An alternative: How to solve online piracy

Recently there has been a lot of fervor over the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and the Protect IP Act (PIPA). Each law gives the government more power over the internet. 

OpenCongress described PIPA as follows:

“[This law] establishes a system for taking down websites that the Justice Department determines to be "dedicated to infringing activities." The DoJ or the copyright owner would be able to commence a legal action against the alleged infringer and the DoJ would be allowed to demand that search engines, social networking sites and domain name services block access to the targeted site. In some cases, action could be taken to block sites without first allowing the alleged infringer to defend themselves in court.”

OpenCongress described SOPA as follows:

“This bill would establish a system for taking down websites that the Justice Department determines to be dedicated to copyright infring[e]ment. The DoJ or the copyright owner would be able to commence a legal action against any site they deem to have "only limited purpose or use other than infringement," and the DoJ would be allowed to demand that search engines, social networking sites and domain name services block access to the targeted site. It would also make unauthorized web streaming of copyrighted content a felony with a possible penalty up to five years in prison. This bill combines two separate Senate bills -- S.968 and S.978 -- into one big House bill.”

There is a bill proposed by some of the opposition, called the OPEN Act. I am not a fan of that legislation, but I don’t want to use up words trying to show my opposition to it. There is a different approach proposed.

The Pirate Party, a political party with roots internationally in countries such as the United States, Sweden, Scotland, Canada and the United Kingdom. The international website argues that “All non-commercial copying and use [of copyrighted material] should be completely free. File sharing and p2p networking should be encouraged rather than criminalized.” The group also criticizes the current copyright terms, saying they are absurd and that “nobody needs to make money seventy years after he is dead.” The alternative they propose is “a five years copyright term for commercial use.” Passionately, they argue for “a complete ban on DRM technologies, and on contract clauses that aim to restrict the consumers' legal rights.”  The UK-based political party offshoot follows a similar line, arguing for balanced copyright law. Their website is a bit more descriptive mentioning that the party would support peer-to-peer networks (which the party says supports lesser-known artists) and a right to a “format shift” (copying data from a CD to a portable media device). However, they note that “counterfeiting and profiting directly from other people's work without paying them will remain illegal.” That last provision could run up against those who want to help others.  There is no definite website for the United States pirate party, but their LinkedIn website gives some insight. That website says that want “abolition of the DMCA and related subsequent provisions within copyright law…rejection of the concept of online piracy…reform of copyright…abolition of Digital Rights Management…[and] reform of trademark.” 

I believe that Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) must be repealed and that non-commercial copying and use of copyrighted materials should be allowed. The government must not use the FBI, Immigration and Customs Enforcement or any other government agency to shut down parts of the internet. This would hurt the sharing of information that current occurs. Big Music would obviously oppose this measure since pirating would be partly legalized but that must be overcome. If these measures were enacted, then piracy online would fall because it would be legal instead. I do not advocate for making it legal for people to pirate and then copyrighted materials of others for a profit or the counterfeiting of goods for a profit. However, counterfeiting of goods that do not cause bodily harm should be allowed or should be focused on by authorities. Those counterfeited goods that cause bodily harm should be focused on by law enforcement.

The software piracy rate was 20% in the United States in 2007, #107 of 107 (nationmaster.com).  In Spain, according to Hollywood Reporter, it is much higher, being “over 77% of the digital content consumed in Spain in the first half of 2011 was pirated, marking a .4% climb from the same period to previous year [and] more than 98% of all digital musical content was downloaded illegally.” In 2010, DailyTech reported that peer-to-peer network piracy rates were 9-13%.  While efforts at trying to cut piracy on the internet like shutting down LimeWire (2010) and Megaupload (yesterday) have seemed to limit the amount of those downloading, people are moving to other sources such as YouTube. One major reason for this approach is because people support legalizing music online.

In 2003, a CBS News /New York Times poll asked 675 adults nationwide (18-30+ years) a number of questions on this topic. An even smaller amount answered the question about music file sharing. When asked "When it comes to sharing music over the Internet for free, which comes closest to your view?” An average of about 17% of all respondents, those 18-29 and those 30 and older said downloading music is always acceptable. Average of 43% of those from same groups said that downloading music should be sometimes acceptable. An average of about 35% said that sharing is never acceptable and about 3% said they didn’t know. The support for downloading was across the board. A poll the same year by the FOX News/Opinion Dynamics Poll of 900 people was a bit more promising. 61% of those 18-34 approved of “approved downloading music over the Internet” and only 35% disapproved of it. However, as age increased, people became more opposed to the idea (probably because they got paranoid or just wanted the status quo). Of those people 32% had downloaded music over the internet without a fee.  A poll of 2,600 Americans in 2007, reported by MSNBC stated an interesting conclusion. They wrote: “Only 40 percent of Americans polled…agreed that downloading copyrighted movies on the Internet was a "very serious offense."… 59 percent of Americans polled considered "parking in a fire lane" a more serious offense than movie downloading.”  

The approach of legalizing downloading is supported by a good mass of the people in every method, rising substantially from 2003 to 2007. On the other hand, Chris Dodd, a major lobbyist for MPAA, which wants this piracy laws in place, says that DMCA did not “break the Internet…deprive anyone of freedom of speech at all. And…did not curtail or stymie creative innovation in new technology.”(Hollywood Reporter) That’s what Big Music says. Privacy Digest had a different tact, writing about erroneous DMCA claims because of the problem in copyright enforcement. Part those problems stem from a component of DMCA, DRM or Digital Rights management. The website explains that DRM “restricts users' ability to share content or to consume it in a proscribed manner…has been largely disliked by end-users…creates a poor user experience and interferes with expected rights (under fair-use doctrine) [and allows] copyright infringement notices are needed precisely after "unprotected" content has already [disappeared].” 

Another website comments in the same vain. Questioncopyright.org notes that criminalizing downloads is not practical because there is a lack of jail cell space and “erodes one's civil liberties.” The major reason is because a phone could be tapped, a house could be put under surveillance and a computer could be seized. In addition, these measures have been used to “censor free speech when that speech is [contrary] to a copyright holder's financial interests” and has negatively affected researchers. Original copyright law, the cite notes, commercial transactions were prohibited but after the DMCA passed, then commercial and non-commercial actions were banned. As the website predicts, DMCA may have been just the beginning of a hard-nosed approach toward copyright, with the possibility of outlawing of peer-to-peer networks in the future. 

A few months after the legislation was passed in February 2001, Robin D. Gross commented on DMCA. On imaginelaw.com, he wrote: “On the controversial Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) took full effect, criminalizing the act of circumvention of a technological protection system put in place by a copyright holder -- even if one has a fair use right to access that information.” 

Two years ago, the Electronic Frontier Foundation wrote on DMCA as well. They wrote on its unintended consequences, in an article titled “Unintended Consequences: twelve years under DMCA” criticizing the law itself: “anti-circumvention provisions of the DMCA have been invoked not against pirates, but against consumers, scientists, and legitimate competitors…Section 1201 has been used by a number of copyright owners to stifle free speech and legitimate scientific research…a number of prominent computer security experts curtailed their legitimate research activities for fear of potential DMCA liability…the movie studios effectively obtained a "stop the presses" order banning the publication of truthful information by a news publication concerning a matter of public concern...The DMCA, however, prohibits the creation or distribution of these tools, even if they are crucial to fair use...Until 2007, authorized digital music download services also utilized DRM systems that frustrated fair use expectations, and technical restrictions remain common for subscription services…The DMCA has frequently been used to deter legitimate innovation and competition, rather than to stop piracy…The DMCA's anti-circumvention provisions have also threatened to displace "computer intrusion" and "anti-hacking" laws, something that Congress plainly never intended…Years of experience with the "anti-circumvention" provisions of the DMCA demonstrate that the statute reaches too far, chilling a wide variety of legitimate activities in ways Congress did not intend…hindering the legitimate activities of innovators, researchers, the press, and the public at large.”

Panix.com takes a different approach. They note that “Under the old pre-DMCA copyright law, buyers of books, albums, and movie tapes had many rights [called fair use]:

1.  You may make copies for your own use.

2.  You may lend books, albums, and movies to your friends.  You may read a book aloud with your children.  You may invite friends over to dance to the music of your album.  You may view your movie with friends.  You may stand  in front of a room full of students and read the book, and you and the students may talk about the book.

3.  If you are a library, you may buy one copy of a book, and lend it out for free to anyone with a library card.  You may do the same with an album and also with a movie.

4.  You may make copies of parts of the book, the album, and the movie, in order to discuss it, to make fun of it, and even incorporate the part in a new work.

5.  You may sell the book, album, or movie to anyone you wish.

6.  Any time you want to read the book, listen to the music, view the movie, you may, without paying one cent more to the copyright holder.  You may do these things as often as you want.”

 As you can see, the current approach to piracy is not a good one. If the approach gets out of control with new laws such as SOPA or PIPA it is possible that like Russian entertainment producers cited by Hollywood Reporter, the U.S. government will ask Facebook to take down its copyrighted videos that are uploaded to its site. If the government doesn’t ask, it could possibly forcibly shut down Facebook (or parts of it in retaliation for non-compliance. In Spain a current law like SOPA is being proposed and it is unlikely what effect it will have but it is almost certain that Big Music and the entertainment industry will use it in their own efforts to push for more government control over the internet. Howard Zinn writes in his book, A People’s History of the United States quotes Grover Cleveland’s attorney general, Richard Olney, talking about the Interstate Commerce Commission. Olney explains: “The Commission…is or can be made, of great use by railroads. It satisfies the popular clamor for government supervision of railroads, at the same time that supervision is nominal…The part of wisdom is to not destroy the Commission, but to utilize it.” The same is true today with the internet. If the government regulated the internet, then it is possible that there would be collusion with industry just like with the Interstate Commerce Commission. As questioncopyright.org points out, artists, software engineers and others can still make money if there is more freedom of information like the ideas I have proposed. Garden State Community College’s website it states: “There is a great deal of debate about the DMCA and copyright law in the digital age.   If you disagree with the law, learn more about it and become involved in trying to change the law.” I hope you follow that advice and try to change copyright law it for the better, in a way that would benefit the citizenry at large, not the entertainment industry since this issue will affect every person that uses the internet. 

By Burkely Herman, Chief Correspondent

Enemy Expatriation Acts: A stain on America

Learning from USWGO about this bill, I decided to investigate further. Theie blog claims that these laws are a repeat of Hitler's actions. I disagree.

The law (House version) is as follows:
HR 3166 IH
112th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. R. 3166
To add engaging in or supporting hostilities against the United States to the list of acts for which United States nationals would lose their nationality.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
OCTOBER 12, 2011
Mr. DENT (for himself and Mr. ALTMIRE) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary
A BILL
To add engaging in or supporting hostilities against the United States to the list of acts for which United States nationals would lose their nationality.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ‘Enemy Expatriation Act’.
SEC. 2. LOSS OF NATIONALITY.
(a) In General- Section 349 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1481) is amended--
Comments
Permalink
(1) in subsection (a)--
(A) in each of paragraphs (1) through (6), by striking ‘or’ at the end;
(B) in paragraph (7), by striking the period at the end and inserting ‘; or’; and
(C) by adding at the end the following:
‘(8) engaging in, or purposefully and materially supporting, hostilities against the United States.’; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
‘(c) For purposes of this section, the term ‘hostilities’ means any conflict subject to the laws of war.’.
(b) Technical Amendment- Section 351(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1483(a)) is amended by striking ‘(6) and (7)’ and inserting ‘(6), (7), and (8)’.
[http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-h3166/text]

The senate version is exactly the same (http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-s1698/text).

The major question is, what does the bill actually do? Well, I looked in the U.S. Code to find out.

Currently the U.S. Code of that section reads as follows:
§ 1481. LOSS OF NATIONALITY BY NATIVE-BORN OR NATURALIZED CITIZEN; VOLUNTARY ACTION; BURDEN OF PROOF; PRESUMPTIONS
(a) A person who is a national of the United States whether by birth or naturalization, shall lose his nationality by voluntarily performing any of the following acts with the intention of relinquishing United States nationality—
(1) obtaining naturalization in a foreign state upon his own application or upon an application filed by a duly authorized agent, after having attained the age of eighteen years; or
(2) taking an oath or making an affirmation or other formal declaration of allegiance to a foreign state or a political subdivision thereof, after having attained the age of eighteen years; or
(3) entering, or serving in, the armed forces of a foreign state if
(A) such armed forces are engaged in hostilities against the United States, or
(B) such persons serve as a commissioned or non-commissioned officer; or
(4)
(A) accepting, serving in, or performing the duties of any office, post, or employment under the government of a foreign state or a political subdivision thereof, after attaining the age of eighteen years if he has or acquires the nationality of such foreign state; or
(B) accepting, serving in, or performing the duties of any office, post, or employment under the government of a foreign state or a political subdivision thereof, after attaining the age of eighteen years for which office, post, or employment an oath, affirmation, or declaration of allegiance is required; or
(5) making a formal renunciation of nationality before a diplomatic or consular officer of the United States in a foreign state, in such form as may be prescribed by the Secretary of State; or
(6) making in the United States a formal written renunciation of nationality in such form as may be prescribed by, and before such officer as may be designated by, the Attorney General, whenever the United States shall be in a state of war and the Attorney General shall approve such renunciation as not contrary to the interests of national defense; or
(7) committing any act of treason against, or attempting by force to overthrow, or bearing arms against, the United States, violating or conspiring to violate any of the provisions of section 2383 of title 18, or willfully performing any act in violation of section 2385 of title 18, or violating section 2384 of title 18 by engaging in a conspiracy to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, if and when he is convicted thereof by a court martial or by a court of competent jurisdiction.
(b) Whenever the loss of United States nationality is put in issue in any action or proceeding commenced on or after September 26, 1961 under, or by virtue of, the provisions of this chapter or any other Act, the burden shall be upon the person or party claiming that such loss occurred, to establish such claim by a preponderance of the evidence. Any person who commits or performs, or who has committed or performed, any act of expatriation under the provisions of this chapter or any other Act shall be presumed to have done so voluntarily, but such presumption may be rebutted upon a showing, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the act or acts committed or performed were not done voluntarily.

[http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode08/usc_sec_08_00001481----000-.html]

The text would be amended in both bills to say:
"§ 1481. LOSS OF NATIONALITY BY NATIVE-BORN OR NATURALIZED CITIZEN; VOLUNTARY ACTION; BURDEN OF PROOF; PRESUMPTIONS
(a) A person who is a national of the United States whether by birth or naturalization, shall lose his nationality by voluntarily performing any of the following acts with the intention of relinquishing United States nationality—
(1) obtaining naturalization in a foreign state upon his own application or upon an application filed by a duly authorized agent, after having attained the age of eighteen years;
(2) taking an oath or making an affirmation or other formal declaration of allegiance to a foreign state or a political subdivision thereof, after having attained the age of eighteen years;
(3) entering, or serving in, the armed forces of a foreign state if
(A) such armed forces are engaged in hostilities against the United States,
(B) such persons serve as a commissioned or non-commissioned officer;
(4)
(A) accepting, serving in, or performing the duties of any office, post, or employment under the government of a foreign state or a political subdivision thereof, after attaining the age of eighteen years if he has or acquires the nationality of such foreign state;
(B) accepting, serving in, or performing the duties of any office, post, or employment under the government of a foreign state or a political subdivision thereof, after attaining the age of eighteen years for which office, post, or employment an oath, affirmation, or declaration of allegiance is required;
(5) making a formal renunciation of nationality before a diplomatic or consular officer of the United States in a foreign state, in such form as may be prescribed by the Secretary of State;
(6) making in the United States a formal written renunciation of nationality in such form as may be prescribed by, and before such officer as may be designated by, the Attorney General, whenever the United States shall be in a state of war and the Attorney General shall approve such renunciation as not contrary to the interests of national defense;
(7) committing any act of treason against, or attempting by force to overthrow, or bearing arms against, the United States, violating or conspiring to violate any of the provisions of section 2383 of title 18, or willfully performing any act in violation of section 2385 of title 18, or violating section 2384 of title 18 by engaging in a conspiracy to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, if and when he is convicted thereof by a court martial or by a court of competent jurisdiction.
(b) Whenever the loss of United States nationality is put in issue in any action or proceeding commenced on or after September 26, 1961 under, or by virtue of, the provisions of this chapter or any other Act, the burden shall be upon the person or party claiming that such loss occurred, to establish such claim by a preponderance of the evidence. Any person who commits or performs, or who has committed or performed, any act of expatriation under the provisions of this chapter or any other Act shall be presumed to have done so voluntarily, but such presumption may be rebutted upon a showing, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the act or acts committed or performed were not done voluntarily; or
(8) engaging in, or purposefully and materially supporting, hostilities against the United States.;
(c) For purposes of this section, the term ‘hostilities’ means any conflict subject to the laws of war."

I have major concerns with this legislation. The changes have eeriely similar ideas as other legislation passed in the past. Remember the Smith Act, like (7) in the proposed amendments to the U.S. Code. The Act still on the books is as follows:
"§ 2385. ADVOCATING OVERTHROW OF GOVERNMENT
Whoever knowingly or willfully advocates, abets, advises, or teaches the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying the government of the United States or the government of any State, Territory, District or Possession thereof, or the government of any political subdivision therein, by force or violence, or by the assassination of any officer of any such government; or
Whoever, with intent to cause the overthrow or destruction of any such government, prints, publishes, edits, issues, circulates, sells, distributes, or publicly displays any written or printed matter advocating, advising, or teaching the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying any government in the United States by force or violence, or attempts to do so; or
Whoever organizes or helps or attempts to organize any society, group, or assembly of persons who teach, advocate, or encourage the overthrow or destruction of any such government by force or violence; or becomes or is a member of, or affiliates with, any such society, group, or assembly of persons, knowing the purposes thereof—
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five years next following his conviction.
If two or more persons conspire to commit any offense named in this section, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five years next following his conviction.
As used in this section, the terms “organizes” and “organize”, with respect to any society, group, or assembly of persons, include the recruiting of new members, the forming of new units, and the regrouping or expansion of existing clubs, classes, and other units of such society, group, or assembly of persons."

Under this proposed law, the Enemy Expatriation Act the crime of professing overthrow of the U.S. government expands. Under the Smith Act of 1940, if you advocate abet, advise or say it it is one's duty and is desirible to "overthrow...or destroy...the government of the United States or the government of any State, Territory, District or Possession...by force or violence." you can be imprisoned for 20 years, fined or blacklisted from any future federal government jobs. Also under the 1940 law if you intend to destroy and overthrow government and you "print...publish...edit...issue... circulate...sell...distribute...or publicly display...any written or printed matter [that] advocat[es], advis [es] or [preaches that such action is a] necessity [or is] desirabil[e]...by force or violence" then you can be blacklisted from a government job, put prison for twenty years or fined. Also if you organize, help organize such action or "become...a member of, or affiliate.... with, any such society, group, or assembly of persons" that supports the violent overthrow of government, you
face the same punishment. If it includes two or more people, they face the same punishment.

This law, the Enemy Expatriation Act, would force renouncement of citizenship on a U.S. citizen if they commit treason, attempt to overthrow (violently or non violently) the United States government, conspire to commit treason or overthrow government, destroy by force the government itself or fulfill the vague statement and "levy war against them [the establishment]."

Most of the provisions in the original amended law were in a sense dormant, as the U.S. government had a number of reasons why one would lose their citizenship. Now they have been reawakened in this this legislation. One of the more disturbing revivals is the power to the Attorney General, who "shall approve such renunciation [of citizenship] as not contrary to the interests of national defense." So, if you are considered as not advancing the "interests of national defense" (interests of the military-industrial-complex) your citizenship can be revoked. Under the proposed law if you obtain "naturalization in a foreign state" at age 18, your citizenship can be taken away. At the same age, allegiance can have the same effect. "Taking an oath or making an affirmation or other formal declaration of allegiance to a foreign state or a political subdivision" can take away one's citizenship. Serving in armed forces "engaged in hostilities against the United States" can remove one's citizenship. It is unsure what "engaged in hosilities" means, which seems to be another ambiguity of the law. Being employed in a "foreign state or a political subdivision thereof" after age 18 (if you are a citizen of that country) and taking an oath or affirmation for such a job removes citizenship. Also, "making a formal renunciation of nationality before a diplomatic or consular officer of the United States in a foreign state" removes citizenship ( only good part of the bill).

Of the proposed legislation, the laat part is the most troubling. Under (8), if a U.S. citizen engages in "purposefully and materially support[s] hostilities against the United States" citizenship can be revoked. This could br used for the purpose of stopping peace activists from standing up to the war machine. In (8)(c) this is not clarified as it defines as "any conflict subject to the laws of war." I am not sure what laws of war means but if it is talking about the Hague Conventions in 1899 and 1907, the law is mistaken. In both conventions, treaties came out which required peaceful settlement before war. The later Kellogg-Briand Pact, renounced war as an instument of foreign policy, in a sense outlawing it.

I am concerned about this legislation not only because phrases like "laws of war" are ambigious, but because of the expanded power given to government. My fear is that this law could be used to stamp out peaceful protest and is just a way for the establishment to maintain control. Tell your "Congressmen and Senators to please heed to call" and vote against the Enemy Expatriation Act.
- Burkely Hermann

Names of legislation in Congress:
S. 1698
H. 3166
Use opencongress.org to send letters, or find your specific senators or representatives and sdnd them letters.

- Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone

Jerry Brown joins the corporatists

Reprinted from HermannView (blog)

Recently, Jerry Brown, the governor of California is cutting $1 billion in welfare in an effort to "save money." The Sacremento Bee reported that Governor Brown's proposed budget would slash "nearly $1.4 billion in welfare and child care aid for the poor while holding voters liable for $5 billion in education funding with a November tax measure." (http://blogs.sacbee.com/capitolalertlatest/2012/01/brown-budget-cuts-1-billion-from-welfare.html) The Bee writes that the Governor "estimates the state faces a $9.2 billion general fund deficit through June 2013, which he proposes to bridge with mostly cuts and taxes. Brown will ask voters to pass a $6.9 billion ballot measure in November that raises taxes on sales and income starting with single filers earning $250,000 a year. The taxes would last through 2016." This proposal concerns me deeply. First, $1.4 billion will be cut in welfare, hurting those that are already suffering in the State. Remember that 49 million were estimated by the Census as being in poverty, as its evident that it's much higher. The blog Sweet and Sour Socialism writes that "The New York Times...declared the number living in poverty to be 100 million, or one in every three people in the U.S....the Associated Press...found that 150 million — meaning nearly one out of every two people — were either poor or “near poor.” Near poor means struggling to pay bills." (http://sweetandsoursocialism.wordpress.com/2012/01/06/half-of-u-s-poor-karl-marx-was-right-gap-grows-between-99-and-1-workers-world/)

Now, onto the other proposals in the budget. Raising taxes on those with more than $250,000 is a good advancement, but the taxes don't even begin for a year and such taxes are only in effect for three years. In addition, sales taxes will rise for everyone. In his budget summary, the Governor confirms these facts: "The budget I am submitting today keeps the cuts made last year and adds new ones. The stark truth is without some new taxes, damaging cuts to schools, universities, public safety and the courts will only increase...I ask voters to approve a temporary tax increase on the wealthy, a modest and temporary increase in sales tax and to guarantee that the new revenues be spent on education...this ballot measure does not solve all of our fiscal problems...it improves government efficiency and pays down debt. It reorganizes state government...by consolidating or elimating functions...restructures social services...gives more flexibility to local school districts...assure[s] a reliable water supply, [construction of] high speed rail and reduc[tion] of greenhouse gas emissions." I am concerned with the reduction of bureaucracy included in this budget. The cuts in welfare reminds me of the supposed "welfare reform" passed by Congress in 1996 (and pushed by Bill Clinton). According to Howard Zinn's A People's History of the United States: "In the summer of 1996 (apparently seeking the support of "centrist" voters for the coming election), Clinton signed a law to end the federal government's guarantee, created under the New Deal, of financial help to poor families with dependent children. This was called "welfare reform," and the law itself had the deceptive tide of "Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996." Its aim was to force poor families receiving federal cash benefits (many of them single mothers with children) to go to work, by cutting off their benefits after two years, limiting lifetime benefits to five years, and allowing people without children to get food stamps for only three months in any three-year period." (http://www.historyisaweapon.com/defcon1/zinnclicri23.html)

Getting back to the budget, the Governor plans to cut bureaucracy. He further elaborates that he will "shrink state government...by reducing the state workforce by 15,000 positions and eliminating 20 boards, commissions, task offices, and departments." This is reminiscant to President Clinton's push against "Big Government." It ended up just benefiting the rich and not the common man, on of the reasons for the second Great Depression we are in right now.

By Burkely Hermann

- Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone

America's involvement in Iran: Past and Present

Historically, the United States was been involved in Iran during the Cold War. According to Howard Zinn's A People's History of American Empire after the U.S. Embassy in Iran was seized in 1979 and hostages were taken, shocking evidence was found. Shredded top secret documents "exposed deep U.S. involvement in propping up the Shah's brutal regime." It all started with a period of unrest. From 1912 to 1951, the British worked to maintain control of Iranian oil through the Anglo-Iranian company (A.I.O.C). Mossadegh's election as Prime Minister in 1951 led to a nationalization of the oil industry and a British trade embargo. They were preparing for war but U.S. President Harry Truman demanded they negotiate with the Iranian Prime Minister. Eventually Mr. Truman won the fight, making the British back down. But wasn't the end of the story.

Britain next asked for help in overthrowing Mossadegh and the CIA under Allen Dulles's command created a plan for doing so. The United States started "Operation Ajax" to overthrow the Prime Minister covertly through propaganda, violence and cleverness. However Wasinghton told operatives in Iran to abandon the plot when Mossedegh escaped, but the operatives pressed on. Through pro-Shah rioting, causing chaos on the streets, Mossadegh evacuated his house. General Zahedi, the new Prime Minister rode through the streets on a tank and annouced the overthrow of Mossadegh as the Prime Minister. Days later he turned himself in and declared he was a patriot. He said the only crime he had committed was nationalizing Iran's oil and removing western colonialism from the country. For this statement and his “anti-Western” actions, he was convicted and sentenced to three years. Afterwards,$5 million was covertly transferred to the new government and U.S. oil companies gobbled up 40% of Iran's oil market.

The installed ruler named Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, commonly called the Shah, brutally governed Iran for next 26 years. Almost immediately, sixty former Mossadegh supporters and supporters of the two major national parties were executed. Hundreds more were arrested and national parties were banned. In 1963, the Shah pushed for reforms in culture, society, economics and elections called the "White Revolution." This infuriated Muslim clerics, including Aytollah Ruhollah Khomieni. His speeches inspired massive demonstrations which were stopped by the Savak, the Shah's secret police through violent repression (One must remember that these forces received $500,000 from the Kennedy Administration for "riot control”). Every opposition action led to torture in prisons, mosques or the streets. In early 1978 hundreds of protesters were massacred in Qom by the Shah's armed forces. This ratcheted up the tension and the Khomieni called for the ousting of the Shah. In fact, the Shah left on his own accord. Khomieni returned to Iran in the early months of 1979, calling for a national referendum. A few months later he was declared the Supreme Leader of an Islamic Republic by popular vote. After debating the issue for a long time, President Jimmy Carter accepted the Shah into America to give him access to some of the best medical facilities in the world. Radicals were outraged and with Khomieni's call for mass demonstrations, the U.S. Embassy was occupied by Iranian students. Remembering their history these occupiers wanted to prevent another possible coup d'etat led by America. Ever since, relations gave been strained with the Islamic Republic and hurt with the rest of the Arab World.

In the present, that history has come up again and again in Iranian consciousness. According to WikiLeaks cache of U.S. embassy cables, there is number of different discoveries about Iran. For one, the United States has been involved in Iran in some way since that time and people are tired of reforms. A timeline of the cables sent about Iran shows an interesting perspective of American by Iranians and vice versa.

On August 3^rd 2009 a cable stated: “In a sprawling indictment, the IRIG [Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps] linked US and Iran-based NGOs, Israel, foreign media outlets, the MEK, human and labor rights activists such as Shirin Ebadi, and Iranian reformist figures, among others, in a vast conspiracy aimed at toppling the IRIG… The prosecutor read a sprawling indictment linking US and Iran-based NGOs, Israel, foreign media, the MEK, human and labor rights activists and Iranian reformist figures, among others, in a vast conspiracy aimed at toppling the IRIG… The Islamic Republic has long used manufactured confessions and woven elaborate charges involving foreign hands to discredit both activists with political aspirations and apolitical critics of the ruling system.” (http://www.cablegatesearch.net/cable.php?id=09RPODUBAI327&q=dissidents%20iran)

This accusation, although the U.S. government denies it in the cable (in the last sentence), has some basis. One must realize that the story of the cable changed twice, first the IRIG linked groups to the conspiracy then it becomes the prosecutor that read the indictment. The USA Today reported a story that almost confirms the indictment. In 2009, the news outlet wrote in an article titled “U.S. grants support to Iranian dissidents”: “The Obama administration is moving forward with plans to fund groups that support Iranian dissidents, records and interviews show, continuing a program that became controversial when it was expanded by President Bush…U.S. efforts to support Iranian opposition groups have been criticized in recent years as veiled attempts to promote "regime change," said Trita Parsi, president of the National Iranian American Council, the largest Iranian-American advocacy group. The grants enable Iran's rulers to paint opponents as tools of the United States, he said.” 

Four days after 9/11, on September 15^th, 2001, one cable remarked “OF THE FEW IRANIANS INTERVIEWED WHO APPEARED TO BE MORE SUPPORTIVE OF TEHRAN'S POLICIES, COUNTERBALANCING US INFLUENCE IN THE REGION WAS SEEN TO BE A MOTIVATOR FOR THE REGIME'S ACTIVITIES…HEAVY US SUPPORT OF ISRAEL HAS INSURED THAT IRAN WOULD SUPPORT THE PALESTINIANS, AND PROVIDED A CONVENIENT PRETEXT FOR US CONTINUANCE…DUBAI-BASED IRANIAN ENTREPRENEUR PROVIDED HIS OPINION OF WESTERN ASSERTIONS THAT THE IRANIAN GOVERNMENT IS A STATE SPONSOR OF INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM…[HE] MAINTAINED THAT THE IRANIAN GOVERNMENT IS NOT DOING "ANYTHING DIFFERENT THAN ISRAEL, THE US OR UK." ACCORDING TO HIM THE US SELECTIVELY SINGLES OUT IRAN AND HE USED THE UAE-IRAN DISPUTE OVER ABU MUSA AND THE TUNBS ISLANDS AS AN EXAMPLE, SAYING THAT THE ONLY TIME THE GCC MAKES BELLIGERENT STATEMENTS AGAINST IRAN IS WHEN THE US IS PRESSURING THEM TO PUNISH TEHRAN. HE CONTINUED THAT THE ORGANS IN IRAN THAT CARRY OUT INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM--SUCH AS THE INTELLIGENCE SERVICES--ARE NECESSARY IN ORDER FOR THE GOVERNMENT TO RETAIN POWER.”  (http://www.cablegatesearch.net/cable.php?id=01DUBAI1141&q=iran)

The most important parts in this cable, other than the counterbalancing of the U.S. influence by Iran are important to understanding the Iranian perspective.  The cable records the argument of an Iranian entrepreneur who maintained that Iran is following in Israeli, American and British footsteps. Noam Chomsky remarks in his book “9-11” about American footsteps. He writes: “We should recognize that in much of the world the U.S. is the regarded as a leading terrorist state, and with good reason. We might bear in mind, for example, that in 1986 the U.S. was condemned by the World Court for “unlawful use of force” (international terrorism) and then vetoed a Security Council Resolution calling on all states (meaning the U.S.) to adhere to international law.” As to the claim that Britain is a terrorist state, there is some validity to that statement as well. One book came out on the subject seems to summarize this thought. The synopsis of the book states: “Under the noses of the British government, parliament, intelligence services and police, Britain has become the European hub for the promotion, recruitment and financing of Islamist terror and extremism. Terrorists have used it to plot, finance, recruit and train for atrocities throughout the world, and now also at home.” For the idea that Israel is a terrorist state, there is also evidence for that claim as well. One website argues that exact point:  “It hardly needs to be pointed out that Israel is a terrorist state. Brutal repression of, and bloody attacks on, Palestinian civilians with the official Israeli aim of causing a change in the policies or actions of the Palestinian leadership is a clear case of terrorism…Israel has been a terrorist state from its beginning, and has its foundations in terrorism.” However, the businessman’s point is still not a valid defense of Iranian actions. It reminds me of the times Republicans exclaim that climate change legislation isn’t in effect in China and as result is shouldn’t happen in America.

Only seventeen years earlier the United States had attempted a coup in Iran and on May 21^st, 1997, a diplomatic cable stated: “REFERRING TO IMMUNITY FROM PROSECUTION IN IRANIAN COURTS FOR U.S. MILITARY AND CIVILIAN PERSONNEL, KHOMEINI FULMINATED THAT THEY HAVE REDUCED THE IRANIAN PEOPLE "TO A LEVEL LOWER THAN THAT OF AN AMERICAN DOG…THEREFORE, A PREEMINENT CONSIDERATION FOR IRAN'S RULERS ON ANY CONTACTS WITH THE U.S., WILL BE HOW TO ENGAGE WITHOUT APPEARING TO COMPROMISE THIS PRIZED INDEPENDENCE…THEY FIND IT SO INCREDIBLE THAT THEY BELIEVE WE ACTUALLY DO SEE IT BUT ARE CHOOSING TO DELIBERATELY AND SUBTLY HELP THE REGIME…IT IS ONLY A SHORT LEAP TO THE FERVENT STATEMENT THAT THE U.S. OUSTED THE SHAH AND INSTALLED KHOMEINI BECAUSE IRAN WAS BECOMING TOO POWERFUL IN THE REGION FOR OUR TASTE. ALTHOUGH THIS MAY SOUND INCREDIBLE AND FAR-FETCHED TO AMERICAN EARS, VARIANTS OF THIS BELIEF ARE AMAZINGLY WIDESPREAD AMONG THE IRANIANS WE MEET…FROM THE IRANIAN REGIME'S PERSPECTIVE, THE UNITED STATES HAS CONTROL OVER THEIR DESTINY. THEY TRULY WORRY THAT WE CAN UNSEAT THEM IF WE WISH. EVEN IF THEY CALCULATE THAT WE HAVE NO PRESENT INTENTION TO DO SO, THEY PROBABLY NURSE FEARS THIS COULD CHANGE…THE U.S. ARE AS MUCH A DOMESTIC AS A FOREIGN POLICY ISSUE FOR IRAN…U.S. HAS NO PRESENCE AND LITTLE INFLUENCE IN IRAN…THIS ABSENCE OF DIRECT CONTACTS PUTS US AT A DISADVANTAGE IN BRINGING DIRECT PRESSURE TO BEAR TO ADVANCE OUR INTERESTS. THE IRANIANS DON'T SEE IT THIS WAY…THE U.S. HAS ATTEMPTED TO DESIGN A CAGE OF SANCTIONS AND PRESSURE TO CONTAIN IRAN. BUT THERE IS LITTLE POINT IN KEEPING THE PERSIAN LION IN A CAGE AND JUST PRODDING HIM, GETTING HIM MADDER AND MADDER. IT DOES NOT FOLLOW THAT THERE SHOULD BE NO PRODDING, BUT RATHER THAT, AT SOME POINT, THE DOOR TO THE CAGE MUST BE OPENED SO THE LION KNOWS WHICH WAY TO GO.” (http://www.cablegatesearch.net/cable.php?id=97ABUDHABI3777&q=iran)

This cable is interesting for a few reasons. One reason is because it mentions the anger toward the United States, less than twenty years after the American-installed ruler, the Shah, was deposed. To put those statements into context, one must remember that the United States had military actions in Iran in 1946, 1980, 1984 and 1987-8. Also, the Central Intelligence Agency overthrew a democratically elected government in 1953, causing great outrage. The fact that United States says its influence is little is an understatement considering the fact that globalization has spread American products far in wide, even at that time. On the other hand, one statement shocked me more than everything else in the cable: “ABSENCE OF DIRECT CONTACTS PUTS US AT A DISADVANTAGE IN BRINGING DIRECT PRESSURE TO BEAR TO ADVANCE OUR INTERESTS.” From that quoted portion it seems the U.S. government wants a covert operation in the country or the possible overthrow of the government. Today, according to an AP article Republican candidates Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney are calling for a similar objective: the overthrow of governments in Syria and Iran. Rick Santorum did not go to that extreme yet he said covert operations are needed in Iran and Rick Perry called for sanctions, the Obama Administration’s approach.

The previous year, the covert regime change in Iraq had ended and on November 12^th, 1996 a cable stated: “ABDUL HAQ, A FORMER LEADER OF THE AFGHAN COMMANDERS SHURA…SAID TEHRAN VIEWED THE TALEBAN AS A U.S. TOOL AIMED AT DESTABILIZING IRAN. HE ALSO FELT THE CONTINUATION OF THE CONFLICT IN AFGHANISTAN WAS DRIVING IRAN AND SUNNI EXTREMISTS INTO EACH OTHER'S ARMS AND IF THIS CONTINUES "OUR MAIN EXPORT WILL BE TERRORISM."…COMMENTING ON HIS VISITS TO IRAN, ABDUL HAQ SAID THE IRANIANS HATE THE TALEBAN. HE SAID THEY ARE CONVINCED THAT THE TALEBAN ARE NOT MERELY CONTROLLED BY PAKISTAN, BUT ARE PART OF A SINISTER U.S. DESIGN TO DESTABILIZE IRAN. THE REASONING APPEARS TO BE THAT A HARDLINE SUNNI ISLAMIST REGIME IN AFGHANISTAN MIGHT APPEAL TO THE LARGE SUNNI ETHNIC MINORITIES THAT INHABIT IRAN'S PERIPHERY, E.G. IN BALUCHISTAN. HE ALSO SAID THAT, LIKE IT OR NOT, THE U.S. WAS IDENTIFIED WITH THE TALEBAN AMONG AFGHANS. IF THEY WIN, THE U.S. WILL BE SEEN TO GAIN. IF THEY LOSE, IRAN WILL BE SEEN TO HAVE GAINED… HE SAID IRAN IS ALSO CONCERNED ABOUT A PAKISTAN- AFGHANISTAN COMMERCIAL ALLIANCE COMPETING WITH IRAN FOR ACCESS TO THE MARKETS OF THE CIS.” (http://www.cablegatesearch.net/cable.php?id=96ABUDHABI7350&q=iran)

I found this cable interesting because it made clear that the Taliban was perceived as a U.S. instrument for change in that country. A similarity to those possible covert activities came up in an article published eleven days ago. The WSWS wrote: “The United States is waging a sustained covert campaign of destabilisation against Iran, focusing on efforts to disrupt its nuclear program… President Barack Obama…issue[d] a bellicose statement threatening possible military action: “No options off the table means I’m considering all options,” he said….Britain’s Daily Mail asked bluntly, “Has the West's war with Iran already begun? Mystery explosions at nuke sites, ‘assassinated’ scientists and downed drones fuel fears covert conflict is under way.” Writing in the Guardian, Seamus Milne was less equivocal. “War on Iran has already begun. Act before it threatens all of us,” ran his comment. “For months the evidence has been growing that a US-Israeli stealth war against Iran has already begun, backed by Britain and France.” Paul Vallely, in the Independent, was equally blunt, declaring, “War on Iran has begun. And it is madness.”” Even if the allegations about the Taliban weren’t correct in 1997, covert operations are alive and well in Iran today, led by United States (confirmed by the downing of the CIA drone) and not surprisingly by Israel as well.

Getting back to the present, the year of the Iranian election, a cable stated on August 3^rd: “The Syrian media consultant said that the heated debates before the election, in which the three challengers -- Mousavi, Karroubi, and Reza'i -- publicly criticized Ahmadinejad for corruption and economic mismanagement, made it clear to Arabs that this election was about Iran, not the U.S. This distinction, coupled with the U.S.' restraint in commenting on the election, provided an unprecedented window for Arab commentators to criticize Ahmadinejad without appearing to side with the U.S…One Saudi commentator contrasted Turkish regional mediation, which he described as a positive force in the region, with Iranian regional intervention, which he called pernicious and destabilizing. A Lebanese commentator noted the irony of Iran accusing outsiders of interfering in its internal affairs when there is not "one corner of the Arab world" where Iran does not intervene behind the scenes.” (http://www.cablegatesearch.net/cable.php?id=09RPODUBAI316&q=dissidents%20iran)

I find this cable one of the most interesting of all. The challengers to Ahmadinejad argue that the election should be about “Iran, not the U.S.” On the next line the cable comments that reporters will not “appear…to side with the U.S.” Well, are they sided with the America? That is a question to be answered with further research. Coming back to the cable, the Saudi and Lebanese commentators seem to be picked out of the blue, supporting the U.S. government’s narrative. This cable does not mention (conveniently) the most recent plot to overthrow Iran’s government. An ABC article published in 2007 remarks: “The CIA has received secret presidential approval to mount a covert "black" operation to destabilize the Iranian government, current and former officials in the intelligence community tell the Blotter on ABCNews.com. The sources, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitive nature of the subject, say President Bush has signed a "nonlethal presidential finding" that puts into motion a CIA plan that reportedly includes a coordinated campaign of propaganda, disinformation and manipulation of Iran’s currency and international financial transactions... The "nonlethal" aspect of the presidential finding means CIA officers may not use deadly force in carrying out the secret operations against Iran. Still, some fear that even a nonlethal covert CIA program carries great risks… Other "lethal" findings have authorized CIA covert actions against al Qaeda, terrorism and nuclear proliferation… As earlier reported on the Blotter on ABCNews.com, the United States has supported and encouraged an Iranian militant group, Jundullah that has conducted deadly raids inside Iran from bases on the rugged Iran-Pakistan-Afghanistan "tri-border region.”” If you scoff at this idea, Wikipedia puts in even clearer words. The idea sounds similar to Operation Ajax, the covert operation that ended up with the deposing of the democratically-elected leader, Mossadegh in 1953. Wikipedia’s page on U.S. covert regime change states the following:

“President Bush secretly authorized the CIA to undertake black operations against Iran in an effort to topple the Iranian government. The Black Ops include a U.S. propaganda and disinformation campaign intended to destabilize the government, and disrupting the Iranian economy by manipulating the country's currency and its international financial transactions. The United States began to target Iran and several other Muslim countries for regime change starting at least in 2001…An article in the New York Times in 2005 said that the Bush administration was expanding efforts to influence Iran's internal politics with aid for opposition and pro-democracy groups abroad and longer broadcasts criticizing the Iranian government…Un-named administration officials were reported as saying the State Department was also studying dozens of proposals for spending $3 million in the coming year "for the benefit of Iranians living inside Iran" including broadcast activities, Internet programs and "working with people inside Iran" on advancing political activities there. In 2006, the United States congress passed the Iran Freedom and Support Act which directed $10 million towards groups opposed to the Iranian Government… The U.S. provides no direct funding to the [Pakistani militant] group, which would require an official presidential order or "presidential finding" as well as congressional oversight. Tribal sources tell ABC News that money for Jundullah is funneled to Abd el Malik Regi through Iranian exiles who have connections with European and Persian Gulf states…The New Yorker reported in November 2006 that a U.S. government consultant with close ties to the Pentagon civilian leadership leaked the news of secret US support for PEJAK for operations inside Iran, stating that the group had been given "a list of targets inside Iran of interest to the U.S.””  

In conclusion, it is right for Iran to be angry at the United States due to current actions there covertly and actions in the past. One of those actions was the 1953 overthrow of government, mentioned throughout this article, leading to a hostage crisis and the leadership of Islamic fundamentalists led by Khomeini. I hope that all those reading this gain understanding of the perspectives on this topic and participate in peaceful, direct action to bring about change.

Spanish elections: A victory for the People's Party

After scanning the article on NPR on the subject, I decided to do some further research. I have previously written about the Occupy Wall Street Movement, a World Revolution and the European Revolution. I thought this topic would relate directly to those issues.

National Public Radio wrote: "Conservatives will be officially sworn into power in Spain this week for the first time in nearly eight years. Since 2004, the country's Socialists have legalized gay marriage, liberalized abortion laws and presided over the country's biggest-ever financial boom — and now downturn. The new year is likely to be marked by extreme austerity and diminished expectations." (http://n.npr.org/NPRI/jN266799891_1142395_1142383_Z.htm) However, what they leave out is the protests in Europe which many activists say correctly that it's not being covered by the media in Europe or elsewhere. NPR is right on one count: that this year will have extreme austerity. The Real News Network has focused on this subject in a number of their videos, along with the protests as well: http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=767&Itemid=74&jumival=7102, http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=767&Itemid=74&jumival=7095 and http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=767&Itemid=74&jumival=6821.

One may ask: What really happened in the elections in Spain? Well, I used the search engine icerocket.com to find an answer to the question. In an article titled "The Pain in Spain," Trisha Craig published on Eurovison, this question is tackled. The article notes the change in policy by the Mariano Rajoy, Spain’s newly elected President. According to the article , Mr. Rajoy "gave his first speech in his new role before Parliament and laid out his plans to deal with the crisis...Some of the highlights of Rajoy’s plan include: Linking pensions to the consumer price index, the only increase in the proposal...Freezing public sector employment except for the armed and security forces and basic public services...Reform of regulatory bodies...Eliminat[ing] early retirements to bring the real age of retirement into line with the official age and not repeal the law raising the retirement age to 67 (that the PP had opposed while in opposition)...Shifting public holidays to the nearest Monday to avoid the ‘bridge’ holidays where any holiday now typically turns into stretch of days off to the closest weekend...There is a focus on eliminating waste, reducing costs and improving services...Rajoy has proposed...a tax cut for firms that hire young workers and women in order to tackle the high unemployment among those groups...[There is also a] lack of new taxes [in this plan]." (http://patriciacraig.blogspot.com/2011/12/pain-in-spain.html) One may ask if these ideas promote further austerity and cutting in Europe. The American-based Heritage Foundation declared that "Spain Votes Out Big Government" (http://jacecar.com/2011/11/podcast-spain-votes-out-big-government/).

Wikipedia had a comprehensive article on the subject better than some of the blogs. Of the six parties, only one, the People's Party got a majority in the government

(All 350 seats of the Congress of Deputies and 264 seats in the Senate were open for slection). That majority was 186 seats overall or 43.87% of the vote, up 32 seats from the previous election. The PSOE, the current and ruling party leaving in December gained, 39.94% of the vote, 110 seats, 59 less seats than the previous election. The United Left, UPyD CiU and Amaiur gained 9, 4, 6 and 7 seats respectfully.

What does that mean for the citizenry? Will they prosper or will they have more problems? A second Great Depression is occuring worldwide, so many are feeling the pinch. Even the writer of this article predicts that when he enters college he will be poor and have no job. One must remember that Spain has between 23 and 30% unemployed.

Welsh Ramblings wrote a blog that in a sense answered some of those questions. Mr. Ramblings wrote: "The election results from the Spanish state illustrate perfectly the political deficit...The centre-left PSOE has been ousted by the Partido Popular, the centre-right Spanish nationalist party founded largely by reformists from the tail end of the Franco dictatorship...it is difficult to believe that the PP has won an absolute majority. The PP is even more right-wing than the social democrats who...implement...the same medicine that the PP is offering...The PP's solution to the Spanish state's woes comprises yet more austerity. They are utterly tied to the same economic model as PSOE. They have made populist gestures about protecting pensions, health and education, and only cutting "superfluous spending" and bureaucracy, but you sense that if resolving the crisis was that easy, the centre-left would have had no problems." (http://welshramblings.blogspot.com/2011/11/spanish-elections-and-centre-left.html)

Spanish bloggers reacted in different ways to the election in their country. Sarah, a citizen living in Madrid, blogged on the election but knew very little on politics. She commented that "the whole country has been really unhappy with Zapatero for a while now because of the economy, the lack of jobs, etc." (http://sarahenmadrid.blogspot.com/2011/12/spanish-elections.html) She said that legalizing gay marriage and abortion within his term she agreed with and were his outstanding accomplishments during his term of office. As a result she did not like the current leader elected by the people wrote "we'll see how it goes." Bloodbuzed's blogspot takes a competely different approach. The blogpost questions the whole Parliamentary system in an article titled "Spanish Elections Results: and the real parliament is..." (http://bloodbuzzed.blogspot.com/2011/11/spanish-elections-results-and-real.html) The blog user named Mr. September writes: "The results of Sunday's parliamentary elections prove...The axiom one person, one vote, is false in Spain...The variations are so disproportionate (thanks to the unacceptable criteria of the circumscription divisions in provinces) that the whole system HAS to be questioned." He proposes that Spanish elections are done with a proportional system to better reflect the will of the people. He later clarifies his view and calls for people to stand up against the injustice: I'm not saying the electoral system has to be a pure proportional one, but it is clear that what we have now doesn't represent equally the voters-citizens of this country. We have to fight to change this."

Who else is fighting for change? The Spanish protestors! They are the same ones I wrote about on August 6th of this year. At the time I wrote: "The world revolution has its roots in France where the “European Revolution” was dubbed by protestors began. According to europeanrevolution.net[v]: “At least 20 of the most important cities in France have their square occupied by youth protesters. Calling themseleves the Indignés…France seems to hold a leading position in the new European Revolution...They demand a Constitutive Assembly to make govern[ments] ‘remember’ that ‘people [are] sovereign’…stress…inequality of o[p]portunities and priorities between represented and representat[ives], between reality and ideologies. They ask [their voice to be heard by the governments].” The demands juts articulated shows that people (possibly in the millions) are serious with their concerns and want a changed world order...To see the impetus for the action in France, you have to go back to the protests in Spain. At one point, protesters called for a world revolution and future reforms as written on Raw Story[vi]: “From Tahrir to Madrid to the world, world revolution," said one of the placards, referring to Tahrir Square in Cairo which was the focal point of the Egyptian revolution earlier this year...Calling for "Real Democracy Now," the protests, popularly known as M-15, were called to condemn Spain's soaring unemployment, economic crisis, politicians in general, and corruption.”...Protests that started in Spain were influenced by young people who called for the end of overarching governments and the creation of democracies across the Arab World. Other Europeans had similar thoughts, causing organized disagreement across the region."

(http://interestingblogger1.blogspot.com/2011/08/grassroots-protests-world-revolution.html?m=1) Those who protested are directly affected by this election. I found a few more sources to back up my analysis at the time which is still valid. The P2P foundation has an article describing the Spanish protestors a bit more. They write: "the #15M or Indignados movement...demand[ed]...“We Want Real Democracy Now.” These demonstrations began the 15th of May, and grew to the largest cycle of mobilizations in the history of Spanish democracy. After 15m, a group in Madrid was inspired by the occpation of squares in the Arab countries, and decided to occupy the Plaza del Sol...This was not marginally supported. 80% support for the protests (by one survey)...The Indignados movement has been represented in the media largely as people protesting in the street...There have also been concrete initiatives to emerge, including the occupation of houses to provide homes to the foreclosed, the organizing of solidarity networks to block evictions from homes, the increase of self-education networks, all emerging from people who have met f2f in the squares...the Indignant mobilization is willing not only to make demands on public policy and fighting corruption, but the squares also serve as a space where people meet each other and then organize to solve common needs." (http://blog.p2pfoundation.net/the-spanish-revolution-the-internet-from-free-culture-to-meta-politics-summary/2011/11/24) Arfues.com, which republished an op-ed from the German paper, "The European" echoes those sentiments. From the op-ed one could believe that the movement is opposed the the socialist-run government: "Spanish government not only kept ignoring all the ‘indignant’ movement, but also kept fortifying the establishment. The President of the Congress, José Bono, told in a TV interview that both major parties, Socialist and People’s parties, should get along more, and that all other minor parties should be kept outside the parliament. And then the government changed the electoral law in order to require all those parties without representation a minimum of endorsements in order to allow them to enter the electoral race in November 20th...After years and years of telling everybody that changing the Spanish Constitution was not only difficult but impossible, after the international requests to fix the Spanish sovereign debt issues, both parties accorded to modify it, and they did it. In less than two weeks and without any parliamentary debate...the privatizations of the ‘cajas’ and their conversion into ‘normal’ banks, not only the people knew that those ‘cajas’ vaults’ were empty, but that the managers and directors are getting billions in bonuses and compensations." (http://arfues.net/2011/11/25/the-demands-to-build-a-statist-cage-op-ed-for-the-european/)

I did a little research into the movement, finding a site about the European Revolution. On europeanrevolution.org it states: "WE DEMAND A TRUTH DEMOCRACY WE DEMAND TO BE THE ONES THAT TRULY CHOOSE THE COURSE YOU POLITICIANS ARE THE CAPTAINS WHO NAVEGATE BY THE DIRECTION OF THE CITIZEN...We are united for something stronger than a political party We are united because our INDIGNATION for your complicity with the financial corporation that steal our lives We are united by the SHAME for your corruption when you should be a role model We are united by SATIETY for your spent and false speech that nobody believes anymore."

From the opinions of Spanish bloggers, activists and others one may wonder what the duty of the new leadership is in Spain. A few blogs have answered that question. The admin of GetafeSpain.com writes in an article titled "Al Gore of Spanish politics": "Mr Rajoy must summon super powers to lower Spain’s unemployment rate, reform the banking system, enact long-awaited labour reforms and bring about growth." (http://getafespain.com/news/will-victory-be-a-poisoned-chalice-for-spains-new-pm) Another blog, Casey Pop's blog writes of different duties for new leadership. In a blogpost titled "Today's Spanish Elections May Say Something about the French and American Presidential Elections in 2012" the author states: "it is the largest majority the party has had since Spain became a democracy after the fall of Franco and it means that the PP will be able to rule without forming any coalitions with the Greens or other minority parties...The right campaigned hard on the need to put into place a rigorous austerity program to try to save the country from default by reducing the government deficit and reassuring banks who buy Spanish bonds that the country is serious about putting its fiscal house in order...The new Popular Party prime minister will take office on the 20th of December...his job, he says, is to try to keep Spain out of recession, and to reduce unemployment and the deficit at the same time (not an easy trick)." (http://casey-pops.blogspot.com/2011/11/todays-spanish-elections-may-say.html) Also there is another blogger who comments on the electoom as well. At the end of an article about Germany there is a mention of the Spanish elections: "Of anything they will be worth today's Spanish elections, if the winner when being known the official result is calling to Berlin to know that he has to make, they will respond him that the same thing that was making the loser, to clip, to brake, and to try to be disciplined or otherwise, he is left without credit, without ratio of solvency, without structural grants, and with a sanction of 1000 million Eurus for excessive unemployment."

(http://blagusadas.blogspot.com/2011/11/who-this-it-was-of-context-european.html) But this does not tell about the protestors.

The consequence of this election with rule by the People's Party is definately from the protesting itself in Spain and elsewhere in Europe. 72% of the people turned out, but many were very skeptical. This election will not only affect the worldwide movement against economic inequality and austerity (interlinked) but will likely lead to more protests in the country.

- Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone