Progressive Calendar 08.11.10
From: David Shove (
Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2010 15:42:39 -0700 (PDT)
              P R O G R E S S I V E   C A L E N D A R   08.11.10

1. Move the game!/AZ  8.11 5:30pm
2. NO DNC 2012/Mpls   8.11 6pm
3. Iraq art           8.11 6:30pm
4. Polly Mann/Afghan  8.11 7pm

5. Audrey Thayer      8.12 4pm
6. Pentel/NewBrighton 8.12 4:30pm
7. Eagan peace vigil  8.12 4:30pm
8. Northtown vigil    8.12 5pm

9. Maximilliam Forte - A war on Wikileaks?
10. ed               - Capitalism exposed  (haiku)

--------1 of 10--------

From: Meredith Aby <awcmere [at]>
Subject: Move the game!/AZ 8.11 5:30pm

Tell the Owners: "Move the Game!"
Wednesday, August 11 5:30pm - 6:30pm @ Graves 601 Hotel 601 North 1st
Avenue Minneapolis, MN

On August 11th, the owners of every MLB team in the nation will be in
Minneapolis for their quarterly owners conference. Join us as we team up
with to demand that the all-star game be moved out of
Arizona unless SB1070 is fully repealed! This is a great opportunity to
keep the pressure on the MLB and Bud Selig to take a stand for human
rights, and send Arizona a message (est. $60 Million loss in revenue) that
we will not tolerate hateful laws. Endorsed by MIRAc, BAM!, and For more info go to: FFI:,

-------2 of 10--------

From: Facebook <notification+kr4ma254ennx [at]>
Subject: NO DNC 2012/Mpls 8.11 6pm

Event: NO DNC 2012 in Minneapolis Meeting
Start Time: Wednesday, August 11 at 6:00pm
End Time: Wednesday, August 11 at 7:30pm
Location: Powderhorn Park (north of rec center)

To see more details and RSVP, follow the link below:

--------3 of 10--------

From: Rowley Clan <rowleyclan [at] EARTHLINK.NET>
Subject: Iraq art 8.11 6:30pm

Meet and Greet Artists from Iraq on Wednesday, August 11, 6:30 p.m., Tarnish
and Gold Gallery, 1511 Marshall Street Northeast, Minneapolis.

Artists Fatin and Ghalib from Iraq will be visiting with Iraqi art works
as part of "The Art of Conflict" exhibit: "The Art of Conflict hopes to
inspire viewers to explore different perspectives of the war in Iraq and
its repercussions on both Iraqis and Americans. Healing is a process. We
truly believe that our work does not simply lie in the presentation of the
art exhibit itself, but also in creating a forum for expression on the
reality of conflict and war."
 -7:30 p.m. Artist's talk by Monica Haller with Q& A session on her work,
Riley and His Story. Free and open to the public. Sponsored by: Iraq
American Reconciliation Project (IARP). Endorsed by: WAMM. FFI:

--------4 of 10--------

From: Women Against Military Madness <wamm [at]>
Subject: Polly Mann/Afghan 8.11 7pm

Talk by Polly Mann: Rethink Afghanistan
Wednesday, August 11, 7:00 p.m. Ridgedale Byerly's Community Room, 13081
Ridgedale Drive (off of Interstate 394 and Plymouth Road), Minnestonka.

West Metro invites you to join in discussing and planning strategies to
end the occupation of Afghanistan. Speaker, Polly Mann, is the co-founder
of WAMM and peace activist extraordinaire. Polly will report on the United
National Anti-War Conference held July 23 -25, in Albany, NY and give her
ideas on the most effective strategies to end the occupation. People of
all ages and perspectives will be attending and all are welcome in united
opposition to the fruitless war in Afghanistan. All ideas will be heard.
Endorsed b: WAMM.

--------5 of 10--------

From: Women Against Military Madness <wamm [at]>
Subject: Audrey Thayer 8.12 4pm

Benefit Fundraiser for Audrey Thayer
Thursday, August 12, 4:00 to 8:00 p.m. 2200 Clinton Avenue South,

Late last month, a fire destroyed most of the home and belongings of
Audrey Thayer of Bemidji, Minnesota. The fire started in the attached
garage that contained her car and many of her belongings stored there.
Audrey heads up the Greater Minnesota Racial Justice Project on behalf of
the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU-MN). She has been a life-long
activist on behalf of Native American issues, she is a member of the White
Earth band as well as an ardent environmentalist. Audrey has devoted her
life to service on behalf of others - and now she finds that she needs our
help. Appetizers and beverages provided. Audrey will be attending this
event to talk about her work in northern Minnesota. Endorsed by: WAMM. FFI
Call Jenny, 612-558-9642 or Dean, 612-207-1319.

--------6 of 10--------

>From PRO826 [at] Thu Aug  5 10:51:41 2010
Subject: Pentel/NewBrighton 8.12 4:30pm

Aug 12th - New Brighton Stock Yard Days Parade - Thursday, August 12th

Come join the campaign at this parade!  Bring signs, musical instruments,
or just your determination towards positive change.  Ken Pentel for
Governor contingent spot is #130.  Line up begins at 4:30p and parade
starts at 6p.

Renowned as one of the best and biggest parades in the state, this year's
parade promises to be better than ever.  Clowns, bands and upwards of 40
floats will make their way through the streets of Old Town New Brighton.

The parade route will be the same as years past beginning on 1st Ave
between St John's Church and NB Health & Rehab.  and then marching down
10th street to Old Hwy 8, past City Hall and then west on 8th Street.
Turning south on 8th Ave and returning to Old Hwy 8 ending in front of the
Tri-City American Legion.

--------7 of 10--------

From: Greg and Sue Skog <family4peace [at]>
Subject: Eagan peace vigil 8.12 4:30pm

PEACE VIGIL EVERY THURSDAY from 4:30-5:30pm on the Northwest corner of
Pilot Knob Road and Yankee Doodle Road in Eagan. We have signs and
candles. Say "NO to war!" The weekly vigil is sponsored by: Friends south
of the river speaking out against war.

--------8 of 10--------

From: EKalamboki [at]
Subject: Northtown vigil 8.12 5pm

NORTHTOWN Peace Vigil every Thursday 5-6pm, at the intersection of Co. Hwy
10 and University Ave NE (SE corner across from Denny's), in Blaine.

Communities situated near the Northtown Mall include: Blaine, Mounds View,
New Brighton, Roseville, Shoreview, Arden Hills, Spring Lake Park,
Fridley, and Coon Rapids.  We'll have extra signs.

For more information people can contact Evangelos Kalambokidis by phone or
email: (763)574-9615, ekalamboki [at]

--------9 of 10--------

Unhinged at the US State Department and Pentagon
A War on Wikileaks?
August 11, 2010

In the interest of full disclosure, I am one of Wikileaks' many financial
donors. I have downloaded their entire Afghan War Diary, and numerous
other documents in the past, and I have shared them. I am also one of the
critics of some aspects of the Wikileaks review process. Some might rush
to conclude that this puts individuals such as myself in a difficult
position. Not from our standpoint. Instead the difficult positions are
owned by the U.S. State Department and Pentagon, whose emissions have been
chock full of absurd assertions, twisted logic, while appealing to us with
as much charm as that of a delinquent about to commit date rape: first the
appeal to our good side (ethics), then the threat of destruction

The past week has seen a mounting cascade of legal threats against
Wikileaks, launched first via the mainstream media, which along with its
patron state is clearly smarting from the lash of uncontrolled information
access. A Pentagon official reportedly exclaimed, with obvious joy: "It's
amazing how [Wikileaks' Julian] Assange has overplayed his hand. Now, he's
alienating the sort of people who you'd normally think would be his
biggest supporters". In one step, three fallacies: one, that this story is
all about Julian Assange, thus reducing the complex to the personal; two,
that supporters of Wikileaks have become antagonistic toward what is an
amorphous transnational movement without clear boundaries of membership or
location; and three, the implication that support has shifted toward the
Pentagon, as if it now has some sort of green light of legitimacy to
commit any acts against Wikileaks that it wishes. It's only at these big
historical moments, with so much at stake, with everything seemingly up in
the air, that one finds so many people who are so wrong about so much.

Let's review the strategy of intended intimidation. The first step
involved the military threatening its own - not in itself illogical, since
the leaks emanate from within its ranks. However, the military threatened
its own to avoid looking at what is now public. The Department of the
Navy, in a message titled "Wikileaks Website Guidance," issued the
following statement as reported on August 5th:

"personnel should not access the WikiLeaks website to view or download the
publicized classified information. Doing so would introduce potentially
classified information on unclassified networks. There has been rumor that
the information is no longer classified since it resides in the public
domain. This is NOT true. Government information technology capabilities
should be used to enable our war fighters, promote information sharing in
defense of our homeland, and to maximize efficiencies in operations. It
should not be used as a means to harm national security through
unauthorized disclosure of our information on publicly accessible websites
or chat rooms".

A similar message was issued by the Special Security Office of the Marine
Corps Intelligence Department addressed to ALCON (all concerned), which
threatened to discipline offenders:

"By willingly accessing the WIKILEAKS website for the purpose of viewing
the posted classified material - these actions constitute the unauthorized
processing, disclosure, viewing, and downloading of classified information
onto an UNAUTHORIZED computer system not approved to store classified
information, meaning they have WILLINGLY committed a SECURITY VIOLATION.
Not only are these actions illegal, but they provide the justification for
local security officials to immediately remove, suspend 'FOR CAUSE' all
security clearances and accesses. Commanders may press for Article 15 or
32 charges, and USMC personnel could face a financial hardship as civilian
and contractor personnel will be placed on 'Administrative Leave' pending
the outcome of the [criminal] investigation".

The threat to military personnel is one thing, but it has been done in a
manner that threatens a wide array of actors, which theoretically could
include independent bloggers, journalists, university librarians, and
scholars. Sumit Agarwal, the former Google manager who - take note of the
military-new media complex at work - is now serving as the Defense
Department's social media czar, asserted to Wired's Danger Room that many
of us may be guilty of illegal information trafficking (as I said in my
last article, we are all hackers now):

"I think of it as being analogous to MP3s or a copyrighted novel
online - widespread publication doesn't strip away laws governing use of
those. If Avatar were suddenly available online, would [it] be legal to
download it? As a practical matter, many people would download it, but
also as a practical matter, James Cameron would probably go after people
who were found to be nodes who facilitated distribution. It would still be
illegal for people to make Avatar available even if it were posted on a
torrent site or the equivalent. With minor changes to what is
legal/illegal re: classified material vs a copyrighted movie, doesn't the
analogy hold? One person making it available doesn't change the laws re:
classified material. Our position is simply that service members ought not
to use government computers to do something which is still completely
illegal (traffic in classified material)".

Also on August 5th, the Pentagon issued an outlandish demand, so bizarre
that it could not possibly be met with anything less than scorn. Pentagon
spokesman Geoff Morrell ordered Wikileaks to "return" all documents (which
are not paper documents, but digital copies, of which countless copies now
exist in circulation):

"These documents are the property of the U.S. Government and contain
classified and sensitive information. The Defense Department demands that
Wikileaks return immediately all version [sic] of documents obtained..
Wikileaks' public disclosure last week of a large number of our documents
has already threatened the safety of our troops, our allies and Afghan
citizens.. The only acceptable course is for Wikileaks to return all
versions of these documents to the U.S. government and permanently delete
them from its website, computers and records".

At the same time this indicates one of the main lines of argument that the
U.S. would begin to pursue against Wikileaks in earnest, and it is by far
the weakest: that the leaked records threaten the safety of its troops and

Fox News was eager to dedicate its time and energies to looking for legal
loopholes by which to hang Wikileaks. It demonstrated no such concern for
the finer points of international law, let alone another country's
domestic laws, when it came to the U.S. invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq.
Yet, here is Fox on Wikileaks' trail in Sweden. On August 6th Fox was
happy to have surfaced with this report: "But the law [protecting freedom
of expression and the anonymity of sources] only applies to websites or
publications that possess a special publishing license granting them
constitutional protection, and WikiLeaks has not acquired the requisite
paperwork." Fox's headline was "WikiLeaks Website Not Protected by Swedish
Law, Legal Analysts Say" no legal analyst was named or quoted in the
article. The only reason Fox issued this piece is as part of an effort,
combining old media, social media, and the national security state, to
draw a tighter noose around Wikileaks' collective neck. At a time when
many "patriotic Americans" are publicly calling for Wikileaks' people to
be hunted down and shot, it is interesting to note that Fox is only too
happy to reveal the name, location, and photograph of the person hosting
Wikileaks' server in Sweden.

On August 9th, the Wall Street Journal claimed to have obtained a letter
from five human rights organizations that was critical of Wikileaks.
failure to redact the names of Afghan civilian informants in the records
that were publicly released. The WSJ's Jeanne Whalen, in language that is
strikingly close to that of the unnamed Pentagon official quoted above at
the start, wrote: "The exchange shows how WikiLeaks and Mr. Assange risk
being isolated from some of their most natural allies in the wake of the
documents' publication.. This could be a problem for Wikileaks, insofar as
Julian Assange has effectively conceded the argument in an interview with,
among others, The Guardian: 'If there are innocent Afghans being revealed,
which was our concern, which was why we kept back 15,000 files, then of
course we take that seriously'. The problem is that many such identities
are revealed in the files that have already been released. Assange argues
that the U.S. military is ultimately to blame for having placed Afghan
civilians in danger, and for recording identities that could be revealed.
He is not wrong there, and the U.S. was overconfident that its database
was beyond any danger of leakage, which is obviously wrong. Perhaps not
wanting to engage in cold, bitter irony, Assange did not choose to give
back to the state the words it often gives us: 'Mistakes were made. We
regret all loss of innocent civilian life. Unfortunately, the enemy chose
to embed itself in the civilian population'". Wikileaks, via Twitter, was
correct in noting that not once since the recent leaks exploded into
public has the Pentagon said it was sorry about all the Afghan civilians
it killed, or that it would stop.

Now, on August 10th, we are told that the U.S. is urging all of its
allies, especially those in NATO and with troops in Afghanistan, to crack
down on Wikileaks. An unnamed American diplomat has stated:

"It's not just our troops that are put in jeopardy by this leaking. It's
U.K. troops, it's German troops, it's Australian troops - all of the NATO
troops and foreign forces working together in Afghanistan. [Their
governments should] review whether the actions of WikiLeaks could
constitute crimes under their own national-security laws".

Some U.S. allies, such as Canada, are likely to bolt out of the gate to be
the first to do so. The day after the release of the documents, Canadian
Foreign Minister Lawrence Cannon insisted, at first, that he would not
comment directly on the leaked documents, saying they had "nothing to do
with Canada". Yet, as if he had suddenly received an automated statement
transmitted to a secret implant buried in his head, he said: "Our
government is concerned, obviously, that operational leaks could endanger
the lives of our men and women in Afghanistan". Again, three absurdly
contradictory elements bundled together: 1) we are not commenting on the
documents; 2) the documents have nothing to do with Canada; and, 3) the
documents could endanger our troops.

The latter point is likely to be how the U.S. will impress upon allies the
need to collaborate in persecuting Wikileaks. The endangering of Afghan
civilians cannot, clearly, be a point on which to prosecute a case against
Wikileaks, because the irony would be too immense for even the U.S. to try
to keep inflated and aloft. The safety of troops is not much less ironic -
after all, it was the state that placed those troops in harm's way, not
Wikileaks - but it does play better with a home crowd that has been
sufficiently conditioned to thirst for the blood of imagined "traitors".
The leaders of the chief national security state of the West increasingly
sound like angry and desperate bloggers, promising the wrath of god and
total vengeance - and it may be because, one, the state is increasingly
powerless to deal with transnational, decentralized, non-state phenomena
that can fight back on cyber terrain (and win), and two because that crowd
of angry, righteous patriots is the one the state is playing to.

It would be amazing if the U.S. or an ally ever got to try a case against
Wikileaks on the grounds that troops' lives had been endangered. It would
be a massive fiasco. The state would need to show - and not just assert,
as it does now - exactly how any troops were actually endangered. Which of
the rounds received from small arms fire in Afghanistan is a regular
"insurgent" round and which one is a Wikileaks' inspired round? In a war
zone, how do you calibrate safety levels such that you can tell when, with
Wikileaks, the danger meter went deeper into the red? And since Afghan
civilians are already, all too painfully, aware of the damage done by U.S.
and NATO forces, how can the release of these records do any greater
damage? Did Afghans need a reminder, in print, in another language?

If the state fails to make any sense - not surprising - it is because it
is has no intention of doing so. The state is appealing to something more
visceral with all of this posturing: fear. It wants to strike fear into
the minds and bodies of people working with Wikileaks, or anyone else
doing such work, and anyone contemplating leaking any classified records.
Fear is its greatest weapon of psychological destruction, with proven
success at home. And in this case, the danger lies at home. The outcome
the state hopes for is greater self-censorship and greater

Bullying Assange, or worse yet, actually capturing him and imprisoning
him, will only make Assange into an international hero, the Che Guevara of
information warfare. For all those who may be "alienated," or who
expressed any criticisms, they/we would clearly pick Assange over the
Pentagon any day. The U.S. does not want this to be publicly proven on a
world stage, so our answers to the question of what the U.S. is up to, and
why it seems to have become so utterly unhinged, have to lie elsewhere. I
contend that it is fear promotion, as part of a campaign of global
counterinsurgency on psychological and emotional levels, to which the best
answer is a combination of further tactical innovation, and greater humor.

Maximilian C. Forte is a professor in anthropology at Concordia University
in Montreal, Canada. He writes at Zero Anthropology. He can be reached at
max.forte [at]

--------10 of 10--------

 is just the Mafia with
 a Harvard accent.


   - David Shove             shove001 [at]
   rhymes with clove         Progressive Calendar
                     over 2225 subscribers as of 12.19.02
              please send all messages in plain text no attachments

                          vote third party
                           for president
                           for congress
                           for governor
                          now and forever

                           Socialism YES
                           Capitalism NO

 To GO DIRECTLY to an item, eg
 --------8 of x--------
 do a find on

 Research almost any topic raised here at:
  Dissident Voice
  Common Dreams
 Once you're there, do a search on your topic, eg obama drones

  • (no other messages in thread)

Results generated by Tiger Technologies Web hosting using MHonArc.