The feng-shui of banking…

An excerpt from travel writer, Bruce Chatwin:

THE CHINESE GEOMANCER

The man I had arranged to meet was standing by one of the two bronze lions that snarl in the forecourt of the new Hongkong and Shanghai Bank. He wore a blue silk Nina Ricci tie, a gold wristwatch with a crocodile strap, and an immaculate worsted grey suit.

He handed me his card on which was written, in embossed letters:

LUNG KING CHUEN
Geomancer

Searching and fixing of good location for the burial of passed away ancestors; surveying and arranging of good position for settling down business and lodging places, in which would gain prosperity and luck in the very near future

The building-to which workmen were adding the final touches-has forty-seven stories (including the helipad on the roof) and stands on the site of the Bank’s former Head Office- overlooking the Cenotaph, on the south side of Victoria Square. It is the work of English architect, Norman Foster, and is, by any standards, an astonishing performance.

I heard the bank called, variously, ‘The shape of things to come’; ‘An act of faith in Hong Kong’s future’; ‘Something out of Star Wars’; ‘A cathedral to money’; ‘A maintenance nightmare’, and ‘Suicides’ leap’.

Having exceeded its budget to the tune of $600 million U.S., the new Hongkong and Shanghai Bank has also earned the distinction of being the most expensive office block ever built.

Architecturally, I felt it was less a ‘vision of the future’ than a backward, not to say nostalgic look at certain experiments of the Twenties (when buildings were modeled on battleships, and Man himself was thought to be a perfectible machine): buildings such as the PROUNS of El Lissitzky; Vesnin’s project for the offices of Pravda-the unrealised dreams of the Early Soviet Constructionists.

Mr. Lung, on the other hand, is a modest practitioner of the venerable Chinese art of geomancy, or feng shui. At the start of the project, the Bank called him in to survey the site for malign or demonic presences, and to ensure that the design itself was propitious. Whichever architect was chosen, there was bound to be some anxiety; for the Hongkong and Shanghai Bank is a pivot on which Hong Kong itself stands or falls. With 1997 in sight, prosperity and luck must either come ‘in the very near future’-or not at all.

The afternoon was overcast and a sharp wind was blowing off the harbour. We rode the escalator to the first floor, and took shelter in the Cash Department. It was like entering a war-machine: the uniform grey, the absence of ‘art’, the low hum of computerised activity. It was also cold. Had the buildings been put up in Soviet Russia there would at least have been a touch of red.

Behind a gleaming black counter sat the tellers-unscreened and unprotected, since, in the event of a bank-raid, a kind of portcullis slices sideways into action, and traps the raiders inside. A few potted palms were postioned here and there, apparently at random.

I sat down on a slab of black marble which, in less austere surroundings, might have been called a banquette. Mr Lung was not a tall man. He stood.

Obviously, the surroundings were too austere for many of the Bank’s personnel, and already-in the executive suites on high- they had unrolled the Persian carpets, and secretaries sat perched on reproduction Chippendales chairs.

‘This’, Mr Lung began, in a proprietorial tone, ‘is one of the Top Ten Buildings of the World. Its construction is particularly ingenious.

‘It is,’ I nodded, glancing up at the cylindrical pylons and the colossal X-shaped cross-braces that keep the structure rigid.

‘So first,’ he continued, ‘I would like to emphasise its good points. As far as feng-shui is concerned, the situation is perfect. It is, in fact, the best stuation in the whole of Hong Kong.’

Feng-shui means ‘wind-and-water’. From the most ancient times the Chinese have believed that the Earth is a mirror of the Heavens, and that both are living sentient beings shot through and through with currents of energy-some positive, some negative- like the messages that course through our own central nervous systems.

The positive currents-those carrying good ‘chih’, or ‘life force’-are known as ‘dragon lines’. They are thought to follow the flow of underground water, and the direction of magnetic fields beneath the Earth’s surface.

The business of a geomancer is to make certain, with the help of a magnetic compass, that a building, a room, a grave or a marriage bed is aligned to one or the other of the ‘dragonlines’ and shielded from dangerous cross-currents. Without clearance from a feng-shui expert, even the most ‘westernised’ Chinese businessman is apt to get the jitters, to say nothing of his junior staff.

At lunch I happed to tell an ‘old China hand’, an Englishman, that the bank had taken the advice of a geomancer.

‘Yes,’ he replied. ‘It’s the kind of thing they would believe in.’

Yet we all feel that some houses are ‘happy’ and others have a ‘nasty atmosphere’. Only the Chinese have come up with cogent reasons why this should be so. Whoever presumes to mock feng-shui as a superstitious anachronism should recall its vital contributions to the making of the Chinese landscape, in which houses, temples and cities were always sited in harmony with trees and hills and water.

Perhaps one can go a step further? Perhaps the rootedness of Chinese civilisation; the Chinese sense of belonging to the Earth; their capacity to live without friction in colossal numbers-have all, in the long run, resulted from their adherence to the principles of feng-shui?

‘Now it so happens,’ Mr Lung said, ‘that no less than five ‘dragon-lines’ rund down from The Peak and converge on the Central Business District of Hong Kong.’

We looked across the atrium of glass, towards the skyscrapers of the most expensive patch of real estate in the world.

Some of the lines, he went on-not by any means at all- were punctuated here and there with ‘dragon-points’ or ‘energy centres’, like the meridian-points known to acupuncturists: points at which a particularly potent source of chih [energy] was known to gush from the surface.

‘And the site on which the bank stands’, he added, ‘is one of them. It is, in fact, the only ‘dragon-point’ on the entire length of the line.

Other lines, too, were known to have branches, like taproots, which tended to siphon off the flow of chih, and diminish its force.

‘But this line’, he said, ‘has no branches.’

Yet another favourable point was the bank’s uninterrupted view of the mountain. Had there been naked rocks or screes, they might have reflected bad chih into the building.

‘But The Peak’, he said solemnly, ‘is covered in trees.’

Similarly, because the new building was set well back from the waterfront-and because the sun’s course passed to landward- no malign glitter could rise up from the sea.

Mr lung like the grey colour which, he felt, was soothing to the nerves. He also like the fact that the building absorbed light, and did not reflect glare onto its neighbours.

I questioned him carefully on the subject of reflected glare, and discovered that glass-curtain-wall buildings which mirror one another-as they do in every American city, and now in Hong Kong- are from the feng-shui point of view, disastrous.

‘If you reflect bad chih onto your neighbours,’ Mr Lung said, ‘you cannot prosper either.’

He also approved of the two bronze lions that used to guard the entrance of the earlier building. During the War, he said, the Japanese had tried to melt them down.

‘But they were not successful.’

I said there were similar lions in London, outside the Bank of England.

‘They cannot be as good as these two,’ he answered sharply: so sharply, in fact, that I forgot to ask whether the lions had been put away in storage three years ago, when Mrs Thatcher made her first, informed foray into Chinese politics-and gave the Hong Kong Stock Exchange its first major nervous breakdown.

The result, of course, was the historic slap from Deng Xiaoping himself.

‘So what about the bad pionts?’ I asked Mr Lung.

‘I’m coming to them now,’ he said.

The Hong Kong waterfront was built on reclaimed land and there were stories . . . No. He could not confirm them but there were, nevertheless, stories . . . of sea-monsters and other local ghouls, who resented being dumped upon and might want to steal the building.

This was why he had recommended that the escalator to the first floor-which was, after all, the main public entrance- should be so angled, obliquely, that it ran along a ‘dragon-line’. The flow of positive chih would thus drive the demons back where they belonged.

Furthermore, since all good chih came from the landward, he had advised that the Board Room and Chief Executive offices should turn away from the sea: away, that is, from the view of Kowloon and the mountains of China; away from the cargo-ships, tugboats, ferries, drifters, coal-barges, junks; away from the White Ensign, Red Ensign and that ‘other’ red flag-and turn instead to face the ‘Earth Spirit’ descending from The Peak.

The same, equally, applied to the underground Safe Deposit- which has the largest, circular, stainless-steel door ever made.

Finally, Mr Lung said, he had to admit there were a number of danger zones in the structure-‘killing-points’ is what he called them-where, in order to counteract the negative chih, it had been necessary to station living plants: a potted palm at the head of the escalator ‘in case of a fall’; more potted palms by the lift-shafts; yet more palms close to the pylons to nullify the colossal downward thrust of the building.

‘Right,’ I said, ‘I’d like to ask you one thing. I believe that “dragon-lines” never run straight, but are curved.’

‘True,’ he said.

‘And isn’t also true that traditional Chinese buildings are always curved? The roofs are curved? The walls are curved?’

‘Yes.’

Chinese architecture-like Chinese art, Chinese language and the Chinese character-abhors the rigid and rectilinear.

‘Now, as a feng-shui man,’ I persisted, ‘how would you interpret this rigid, straight-up-and-down Western architecture? Would you say it had good or bad chih?’

He blanched a little and said nothing.

‘These cross-braces, for example? Good or bad? Would you consider putting plants underneath them?’

‘No,’ he said, blandly. ‘Nobody sits there.’

My question, I have to confess, was most unfair, for I had heard on the grapevine that the cross-braces were terribly bad feng-shui.

It was obvious I had overstepped the mark. At the mere mention of cross-braces, Mr Lung moved onto the defensive. He back-pedalled. He smiled. He re-emphasised the good points, and glossed over the bad ones. He even left the impression that there were no bad ones.

At the foot of the escalator he shook my hand and said: ‘I have done feng-shui for the Rothschilds.’

Comment:

For the reader who took the time to write and call this c***:  relax, it’s just interesting writing….

Meant for reading, I believe.

The Don In Denial – What did Rumsfeld know and when did he know it?

In an interview with reporter Seymour Hersh, (“The General’s Report,” New Yorker, June 17, 2007), Major-General Taguba confirms what those who’ve followed the Abu Ghraib scandal have known from the start. Donald Rumsfeld and others in the chain of command knew all about it. They knew the details. But they deliberately kept what they knew under wraps and lied through their teeth about it to the house and senate.

Taguba was no hero to them. He was the guy who ratted out the military. That’s why – as Hersh’s interview confirms – they sent him to a dead-end job that ended his career.

It was only the threat of exposure by Hersh’s New Yorker story and a CBS broadcast at the end of April 2004 that forced their hands. Even then, Rumsfeld and his partners in crime – especially, General Richard Myers and Undersecretary of Defense, Stephen Cambone – shucked off responsibility, insisting that they’d been informed only in the vaguest terms.

Taguba’s revelation calls their bluff. It puts the gold seal of credibility on what’s easily proved from the record – Rumsfeld, Myers and Cambone engaged in a cover-up.

Look at the conflicting testimony at the two Senate hearings held on May 7 and May 11, 2004. Look at the previous reports to the Department of Defense about abuse — not just the report submitted by Taguba, and not just at Abu Ghraib, but reports going back to 2002. Reports that describe abuse all over Iraq and in Afghanistan. From the International Red Cross, from Human Rights Watch, from other human rights groups, from journalists, from American officials, from Iraqis — all clear, well documented, consistent. All immensely credible.

Even without Taguba’s definitive statements, does anyone really believe that the bosses didn’t know what was going on?

Here’s a timeline of the abuse (and the complaints) compiled from a Human Rights Watch timeline and from other reports (it’s by no means exhaustive):

December 25, 2002 – A Washington Post report on torture at Bagram, Afghanistan

December 27 – Human Rights Watch asks President Bush to investigate WP story

January 14, 2003 – Directors of several human rights groups write to Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz to publicly condemn use of torture

January 31 – Human rights groups write to President Bush to condemn torture and provide guidelines for interrogations.

February 5 – Human rights groups meet with White House Counsel Haynes to urge guidelines. Haynes writes back (in April) ruling out torture but sidestepping on the issue of cruel and degrading practices

February- March – various US officials admit that torture and rendition are being practiced

March onward – Oral and written complaints made by Red Cross

June 2 – Senator Leahy writes to National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice about torture allegations and urges clear guidelines (Haynes later responds to Leahy, abjuring cruel treatment and affirming Convention Against Torture guidelines)

June 24 – Human rights groups write to Rice

August – An International Red Cross complaint is made to the “highest level of the Coalition forces” (this is according to the IRC February Report). Officially, the highest level would be then head of the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA), Paul Bremer – who reports directly to the Secretary of Defense, i.e. to Rumsfeld.

August 28 – Investigation into Umm Qasr (Iraq) abuse

October 19 – Eight marine reservists charged with abuse

November 12 – International Red Cross report issued

November 17 – Human rights groups write to White House Counsel Haynes

November 18 – Deputy General Counsel of the DOD reaffirms that earlier statements of DOD about torture are binding to the whole executive branch

December 23 – Brigadier-General Karpinski (in charge of AG) replies to the November International Red Cross Report

December 27
– Human Rights Watch writes to President Bush

December 29 – Case of abuse at Camp Bucca (Iraq) in May is investigated and closed

January 6, 2004
– Three reservists discharged for abuse

January 12 – Human rights groups write to Rumsfeld

January 13 – Sgt. Joseph M. Darby of the US Army’s 372nd Military Police Company downloads pictures from a computer that turn out to be photographs of graphic abuse at Abu Ghraib prison near Baghdad. He turns them in to his superiors.

January 15 – Details of Abu Ghraib abuse (including forced nudity and sex torture and including torture of women and children deemed too sensitive for public display) were emailed to senior Pentagon officials, including General Craddock and Vice-Admiral Keating, director of the Joint Staff of the JCS.

January 16 – DOD brief numbered 04-01-43 (only 4 lines in length) from Baghdad states that an investigation has been initiated into “reported incidents of abuse at a Coalition Forces detention facility.” The release of more detail is not possible, it says, because that could hamper an (note this phrase, please) ongoing investigation which was in its initial stages.

January 18-19 – 320th Military Police (MP) suspended Brigadier General Karpinski (one-star general) suspended.

Late January – General Abizaid (head of Central Command) tasks Lieutenant General Sanchez (a three-star general, army commander in Iraq and Taguba’s boss) to investigate further. Rumsfeld claims he alerted President and senior officials

January 31 – Major-General Taguba (a two-star general) begins investigation

February 6 – Taguba submits report

February 10 – Human Rights Watch and several rights groups write to Rumsfeld describing abuse and asking how many detainees were being held.

Early February – Two more investigations begin (into training of reservists and detention practices elsewhere in Afghanistan and Iraq)

February – Another International Red Cross report on abuse is delivered to the CPA (highest authority in Iraq).

Match 8 – Human Rights Watch report on abuse in Afghanistan comes out

March 9 – Taguba presents his report to commanders. Criticizes Major-General Miller for advocating use of Military Intelligence (MI) in interrogations (Gitmoization strategy).

March 20 – Major-General Kimmitt tells reporters that 6 military personnel have been charged with criminal offenses

Late March-April – Miller (commander of Guantanamo) brought from Guantanamo to head Abu Ghraib.

April – Investigation number five (into gathering of military intelligence) begins

April 28 – Rumsfeld and Myers brief 35-40 senators on Iraq in classified session, hours before CBS 60 Minutes II expose without mentioning Abu Ghraib. Myers claims he did not know about the photos until just before the CBS show.

April 28 – CBS expose of Abu Ghraib

May 1 – Taguba report approved by Defense Department.

May 3 – Human Rights Watch and other groups write to Rice that abuse is widespread, systemic and illegal, according to the army’s own investigation.

May 4 – Armed Services Committee receives Taguba report.

May 6 – Taguba meets Rumsfeld who denies having received his report.

May 7 – Armed Services Committee Hearings

May 10 – President is shown a representative sample of photos, supposedly for the first time.

May 10 – ASC receives classified annexes of Taguba report.

May 11 – ASC Hearings. Taguba testifies about his report.

Here’s the interesting bit. Originally slated to speak at the Senate Hearings in the morning panel, Taguba is later pushed into the afternoon, with Undersecretary of Defense Cambone speaking in the morning, instead. Cambone’s testimony sets a framework that entirely undercuts Taguba’s.

Accidental – or deliberate?

While Taguba’s report showed that it was Miller’s Gitmoization policy that laid the groundwork for the torture, Cambone’s testimony attempted to erect a firewall between Gitmo and Abu Ghraib.

What for? Because Cambone didn’t want people to see the Bush administration’s loose standards on torture as having having set off the abuse. The administration treated Gitmo prisoners as terrorists.  Their  fingerprints were all over interrogations there, as the ACLU file on Gitmo shows.

AG had to be kept apart from Gitmo, at all costs.
So, that’s why we have Cambone arguing that while Miller might have been called from Gitmo to shake up intelligence gathering in Iraq, he didn’t really call the shots at AG. Oh no. He just made suggestions. It was Karpinski’s fault, not Miller’s.

And Cambone also did his best to keep the focus off the single more dangerous aspect of the Abu Ghraib abuse — the involvement of the CIA, intelligence contractors and special forces.

Why? Again, to protect Rumsfeld and himself. Because central to Rumsfeld’s New Model Army is the outsourcing (privatization) of intelligence, so that it’s no longer under congressional supervision. And part of that process is the extensive use of special ops, special forces and private contractors. The very people up to their necks in abuse in Iraq.

Special forces are all over the place now – from the appointment of Chief of Staff Peter Schoomaker, a member of Delta Forces, whose appointment was the first time a special forces commander had controlled the military, to the appointment of Civilian Assistant Secretary for Special Operations, Thomas O’Connell, late of the Phoenix Program in Vietnam, and the involvement of Cambone himself, a ballistic missile hawk, and of “Jerry” Boykin, the special ops loose canon whose idea it was to Gitmoize in the first place.

And that’s why when Taguba turned in his incriminating report, Rumsfeld and Cambone could only see it as the old- style military turning on his new model army.

So we know why he’s no hero to them.

But here’s what the Donald and his merry men still have to explain:

Question One:

Taguba says he submitted more than a dozen copies of his report through “several channels” at the Pentagon and to Central Command at Tampa, Florida. He also “spent
weeks” briefing senior military officials on the report, he says. Not one of them, except General Schoomaker (who complimented him), seems to have read it. Some said they didn’t, so as to avoid getting involved.

This is the report of a general who was tasked by no less than CENTCOM chief General Abizaid to write it, but no one read the thing?

According to Taguba, Rumsfeld’s words to him on May 6 were: “Here I am, just a Secretary of Defense, and we have not seen a copy of your report. I have not seen the photographs, and I have to testify to Congress tomorrow and talk about this.”

OK. Let’s say the dozen or more copies got lost somehow wending their way up through that perilous chain of command. Let’s say Taguba is too low on the pole for the mighty defense secretary to pay attention to.

What about the general in charge of Iraq, Ricardo Sanchez? Mightn’t he at least reside close enough to the rarefied air of Mount Pentagonus to warrant attention? Apparently not.

Sanchez was cc’d on January 20, 2004 that the allegations of torture were true and that there were more than a hundred photos to back them up. Nonetheless, Rumsfeld says Sanchez didn’t breathe a word about it to him.

My, my. What Victorian reticence they practice in the halls of power.

But, get this, Rumsfeld also admitted at the May 7 hearings that he spoke “everyday” to Sanchez. And Sanchez, we know, received a Red Cross report on prisoner abuse as far back as August 2003. Specific abuses at AG were known to his underling Karpinksi by December 2003. That’s thesame Karpinksi who was directly under Sanchez and who was fired by Sanchez in January. For what, if not for the torture scandal?

Repeat – Rumsfeld and Sanchez spoke every day. Rumsfeld, Myers, Abizaid and Sanchez spoke to each other every day; according to Rumsfeld, several times. Rumsfeld briefed the President with Myers present every other day. And somewhere in late January or early February at a meeting at which General Pace, Myers’ deputy, was sitting in for him, the President was also informed.

But none of them heard anything about Abu Ghraib? Not a whisper. How credible is that? If they didn’t, what would that make them? Incompetent or liars. Which is it, Mr. Rumsfeld?

“The President didn’t know, and you [representatives] didn’t know, and I didn’t know,” claims Rumsfeld, who says he didn’t want to interfere with the report working its way up the chain of command.

Oh – so, are we to believe that between the heads up to the president in late January and the April 28 CBS story, the president was not told anything more?

Yet, Myers admitted to the Senate hearing on May 7 that people “inside our building” knew about the photos. Then how could the president not know? And if Myers himself hadn’t seen the photos, how come he squashed their publication until Hersh’s story forced them into public view? How did he know they were too explosive for CBS?

Telepathy?

Question Two:

Said Rumsfeld on May 7, the problem was only “one dimensional”; he couldn’t foresee the kind of damage that “hundreds or however many of these things there are” would do.
On May 11, Cambone added: “Until the pictures began appearing in the press, Sir, I had not sense of that scope and scale.”

But here are some of the details Taguba says were sent to the military high command in January — “descriptions of the sexual humiliation of a father with his son, who were both detainees,” “of an Iraqi woman detainee baring her breasts,” and of “a video of a male American soldier in uniform sodomizing a female detainee” – only a few of many (about 300) images, some still held in secrecy

Rape, sodomy, child abuse. Captured on CD’s and audio-tapes. Short of performance art, how much more multidimensional would things have needed to get, Secretary, for you and your colleagues to have figured out that what was going on was in violation of US and international law?

Question Three:

Miller’s the guy whose Gitmoization strategy at AG in the fall of 2003 led to the torture, according to Taguba’s own investigation. What’s he doing being put in charge of the business just after Taguba’s report comes out? Rumsfeld can’t pretend he didn’t know that. Because Miller met with him just before going to Iraq.

And why was Taguba carted off to a dead-end job if the army liked what he did?

Wasn’t that a direct contradiction of the findings of the report? Wasn’t that transfer as way of giving the finger to Taguba and every human rights group and critic of the torture policy?

Question Four:

At the May 7 hearings, General Myers suggested that the military had from the start briefed the press in detail (Rumsfeld said it “told the whole world”). The record shows that that’s a fib. The wording of the brief in January is noticeably terse and lacking in detail, especially in the context of two years of mounting abuses.

Looks more like the army brass were trying their best to keep the scandal under wraps till it blew up in their faces. If they were happy with Taguba’s report, why did they approve it only on May 1, when it was completed on February 6 — a whole three months earlier?

What took so long?

Especially since no one seems to have read it in the first place.

The importance of names in propaganda..

Norman Thomas, a one time US presidential condidate:

“The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of ‘liberalism’ they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without knowing how it happened.”

Subsidiarity — a forgotten libertarian principle

“One of the key principles of Catholic social thought is known as the principle of subsidiarity. This tenet holds that nothing should be done by a larger and more complex organization which can be done as well by a smaller and simpler organization. In other words, any activity which can be performed by a more decentralized entity should be. This principle is a bulwark of limited government and personal freedom. It conflicts with the passion for centralization and bureaucracy characteristic of the Welfare State.

This is why Pope John Paul II took the “social assistance state” to task in his 1991 encyclical Centesimus Annus. The Pontiff wrote that the Welfare State was contradicting the principle of subsidiarity by intervening directly and depriving society of its responsibility. This “leads to a loss of human energies and an inordinate increase of public agencies which are dominated more by bureaucratic ways of thinking than by concern for serving their clients and which are accompanied by an enormous increase in spending.”

More by David Bosnich at the Acton Institute’s website.

My Comment:

I will comment on this next week when work lightens up. But just for now, I should say that though I’m not a Catholic, this has always struck me as one of the most important Catholic social doctrines. Maybe even the most. Subsidiarity includes more than the term decentralization suggests, though. There’s also the idea of contiguity in it, which is the notion that you ought to prefer the near to the far whenever possible. Subsidiarity means I clean up my backyard and stop trashing my neighborhood  before I start worrying about the melting of the polar ice caps….

 

 

 

 

 

Boycott the Catholic church….

Bill Christison on how to crack one part of the propaganda code:

“I am personally not a Catholic, but my sign will urge people planning to go to the 10:00 a.m. Mass to boycott that Mass instead, and join us in the demonstration. I do not intend to say anything derogatory to anyone while I am demonstrating, although I will give anyone who expresses interest in me a brochure explaining the Finkelstein tenure issue. I will stay until 10:00 a.m. and then leave.

I not only hope that others will join me in this demonstration. I hope that yet others, reading this message, will organize similar demonstrations near other Catholic churches. I further hope that we can carry on similar demonstrations on future Sundays, all around this country and abroad, until the hierarchy of the Catholic church in Rome takes note of us, and until that hierarchy compels its subordinates at De Paul University to reverse the unjust decision on Dr. Finkelstein.

If anyone reading this thinks I am overreacting, that is unfortunate. The Israel lobby simply should not be allowed to win this round. There is little doubt that some will argue that the Catholic hierarchy in Rome had nothing to do with the decision against Finkelstein. But there is also little doubt that the hierarchy can overrule that decision if it wishes. And it says something that, to me, is utterly despicable if the hierarchy of the church refuses to overrule its own underlings at De Paul….”

PR from the pros: how to co-opt your critics

From Ronald Duchin of Mongoven, Biscoe and Duchin Public Relations, speaking to the National Cattlemen’s Association:
“Activists fall into four distinct categories: ‘radicals’, ‘opportunists’, ‘idealists’, and ‘realists’. The 3-step strategy is to (1) isolate the radicals; (2) ‘cultivate’ the idealists and ‘educate’ them into becoming ‘realists’; then (3) coopt the ‘realists’ into agreeing with industry. The ‘realists’ should always receive the highest priority in any strategy dealing with a public policy issue… If your industry can successfully bring about these relationships, the credibility of the radicals will be lost and opportunists can be counted on to share in the final policy solution.”

by way of blogger, zwsnipboy.

Police State Chronicles – bill muzzling Internet heads to Senate

“The Senate’s version of massive new telecommunications legislation is headed to the full Senate, after a flurry of amendments and contentious debate in the Commerce Committee. The House passed its own bill on June 8. Media democracy advocates, media producers, technology companies and Internet libertarians opposed to the bill’s passage then looked to the full Senate in hopes that the bill could be substantively improved or, if not, killed.

The proposed legislation has gathered such broad interest because of the potential severity of its effects on mediaand communications technology in the United State. Both House and Senate bills would change the very nature of the Internet, and seriously undermine public accountability over cable and video services, including educational and community TV. While claiming to clear the way for new innovations in broadband access, the bills would likely retard important avenues for Internet innovation and deployment. They would mean the end of the free open Internet characterized by “net neutrality” or equality of access….”

Read more here at Reclaim the Media.
Useful Links:

Primer: The Death of the Internet: a video from COA News.

Activism:  Save the Internet.

Legislation: Maine passes first  net neutrality resolution.

Police State Chronicles: Verizon hearts big brother…

From Wired blog, comes this tidbit. Telecom giant Verizon sees the Electronic Communications Protection Act (ECPA) — created to stop telecoms from handing over sensitive customer data to the government without due process — as, get this, unconstitutional.

Damn it! It’s their first amendment right to rat you out to the Feds….

“When the country is engaged in an armed conflict with foreign enemies, that right applies to communicating information that may be useful in defending the country from expected attacks. Based on plaintiffs own allegations, defendants right to communicate such information to the government is fully protected by the Free Speech and Petition Clauses of the First Amendment, and is a privilege and immunity that arises directly under the federal Constitution….”