Review: The Terminal (2013)

This summer’s blockbuster is a remake of Steven Spielberg’s 2004 romantic comedy The Terminal.  The main figure in the earlier film, Viktor--played somewhat awkwardly by Tom Hanks, affecting a nondescript all-purpose Eastern European accent--is trying to immigrate to New York.  He becomes stranded in Kennedy Airport, however, when his home country suddenly undergoes a violent coup and no longer officially exists.  

In this 2013 remake, director Glenn Greenwald reverses the East-West aspects of the earlier plot and blends the Spielberg film’s storyline with elements of the 1998 Will Smith/Gene Hackman  action flick Enemy of the State.  Result: instead of a comedy we now have an international thriller.  Edward Snowden plays a former U.S. spy agency contractor who is stranded in Moscow’s Sheremetyevo airport after he reveals that an invisible coup has occurred in the United States, and the US government is no longer what its citizens think it is.

The thread connecting the two films is that both central figures--Viktor and Edward--are so honest, straightforward, and devoid of hidden motives that their simplest words and acts make the officials trying to deal with them look bad by contrast.  When the officials continue to operate as rule-bound, duplicitous, and sometimes vindictive servants of the institution, we become appalled by both the bureaucracies they serve and their own limited moral imaginations.

Snowden, depicted as a computer systems expert employed first by the CIA and then by giant private contractor Booz Allen Hamilton, is moved by conscience and love of country to reveal to the public “that which is done in their name and that which is done against them.”  Fearing reprisals from the administration and its security apparatus--correctly, as it turns out--, Snowden travels abroad before his revelations are released.  He first takes refuge in Hong Kong, where he believes (mistakenly) he will be granted asylum.  There he issues a series of disclosures, each more shocking than the one before, and becomes the target of an international manhunt.

The manhunt is standard thriller material, with a range of international locations reminiscent of the Bourne series.  This is supplemented by the usual obligatory “romance.”  

Spielberg’s 2004 film used a contrived love interest between Viktor (Tom Hanks) and Amelia (a stewardess who passes periodically through Kennedy, played by the entrancing Catherine Zeta-Jones).  This 2013 version of the boy-girl angle is even more contrived.  Snowden is supplied with an off-screen girlfriend, who presumably remains in Hawaii and never figures in the plot.  

The girlfriend’s father--Jonathan Mills, in a brief but effective appearance--offers his observation, however, that Snowden “ always had very strong convictions of right and wrong.”  His comment is artfully balanced with the following scene, in which an irate neighbor says, “He’s lucky someone didn’t shoot him.”

In a misguided plot twist, the film introduces a second romance angle which quickly fizzles out, and serves only to get the mini-talented Anna Chapman, a former Russian spy, her moment on screen and in the tabloids.  Chapman, host of the weekly Russian TV show Secrets of the World, Twitters “Snowden, will you marry me?” and then poses coyly while flashbulbs pop.  They never meet.

Although the new Terminal has drawn widespread media attention, the film ultimately founders on its basic premises, which are so preposterous as to undermine the “willing suspension of disbelief” necessary for a film to touch us emotionally.

We are asked to believe that, unknown to the American people, the US’s security apparatus has constructed over the previous seven years a vast, illegal, all-encompassing electronic eavesdropping system which conducts surveillance of every citizen in the country, as well as of global communications.  

We are furthermore asked to believe that, instead of responding to Snowden’s revelations with outrage and huge demonstrations, U.S. citizens remain as passive as stunned beef cattle dangling from a moving rack while it carries them toward their slaughter. The film asks us to believe that half of the people in the country are comfortable with the idea that every snip of their electronic communication is monitored, recorded, and stored by government employees and private contractors.  

We are also asked to believe that mainstream media, instead of praising Snowden’s courage, his willingness to sacrifice his career, and his scrupulous care to avoid endangering the security of individuals and the country, actually collaborate with the government in portraying him as a coward and a traitor.

We are asked to believe that Congressional leaders rise to defend the government’s giant criminal conspiracy instead of condemning it.  Here Nancy Pelosi needs to be singled out for her outstanding performance.  Playing herself in a cameo role, complete with pearls, she defends the secret mass surveillance as entirely legal under Section 215 of the Patriot Act.  Appearing on a staged version of Meet the Press, she attacks Snowden and delivers a chilling portrayal of a hard-line party apparatchik endorsing governmental spying on its own citizens. 

Finally, we are asked to believe that sovereign nation after sovereign nation abandons any sense of international law or moral responsibility and bows to threats by the U.S., refusing Snowden asylum.  In one particularly far-fetched scene, the governments of France, Portugal, Italy, and Spain all collude with the U.S. to force a plane carrying the president of Bolivia (played by Evo Morales) to land in Austria, based on nothing more than a rumor Snowden is aboard.  There the plane is stormed and searched by Austrian police--only to find, in a comic denouement, that after all the hoopla, Snowden isn’t on the aircraft.

Snowden’s performance is a revelation.  The unknown, in his first feature role, is utterly convincing as a thoughtful thirty-something with a strong sense of patriotism and an even stronger sense of right and wrong.  Instead of a thriller with the requisite sexpot thrown in for romance, he manages to turn the film into a love story--a tale of genuine love for his country's ideals and for freedom.  There is talk of an Oscar, and he has already been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize.  Producers and directors are besieging him with additional projects, but those remain on hold so long as the threat of a lifetime prison sentence or execution hangs over his head.

I won’t cheat people who haven’t yet seen the film by revealing its stunning conclusion; be advised that it is Hollywood to the end.  The real world could never match this.

© Tony Russell, 2013

High School Civics: First Quiz

This column is a lightly-modified version of one that first appeared back in March of 2006.  The Bush administration was the focus of that earlier column.  It’s only fair to apply the same standards now to the Obama years.  Readers are encouraged to take the quiz themselves.  I’d be delighted to know your scores, if you would like to self-report.  And I’d welcome your suggestions for additional questions that might be used in a third version of the quiz.

                                               -  Tony

* * * *

I was sitting in the coffee shop, working on my second cup of starter fluid, when Rog stormed in, red-faced, with steam pouring out of his ears. 

“Have you seen this?” he demanded, throwing some sheets of paper down on the table.

“Have a seat, Rog,” I said. “Ask Angie for a couple of ice cubes to cool you down.”

“This is no laughing matter, Ace,” he fumed. “Look at this thing. It’s a disgrace!”

“What is it, Rog?” I asked.

“It’s a quiz from my boy’s high school civics class,” he said.  “The thing is nothing more than a piece of anti-American propaganda! Every question on there is a deliberate slap at the administration and Congress!  It’s brainwashing, is what it is! It’s a blatant attempt to portray the political leadership of this country as undemocratic, and I won’t stand for it!”

“My gosh, Rog,” I said. “Let me have a look at the thing. Is it really that bad?”

“You’re darned tootin’ it is,” he bellowed. “Take a look for yourself.”

* * * *

QUIZ # 2: The Differences Between Democratic and Totalitarian Governments

With the opening chapter of our textbook, we discussed the differences between democratic governments and totalitarian governments. The quiz below contains ten pairs of statements. Write “democratic” in the blank space for the statement in each pair which accurately describes a democratic government, and “totalitarian” in the blank space for the statement in each pair which accurately describes a totalitarian government. 

1.A. Under a _____________________ government, the free flow of information is essential so people can make informed decisions. Every effort is made to see that the public receives the most complete and most accurate information possible.

1. B. Under a ____________________ government, numerous important decisions are made in secret, funding for programs is concealed, and vital information is hidden from the public. The government propagandizes its own citizenry.

2.A. Under a _____________________ government, whistleblowers are valued for their important role in exposing inefficient, corrupt, illegal, or undemocratic activities.  They are protected against retaliation from those whom they have exposed, and are honored for playing a vital role in helping keep government honest and open.

2.B. Under a _____________________ government, whistleblowers are feared, despised, persecuted, and prosecuted by those whom they have exposed.  The full power of the government is unleashed on them so that the example of their punishment will prevent others from disclosing the failures and crimes of those in power.

3.A. Under a _____________________ government, the right to know the charges against you, to be represented by effective counsel, to be given your day in court in a timely manner, and to have a fair trial before a jury of your peers are all guaranteed to every person accused of a crime.

3.B. Under a _____________________ government, certain prisoners can be held indefinitely, imprisoned without being charged with a crime, denied the opportunity to counsel, and denied a chance to defend themselves in an open court.

4.A. Under a _____________________ government, prisoners are recognized as human beings, worthy of basic levels of respect and dignity. They are treated humanely and granted fundamental rights, regardless of their crimes.

4.B. Under a _____________________ government, certain prisoners are demeaned and degraded. They are treated with contempt, tortured, and brutalized.

5.A. Under a _____________________ government, people’s private reading, writing, correspondence, e-mails, computer searches, and phone conversations are their own affair, protected from governmental intrusion except in limited, specified, carefully supervised circumstances.

5.B. Under a _____________________ government, people’s private reading, writing, correspondence, e-mails, computer searches, and phone conversations are subject to secret government scrutiny, with little or no control over whose privacy is invaded, or why, or when.

6.A. Under a _____________________ government, the right of citizens to assemble, to protest peacefully, and to demand change is valued and protected.

6.B. Under a _____________________ government, peaceful protest is hindered and suppressed. Legal obstacles are created to frustrate citizens’ protests.  They are harassed, intimidated, even arrested when they attempt to make their contrary views known.  Federal officials conspire with corporate interests and local authorities to infiltrate peaceful organizations and suppress dissent.

7.A. Under a _____________________ government, the leader is subject to the rule of law and constrained by the checks and balances of the legislature and judiciary.

7.B. Under a _____________________ government, the leader ignores or dismisses inconvenient laws, and is unchecked by the legislature and judiciary.

8.A. Under a _____________________ government, every effort is made to extend the right to vote, to remove obstacles to voting, and to ensure that votes are counted accurately.

8.B. Under a _____________________ government, the right to vote is curtailed, obstacles are deliberately created to deny certain classes of citizens the right to vote, unverifiable electronic voting machines may be used to facilitate voting fraud, and voting irregularities may be ignored.

9.A. Under a _____________________ government, extrajudicial punishment of individuals is explicitly forbidden.

9.B. Under a _____________________ government, high government officials may target individuals for kidnapping, torture, and murder, using “national security” as an excuse to clothe operations in secrecy and avoid all accountability. 

10.A. Under a _____________________ government, decisions on taxation and expenditures are made with the intent of promoting the common good, protecting the weakest citizens, increasing access to opportunity, and rewarding effort and merit rather than birth.

10.B. Under a _____________________ government, decisions on taxation and expenditures are made with the intent of promoting the interests of the powerful, protecting their lives of privilege, increasing their share of the nation’s wealth, and passing their wealth and privilege on to their heirs.

FOR EXTRA CREDIT: Given your answers above, is the country in which you are now living best characterized as democratic or totalitarian?  Support your opinion with reference to current events which illustrate specific statements listed in the quiz.

* * * *

“I don’t know, Rog,” I said. “Those look like pretty standard distinctions to me. And I don’t see any references to particular politicians or parties. Sounds as if the teacher is just trying to get kids to think a little.  Why do you see it as an attack on Mr. Obama and his administration?”

“Because all the ones that are supposed to be identified as ‘totalitarian’ are obvious references to things the president and his people have done to keep us secure, you numbskull!”

“So what are you saying, Rog?  That loyalty to a political party is more important than its policies?  That totalitarian governments are preferable to democracies? That you’d rather be safe than free?  That you’d rather just turn a blind eye toward intolerable behavior?  I’m having a hard time following you here.”

“Listen, Ace. The president is just doing his job. And I’m going to see that this loose cannon does his. Or loses it.”

“You could just suggest he switch the labels that go with the descriptions in each pair,” I suggested. “Maybe that would give you something you’d be more comfortable with. How did your boy do on the test, by the way?”

His face turned grim. “That’s what really cheeses me off,” he said. “He aced it.”

Scoring note:  All “A” blanks should be “democratic” and all “B: blanks should be “totalitarian.”  Give yourself 5 points for each blank filled in correctly.

© Tony Russell, 2013

The Rest of the World Barely Exists

Vienna, July 2 ~

U.S. President Barack Obama’s plane, headed home after his visit to Senegal, South Africa, and Tanzania, was forced to land in Austria today when French, Spanish, Italian, and Portuguese officials refused to let Air Force One land and refuel as needed for its transAtlantic flight.  Once the plane touched down, it was boarded and searched by Austrian officials before being permitted to refuel and continue on its way.  

It is widely accepted that the forced grounding and search were orchestrated by the Bolivian government, which is said to have received a tip that its ex-president Gonzalo Sánchez de Lozada was aboard the flight.  Sánchez de Lozada, as it turned out, was not aboard Air Force One.

Sánchez de Lozada--a U.S.-backed ruler who faces charges at home for ordering the indiscriminate killing of dozens of peaceful protestors in cold blood--has been living in asylum in the U.S. since he was driven from office in 2003.  The U.S.’s willingness to harbor an alleged mass murderer for the past decade is no surprise, given that he received advice in his 2002 campaign from Democratic strategists James Carville,  Stan Greenberg, and Bob Shrum, and was known, during his tenure as president, as "Washington's most stalwart ally in South America." 

The Obama administration just last year refused Bolivia’s request for Sánchez de Lozada to be extradited so that he might stand trial for genocide. 

U.S. officials reacted with fury to the downing, boarding, and search of Air Force One.  President Obama, who still appeared somewhat shaken when he arrived at Andrews Air Force Base, adopted the high moral tone he normally employs in public, describing the incident as “shocking,” “intolerable,” “personally offensive to me as the leader of a free and sovereign nation,” “an insult to the people of our great country,” and “an unacceptable violation of standards of common decency as well as international law.”  

“Is this how they treat one of their sister-countries in the Americas?” Mr. Obama asked rhetorically.  “We try to be ‘good neighbors’ to our friends in the South, but such criminal behavior makes a nation a pariah in the global community.”

Secretary of State John Kerry condemned “the cowardly behavior of those countries who bowed to Sucre’s will in carrying out this outrage.”   The U.S. has demanded a formal apology from Bolivia and from each of the nations complicit in forcing Air Force One down.

Following instructions from the president, Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel immediately put U.S. forces in the region on “High Alert,” and ordered a list of bombing targets be drawn up for the cities of Santa Cruz, El Alto, La Paz, and Cochabamba.  

Major newspapers and TV networks in the U.S. have taken up the drumbeat for a military response, calling the incident “incendiary” and “an act of aggression tantamount to an act of war.”   

The average person on the street echoed such sentiments.  “Can you believe they’d do something so high-handed?“ asked Stephie Barone, a receptionist with an international mining firm headquartered in Colorado.  “The lack of respect for other nations?  Talk about a double standard!  How would they feel if the shoe were on the other foot?”

“Bolivians think they can get away with anything,” said Don Bling, an over-the-road truck driver from Chicago.  “The normal rules don’t apply to them.  They’re a rogue state.  It’s time they looked at their behavior through other people’s eyes for a change.”

“I don’t blame ordinary Bolivians,” said Angela D’Alessandro, a beautician in the Bronx.  “They live in a media bubble.  All they know is Bolivia.  As far as they’re aware, the rest of the world barely exists.”

© Tony Russell, 2013

Subjugation Theology

“...the church ought to be a community of liberated people, committed to the liberation of all....”

• Fr. Bernard Haring

* * * *

“Congratulations on the success of your most recent book, Rev. Verkslaven,” I said.  “I appreciate your willingness to grant me an interview.”

“Not a problem,” he said, glancing at his watch.  “It’s free publicity, and publicity sells books.”

“I’m pleased to meet you too,” I said.  “Look, this is a bit awkward, but I haven’t been able to read Subjugation Theology in advance.  My editor assigned me to meet with you, but he wouldn’t approve the $249.95 for the book, and I couldn’t afford to buy it myself.  If you don’t mind my saying so, that price seems a little steep.  Don’t you think it might cut into sales?”

“Not at all,” he sniffed.  “It’s priced for a niche market.  My  buyers have the wherewithal.  In fact, the book has been sitting at the top of the Forbes Best Sellers List for more than twenty weeks.  Many people buy multiple copies to bestow upon their friends.”

“So a lot of people are reading it?”

“Oh, I wouldn’t quite say that.  The good news is that, among the upper class, it’s become another status symbol--like a Cartier diamond-encrusted crucifix, dangling from a gold necklace.”

“Then it doesn’t bother you if people don’t open it once they have it?”

“People who own the book don’t have to read it.  The book is simply a systematic explication of what they already believe--a theological validation of the way they live their lives.”

“Well, I guess that works out well for both you and them,” I said.  “But I have to admit I’m on the outside looking in here.  I don’t know where to begin. It’s hard to ask intelligent questions when I haven’t been able to read the book.”

“That’s one factor, I’m sure,” he said with a grimace.  “Fortunately, I’ve prepared a brief ‘cheat sheet,’ if you will, that I keep for just this kind of situation.  Not a new concept, for a person of your type, I suspect.”  And he handed me a couple of laminated pages.

“Thanks,” I told him gratefully, “that’s a big help,”  and he stood there while I hastily skimmed the notes.

* * * *  

Subjugation Theology:

Main theological tenets: 

• Wealth is a sign of God’s favor, bestowed upon those whom he loves most
• Worldly authority accrues to God’s favorites
• All people are created unequal
• Creation is God’s gift to humans, to manage, dominate, and exploit

Core operating principle:  “A preferential option for the rich” 

Biblical highlights:

• “And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.”  Genesis 1:28, King James version
• “The blessing of the Lord brings wealth, without painful toil for it.”  Proverbs 10:22, NIV /  “The blessing of the Lord makes rich, And he adds no sorrow to it.”  Proverbs 10:22, King James version
• “The LORD blessed the latter part of Job's life more than the former part. He had fourteen thousand sheep, six thousand camels, a thousand yoke of oxen and a thousand donkeys.”  Job 42:12, NIV

Other sacred texts:  

• The Wall Street Journal 
• Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission 
• Trump: How to Get Rich; see also Think Big and Kick Ass in Business and Life  [both by Donald Trump]
• Collected works of Ayn Rand 

Sacraments: Incorporation, mergers and acquisitions, appointment to Boards of Directors, military coups

Holy sites:  Gated communities; banks; investment firms; corporate boardrooms; U.S. Supreme Court; cathedrals; country clubs; Wall Street; the Pentagon; Washington, DC

Prayer list:  tax cuts, tax shelters, tax breaks, military spending [for]; tax hikes, entitlement programs, unions, whistleblowers, government spending for housing, health, and education [against]   

Saints: The Forbes 400 (“The Richest People in America”); Alan Greenspan 

Existential focuses:  Net worth, success, security, power, social status

Primary symbols:  Walls, weapons, precious metals and gemstones, trophy wives, multiple homes, private schools, servants (gardener, nanny, cook, cleaning person, dog walker, personal trainer, etc.)

Style:  Hierarchical, triumphal, centralized, authoritarian, exclusive, aggressive, repressive, abusive, punitive, manipulative, secretive, dogmatic, opaque, violent, intolerant, self-indulgent

TV evangelization: The Apprentice

Compatible economic and political themes: 

• Privatize, privatize, privatize
• Tax breaks for the wealthy spur the economy
• Poverty is caused by individual weaknesses and failings, and by genetic inferiority
• Social Security, unemployment payments, and other entitlements rob people of the necessary initiative to work and succeed
• National security trumps humanity
• Monarchs and right-wing dictators make the most reliable allies
• The best firms are too big to fail and too big to be held accountable
• Forgiveness is for the rich, punishment for the poor
• The American Dream is to rise from poverty to wealth within a free market framework
• Extremism in the defense of wealth is no vice

* * * *

“This is pretty heavy stuff,” I said when I had finished reading.  “It’s a lot of theology to take in at one swoop.  But let’s start with the title of the book--‘Subjugation Theology’--and the subtitle, ‘A Theology in the Service of the Powers That Be.‘  Could you elaborate on that for me?” 

“Certainly.  ‘Powers that be’ are the traditional ecclesiastical and secular authorities.  Subjugation theology simply acknowledges that God has given people unequal skills, abilities, effort levels, and ambitions.  Over the course of human history, a natural sorting out has taken place, resulting in a hierarchy, with the most able at the top and the less able below.  Subjugation theology recognizes this as God’s plan, which concentrates decision-making power, authority, and fiscal benefits at the top, where they rightfully belong.  ‘The Divine Right of Kings’ gets at the idea, but it’s too narrow in compass.  Subjugation theology applies the same concept throughout all human endeavors--in governance, in business, in the arts, in the church.”

“I think I see.  So those at the top subjugate those below because God has designed it that way.  And the duty of those below is...?”

“To know their place. To obey.”

“And if the people below get resentful or jealous or restless or something...?”

He nodded.  “You can call it ‘communism,’ you can call it ‘socialism,’ you can call it ‘rebellion,’ you can simply say ‘the Devil made me do it.’  Whatever you call it, it’s evil and needs to be stamped out.”

“‘Stamped out’ as in...?”

“God doesn’t pull punches.  You’re talking about Someone who flooded the entire planet and wiped out all of humankind except for one family when He lost His temper.  Remember the Book of Deuteronomy, 28th chapter, too, where God pledges vast sicknesses and plagues, and condemns people to lives of exile and fear and sorrow and despair.  When God loses it, He means business.”

“When you say ‘business,’ do you mean ‘business’ as in ‘business’ or...?”

“This is theology here; let’s not get lost in semantics.”

“Uh, sure.  So if I get you right, you’re saying that when the people at the top are carrying out God’s intent, using God’s behavior as a template, it’s no more Mr. Nice Guy?”

“Exactly.  The gloves are off.”

I hesitated.  “Look,” I said, “don’t take this the wrong way.  I’m certainly no Biblical scholar.  But did you ever consider the possibility that there’s something self-serving about your theology?”

He stared at me, obviously puzzled.  “Of course not,” he said.  “What makes you ask a thing like that?”

                                © Tony Russell, 2013

A Whole Different Class of People Here

I was flabbergasted when the the Congressional Research Service reported on May 17 that the Pentagon didn’t have a clue what the 108,000 contractors the Department of Defense (DOD) has in Afghanistan were actually doing--let alone how well they were doing it.

Fortunately, my Uncle Jimmy, who works at the Pentagon, was in for the weekend, and I got a chance to ask him about it.

“Jimmy,” I said, “is this true?  You guys really don't have any idea what these people are doing?”

He laughed.  “Take it easy, Ace,” he said.  “You know how you media guys blow things out of proportion.”

I felt better already.  “Great.  Could you put it in proportion for me?”  I glanced at my notes.  “According to the report, DOD spent $160 billion with contracts in Afghanistan and Iraq these past six years. That seems like a lot of money to go unaccounted for.”

“Not a bit,” he scoffed.  “We actually save money by eliminating oversight.  We have over 40,000 more contracted employees in the country than we do troops!  Do you know how many people it would take to actually keep track of over a hundred thousand contract employees and monitor their work?”  

“Gee, I don’t know,” I said.  “A thousand?”

“Guess again,” he said.  “More like ten to sixteen thousand.  So we’ve saved, off the top of my head, somewhere in the neighborhood of $15 to $20 billion by eliminating supervision.” 

“That’s a high-priced neighborhood,” I joked.  “But I’d think you’d be worried about theft and corruption and inefficiency and work going undone and people goofing off.  Things like that.”

“You’ve got to be kidding,” he said, shocked.  “Ace, these are U.S. defense contractors you’re talking about.  They’re the biggest and the best.  If you can’t trust KBR, DynCorp, Fluor, Washington Group International, Lockheed Martin, General Dynamics, and corporations like that to give you an honest day’s work for an honest day’s pay, who can you trust?”

I was silent for a minute, and he looked at me.  “I know that look, Ace.  You’re actually thinking.  What is it?” he asked.

“I was thinking about ‘corporate welfare,’ and just remembering those news stories back in the 70s when Ronald Reagan and Reader’s Digest hammered the welfare system and ‘welfare queens’” I told him.  “Cities and states have kept an eagle eye out for welfare fraud ever since.  You see governments zeroing in on welfare clients all the time.  Charlottesville cracked down on more than a dozen in April for taking money they allegedly weren’t entitled to.  Most of them were charged with siphoning off a thousand to four thousand dollars.”

“Defrauding the system.  That’s outrageous, isn’t it?” said Jimmy.  “But what’s your point?  I don’t see any connection.  We’re talking about a whole different class of people here.”

© Tony Russell, 2013

Privacy Died, and People Didn’t Even Know It

Author’s note:  The KGB alumni portion of the following, which sounds realistic, is actually fiction;  the NSA portion, which sounds like science fiction, is actual news from the real world.

It’s June again, and around the globe, in the northern hemisphere, alumni groups are gathering.  In Russia, the KGBAA (KGB Alumni Association)--former officials of the Soviet Union’s “Committee for State Security”--held their annual reunion this week at the Black Sea resort city of Sochi, nearly 22 years after the agency’s dissolution in 1991.  

The prevailing mood was surprisingly upbeat, full of nostalgia for “the good old days.”  In their heyday, KGB agents monitored and infiltrated dissident political, artistic, and environmental groups.  Agents not only spied on the members but urged them on to illegal and even violent acts which would justify harsh crackdowns by authorities.  The KGB also tapped phones, opened mail, paid informers, arrested people without charges, held them indefinitely, tortured them, and occasionally killed them.

This year the KGB alumni have watched events unfolding in their old enemy, the U.S., with heightened interest.   

The tone was set a few months prior to the reunion, when documents were released showing that FBI “counterterrorism agents” spied on the Occupy Wall Street movement nationwide.  Not only that, but they shared their information with the very banks, corporations, and Wall Street firms people were protesting against.

“The government’s response was stunningly effective,” marveled Andrei S.  “You had spontaneous nonviolent protests against the corporate stranglehold on government springing up all over the country, with the potential to change everything, and government security forces, coordinating with corporations, municipal governments, and local police, absolutely crushed the movement!”

“It was like old home week!” exclaimed Leonid Z.  “Anyone who objects to something done by the government is an enemy of the state, and thus a potential terrorist.”  

Even more entertaining to the ex-KGB men was breaking news that the U.S.’s National Security Agency (NSA) has been gathering the telephone records of millions of Verizon customers.  This was followed almost immediately by a report that AT&T and Sprint customers had also been spied upon.  And to cap off the week, it was revealed that the NSA has access to e-mails, search histories, websites visited, links followed, and live chats for customers of Microsoft, Apple, Google, Yahoo, and Facebook.

“We thought the breakthroughs were spy cameras in satellites, and drones with surveillance cameras to fly over houses and yards, checking to see who’s coming and going,” said Boris P., “but comprehensive, unfettered access to people’s phones and computers....”  He shook his head in admiration.  

“Technology,” nodded Mikhail B; “it’s wonderful.  Let’s face it: compared to these guys, we were dinosaurs.”

The KGB alumni, to a man, were envious of the NSA’s ability to spy on even the most casual, private, and intimate communications of virtually every citizen in the U.S.  

“Can you imagine the possibilities for blackmail?” chortled Yuri G, who had started in early on the vodka.  “I would have given my eyeteeth--well, not my eyeteeth but somebody’s eyeteeth--for access like that.  Privacy died, and people didn’t even know it!  It’s like being God--if there were a God.  You get to see and hear almost everything a person is saying and thinking, while they’re totally unaware.”

Public reaction in the U.S. to the unfolding stories has been muted--not surprising, perhaps, as members of the public begin to realize that their reactions, public or private, will be monitored by the FBI and immediately collected by the NSA.  

Citizens might also be worrying as they try to recall what they have looked at online, e-mailed, or said on the telephone.  That will require an exhaustive memory.  Vadim M. reminded his colleagues that California senator Diane Feinstein had basically called the revelations a non-story, since the massive domestic spying has been going on for seven years, during both the Obama and Bush administrations.  

Feinstein justified the spying because it is carried out under the authority of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.  It comes under the business records part of the PATRIOT Act; “therefore it is lawful,” she emphasized.  Unspoken was the obvious corollary: that it is unlawful to even reveal the existence of the surveillance.  

By yet another bit of lucky timing, this latter point has been dramatically underlined during the reunion by the showcase trial of whistleblower Bradley Manning, which highlights the unprecedented rate at which the Obama administration is prosecuting whistleblowers in general.

“I wish we’d had a PATRIOT Act,” said Vasily K., somewhat wistfully. “I always felt as if I had to be a little furtive when crossing the line.  But look what you can do when you have a legal blank check!”

P.S.  Here is a link  http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/09/edward-snowden-nsa-whistleblower-surveillance  to a news item in today’s The Guardian about Edward Snowden, the man who is revealing the extent of NSA surveillance.  (Follow it at your own risk, understanding that your act is being monitored.)

© Tony Russell, 2013

We Are Family

This one contains a tongue-in-cheek look at the wealthy "decision makers"  who are deciding to "fix the debt" by cutting services to ordinary people rather than take simple steps like closing tax loopholes designed by and for the benefit of the rich, raising the current cut-off level on the Social Security tax, eliminating offshore tax shelters, going after income tax fraud, and raising corporate income taxes, which have plunged over the past few decades.   My apologies to any political figures I may have inadvertently shamed among their peers by low-balling their net worth.  I will gladly make any needed corrections. 

                                                            - Tony

June 3, Washington -

Administration officials and congressional leaders moved swiftly today to allay rising public fears that top government figures might face hardships in their retirement years because of impending cuts in Social Security and Medicare.  

The most recent polls show a rapidly growing public concern that our nation’s leaders will struggle after leaving office in view of slashes to retirement benefits and health care coverage.

“We have a responsibility to see that the quality of public servants’ lives isn’t jeopardized by worries about their old age or disability,” said Art McGrady, an unemployed factory worker.  “We have a moral obligation to them--simply because they’re fellow human  beings, of course, but also because they’re people who labor tirelessly on behalf of all the rest of us.”  McGrady’s sentiments, according to the polls, are widely shared. 

Chuck Browning is a retired coal miner whose guaranteed health care benefits from Arch Coal disappeared when the company adroitly unloaded the bulk of its pension obligations onto a company it created, then kept a straight face as the new company went bankrupt and all those “guaranteed lifetime benefits” vanished.  Browning said, “I know what it’s like to lose that sense of security.  For me it has felt like falling down a mine shaft.  So I can’t help worrying about our nation’s leaders.  They’re human beings who don’t deserve to be used by the public and then simply discarded and forgotten when they’re sick or old.  We are family, and family members care for one another.  We’re all brothers and sisters in this world.  ”

Members of West Virginia’s Congressional delegation--Rep. Shelley Moore Capito (maximum net worth in 2011 of $2.8 million), Rep. David McKinley (maximum net worth in 2011 of $13.1 million), Rep. Nick Rahall  (maximum net worth in 2011 of $2.97 million), Sen. Joe Manchin (maximum net worth in 2011 of $11.7 million), and Sen Jay Rockefeller (maximum net worth in 2011 of $116.4 million)--issued a joint statement to the Hur Herald expressing their gratitude for the outpouring of support.  “We are moved and humbled by your concern,” the statement read.  “We hope we can continue to deserve your trust.” 

Secretary of State John Kerry (estimated net worth more than $200 million) declared, “We always have the people’s best interests in mind, of course.  I can’t tell you how gratifying it is to know that the good intentions are reciprocal.”

Eric Holder, Mr. Obama’s Attorney General (estimated net worth of $11.5 million), echoed the sentiment.  “As we go about making tough decisions to axe programs, it strengthens our conviction we are doing the right things when we find the public has our back,” he declared.    

Penny Pritzker, Mr. Obama’s nominee for Commerce Secretary (estimated net worth of $1.6 billion), said in a prepared statement released by her press secretary, “We’re just ordinary people, with the same burdens and concerns as everyone else.  It’s touching to know that the public identifies with us and is stepping forward to assure that our needs are met.”

New Treasury Secretary Jacob “Jack” Lew, one of the most vulnerable of Cabinet-level members with a net worth of only $1.7 million, has called the groundswell of good will “heartwarming.”  

Mr. Obama himself (maximum net worth estimated at $11.8 million) and new Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel (maximum net worth of $10.9 million) recently won the hearts of millions of unemployed and underemployed citizens when they announced they are voluntarily surrendering 5% of their government salaries in a show of solidarity with the most vulnerable Americans, who have borne the brunt of recent budget cuts.  

The 5% cut means Mr. Obama will have to manage on an annual salary of just $380,000.  Per capita income for West Virginians in the past 12 months was $22, 010.

In an echo of Bill Clinton’s famous remark, Mr. Obama told a group of disabled and unemployed veterans from the Iraq and Afghan resource wars, “We share your pain.  Thank you for sharing ours.”

© Tony Russell, 2013

Note: The public probably shouldn’t be too worried, as congressional pensions are vested after only five (5) years of service.  Members can collect their full pension at the age of 62 with 5 years of service.   Presidential pensions start immediately after a new president is sworn in.  In 2011 it was $199,700 per year, supplemented by staff and office allowances, travel expenses, Secret Service protection, and other perks, including free medical treatment at military hospitals for themselves, their spouses, their widows, and their minor children.