Two in one day?

No way! Zart doesn't post that often! Well, beloved yet irregular readers, I do sometimes. Those times happen to be a convergence of outrage and the Ballmer Peak. Well, we had a launch party tonight, and I'm approaching my Ballmer Peak, and read a link to the Project Censored list of the "Top 25 Censored Stories of 2008". Despite the misleading name, this list is the supposed to be of censored stories from the 2006-2007 fiscal year. With a couple of exceptions, I found these stories disturbing, but I'm only going to touch on a few of them. I highly recommend going to the list and and least skimming it. I'd already at least heard of most of them, but that's only because I like reading weird stuff from both sides of the American political spectrum.

#1 No Habeas Corpus for “Any Person”
The right of the private citizen to require a government to prove its authority is one of the oldest, most basic, and strongest tenets of law in all of the common law countries, or countries that derive their legal system from Jolly Ole England. This right, named "Habeus Corpus", was much in the news for a brief period this year, but its suspension was only briefly covered. Habeus Corpus, loosely translated, means "show me the body". Essentially it guarantees the right of someone to a trial where the government must prove its authority to hold that person in confinement. Under a writ of Habeus Corpus, if you are being held in jail, then the government MUST present you to a magistrate in order to determine whether it has the authority to continue holding you. Without the right of Habeus Corpus, the government can arrest you and throw you in prison and keep you there without charging you with anything. A good example of this was Jose Padilla, who was held for three and a half years without being tried. A mild stink was made in the media over this issue, but hardly anything was said when Congress in 2006 passed a law that essentially gave President Bush's administration the right to determine whether you were an "enemy combatant" and thus could legally be denied the right of Habeus Corpus.

To sum up, if President Bush decides you're an enemy combatant, you are, and there's really jack squat you can do about it. The government can lock you up and throw away the key and, well, too bad.

#2 Bush Moves Toward Martial Law
The National Defense Authorization Act is something that is reauthorized every year, and as such isn't a big new item. At least, not normally, although it should have been in 2006. You see, the NDAA of 2007 included a stipulation that allows the President to overcome the Posse Comitatus act. The whata-whatmacha act? "Zart," you say, "you're rapidly going getting boring with all these silly words. Are you making them up?" No, I'm really not. The Posse Comitatus act was passed in 1878, mainly to prevent Federal Troops from the North from interfering with elections in the Reconstructed South. Since then it's been regarded as an impediment to the Executive Branch using the military to enforce its will inside the United States. Parts of the NDAA of 2006, however, give the President to use the military inside the United States "where the President determines that,...domestic violence has occurred to such an extent that the constituted authorities of the State or possession are incapable of maintaining public order; suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy.." The problem with that is that it's wildly ambiguous, and could easily be twisted. Hardly anything was said in the media, despite this being an unneeded departure from almost 130 years of law.

To sum up, as long as President Bush decides that the state isn't doing enough to suppress any sort of insurrection or conspiracy, then he is authorized to step in and intervene with the military. This just makes free speech zones and spying on anti-war protesters that much scarier.

# 21 US Seeks WTO Immunity for Illegal Farm Payments
Farm subsidies were established in the US in 1933 as a way to preserve the agrarian way of life, and to help keep the the American farmer competitive. The reasoning is that hard-working farmers are unfairly disadvantaged by the success of other American industries; as the value of our economy goes up, so does the cost of living, and agricultural imports from areas with a lower cost of living become unfairly competitive. The problem is that agricultural subsidies are considered by the WTO to be illegal under a multitude of free trade agreements to which the United States is, if not a principle author, at least a signatory. These subsidies are seen by most developing nations as an unfair barrier to their economic development and a way to keep them in economic bondage. Life and Debt is a great documentary that uses Jamaica as an example of how the US's agricultural subsidies keep a developing nation from developing.

In 2007 the WTO ruled against the US, saying that it's agricultural subsidies are illegal. This is because the "Peace Clause", which allows agricultural tariffs exemption from WTO law, expired in 2004. The US has still been using these tariffs and subsidies, however, and therefore was legally liable to the member nations around the world getting screwed by these tariffs. Because the other member nations of the WTO refused to give the United States a retroactive and permanent extension to the Peace Clause, the WTO talks collapsed. Perhaps permanently!

What I find so enraging about the whole situation is the sheer foolishness of subsidies in this age of corporate farming. According to Wikipedia, in 1933 when subsidies were introduced, 25% of our nation's population lived on farms. Today, only 2% lives on farms. Not only that, but 72% of agricultural subsidies paid in 1997 were paid to large, corporate farms.

To sum up, Conagra and Monsanto get the lion share of subsidies paid out, which allows them to produce agriculture cheaper than undeveloped agrarian countries, which keeps them doing nothing but growing the things we can't grow. For some reason the US thinks we should get a free pass on all of the free market principles we force on the rest of the world.

To Sum Up Summing Up
Read through these, at least the first couple lines of each one. These stories are issues that we, as democracy and freedom loving Americans, should be concerned about, but aren't hearing about from the media for some reason. Are they being censored by a government flunkie with a Sharpie? Are they being censored by a corporate conspiracy that's intent on keeping us dumb and docile consumers? Or are these stories being simply lost in the constant barrage of Paris Hilton updates, new reality shows, and McDonalds ads? The important thing is that stories that should matter to us are being swallowed up and never noticed. What I think is perhaps most entertaining about most of these items is that you'll find the name of Patrick Leahy, that irascible and nonsensical senator from Vermont, in almost every one. Considering how many of these articles deal with the government's ability to make you disappear, that might not bode well for his future. On a more serious note read through them, and if you're not worried about the state of our media and our democracy, you're either too skeptical, too gullible, or too bereft of life.