction. Wigand told all. He received death threats for doing so. He now lectures worldwide and consults on tobacco control policies.

Gary Webb was an award-winning American journalist. His investigative work exposed CIA involvement in drugs trafficking. His book “Dark Alliance: The CIA, the Contras, and the Crack Cocaine Explosion” told what he knew.

New York Times, Washington Post, and other media scoundrels assailed him. They did so wrongfully and viciously. Then and now they support CIA crimes. They abhor truth and full disclosure. They ruined Webb’s career. They did so maliciously.

In December 2004, Webb was found dead at home. He died of two gunshot wounds to the head. Reports called it suicide. Critics believe otherwise. Two wounds suggest murder. Doing the right thing involves great risks. Webb paid with his life.

Swiss lawyer Marc Hodler was International Ski Federation president and International Olympic Committee member. In 1998, he exposed 2002 Salt Lake City winter games bid-rigging. Olympism profiteering, exploitation and corruption is longstanding.

Deceptive hyperbole promotes good will, open competition, and fair play. Olympism’s dark side reflects marginalizing poor and other disenfranchised groups, exploiting athletes and communities, as well as sticking taxpayers with the bill for profit.

Harry Markopolos exposed Bernie Madoff’s hedge fund operations. He called them fraudulent. He obtained information firsthand. He got them from fund-of-fund Madoff investors and heads of Wall Street equity derivative trading desks.

He accused Madoff of operating “the world’s largest Ponzi scheme.” Large perhaps but not the largest.

Wall Street firms make money the old fashioned way. They steal it. They do so through fraud, grand theft, market manipulation and front-running. They scam investors unaccountably. They bribe corrupt political officials. In return, they turn a blind eye.

Compared to major Wall Street crooks, Madoff was small-time. Others mattering most control America’s money. They manipulate it fraudulently for profit. Coleen Rowley’s a former FBI agent. She documented pre-9/11 Agency failures. She addressed them to Director Robert Mueller. She explained in Senate Judiciary Committee testimony. She now writes and lectures on ethical decision-making, civil liberty concerns, and effective investigative practices.

Joseph Wilson’s a former US ambassador. He exposed Bush administration lies. He headlined a New York Times op-ed “What I Didn’t Find in Africa.”

“Did the Bush administration manipulate intelligence about Saddam Hussein’s weapons programs to justify an invasion of Iraq,” he asked?

“Based on my experience with the administration in the months leading up to the war, I have little choice but to conclude that some of the intelligence related to Iraq’s nuclear weapons program was twisted to exaggerate the Iraqi threat.”

Bush administration officials accused Wilson of twisting the truth. So did Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, and other scoundrel media editors. They front for power. Wilson explained what people have a right to know. He was unjustifiably pilloried for doing so.

Wendell Potter was a senior CIGNA insurance company executive. He explained how heathcare insurers scam policyholders. They shift costs to consumers, offer inadequate or unaffordable access, and force Americans to pay higher deductibles for less coverage.

Sibel Edmonds is a former FBI translator. She founded the National Security Whistleblowers Coalition (NSWBC). She did so to aid “national security whistleblowers through a variety of methods.”

The ACLU called her “the most gagged person in the history of the United States.” She knows firsthand the consequences of secret, unaccountable government operations.

Her memoir is titled “Classified Woman: the Sibel Edmonds Story.”

Previous articles discussed Mark Klein. He’s a former AT&T employee turned whistleblower. He revealed blueprints and photographs of NSA’s secret room inside the company’s San Francisco facility. It permits spying on AT&T customers.

Karen Kwiatkowski’s a retired US Air Force lieutenant colonel. She exposed Defense Department misinformation and lies. She discussed how doing so drove America to war. Ann Wright’s a former US Army colonel/State Department official. In 1997, she won an agency award for heroism.

She’s more anti-war/human rights activist/person of conscience than whistleblower. In 2003, she resigned from government service. She did so in protest against war on Iraq.

Edward Joseph Snowden continues a noble tradition. On June 8, London’s Guardian headlined “Edward Snowden, NSA whistleblower: ‘I do not expect to see home again.’ ”

He leaked information to The Guardian and Washington Post. He exposed unconstitutional NSA spying. He served as an undercover intelligence employee.

Asked why he turned whistleblower, he said:

“The NSA has built an infrastructure that allows it to intercept almost everything. With this capability, the vast majority of human communications are automatically ingested without targeting.”

“If I wanted to see your emails or your wife’s phone, all I have to do is use intercepts. I can get your emails, passwords, phone records, credit cards.”

“I don’t want to live in a society that does these sort of things.”

“I do not want to live in a world where everything I do and say is recorded. That is not something I am willing to support or live under.”

NSA spies globally, he said. Claims about only doing it abroad don’t wash. “We collect more digital communications from America than we do from the Russians,” he said.

Previous articles said NSA works with all major US telecom companies. They do so with nine or more major online ones. They spy on virtually all Americans.

They target everyone they want to globally. NSA capabilities are “horrifying,” said Snowden. “You are not even aware of what is possible.”

“We can plant bugs in machines. Once you go on the network, I can identify (it). You will never be safe whatever protections you put in place.” Asked what he thought might happen to him, he said “Nothing good.”

He left America. He moved to Hong Kong. He fled for his safety. He knows he can’t hide. If US authorities want him targeted, they’ll act no-holds-barred. If they want him arrested, they’ll find him. If they want him disappeared, imprisoned and tortured, he’s defenseless to stop them. It they want him dead, they’ll murder him. Rogue states operate that way. America’s by far the worst.

DNI head James Clapper accused Snowden of “violat(ing) a sacred trust for this countryâ€¦.I hope we’re able to track whoever is doing this,” he said.

These type comments expose America’s dark side. So does unconstitutional NSA spying and much more. Washington flagrantly violates fundamental rule of law principles. It does so ruthlessly. At stake is humanity’s survival.

Snowden fears recrimination against his family, friends and partner. He’ll “have to live with that for the rest of (his) life,” he said. “I am not going to be able to communicate with them. (US authorities) will act aggressively against anyone who has known me. That keeps me up at night.”

Asked what leaked NSA documents reveal, he said:

“That the NSA routinely lies in response to congressional inquiries about the scope of surveillance in America.” America “hacks everyone everywhere.” he said. “(W)e are in almost every country in the world.”

“Everyone, everywhere now understands how bad things have gotten – and they’re talking about it.”

On June 9, London Guardian editors headlined “Edward Snowden: more conscientious objector than common thief,” saying:

What’s next is certain. US authorities “will pursue Snowden to the ends of the earth.” America’s “legal and diplomatic machinery is probably unstoppable.”

Congress should eagerly want to hear what Snowden has to say, said Guardian editors. They should “test the truth of what he is saying.”

They know full well. Many or perhaps most congressional members are fully briefed on what goes on. They’re condone it. So do administration and judicial officials. Obama could stop it with a stroke of his pen. So can congressional lawmakers. Supreme Court justices could uphold the law.

Lawlessness persists. Moral cowardice pervades Washington. America’s dark side threatens everyone. There’s no place to hide.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached atlendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net. His new book is titled “Banker Occupation: Waging Financial War on Humanity.”

http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanII.html

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.

Resistanbul!

Spirited Rally Sends Solidarity to Turkey from the Boston Common

by JOE RAMSEY

Boston, Saturday, June 1—Braving temperatures well over ninety degrees, as many as 500 people gathered on the outer edge of the Boston Common Saturday, across the street from the Massachusetts Statehouse, to demonstrate their solidarity with the protests currently under police attack in Turkey.

Massed in a giant circle on the Common steps, the demonstrators weren’t there to address local politicians or passerby, so much as one another. A spirit of militant resistance was in the air, as attendees declared themselves on the side of those who, at that very moment, were facing down water cannons and tanks, tear gas and police batons in Turkey.

It was an impressive turnout for a rally called just the day before via Facebook. The initial call was put together by an improvised group calling themselves BostonBullular (a phrase meaning People of Bostonin Turkish). It quickly took off with over 800 “joining” the event.

And most showed up.

The vast majority present appeared to be themselves from Turkey, and most were young, with few over forty in the crowd. Many said they had come to Boston from Turkey to study, whether as undergraduates or graduate students, in medicine, biology, engineering, or even business.

Though several of the organizers identified themselves as various stripes of socialist or communist, for most in attendance, this was their very first political demonstration, not just in the United States, butever. The exuberance of the crowd suggested people not just opposing the governmental abuses of the moment, but affirming the newfound power of their own voice. There was outrage and sorrow, but also discovery and joy.

Many held aloft home-made signs, some painted in beautiful full color. Others wore Turkish flags as capes, or clasped strings attached to red and white balloons inscribed with the crescent and star of the national flag. The chanting was almost exclusively in Turkish, with only an occasional English refrain thrown in—“Hey hey! Ho ho! Tayyip Has Got to Go!” or “The People, United, will Never be Defeated!”—perhaps out of respect for the small but supportive non-Turkish allies.

The most frequent chant by far was for the resignation of Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan, and for the dissolution of his Justice and Development Party (NKP) government, whom protesters hold responsible for the escalating police repression. Several people held signs mocking Tayyiq as a “Sultan” (playing off his recent calls for restoring the ‘glory’ of the Ottoman Empire in contemporary Turkey). Others denounced him as a “Dictator,” picturing him as a long-fanged vampire, or else encircled in red and crossed out. One protester likened him to “Hosni Mubarak #2,” conjuring the specter of not only another repressive ruler, but of a leader who, after having seemed untouchable for decades, fell from power rapidly in the face of popular uprisings.

Could Taksim Square be the new Tahrir? Could this be the start of a “Turkish Summer” to follow the “Arab Spring”?

In the shade of the towering, historic trees that line the Boston Common, new arrivals knelt to make signs from stacks of cardboard. The signs held high gave a sense of the grievances and aspirations of the demonstrators:

“Istanbul is not alone. We are with you!”

“Stop Police Brutality.”

“Fight Fascism Everywhere.”

“Democracy without freedom of expression is a joke.”

“Down with Sultan Tayyiq”

“Down with Dictatorship!”

“Shame on Turkish Media”

“RESISTANBUL.”

This last–and quite witty—phrase, which originated with the 2009 anti-capitalist protests against the International Monetary Fund meetings in Istanbul, has now become a Facebook page for those in solidarity with the revolt.

The nature of their protest occurring in a cherished Boston public park was not lost on organizers, several of whom held signs that said:

“Imagine if they demolished the Boston Common to build a shopping mall!”

This, after all, was what many saw Tayyip and his government as planning to do in Istanbul, by bulldozing the last remaining green spaces in Istanbul: Gezi Park. The main protest leaflet, under the title “RESISTANBUL” explained the connection further, outlining the origin of the uprising, and its significance. It was read aloud both in Turkish and in English mid-way through the rally:

“Since Monday, May 27th, 2013, citizens of Istanbul from all backgrounds have been staging a peaceful resistance in Gezi Park. Gezi Park is the city’s most central public park, comparable to Boston Common and Central Park in New York. The protestors’ goal was to protect the park, its trees, and landscape from a large project that would transform a public park into a shopping center. The demolition of the park should be recognized as yet another incident of the government’s ongoing appropriation and privatization of public and common resources with no respect for public opinion and judiciary process, and a lack of participatory democratic culture.”

[A video of the statement being read both in English and in Turksih can be found online at the “Bostonbullular” Facebook page.]

Of course, it was the police assault on Gezi Park and on the peaceful protesters there that set off the current uprisings across Istanbul, and across Turkey. As with the outbreak of the Occupy Wall Street movement in 2011, police brutality provoked widespread outrage, fanning rather than stamping out the flames of resistance. Images of Turkish police beating, gassing, severely injuring, and even killing protesters have gone viral across social media, in Turkey and beyond.

Protesters actively checked smart-phones throughout the rally, reading live social media posts from friends and family on the street in Istanbul and elsewhere. Some held signs with one hand while checking their phones with the other. There were reports of nearly 1000 protesters arrested, and of just as many seriously injured, including several who were in critical condition, and several actual deaths.

At one point the rally chants were interrupted by a man who quieted the crowd to ecstatically report that Tayyip Erdogan had resigned, provoking great cheers. The report was soon disproven, but was followed by more accurate and equally encouraging news: with hundreds of thousands of people now converging on Taksim Square and Gevi Park, the police had been ordered to retreat from the area. The mobilized people had held the park, saving their city’s green space, at least for the moment.

Online memes of trees growing into human fists and hands growing like trees proliferated, as Turkish artists and activists gave the uprising symbolic “roots” in the besieged park.

“They destroyed a tree and awoke a Nation!” One protest sign declared, painted in full color.

But the “Resistanbul” statement made clear that the attack on Gevi Park was not an isolated incident of police brutality, and that this movement has become about more than just defending a park. As they wrote:

“This is not the first time protests have been met with excessive state violence. Most recently, the Turkish police used unreasonable force to disperse May Day protestors again attacks a group of peaceful demonstrators in Istanbul’s Taksim Square. This disproportionate reaction and outrageous violence by the government against its own citizens cannot be justified in any way.”

Everyone I reached out to at the demonstration spoke quite fluent English, but Turkish remained the tongue for chanting. (I relied on a friend for rough translations):

“Tayyip Resign! Tayyip resign!”

“We Stand Shoulder to Shoulder, Against Fascism!”

“Taksim is everywhere. Resist Everywhere!”

As indicated in the statement above, by invoking Taksim, protesters connected with a spot which for years has served as a common rally point for marches and demonstrations in Istanbul, including annual May Day marches that often lead to violent clashes with police, who have attempted to suppress May Day marches since 1977. To call for Taksim everywhere, is thus effectively to challenge the state directly, that is, to call for revolution. Capturing the militancy of Taksim, other protest lyrics practically dared the government into confrontation with a defiant people. For instance, one song declared (translated):

“Bring on your gas. Bring on your gas. We won’t obey you any longer. Take off your mask, take off your mask. And we’ll see who is the stronger.”

This was no appeal to the “powers that be,” but a declaration of the people’s own power and daring.

The chants appeared to be among the very same that were being shouted in the streets of Turkey. Thus this demonstration, as one man told me, was less an appeal to US media or authorities than a virtual extension, a “microcosm,” of the protests there, a way to symbolically participate in the uprising. No doubt many photos and video-footage from the Boston rally would find their way home to those struggling on the streets of Istanbul, perhaps helping to spur them on.

Despite the police violence, people I spoke with indicated that if they were back home, they would most definitely be in the streets as well. Perhaps it was the Turkish street as much as anyone who was the intended audience of the rally.

Here in Boston however, the protest stayed in the park, retaining the form of a giant, close-knit human circle. People stood facing one another, together chanting and singing, clapping, pumping their fists, calling out to one another, to whoever was there to hear them.

Contrary to local Boston CBS coverage of the event, (available here: http://boston.cbslocal.com/2013/06/01/massachusetts-statehouse-demonstration-supports-turkish-protesters/ ) the primary focus of the protesters here was not just a secularist opposition to the religious aspects of the Islamic Justice and Development Party, but to a constellation of detested policies: related to economic development and foreign policy, as well as social and cultural matters.

Several protesters certainly expressed opposition to the government’s conservative social policies—which have included restrictions on consuming alcohol, and even bans on kissing in public. But just as important to people I spoke with was the government’s suppression of independent journalism and the shameful slavishness of a mainstream Turkish media that has been bought off or intimidated by the state. (Turkey currently imprisons more journalists than any country, with a constitution that makes “insulting the nation” a crime.) Similarly, several people I spoke with indicated outrage about the Turkish media showing “stupid” TV programs or features on “Miss Turkey” instead of covering the civil war that raged in the streets.

Just as crucial was many protesters’ sense that the entire city of Istanbul is being “sold off,” that their public property and common heritage is being privatized for the benefit of corporations, to appeal tourists, for the sake of “economic growth.” The threat to the trees of Gezi park—and to the forests that are threatened to be bulldozed if a new (third) bridge is built across the Bosphorus River—was seized upon by people as a metaphor for the common rights and the beauty that the current regime would strip away for the sake of its stubborn idea of “growth.”

Still others told me they object to Tayyip’s increasingly interventionist foreign policy, which they believe is making Turkey a junior partner to Western Imperialism across the Arab World. Several felt that this has had the effect of exacerbating ethnic and sectarian divisions within the country, while exposing Turks to potential violent retaliation. People I spoke with saw Tayyip’s close relationship with the US administration not as a solution, but as part of the problem, again likening him to the “new Hosni Mubarak” of the region. Others were concerned the US is getting Turkey to do its dirty work in the Syrian civil war.

All in all, despite rallying near the Statehouse, the sense on the Common was not of a group calling on others to do something so much as a community rallying itself for the task that must be done, for the struggle that only the people themselves can move forward.

Proposals to march on the Turkish consulate, located just down the street from the Common, were considered but apparently shelved. Instead, after more than an hour of rallying, protesters left the steps for the park, packing up signs, and gathering on the grass in the shade of the Common. There many stayed to take in a Turkish music concert and sing-along.

While some may have longed for a more militant and street-oriented march-action, the park sing-along was an appropriate finish. After all, the uprising in Turkey was kicked off by the defense of a public park. And even at that very moment, while street battles were raging across Turkey, hundreds of thousands of people gathered in Gezi Park were enjoying—for the moment—a victory and a much needed festival too, having successfully defended Taksim square from police and from privatization.

After an hour of shouting in the hot June sun, protesters in Boston soaked in the shade, the trees, the music, the soft grass, and each other’s companionship, these shared common things, the green roots from which raised fists grow.

Joe Ramsey is a writer, editor, scholar, and activist residing in the Boston area. He is co-editor of Cultural Logic: an electronic journal of marxist theory and practice www.clogic.eserver.org and a participant in the Kasama Projectwww.kasamaproject.org.