By Joey Gomez
(originally published at http://politicalmoll.com/disconnect-politicians/)

With the midterm elections just around the corner and pundits already discussing the presidential election, political gaffes are bound to ensue. One thing that is becoming depressingly clear is that our politicians and the candidates running are completely disconnected from the general public. Recent statements made by Kentucky Senator Mitch McConnell and Iowa Senator Joni Ernst expressed views that are completely detached from the realities many Americans are facing.

Ernst’s recent comments on the minimum wage of $7.25 being a “good starter wage for high school students,” ignores the obvious fact that more than 88% of minimum wage workers are adults. A week after her statements on the minimum wage, recorded audio of Mitch McConnell speaking in a closed meeting with billionaires surfaced with McConnell telling the audience that, with a Republican controlled Senate, he won’t waste time with the minimum wage.

The EPI (Economic Policy Institute) published a report that increasing minimum wages would lift the wages for millions and boost the economy. And as many organizations and studies have reported, if the minimum wage kept up with productivity the real minimum wage would be almost $22 an hour.

The thing to take note of here with the comments made by Ernst and McConnell on minimum wage, is they think the market should determine its own wage and not have the restraints of the government with a minimum wage. But the minimum wage is only the minimum an employer can pay, each state and business in the state are capable of raising the wage. Yet, the market and states have shown in the last several decades they aren’t willing to raise wages consistent with productivity, showing that the federal government needs to step in to make sure people are paid a livable wage.

Ernst’s politics are in line with a continued flawed and misconstrued belief of what a majority of Americans want. She thinks the Iraq should not have ended (even though the government wanted us out and Bush was the one who signed the agreement to leave Iraq), social security should be privatized, even though a majority of people are against that and many economists continue to say that a slight raise of the payroll tax on the wealthy would offset any issues of future payments (the program has a continued surplus). She wants to add an amendment against gay marriage, although the public’s view has changed drastically in the last few years and more and more states are beginning to support gay marriage.
 
McConnell has been at the forefront of banning the minimum wage increase to $10.10, even though a majority of economists and the CBO (Congressional Budget Office) say it would lift people out of poverty and boost the economy with people having more money to spend. McConnell wants to dismantle the ACA, even though he doesn’t provide another option or want to compromise across party lines. He wants to go after the EPA, even though the EPA is already underfunded to where they struggle to keep up to date with the regulations now. And he wants to strip any regulations that were put upon Wall Street after its collapse in 2007.

Both these senators have plans for the years ahead, putting their money on their party with the upcoming election. Most of their policies and political beliefs are against what most Americans want. So, why are they so popular and have the potential of getting re-elected? What does it say when our current politicians are so backwards in what the public and experts say is needed to improve our country?

This is an important question and it goes to both parties. Hillary Clinton, who is the contender for the democratic nomination in 2016 is no different. In a recent interview with the Atlantic she defended the strikes against Gaza, even though more and more Americans are against the strikes. She bashed Obama for not going forward with airstrikes in Syria, even though most Americans didn’t want to get involved in another foreign conflict. And she has close ties with the same bankers that were responsible for the economic collapse.

It’s both parties that are running in favor of the wealthy instead of the majority. And although Republicans, complain about government spending yet vote to sue the president, are wasting taxpayer money by spending $500 an hour for the lawyer and billing it to the taxpayer. Their words and chants of wanting to help the economy and the country are empty and neither party is pressing in the direction that most people want it to. We grow apathetic with each failed promise from our politicians and when certain candidates do finally speak out on what we want, the media gives them little attention.

Although this can make the common citizen more indifferent to voting since they believe it’s useless, I would argue against that mindset. I would say, it’s exactly because of candidates like these that we need to vote. One of the few options we do have is to vote. We should take full advantage by researching the candidates and voting for the ones who want to move us forward. After the election, we need to push the people in office to adhere to our voices and when they don’t, come next election season, kick them out. Although many argue (and I agree) that we’re living in a plutocracy, we still have the access to the vote. We just need to use that right more wisely.

by Joey Gomez
(originally published at http://politicalmoll.com/labor-dilemma/)

A recent article from The Nation reported on how “good” employers support companies with restrictive or harsh labor conditions. The article focuses on Costco and the recent protests found outside their store, not protesting Costco’s labor conditions, but one of their packaging suppliers, Pactiv (owned by Reynolds Group Holdings). The protesters were former workers of Pactiv who, after attempting to unionize, were fired from their jobs. The 100 protesters wanted Costco, who is admired for their treatment of their own employees as well as their suppliers, to cut ties with Pactiv. The event itself speaks on the larger issue of the lack of power the labor force has in the US.

Pactiv has a history of exploiting its workers, having employees suffer in “sweat-shop” like conditions. In one case, the
factory closed the windows on a hot day and refused to open them, even after an employee passed out from heat exhaustion. It was only after workers met with several union groups, drafting out their own proposals that Pactiv agreed to some concessions in exchange for no unions.

While Costco has a good track record with its treatment to its own employees, their relationship with Pactiv speaks on a larger issue when looking at the labor force in the US. As the author notes, Costco has no real reason to appeal to the strikers demands of cutting ties with their supplies, and if they do, Pactiv is a large enough corporation, and has dealings with other large corporations, to not feel much of an impact. So, how does the labor force defend itself and fight for proper working conditions?

Other corporations, like Starbucks, who are idolized as being a “fun” place to work, have been getting in trouble for their own labor issues. Many probably missed the recent New York Times piece on a single-mom who had trouble managing her life with the hectic schedule of closing shifts followed by opening shifts, known as “clopening.” Although the company hopes, with their announcement of stopping “clopenings” and one-week advanced scheduling, they can avoid any further disruption from their employees. Although unions don’t exist for Starbucks, many employees have pushed for them,
demanding better work environments and better pay for its workers.

Although Starbucks is noted for supplying health benefits, and its recent announcement of paying for tuition (that only goes to the last two years at a single online college), the company has been weakening the benefits over the years. Even with the announcement of the revised scheduling, there is still the potential of employees hours getting cut. Not to put all the blame on Starbucks – the corporation is playing the game that any other corporation in the fast-food industry is playing. It’s an industry with intense demands, fast-paced environment, and low pay. And this speaks on a larger issue to what options employees have in a growing minimum-wage or low-wage job market.

As is the issue with Pactiv, Starbucks and Whole Foods – who are seen as progressive companies – are no fans of unions. It becomes difficult to look at ways of helping workers when you have companies promoted as “forward-thinking” are portraying solutions as a burden to business. And when looking at the issues we’re facing and with the low-wage jobs becoming the norm, we need to look for ways to help strengthen worker’s rights.

Unions have proved to be very successful. In most countries they still are helpful in fighting for pensions, consistent work weeks, proper wages, and a voice for labor. In the US, the numbers of unions have dropped radically since the 1960′s. Although the amount of unions was never much higher than in the 30th percentile for private businesses (other countries have been as high as 95%), we are seeing the number of unions continue to drop. With the shifting of jobs overseas, dismantling of labor laws, and making it harder to form unions, we’ve continued to see unions fall. And without the power of unions, we see a loss of good wages, employee rights, pensions, and no overtime pay. And we’ve seen an increase in wage theft, and growing inequality.

Unions have a bad wrap in today’s world. Many consider employees of unions “lazy” or their union bosses as “thugs.” Although unions have in the past been corrupt, their corruption only came out in response to the economic system that was available to them. As with corporations and their leaders shifting the role from labor to capital, union leaders would follow suit in doing things that benefited them. It’s what the system allowed. Today unions are struggling to get a proper voice. With their heavy defeat of bargaining rights in Wisconsin, their two-tier system, and right-to-work laws, it’s become more difficult for them to advance labors needs.

Using unions as a solution to help employees for better rights is short-term. In the case of unionizing in Pactiv and Starbucks or any other large company would definitely help workers, but has a history of falling back into the pattern or working in tandem with the system it’s placed in: capitalism.

Another solution that is growing traction throughout the US, are co-op’s or worker run companies. First experimented with in the US in the 1970′s, it’s expanded into successful ventures. Co-op’s more recently have occurred when a company is leaving to go abroad or when it’s going out of business and the workers purchase the company. The model of co-op’s is very productive and provides benefits to the employees all having a voice, the community sees tax revenue from the workers salary, and the environment, as companies usually take pride in the place they live and take care of where to dispose waste and help the community thrive.

This type of operation is more long term and has many proponents speaking very positive of its growing trends. Economist Richard Wolff and historian and economist Gar Alperovitz, both wrote books on our economy shifting
more to a co-op economy. Although Alperovitz is cautious of co-op’s taking off right away, he does suggest that if the economic model doesn’t shift altogether with co-op’s, co-op’s can end up producing the same problems that we’re seeing
with companies in a capitalist economy.

It becomes apparent that it is a systemic problem. There is no one simple solution. Get rid of capitalism and retreating to another model just as quickly can produce a similar system with the same problems. And the truth is people are
realizing this model of capitalism is not sustainable. Millennials are becoming increasingly interested in other economic systems. And if we’re serious about helping out labor in a continually unequal world, and preventing companies like Pactiv from exploiting their workers, we have to look to solutions that work for everyone in a democratic form.

by Joey Gomez
(Originally published at http://politicalmoll.com/author/homerjoey/)

The recent decrease in unemployment should be a true sign of the economy bouncing back, right? Reuters reported that in the last week of July there was a drop in the numbers of those applying for unemployment benefits, which may suggest that people are finding jobs. However, the economy is still far from providing for those struggling in minimum wage
jobs who are barely making it.

The report is highlighting the fact that in the last week of July and into the first week of August, those claiming unemployment dropped from 303,000 to 289,000 – that’s 14,000 less people. With the job gains equaling those lost during the recession, many are suggesting our economy is finally recovering. Although this could be good news, it does not necessarily mean our economy is doing better. In many ways it’s still struggling and, in most cases, things are getting worse for the majority of the workforce.

As was the case when the unemployment first dipped down to 6.7% late 2013, most of those who stopped applying could have run out of their unemployment benefits or simply left the job market. This recent report has no reason to be different. Until the last two week of July, the job market had been at a slow crawl. So then, how do we actual calculate when the economy is doing well?

Most economist will look to Wall Street and big businesses to make indications of how the economy is doing. When they’re doing good, it seems to follow that everyone else should be doing good. But as was the case before the
recession when the housing market was crashing and people were defaulting on their loans, economists and businesses were suggesting otherwise.

As the recent recovery has shown, with the amount of available jobs reaching pre-recession numbers, the economy is still stagnate. There are many reasons for this, one of them being the layoff of government jobs that occurred parallel to
the job growth in the private sector. While the private employment in 2013 was reaching close to its pre-recession levels, more and more public and government jobs were being cut, further slowing the recovery.

Many can argue the politics or necessity of needing to layoff government jobs because of the lack of money. This argument seems invalid as we see the Federal Reserve is handing out money at a near 0% interest rate to corporations and banks, while the government pushes austerity measures in the local and public sectors.

The jobs that were added in the private sector didn’t provide much stimulus to the economy. As many reports have noted, the 60% of jobs lost in the Great Recession in 2007-08 were mid-wage jobs ($13.84-$21.14) and only 22% of the jobs gained in the recovery. At the same time 21% of low-wage jobs were lost in the Great Recession ($7.69-13.84) while making up 58% of the job gains. In other words, most jobs that were created after the recession were low or minimum wage jobs, giving the public less spending power to stimulate the economy. And with 75% of adults in minimum wage jobs, it should be no surprise why they are demanding an increase in wages.

At the same time as minimum wage jobs are increasing, the prices of rent, food, and other necessities are becoming more difficult to afford. Productivity has grown while the wages have stagnated or dropped with inflation. More and
more people are finding themselves with jobs that pay less, making it hard for them to afford rent, go to school, or pay for basic necessities. In most cases, people have to work over 80 hours a week at 2 minimum-wage jobs just to afford rent (in some cases as much as 98 hours). As this trend continues, forcing some to live in the streets, states and cities are
pushing for harsher laws to jail people for being homeless.

This should be a huge concern as several economists note that the same business practices that led to the recession in the first place are still being practiced. Rents have jumped since the recovery, and auto loans are being wrapped up in subprime-loans. We’re also seeing Wall Street and those who created the mess walk away with handsome profits, higher than even seen in pre-recession levels. Although many can argue that the banks, Chase and Bank of America being the most recent, have been fined for their behavior, no one has gone to jail and there are no real regulations to prevent Wall Street and the banks to change their behavior.

Although things look dismal now, we can take note that there are certain trends starting to take effect that have the hope of positive change for the economy and the country as a whole. More and more cities continue to push for minimum wage increases. Seattle was the first city to successfully enact a $15 minimum wage over a 5 year period. And cities like San Francisco, Portland, New York, Chicago and others are pushing for a ballot in favor of a $15-an-hour increase. Other cities have raised their minimum wage to $10-an-hour, with cities like San Jose showing a very successful year after its enactment.

The recent ruling over McDonald’s, where the courts held the company liable for abusive management practices, opens
the possibility of workers creating unions in the fast-food industry. Although McDonald’s and other fast-food companies may fight this, if the ruling holds, it can allow unions in fast-food companies to further speed up the process for a more livable wage and better and healthier work environment.

In the end it comes down to the actions of consumers and citizens who want to change the direction of the country and the economy. If we want a more favorable economy that works for everyone instead of the wealthiest, then we should vote against and protest those in office who increase taxes on lower income while they hand out tax breaks to the wealthy. We should demand a capital gains tax. We should push for a federal increase in the minimum wage. We should support unions when they’re fighting to keep their pensions or fair wages. When companies threaten to go oversees, we should look to the community to help the workers in that area to buy the property and factory and turn it into a co-op.
These are all possibilities. and in most cases very successful trends happening throughout the country right now.

by Joey Gomez
(Originally published at http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/25631-the-truth-behind-mergers)

Last year Microsoft announced its buyout of Nokia, the Finnish communications and information technology multinational corporation. Now as Microsoft absorbs Nokia, the new CEO of Microsoft has announced the largest layoff - 18,000 employees - in the company's history. After the announcement of the layoffs, the company's stock increased to a point that it hasn't seen since the dot-com boom. Although Microsoft is no stranger to the idea of consuming its competitor, it does beg the question: How will this affect the economy?

Mergers and acquisitions are promoted as having a good economic impact for the general public and consumers. Following the announcement of the layoffs, Microsoft's new CEO has been adamant that the recent absorption of Nokia will allow the company to focus on consumer needs to better benefit them through their products. With the acquisition of Nokia's 30,000-employee workforce, 12,500 will be laid-off. At the same time Microsoft is laying off 5,500 of its
own employees.

Historically, it seems most mergers and acquisitions are either achieving a takeover of a company's technology, assets, customers and patents, or purposely invading other competing markets - as was the case with Oracle's takeover of
Peoplesoft or the current attempt by Comcast to acquire Time-Warner.

Currently we are seeing the biggest boom in mergers and acquisitions since the recovery, with no sign of slowing. Many
would say this is good news as mergers usually occur when the economy is doing better. Yet, the irony is that most, if not all, mergers have led to mass layoffs, while the stock for investors and packages for corporate managers increase.

The recent increase in mergers has been carried out with the large hoards of cash these companies have been sitting on. Most companies have extra cash on hand because of their lack of investment during the recession and the extremely low interest rates offered by the Federal Reserve. And instead of investing this "extra" cash into their company and employees, they buyout competition and patents with the benefits going to the investors (with the increase of stock prices) and bankers who assist in the mergers.

Microsoft, before the acquisition, was struggling at the bottom of the phone market with their Windows phone. Although the tablets and Xbox have fared better than their mobile department, many have questioned Microsoft's intent with
taking over Nokia. After the announcement of their massive layoffs, the CEO was quick to alert their stockholders and customers that the company will be focusing on its cloud market, with the intention of becoming head of the cloud and mobile industry, competing with Google, Apple and others.

At the same time, as most of the layoffs from Nokia's headquarters are going to impact Finland, it's left the leader of Finland very upset over the recent buyout, calling it a broken promise by Microsoft. Yet, it's not all bad news for Nokia. The former CEO of Nokia has been secured a spot within Microsoft. The layoffs affecting Microsoft's staff has some in Washington - it's main region - worried about potential economic impacts on their community.

Nokia had suffered setbacks after it fell out of being the top phone company. It's massive collection of patents had kept it afloat long enough for many to speculate that the company had to be bought or it would dissolve after it had
laid off 10,000 workers and cut its R&D in 2012. Many speculated that Nokia was over after it fell out of its number one spot in phones as Apple and Google took the lead. This continued trend of consuming and hoarding of patents has led to less competition and when the big companies fail, they're absorbed into bigger and more concentrated markets, leaving fewer companies for customers to choose from.

As mergers and acquisitions grow alongside the increase of corporations moving their headquarters overseas to avoid taxes, our country is going to continue to feel the repercussions with more layoffs, and less tax revenue to go to our
deteriorating infrastructure, public health, schools and local communities. We will continue to see an increase of taxes on the middle and lower class as they are burdened for the sake of these companies and the wealthy to maintain their "competitive edge." But this is the issue no one wants to confront. With the continued trends of corporate tax evasion and corporate consolidations, we are going to continue to have a lack of good paying jobs, a lack of competition,
and a shrinking middle-class with limited choices for their consumer needs.

The news of the layoffs with Microsoft is nothing new and many can argue whether the overall outcome for the consumers and the tech community will be positive or not. The thing to confront is the fact that 18,000 staff members sit
in fear of being let go over the next year. All things considered, the deal has been good to Microsoft's stock, reinforcing the idea that most transactions that take place through the market don't benefit the public. They benefit the few
making the deals over the boardroom.

by Joey Gomez
(Originally published at http://politicalmoll.com/defeated-press/)

It started with the death of 18 year-old Michael Brown, who was unarmed when he was shot by Police Officer, Darren Wilson, in Ferguson, Missouri on Saturday, August 9th. Depending on which story you follow, Brown and his friend were approached by a police officer who harassed them and then grabbed Brown  attempting to pull him into the car when the officer fired his gun. The officer shot Brown several times before leaving his body to lie in the street for several hours.

The officer’s version of the story is that Brown pushed the officer back into his car as the officer attempted to get out. Then Brown and the officer wrestled over the officer’s gun until the officer shot Brown. He proceeded to shoot Brown
several more times. Witnesses say that Brown had his hands up in the air. The officer left Brown’s body in the road as he went to write up the report on the incident.

Ferguson has a history of racial tension and as the citizens saw the body of an unarmed black teenager lying dead in the street, they protested. Since the death of Brown, the city has come to the streets protesting against the continued trend of racial profiling and violence of the predominately white Ferguson police force against the black community.

As the protests continued into the fifth day, the police turned into a military force clearing out restaurants, blocking the streets, and shooting tear gas and stun grenades into people’s backyards. Dressed up in full SWAT gear and having access to the military artillery leftover from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan – that the US government contracted with Missouri police force – all hell was unleashed. What’s made this conflict worse than previous protest breakups is the complete disregard for journalist rights to report.

In a Ferguson McDonald’s reporters for the Huffington Post and Washington Post were working on their stories and were kicked out of the restaurant and then arrested. The Huffington Post reporter was ordered to show his press pass as he was taking pictures of the police entering McDonald’s. The Washington Post reporter was slammed against a soda machine by one of the officers before being detained.
 
Al Jazeera reporters were purposely tear gassed by the police as they were trying to report on the event. The reporters had to leave their equipment, which the police later confiscated. In most cases where reporters were arrested, the Ferguson Police Chief said they were “probably arrested by someone who didn’t know better.” A CNN reporter who was defending the police suggested that the police might have arrested the reporters in order to protect them.

The situation in Ferguson only got worse during the night leading up to ten arrests. This speaks profoundly on the issues of racism that run rampant throughout our police state, but it also exposes the true loss of freedom of the press our country has seen. After multiple reporters had to flee the scene because they were purposely getting tear gassed, most news that was received were from the reporters who could shelter themselves from the growing military presence, or the Twitter and video feeds of random citizens trying to document the rule of martial law showing up in their backyard.

Aside from the obvious suppression of journalist and media coverage that we’ve seen occurring in Ferguson, our media has failed to properly document the events as they happen. As with most cases where an innocent minority is killed
by an officer, our media fails to connect the dots of what led to such an event happening. The news projects stereotypes using photos to persuade viewers of the continuous dangers of being black.

One of the biggest reasons the protests exploded as they did is because the Chief of Police refused to name the officer responsible for shooting because they feared for his safety. A taste of what most minorities may feel anytime they come across police officers in their own community. The Chief of Police eventually released the name of the officer following outrage over the events of the police tear gassing its citizens.

This isn’t the first time an unarmed black man, teen, or boy was shot. It has happened four times in the last month. The media tends to ignore the event until it reaches the level of calamity it has with Ferguson. When the media does show up, they use talking heads who provide their own commentary without having been on scene witnessing the events, or speaking with witnesses or cops. Or you have Fox news, where they cuddle up close with the shooter, as was the case with Sean Hannity and George Zimmerman.

Our media has been, on many occasions, complacent in allowing events to bubble and became a racial argument based on stereotypes, while they ignore the real struggles of the communities involved. While some alternative media dig deep into the racial and economic tensions that have plagued certain areas, it doesn’t reach the mainstream surface.

When the media does finally acknowledge the root of an issue, it’s often too late and the event becomes overshadowed with another shooting, a new war, or some political sensation that leaves the public more cynical and hopeless than before. Our media has failed us again and again throughout the last two decades. So here we are, witnessing what happens when journalists do attempt to try and get the real story: they’re shut out. So, what do we do? How are we supposed to react?

As the things have begun to settle and Missouri Governor Nixon announced the next day that state troops will
replace the Ferguson police force in handling the protests, citizens have managed to make their way back into the streets peacefully. As the next night rolled around, thousands of people in New York took to the streets in unity with Ferguson. Love it or hate it, the use of social media has helped expose this event beyond what the headlines of mainstream media could do and it’s brought people together. And although I’m one to be reluctant to stand with social media as a reliable news replacement (the Boston Bombing reporting catastrophe being an example of the failure of social media) I do feel it further reveals the flaws in our media, and also, that people are ready for the truth.

by Joey Gomez
(Originally published at http://politicalmoll.com/incite-revolution-2/)

Cuba is back in the news. With the recent report by the Associated Press disclosing, yet again, new information about another program that the US government, through the U.S. Agency for International Development, (USAID), attempted to overthrow the Cuban government. This time USAID, along with its contractor, Creative Associate International, recruited youths from various Latin American countries to infiltrate the public and spark an uprising.

The USAID was just in the media a couple months earlier with a very similar story. “Cuban Twitter” was a program that the US government, through USAID, created a social media account in Cuba, with the intentions of inciting a civil unrest among the public.. The program garnered 40,000 followers who were unaware it was a US government-created program disguising itself as a “new” social media platform. This new story of USAID recruiting youths to go into Cuba to incite civil unrest again only makes you wonder why the US government and USAID are trying so desperately to overthrow the Cuban government. And at what cost?

What makes this situation different from the “Cuban Twitter” debacle is that USAID was recruiting, training (in some cases only for half an hour), and sending these youths into Cuba with the risk of the youths getting arrested by authorities. In most cases, the memo obtained from the Associate Press assured the assisting youth that “although there is no certainty,” the Cuban government would not harm them physically, just intimidate them if they were caught. The US government debated cutting the program with continued incarceration of Alan Gross, a contractor who was imprisoned for sneaking in sensitive technology in 2009. With the potential threat to their safety the Latin American youths were compensated $5.41 an hour for their services.

As with the “Cuban Twitter” program – which the senate is still investigating – USAID assures the public that these types of operations are for the good of the people in Cuba. One of the excuses that the Latin Americans youths used for going to Cuba was setting up an HIV-prevention workshop. This was a front. These operations have the risk of putting further strain on US and Cuban relations, as was the case with “Cuban Twitter.”

The release of this program reminds Latin America of the unfortunate politics that the US government displayed throughout the 20th century and the continued shaky relationships our government has with most Latin American countries. While some relationships are already strained for political and economical differences, other relationships have been further burden with the recent leaks of the NSA spying on presidents of Brazil and Mexico. It seems that our government is only garnering further suspicion with the continuation of these type of programs to these countries and
to the world.

USAID has been under scrutiny in the past for its services, and creating rumors that it assists in “covert” acts. But now with the “Cuban Twitter” and this recent disclosure, it’s only further damaging their already questionable image. While USAID may have a history of assisting and bringing countries out of poverty, it has been judged for using its bid on contracts that in the end benefit corporations. Their reaction to the “Cuban Twitter” was defensive about the program, even with its potential illegal and covert approach, which they affirm was legal and discreet and not a “covert operation.”

While USAID’s true intention with “Cuban Twitter” might have been to give the Cuban people freedom of speech, we know with this latest memo, their intents were to help overthrow the government. This is one of the problems the US
government has to confront. Our government does not see this type of behavior problematic, as we feel any government it helps support is better for the public, while blatantly ignoring the general public’s interest. History has shown us again and again you can’t force revolution. When it is forced, like in Iraq, Afghanistan, and various Latin American and Asian countries (in the 20th century), it usually leads to a collapse of the government or morphs into a dictatorship.

If an organization that advertises itself as promoting democracy wants to enact real change, they should put pressure on the US and Cuban governments to participate in talks with each other and lifting the embargo. By assisting in a public
domain with both parties aware of what’s going on, there is no threat of mistrust, and usually the people will feel more comfortable to speak out about injustices and repressed freedoms, thereby expressing their own form of revolution within their country. Otherwise, as we can see with the current leaks, the citizens become distrustful of incoming organizations, the government suspects incoming tourists, and other governments further distance themselves from our government in opposition to these operations.

Aside from the foreign relations conflict and potential legal dilemmas, our government is wasting tax money and exploiting an organization that should assist countries, not exploit the people for their own agenda. USAID, being an
agency of the US government, is dependent on taxes for its endeavors. These leaks come at a time when these resources could have been better spent elsewhere, the US public itself in desperate need of money. These resources could have been put to better use in assisting Detroit’s bankruptcy and water shutoff, and pushing legislation to prop up our crumbling infrastructure. In the international scene it could have been used in promoting talks or funding for the struggling citizens in Ukraine, Syria, Libya, and Gaza, or send resources to help with Ebola outbreak.

The exposure of this false program further reveals the shortsightedness our government has with its foreign policy. Our government has its own agenda when it’s involving itself in other countries. And every time something like this is
revealed it further tarnishes the US’s image as well as public support. It further makes its own citizens cynics in a system that is continuing to fail them. Revolution is only successful when it happens through the public and communities, otherwise, it’s bound to collapse.

by Joey Gomez
(Originally published at http://politicalmoll.com/terrorist-list/)

Recently, highly acclaimed journalist Jeremy Scahill and Ryan Deveraux from the media group, The Intercept, wrote a report about the “Watchlisting Guidance.” The 166-page document gives readers a peek into the way the government detects, labels, and tracks supposed terrorists. The main thesis that Scahill and Deveraux come to is that anyone can be put on the list, and it can be impossible to get off.

The “watchlisting guidance” came into effect after the failure to prevent the 2009 underwear bomber from boarding the plane he’d planned to blow up. Although he was prevented from blowing up the plane , the event persuaded Obama to extend the power and responsibilities to agencies “that nominate individuals to the lists, placing pressure on them to add names” of suspected terrorists. Shortly after this expansion, the US Government Accountability Office published a report that there is no organization in place to regulate and see if the program is achieving its intended goals of catching
the real terrorist. So no one in government knows if this type of program is necessarily effective, and if its not, there is no one to raise the alarm.

Throughout Scahill and Deveraux’s report, they express concern over the lack of oversight and checks and balances these
organizations have. The people with the power to profile or categorically watchlist are assistants to the president for homeland security and counterterrorism; a position that doesn’t need Senate confirmation. At the same time, the data being collected on suspected terrorists, with help by anti-poverty group USAID, is overwhelming the watchlisting community where they are drowning in data, making it more difficult to find real threats.

What’s really at the heart of the conflict, according to the report, is the ease in which anyone can be put on the list. The
watchlist document uses contradictory and vague language about the methods used. For example, you could “walk-in,” where you browse a web page of a suspect terrorist group or affiliate, which in some cases is not even publicly known to
be a terrorist group. In other cases, you could be a “write-in” or posting on social media sites about or related to terrorist organizations. It could simply be that you’re related to someone who is already a suspected member on the list that can get someone’s spouse, child, or friend on the list as well. Even after death, the widow or widower could be put on the list if their spouse was listed before their death, or even after they died.

 This information should further imply that as the “war on terrorism” continues to widen its range, it becomes more difficult to see who’s a real terrorist and who isn’t. In his book and documentary by the same name, Dirty
Wars, Jeremy Scahill reported on the expansion of the war on terror into regions like Yemen and Somalia, as well as the huge increase of using drones. He exposed that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have already seen blowback, such as the growth of ISIS . 

With our military expansion into other regions, it’s only led to an increase in recruitment for terrorist groups. Not only are we increasing the number of terrorists with our military actions abroad, our government is tracking such a large mass of suspects that it obstructs the ability to track and stop the real threats. 

Here we are now in the domestic front of terrorism with the constant leaks on the Orwellian overreach of the NSA on its own citizens, as well as our allies and their leaders. The release of this report should not only worry everyone, but also frighten you with the near limitless power it’s giving our government. We seem to be reaching a breaking point where if we don’t demand change or at least oversight of such programs soon, it might be too late, as the simple act of speaking out against such programs might get you on the list. Our government seems to be running the risk of overextending it’s reach so much that instead of focusing on the “known terrorist” they have this vast collection of data that labels innocent people as terrorists.