FBI Spy Infiltrated Minnesota Peace Group

Remember a few months ago when members of an anti-war group had their homes and offices in Minneapolis and Chicago raided by the FBI? From CBS News, September 26, 2010:

The FBI said it searched eight addresses in Minneapolis and Chicago Friday. Warrants suggest agents were looking for connections between local anti-war activists and groups in Colombia and the Middle East.

[….]

FBI spokesman Paul Bresson said Saturday that the bureau’s investigations “are predicated on criminal violations, not First Amendment protected activities.”

When reached Friday, FBI spokesman Steve Warfield declined to provide details of the searches, but said there was no imminent threat to the community and the agency wasn’t anticipating any arrests “at this time.” He said the FBI was seeking evidence related to “activities concerning the material support of terrorism.”

The peace activists were subpoenaed to appear before a grand jury in Chicago. The groups apparently were originally targeted after they participated in protests at the Republican Convention in 2008.

It turns out the FBI used a spy to infiltrate the Minnesota group and report back on their activities. Shades of COINTELPRO. Democracy Now reported on the story yesterday.

Here is some more information at Fight Back News.

Minneapolis, MN – At a press conference here, Jan. 12, Jess Sundin of the Twin Cites based Anti-War Committee (AWC) blasted police infiltration of the anti-war and international solidarity movement, stating, “We are here today to express outrage that our democratic rights have been violated by a government operation of spying, infiltration and disruption of our anti-war movement, which was carried out over the course of at least two and half years.”

The exposure of an undercover law enforcement agent in the Twin Cities anti-war movement is linked to the Sept. 24, 2010 FBI raids on peace and international solidarity organizers and the subpoenas that have been served on 23 activists to appear in front of a Chicago Grand Jury.

The infiltrator, who used the name ‘Karen Sullivan,’ joined the AWC in April 2008, and about a year later she joined the Freedom Road Socialist Organization. A statement from the Committee to Stop FBI Repression notes, “In conversations between our attorneys and the prosecutor’s office in Chicago, we have had confirmation that Karen Sullivan was in fact a law enforcement officer working undercover.”

Sundin said, “In April 2008, law enforcement officer Karen Sullivan joined the Anti-War Committee. In 2008, we were involved in organizing the anti-war marches on the first and last days of the Republican National Convention in Saint Paul. At that time, there was a massive security operation here which included the infiltration of the RNC Welcoming Committee. We now have it confirmed that in this same time period, we too became the subject of government investigation. The difference is that our spy made herself comfortable and decided to stay awhile, posing as a fellow anti-war activist and pretending to befriend us.”

Why is it always peace activists that the FBI targets rather than people who are likely to murder of abortion doctors or commit mass murder/political assassinations?


The Parable of the poor little rich people

Last September,  Chicago Law Professor and neighbor of the Obama family Todd Henderson complained that he just couldn’t make ends meet on a combined family income estimated to be about $400,000 a year.  In February, CNN Morning News Anchor Kiran Chetry interviewed then-White House budget director Peter Orszag.  She seemed flummoxed that 1/4 of a million dollars wasn’t  a modest family income for civilized parts of the country.

“You also talk about letting taxes expire for families that make over $250,000. Some would argue that in some parts of the country that is middle class.” Back in reality, more than 98 percent of U.S. households make less than $250,000.

What is it with all these rich people who continue to whine about not having enough money to exist when they clearly are very wealthy when compared to the vast majority (98%)  of Americans?  What kind of warped perspective on life leads them to shed incessant tears during this kind of economy?  Why-oh-why do we have such a  candy ass batch of plutocrats? Don’t we at least deserve a few that are sincerely rugged?

This is wonky, but there’s a very simple narrative underlying the numbers and analysis.

Catherine Rampell–writing for Economix–offered up an answer in an article called ‘Why So Many Rich People Don’t Feel Very Rich’.  It involves a nifty graph. (You know me and nifty graphs.)  I actually got a better nifty graph from Brad Delong’s page in a thread called On the Richness of the Rich Once Again. But, I would have never found either nifty graph without the help of ‘Why Does Inequality Make the Rich Feel Poorer?‘ over at Paul Krugman’s blog.  I’m going to discuss all of that and harken back to Robert Reich’s thing at Alternet called The Problem Is That America’s Richest 1% Are Raking It in.   You should be able to grok the theme of the parable of the poor little rich people by now.

Now what I have to do is explain why the rate of change along the slope of a curve using log income levels by percentile translates into pearl clutching in mamby pamby plutocracts.  I know you hate math and it makes your stomach turn.  I promise not to use the numbers.  We’re going to just talk about the picture and the lines.    Over on your right is Brad’s nifty graph. You can see that the curve is upward sloping but the slope varies depending on where you are on the curve.

You can see, however, it is positive at all points.  This indicates a direct or positive relationship between two things.  If one goes up, the other does too.  Because the curve isn’t a straight line, the rate at which the curve goes up is different depending on where you are.  This is reflected by the steepness or the flatness of the curve.   Think of it as a hill. You have to slog up a steep hill, but a flat hill makes it easier to go forward.

One of the things of interests shown by this graph is the Log of Annual Income and the other is the percentile of tax units.  The difference between Rampell’s graph and Delong’s graph is the log calculation.   Brad explains why she needs to use the log of annual income compared to the level.  Basically, the log turns the comparison in to a growth rate of annual income.  A level is simply a level.  The log means that we’re using the rate of change happening in incomes as we go up and down the curve.  That rate of change is radically different at the richest levels.  You can see that the slope almost goes vertical there compared to the middle levels where the curve is less steep and somewhat more horizontal.  There’s a story that explains that.   Krugman explains it well so I’m going to start with his explanation.

Read the rest of this entry »


Thursday Reads

Good Morning!!

I’m going to focus this post on news and opinions relating to Jared Lee Loughner, the Arizona mass murderer. The news media is so focused on this story, it’s hard to find much else.

First, let me say that it has become abundantly clear that Loughner suffers from paranoid schizophrenia–a least I’m going to assume that unless someone comes up with a better explanation for his symptoms. I immediately suspected it when I first read descriptions of his behavior by people who knew him, but the more I read about him the more clear it becomes that Loughner suffers from this terrible illness.

Schizophrenia is characterized by a broad range of unusual behaviors that cause profound disruption in the lives of the patients suffering from the condition and in the lives of the people around them. Some common symptoms of schizophrenia are delusions, hallucinations (usually auditory), disorganized thought and speech, social withdrawal, and emotional unresponsiveness (flat affect).

Based on news reports, Loughner appears to be suffering from all of these symptoms. He was apparently experiencing delusions of persecution and delusions of control (e.g., his belief that the government was using mind control on him).

What Loughner did was driven by his delusions and his disorganized thought processes. Despite the repulsive campaign rhetoric used by tea party politicians like Sarah Palin and Sharron Angle, it really isn’t accurate to blame their words for Loughner’s crimes. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try to shame politicians into speaking and behaving more civilly, but the real outrage is that this young man was able to buy a gun and ammunition. Loughner was a walking time bomb, and he lived in a state that allows people to buy guns easily and to carry concealed weapons without a permit!

Let’s condemn conservative politicians for helping to make guns far too easily available to troubled people and liberals for refusing to stand up to the gun nuts.

If you read this Wall Street Journal article, you’ll see examples of Loughner’s disordered thinking and communication. The WSJ writers found a collection of postings by Loughner to an on-line gaming forum. He talked about his inability to get a job and his failure with women, and sometimes his comments became bizarre and disturbing.

Look at these examples from the article:

On April 24, Mr. Loughner titled a new online thread: “Would you hit a Handy Cap Child/ Adult?” He wrote: “This is a very interesting question….There are mental retarded children. They’re possessing teachers that are typing for money. This will never stop….The drug addicts need to be weeded out to be more intelligent. The Principle of this is that them c— educators need to stop being pigs.”

Later that day, he posted a rant titled “Why Rape,” which said women in college enjoyed being raped. “There are Rape victims that are under the influence of a substance. The drinking is leading them to rape. The loneliness will bring you to depression. Being alone for a very long time will inevitably lead you to rape.”

[….]

On May 9 at 2:00 a.m., he asked: “Does anyone have aggression 24/7?” By noon, when others suggested he try smoking marijuana, he said: “No weed. No drugs. It’s not like I can’t see my brain.”

[….]

On June 3 at 12:14 a.m. Mr. Loughner described one confrontation with Mr. McGahee [his college math instructor], writing to his fellow gamers that he had asked the teacher: “Are you just getting a pay check for brainwashing?” as well as questioning if the class was a “scam” and asking, “can you tell me how to Deny math?” He wrote that the teacher told him it was a stupid question and he should “GET OUT OF MY CLASS!”

The next day, after he had to see a school counselor, he wrote: “Told her about brainwashing a child and how that can change the view of mathematics.”

This young man was extremely confused and delusional. It would be impossible for his parents not to have known that he was very ill. We may learn that they tried to get help for him; unfortunately it is not easy to get help for people with psychological disorders. People suffering from schizophrenia resist getting treatment–they don’t realize how sick they are. Furthermore, it is extremely difficult to force someone into treatment. Ironically, Arizona makes committing someone against their will easier than most other states, the state has also cut so much on mental health facilities and workers that services aren’t readily available.

Our mental health system is even more broken than the rest of our health care system. People who talk about “falling through the cracks” are clueless. Our mental health system is nothing but cracks.

More Loughner articles:

Mark Ames, author of Going Postal: Is the Giffords Shooting a New Kind of American Murder?

I studied countless rampage massacres for my book Going Postal, and this is the first instance I can think of in which the shooter—in this case, 22-year-old Jared Lee Loughner—carried out anything like a hybrid assassination-rampage: first, a planned, targeted assassination of a high-profile political figure, followed immediately by a seemingly indiscriminate shooting rampage. The first part of this hybrid assassination-rampage left a U.S. Congresswoman, Gabby Giffords, in critical condition with a serious head wound; the second part, the rampage, left six dead and another 13 wounded.

These two types of murders have little in common. In America, at least, the assassin is concerned about only one thing: taking out his target. While others may get shot in the confusion, political assassins never, to my knowledge, stick around after accomplishing their primary task just so they can keep murdering others indiscriminately.

[….]

In rampage shootings, on the other hand, media reports often describe the rampage murderer “shooting at random” before the bullet-in-the-head finale. But closer study of these shootings reveals that the attackers often have specific targets in mind—usually bullying supervisors or fellow workers. Sometimes, in the bloodiest cases, the shooter takes aim at the entire “company” or school, making everyone in it an intended target. In many of these cases, the shooters turn out to have been victims themselves of bullying, harassment, and social or financial ruin.

Judging from early reports, Loughner looks to be a pastiche of these two classic profiles.

Why psychiatrists can’t predict mass murderers

Let’s assume that we’ve identified a set of characteristics often exhibited by mass murderers. What does that buy us? It enables us to answer the question, “Given that someone is a mass murderer, what characteristics is he likely to exhibit?” That’s an interesting question, but it’s not the one we want to answer. Rather, the question we really want to answer is, “Given that someone exhibits this profile of characteristics, how likely is he to commit mass murder?” Answering this question is extremely difficult because the predictors are invariably far more common than the event we hope to predict, and mass murder is very rare. Although mass murderers often do exhibit bizarre behavior, most people who exhibit bizarre behavior do not commit mass murder.

Media reports about Jared Loughner, the alleged Tucson killer, illustrate this difficulty. His abnormal behavior, however unusual, is still far more common than the crimes of which he is accused.

Loughner pulled over hours before shooting

Hours before Saturday’s shooting, suspected gunman Jared Lee Loughner was stopped by an Arizona Game and Fish officer for running a red light.

Agency spokesman Jim Paxson confirmed Wednesday that an officer made the stop about 7:30 a.m. Saturday on an Interstate 10 access road several miles from the shopping center where congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords and 18 other people were gunned down.

Loughner, who was described by the officer as “very forthcoming,” and “very polite, very subdued,” was driving an older-model charcoal gray Chevrolet Nova, which has since been seen parked outside the Loughner family home.


Police Release Documents Detailing Contact With Ariz. Gunman Prior to Deadly Rampage

The Pima County Sheriff’s Department released reports on Wednesday detailing contacts with Arizona gunman Jared Loughner and his family prior to Saturday’s shooting — contacts that ranged from petty nuisance complaints to a drug arrest.

[….]

The reports detail all personal contact Pima County deputies had with Loughner beginning on Sept. 23, 2004, when he was the victim of a reported assault.

Loughner was later arrested as a juvenile for possession of alcohol on May 15, 2006, and on Sept. 10, 2007, he also received a citation for possession of drug paraphernalia, according to the police reports.

The police reports do not appear to indicate a violent history. Instead, they reflect a man seemingly prone to destructive tendencies.

Read more at the link.

Records show fear of Loughner, lack of mental health intervention

Pima Community College in Tucson has released records of its campus police contacts with student Jared Loughner, showing the increasing fear that he stirred in his classmates and teachers.

A thread running through the documents is the difficulty of police finding a context in which to intervene: Until they found a violation of the student code of conduct, or a state law, police officers wrote in the reports that they weren’t sure what else they could do, even when a fellow student said she thought Loughner had brought a knife to class.

The records show no indication that the college took steps to get Loughner any mental health counseling.

Loughner also seemed not to understand the seriousness of the fears. When police spoke with him, Loughner said his free speech rights were being violated, and seemed to have trouble understanding why he had been called out of class.

Here’s a really interesting article by a researcher on why some people act heroically in situations like the Arizona shootings.

Rohit Deshpande, a professor at Harvard Business School, has delved into the science of heroism to find out what causes someone to spring into action despite the danger to help or save someone else.

In his research, Deshpande focused on how hotel workers took extreme risks to protect guests during the deadly terrorist attacks in Mumbai, India, in 2008.

After several desperate hours of explosions and gunfire, members of the kitchen staff locked arms and formed a cordon around guests as the attackers machine-gunned them down.

In another display of heroism, hotel operators stayed at their phones to call rooms with vital information.

[….]

He found heroism had nothing to do with age, gender or religion. It started with personality.

“It seems that they have a much more highly developed moral compass,” he said. “They have this instinct for doing something good for other people. We find this across a whole series of situations.

I’m going to end with an article by Joan Walsh of Salon on why Sarah Palin is too narcissistic and lacking in empathy to ever be elected president.

Good grief! Has Joan Walsh paid any attention to current President Barack Obama’s behavior or George W. Bush’s for that matter? Narcissism and lack of empathy have seemingly become de rigueur for holders of the office these days!

Sooooo…. What are you reading this morning?


Live Blog: Tucson Memorial

CNN is live streaming here.

NPR’S News Line will host live coverage of the Memorial here.

Several memorials are planned Wednesday for the victims of the shooting rampage in Tucson that killed six people and wounded 13 others, including Rep. Gabrielle Giffords.

On Wednesday evening, President Obama and first lady Michelle Obama will attend a public memorial service in Tucson entitled “Together We Thrive: Tucson and America.” The president will address the gathering and the nation in the live televised event at the University of Arizona. Preliminary details on the event are available here.

The White House said President Obama would meet privately with the victims’ families before the service

The NewsHour will have live streaming online coverage of the service in a special report starting at 8 p.m ET.

Youngest victim: Christina Greene

Pictured on the left is Christina Taylor Green. She is the youngest victim of the shooter.  We encourage donations to the memorial fund established in her name by her family.

Here are the ways to make a donation in memory of Christina:

  • Online at www.cfsoaz.org – click on the link to the Christina Taylor Green Memorial Fund.
  • E-mail christinataylorgreenmemorial@cfsoaz.org
  • Call (520) 545-0313.
  • Send a check to: The Community Foundation for Southern Arizona, In Memory of Christina Taylor Green, 2250 E. Broadway Blvd., Tucson, AZ 85719

In a moment of sanity, members of the hate group Westboro Baptist church agreed not to picket her funeral. They will be showing up at the funerals of the adult victims including Judge Roll.   Here are some interesting details.

The Steve Sanchez Radio Show on KXXT AM in Phoenix offered the group 30 minutes on his show on Saturday in exchange for not protesting at Green’s funeral. The deal was established through an e-mail exchange, which was forwarded to CNN.

Other members of congress attending include House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi.  The First Lady will be accompanying the president.  There are representatives from the Judiciary.  Senator John McCain is there.  Former SCOTUS judge Sandra Day O’Connor is to the right of the President.

We will post updates and links here as they become available.


Oops. She did it again.

Click on Max Headroom for a great Wired read on How Max Headroom Predicted the Demise of TV Journalism

While I was doing some grant writing, the Palin video detailing her supposed victimization during the events surrounding the Tucson Massacre was scrubbed.  It’s amazing how many things disappear from there these days.

benpolitico Ben Smith

Weird – Palin video’s gone. http://is.gd/npdcKe

I didn’t watch or read it since I have to admit I have developed a serious tic that only  appears when the ex-Governor from Alaska is speaking.   It’s been getting worse too.  Evidently, her use of the term “Blood Libel” is creating a stir heard round the village. It’s adding to the conversation on what makes up hurtful rhetoric.  It also gives us a study on what makes up intellectual and political gravitas.   This is a short explanation from Ben Smith’s link via the tweet.
The phrase “blood libel” was introduced into the debate this week by Instapundit’s Glenn Reynolds, and raised some eyebrows because it typically refers historically to the alleged murder of Christian babies by Jews, and has been used more recently by Israeli’s supporters to refer to accusations against the country. It’s a powerful metaphor, and one that carries the sense of an oppressed minority.
As you know, Congresswoman Gabby Giffords is Jewish.  You may also know that Glenn Beck is well known for what some folks have labeled “Nazi Tourettes”. That link goes to Lewis Black who originated the snarky label but raised important issues about Beck’s fascination with NAZI props.  Beck is not known for his fact checking.  He publicly admits it too.
Think Progress has some more information up on outcries from Jewish Groups in their recently published item: ‘”Jewish Groups: ‘We Are Deeply Disturbed’ By Palin’s Use Of Anti-Semitic Term ‘Blood Libel,’ She Should Apologize’. Something tells me Palin had no idea about the history of the term when she made the video.  She just jumped on it because Beck had used it.   This doesn’t surprise me.  We have more than a few opinion leaders these days that don’t seem to like to do their homework.  At least some of them get staff that to help.  Our President is surrounded by people that edit his words carefully because of the impact we all know they can have on the national and international conversation. Palin’s not the President but she’s got a group of people that consider her a leader. Her words do have meaning and effect.

This morning, Palin launched an aggressive Facebook and web-video campaign to counter what she deemed a “blood libel” against her by the media to connect her infamous cross-hairs map and other right-wing incendiary rhetoric to violence.Of all the terms Palin could have used, from “defamation” to even “implicating me in murder,” why did Palin choose “blood libel”? As the conservative National Review’s Jonah Goldberg, who says he “agree[s] entirely with…Palin’s, larger point,” notes, “Historically, the term is almost invariably used to describe anti-Semitic myths about how Jews use blood — usually from children — in their ritual.” Indeed, many Jews consider the term extremely offensive, and the Anti-Defamation League and other prominent Jewish organizations have spoken out against its use dozens of occasions in the past.

Indeed, Jewish groups are taking offense to Palin’s choice of the term. Noting that accusations of blood libel have been “directly responsible for the murder of so many Jews across centuries,” the National Jewish Democratic Council condemned Palin’s use of the term:

Instead of dialing down the rhetoric at this difficult moment, Sarah Palin chose to accuse others trying to sort out the meaning of this tragedy of somehow engaging in a “blood libel” against her and others. This is of course a particularly heinous term for American Jews, given that the repeated fiction of blood libels are directly responsible for the murder of so many Jews across centuries — and given that blood libels are so directly intertwined with deeply ingrained anti-Semitism around the globe, even today. […]

All we had asked following this weekend’s tragedy was for prayers for the dead and wounded, and for all of us to take a step back and look inward to see how we can improve the tenor of our coarsening public debate. Sarah Palin’s invocation of a “blood libel” charge against her perceived enemies is hardly a step in the right direction.

Likewise, the president of the pro-Israel, pro-peace Jewish lobby J Street, Jeremy Ben-Ami, said he was “saddened by Governor Palin’s use of the term ‘blood libel,’” adding that he hopes “she will choose to retract her comment [and] apologize“:

Could this be the reason the video’s been scrubbed? moved to a less prominent place?  (updated, see note below)

Read the rest of this entry »