Political MoJo

Whistleblowers Get Their Own Wikipedia

This could be cool. A new site, Wikileaks, is setting up an online repository for leaked information.

| Thu Jan. 4, 2007 12:46 PM EST


This could be cool. A new site, Wikileaks, is setting up an open-source, online repository for leaked information. Using a wiki interface, it will allow anonymous whistleblowers to upload confidential info—but unlike Wikipedia, unhappy bosses and government agencies won't be able to edit or delete the entries. The site already claims to have received 1.1 million documents and plans "to numerically eclipse the content the English Wikipedia with leaked documents." Sounds like a potentially great source for activists and journalists. Not everyone is excited, though. Steven Aftergood of Secrecy News, who often passes on leaked or declassified documents from the U.S. government, writes: "In the absence of accountable editorial oversight, publication can more easily become an act of aggression or an incitement to violence, not to mention an invasion of privacy or an offense against good taste." Which gets to the heart of the wiki issue—unfettered authorship versus the demands of accuracy. Let's see what happens here.

Advertise on MotherJones.com

El Nino + Emissions = Our Toastiest Year Yet

Today the U.K's weather forecasting division (why can't we have one of those?) released its projection that the one-two punch...

| Thu Jan. 4, 2007 10:04 AM EST

Today the U.K's weather forecasting division (why can't we have one of those?) released its projection that the one-two punch of El Niño and global warming could net the world's warmest ever year on record.

Each January the Met Office issues a global forecast, which takes into account solar effects, El Niño, greenhouse gases concentrations and other multi-decadal influences. Over the previous seven years the annual global temperature forecasts have been right on, with a tiny error mean of just 0.06 °C.

This year the data says there's a 60 percent chance that 2007 will be hotter than 1998, the current warmest year. The main factor behind the prediction is the onset last year of El Niño, a warming of the eastern Pacific's equatorial waters that occurs every two to seven years.

Worldwide, the 10 warmest years since 1850 have all occurred in the past 12 years. And with every year of rising temperatures we are seeing species and ecosystems altered beyond their tipping points, with everything from jellyfish to African storks feeling the burn.

In 1998, global temperatures were 0.52 degrees above the long-term average, and this year, the Met Office's central forecast is for them to be 0.54 degrees above the mean. The forecast explains that while the current El Niño effect -- warming parts of the Pacific by between 1 and 3 degrees -- isn't as strong as the 1997-1998 pattern when the ocean warmed in parts by as much as 4 degrees, the signifincantly greater volume of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is likely to make 2007 warmer still than 1998.

Later this year the U.N.-created Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change will publish its fourth assessment on changing weather patterns (and the first since 2001). The report will synthesize data and predictions from thousands of climate scientists from around the world, and offer critical information on climate change. We'll see if President Bush finds it's important enough to actually read.

Where free speech ends and threats begin

Even the most enthusiastic supporter of free speech understands why you cannot--to use a worn-out, but still good example--shout "fire!"...

| Wed Jan. 3, 2007 10:40 PM EST

Even the most enthusiastic supporter of free speech understands why you cannot--to use a worn-out, but still good example--shout "fire!" in a crowded theater. Our courts and our law enforcement agencies have long disagreed on when a threat is dangerous and when it is "just a threat." Until we had stalker laws, many citizens were told that nothing could be done about the people who threatened them, and in some communities, stalker laws are still ignored by law enforcement.

People who have used the Internet to make threats against others have also found that their threats are often protected by First Amendment principles. Reasonable people can disagree over the First Amendment, but surely there are some circumstances in which threats can be seen as nothing but dangerous.

It seems to me (and actually, I am one of those people who believes we should take all threats seriously) that most people would take seriously a threat that is both significant in meaning and specific in content. If it were repeated over time, that would, I believe, make it even more potent. Which brings me to radio host Hal Turner, who is already well known for his verbal attacks and threats on African Americans, Jews and illegal immigrants.

Prior to the November elections, Turner stated that he might have to assassinate some members of Congress if the "wrong" people were elected. He recently posted on his website the following:


Turner is also running this disclaimer on his website: "Due to recent Denial of Service Attacks and Bandwidth Leeching Fraud, most of the content on this site was intentionally removed by Hal Turner."

The radio host says that by stating that we (whoever "we" are) "may" have to kill the Congresspeople, he is just commenting, as opposed to advocating (saying we "will" have to kill them). The first, he says, is an opinion, and the second is a threat. But this is what Turner said on the air recently:

This seems to be "it," folks. I'm going to do what I have to do to protect my nation from its government. I know where all of my New Jersey Congressmen and Senators live. Do you know where yours live? If not, you better find out before January so you can scope out their neighborhoods and prepare yourselves.
Those of you who, for years, have said you're "gonna do this" or "gonna do that" when the time comes; are about to face ugly reality. In January, "the time" will come. In January the entire world will find out if you're real or just a bigmouth coward.
If Turner can construe that as "commentary" rather than "threat," I would certainly like to hear how. The FBI, for its part, will not (as opposed to "may not") confirm whether Turner's remarks are the subject of an investigation.

Maliki, Too, Thinks He's Not Right For The Job

Yesterday, the Wall Street Journal reported on its extensive interview with the much criticized Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. Upon...

| Wed Jan. 3, 2007 4:10 PM EST

Yesterday, the Wall Street Journal reported on its extensive interview with the much criticized Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. Upon his return to Baghdad in 2003, after spending more than 20 years in Syria, Maliki enthusiastically supported the total elimination of the Baath Party's institutions, one of the Bush administration's many early decisions that have henceforth evoked disapproval. (Maliki is a member of the Dawa Party, whose members faced execution under Saddam's regime.) Maliki has since been denounced by his own government, many wondering if he really has what it takes to lead this dividing country to any semblance of peace.

Most recently, the Prime Minister has been called to task by the media for his large role in pushing up Saddam's execution to last Friday, at dawn on Eid al-Adha, a holy muslim holiday. The decision to speed up Saddam's execution, which may have been a calculated political move to regain popularity among his fellow Shi'ites (whose faith in him has been waning), appears to have done just that. So maybe it is too early for the Prime Minister to back down, but he himself has doubts about his ability, and his desire, to rule. He didn't even want the position in the first place. In the Journal's December 24th interview with the Prime Minister, in response to whether he will accept this position again, he responded, "I didn't want to take this position. I only agreed because I thought it would serve the national interest, and I will not accept it again...I wish I could be done with it even before the end of this term."

Waiting for Cures

Good news for the new year. New Scientist reports that a deal struck in a London pub a few years...

| Tue Jan. 2, 2007 9:37 PM EST

Good news for the new year. New Scientist reports that a deal struck in a London pub a few years is leading to new hope for 200 million people worldwide suffering from the fatal liver disease, hepatitis C. The researchers' aim was to bypass big pharma's patents on interferon treatments, since their $13,000-a-year drugs were affordable to only 1 in 6 sufferers. Best of all, the new interferon drug , which will be available to the poor, actually cures hep-C.

The British Medical Journal publishes a paper out of the Mayo Clinic on mining historical documents for clues to potential new drugs. The authors cite a 400-year old report by Georg Everhard Rumphius, an employee of the Dutch East Indies Company, who described the anti-diarrheal properties of extracts from the fruit kernels of atun trees. Turns out to be an antibiotic new to science, old news to the Ambon islanders of Indonesia.

Delayed gratification was nothing new to Rumphius, say the authors:

It is amazing that Rumphius's work was ever published. In 1670 he went blind, and four years later his wife and daughter were killed in an earthquake. Thirteen years later, in 1687, a fire levelled the capital of Ambon's European quarter, and his manuscripts and the botanical illustrations that he had drawn himself were burnt. Yet Rumphius took this opportunity to begin the herbal again; he dictated a new and revised text in Dutch to scribes, and he commissioned draftsmen to do the illustrations.

Finally, in 1692, the first half of the Ambonese Herbal was finished, and the governor general at the time ordered the manuscript and the illustrations to be copied. This order was fortunate, as the original herbal text was destroyed on the way to Holland when the transport ship was sunk by a hostile French naval squadron. Again, upon notification of the disaster Rumphius did not surrender to despair. Rather, he took the opportunity to augment and correct the first half of his text while he completed the six volumes of the second half. Rumphius added new material (to make volume seven) only a few months before his death at the age of 74.

Florida Candidate Denied Right To Inspect Voting Machine Software

Remember Christine Jennings, the Florida Congressional candidate against whom the Republican Party spent $58 million on robo calls? The people...

| Sat Dec. 30, 2006 9:22 PM EST

Remember Christine Jennings, the Florida Congressional candidate against whom the Republican Party spent $58 million on robo calls? The people who received such calls about Jennings were misled by the calls' content and thought that they were being warned about her by her own political party. They learned differently only if they listened to the entire call, which most of them did not. But when they hung up, they would be called again. And again. Most people, of course, did not want to listen to the entire call.

In Florida's 13th District, Jennings lost by under 380 votes. In Sarasota County, 18,000 votes did not register on the voting machines, making matters even worse.

Today, it was announced that a Leon County judge has turned down Jennings' request to access the secret software that operates the voting machines in the 13th District of Florida. Just as bad, House Democrats announced they would do nothing to obstruct the seating of the district's new Congressman, Vern Buchanan. The judge said that Jennings' experts relied on conjecture and speculation, and did not provide "credible evidence" that warranted the candidate's inspecting the source code used for the voting machine software.

Advertise on MotherJones.com

Soldiers Too Are "Down On the War"

Yesterday, the Military Times released their annual opinion poll, which serves as a barometer for the military's morale. This year,...

| Sat Dec. 30, 2006 3:05 PM EST

Yesterday, the Military Times released their annual opinion poll, which serves as a barometer for the military's morale. This year, the report's name says it all. "Down on the war" sends a strong message from American troops in Iraq -- their spirit is down and waning further still. Think Progress has most of the report's highlights, but the most prescient of them are that less than half of the respondents think troop escalation is the answer and even if it is the answer, nearly 75% think the military is "stretched too thin to be effective." The Wall Street Journal reported extensively on the military's economic shortfalls earlier this month. Although the 945 respondents, out of the 4000 active-duty officers polled because they are Military Times subscribers, are not representative of the entire force, they seem to be among the most knowledgeable and experienced. They are on average older and more likely to be officers. 66% have been deployed at least once.

Urge Overkill: CNN's Saddam Deathwatch

Some worthy points from Phil Nugent at No More Mister Nice Blog:Man, CNN has spent the evening sitting on the...

| Sat Dec. 30, 2006 1:25 AM EST

Some worthy points from Phil Nugent at No More Mister Nice Blog:

Man, CNN has spent the evening sitting on the prospect of Saddam Hussein's execution like a vulture. Word was that the execution was to take place 10:00 PM EST. A less hardy network might have slipped a reminder of it into their regular news wrap-ups and then cut to Iraq, say, around ten o'clock. I don't know when they actually started the deathwatch, but for at least three hours, they were focusing on the execution single-mindedly, with a different anchor every hour, Larry King included, checking in with the same poor reporter framed shivering against the night sky to ask her yet again--anything new? Did they get antsy and waste him ahead of schedule and then go to dinner? Did he shoot his way out yet? When the anchors weren't torturing this poor woman, they were asking, over and over again, what will it mean for Iraq when Saddam has been executed? Then they'd interview someone, preferably a scholar or human rights worker who "suffered under Saddam's regime." They'd ask them what it would mean, and this person would invariably say that, although there would probably be a quick spike in violence, in the end it wouldn't mean a goddamn thing. Then the anchor would turn to the camera and say once again that he sure wished there was some way of knowing what it would mean. You kind of came away with the impression that none of the on-air talent at CNN can hear for shit.
You can understand their dilemna. Once upon a time, many basic cable ratings cycles ago, the Saddam-is-boogeyman story was the making of CNN. When Bush launched Gulf War II, it must have felt like old school week in their offices. It must be a bittersweet thing for them to deal with his absolute irrelevance to the current situation. It must sting and confuse them as much as it did Saddam himself. There were a few moments in tonight's coverage that may be as close as I ever hope to see to suggesting what the media reaction would be like if they ever caught Professor Moriarty, such as an interview with some doctor about the mechanics of hanging--the interviewer wanted to know just how much it hurts, and seemed very disappointed with the answer that we don't know for sure, because the only people who know for sure remain unavailable for comment--and people whining that "nobody blames" Saddam for all the Arabs that he killed. Yep, that's how the guy got two cans of whupass opened on him and wound up swinging from a rope--nobody ever held him accountable for anything. Okay, granted, these people aren't so stupid that they mean the things that come out of their mouths. What they're really trying to say is that nobody blames Saddam enough, because as long as there's one person who'd rather finish breakfast than dance on his grave, then he's not being blamed enough. Word of warning: this is how people like Pat Buchanan wound up as Holocaust deniers. They just start off hating Stalin so much that it bugs them whenever they hear Hitler described as the worst person in the world, and then after awhile they go haywire and start believing that because so many people hate Hitler, then people must not really hate Stalin at all, because if they hated him as much as they should then they wouldn't have any room in their hearts to hate Hitler too. The next thing they know, they find themselves hinting that they don't think Hitler was really all that bad.
The cutest moment in the coverage I saw was probably when Anderson Cooper said that there was some speculation that Saddam would be taken out of the protected Green Zone for the execution, but this must have been rejected because how could American soldiers go outside the Green Zone, with the hated Saddam Hussein in tow, and not risk violence. The likelihood that American soldiers who went outside the Green Zone might be asking for trouble if all they were carrying was Rice Krispies in milk was not considered. Saddam will not be missed, and anyone who tries to turn him into a martyr is making a sad comment on the validity of his own cause, but still, a hollow feeling remains. If it's possible for a guilty man to be railroaded, that's what's happened here, and it's possible to feel squeamish about the official mechanics of politicized "justice" without mourning the man. In a world where a Pinochet can die in his sleep, Saddam was executed with an unseemly sort of haste for the same reason we went to war in Iraq, evidence and arguments to the contrary be damned--because the Bush administration decided it wanted it to happen and was not inclined to consider that there might be reasons not to give itself what it wanted, or even postpone it. If it leaves a bad aftertaste, that may be because people who hold human life so cheaply, who can take anyone's life, even a monster's, as casually as correcting a bookkeeping error, should be a little more bashful when it comes to lecturing the world about who gets to live and who needs to die.
(Is Pat Buchanan a holocaust denier? Google it and judge for yourself. Or go to this forum on the subject.)

Does ExxonMobil Pay the New York Times a Premium to Run Ads Next to Global Warming Stories?

Right next to a NYT story that begins:A giant ice shelf has snapped free from an island south of the...

| Fri Dec. 29, 2006 11:52 PM EST

Right next to a NYT story that begins:

A giant ice shelf has snapped free from an island south of the North Pole, scientists said Thursday, citing climate change as a ''major'' reason for the event. The Ayles Ice Shelf -- all 41 square miles of it -- broke clear 16 months ago from the coast of Ellesmere Island, about 500 miles south of the North Pole in the Canadian Arctic.

Is an ad for the company that's done more than any other to fund global warming denialists (as a Mother Jones story nominated for a National Magazine Award reported last year):

Why not take wastes that would end up in landfills and recycle them so they end up as roads? Learn more about our committment to the environment. ExxonMobil: Taking on the world's toughest energy challenges.

So I've noticed this is a pattern with ExxonMobil, which seems to always just happen to run a corporate responsibility ad next to NYT op-eds and stories that have to do with global warming. So is the NYT ad sales staff selling against this content? Does ExxonMobil have a standing request to place ads next to global warming content? Or is it all a coincidence? (And don't forget that ExxonMobil also sponsored all the major election coverage in 2006. Maybe because it didn't like the fact that lawmakers were beginning to stand up to it.)

Back to this particular ad. Follow the link and you learn that ExxonMobil is touting its program to take waste from its operations (presumably tar, how innovative) and turn it into roadbeds, "another example of how we're maximizing energy output while minimizing environmental impact." Not harm, not damage, mind you, impact.

More outrageous is the list of links on this page to other of ExxonMobil's good works, including...wait for it..."Promoting math and science in the classroom." This from the company that funds 40 think tanks that expressly deny the science of global warming.

What are these efforts that ExxonMobil is making to addle, uh, improve the minds of our children? Further down the line of links we learn that:

Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Rex Tillerson made the announcement in Dallas on Oct. 6, where he was joined by PGA Tour golfer Phil Mickelson, astronaut Dr. Bernard Harris and several prominent educators. The first step in ExxonMobil's expanded educational outreach is to significantly broaden the scope of programs founded by Mickelson and Harris and supported by the company.
ExxonMobil will add new sessions of the Bernard Harris Summer Science Camps, providing funding to universities for 20 camps across the U.S. Designed to enhance students' knowledge in science, technology, engineering and mathematics, camp activities include classroom study, experiments, individual/team/group projects, weekly field excursions and guest speakers who motivate and inspire students.
The Mickelson ExxonMobil Teachers' Academy, launched in 2005 as an annual event in Fairfax, Va., will expand to new academies in Texas and Louisiana. The Academy was created to provide selected third- through fifth-grade teachers from school districts around the country an opportunity to enhance their math and science teaching skills, and discover new ways to motivate their students. With the new locations, 600 teachers will have an opportunity to attend the academies annually.
In addition to expanding its support of the Harris and Mickelson programs, ExxonMobil announced continued funding for Reasoning Mind, Inc., and UTeach. Reasoning Mind is developing an innovative Internet-based learning environment for fifth- and sixth-grade math students. UTeach is a unique University of Texas program that prepares and supports secondary math and science teachers.

So, helping ExxonMobil (at best) whitewash its horrible environmental image and (at worst) spread misinformation to teachers and students is a champion golfer, an astronaut, and UT. Hook 'em horns!

By the way, that ice shelf? That's really bad news. Read more about what it means here and here.

Breaking News: Saddam Hussein Has Been Executed

Hanged at dawn, according to news reports just coming over the transom. Will the Baathists retaliate? Stay tuned....

| Fri Dec. 29, 2006 11:42 PM EST

Hanged at dawn, according to news reports just coming over the transom. Will the Baathists retaliate? Stay tuned.