Protesters seek Venezuelan leader

…and no, it’s NOT Chavecito. It’s his former electoral rival:

where-is-capriles

“Where is Capriles? There’s a power vacuum in Miranda!”

Well might you ask, muchachas. The so-called governor of Miranda isn’t governing; he’s too busy trying to hound a certain high-profile cancer patient, and getting his brain-dead followers to do the same (with the usual backing from you-know-where). Meanwhile, his state can best be described as “all gone to shit”:

Mirandans protested peacefully on Sunday outside the Miranda state government building in Los Teques, demanding that governor Henrique Capriles Radonski step down due to repeated absence from his job.

With slogans like “Capriles, govern or resign”, the demonstrators camped out in front of the state government office to denounce the apathy and the state of abandonment in which the governmental entity finds itself ever since Capriles took office as governor. Capriles visited Colombia a few weeks ago, and more recently the United States, abandoning his functions.

María Castro, one of the demonstrators, explained that the government is in disarray due to the nonexistence of policies on health, security and education. She also described Capriles’ leadership as “the worst”, since every day the level of insecurity in Miranda increases, along with the preoccupation of the state’s population.

“Miranda is the most insecure state in the country. It’s in decadency. Capriles doesn’t govern, nor does he concern himself for the region. He always asks: Where is Chávez? But we Mirandans ask: Where is Governor Capriles, who doesn’t govern? Lamentably, neither Capriles nor his committee is governing,” Castro said.

Dalia Araujo, who lives along the old Los Teques highway, pointed out that the state doesn’t have a governor who responds to the needs and demands of the people and added that “if Capriles can’t rule as governor, he should resign, because we don’t want him.”

“Here in Miranda, we don’t have a governor, Capriles should resign because insecurity is killing us, and he doesn’t show his face. What’s Capriles doing in the United States when he should be in Miranda?”

During the demonstration, a group of Capriles sympathizers approached with the intention of disrupting the peaceful protest.

One of the Capriles sympathizers pushed and assaulted members of the reporter team from the Mayor’s Office of Guaicaipuro, who were there to cover the protest. Meanwhile, functionaries from the Miranda Police (Polimiranda), who were present outside the government building, did not act in defence of the citizens.

Yelitza González, one of the witnesses, denounced the “fascist and violent” attitude of the right-wing sectors who support Capriles, adding that they would not permit violence or destabilization from the opposition, since “we want peace and we are demonstrating peacefully, we all believe in our president (Hugo Chávez), we want respect. Capriles should present a security plan.

“We’re here peacefully, and we see how this citizen, under the effects of alcohol, pushed a young reporter. Never mind that she’s a woman; he threatened her with death. The Miranda State Police, who are here as witnesses, just stood by inertly in the face of sexist violence; they should have acted, and they did not. The Guaicaipuro Police took him into custody because he was violating the rights of the woman,” said González.

Translation mine.

Here’s some video relating to the events in question:

The demonstrators gave a press conference denouncing Capriles’ irresponsibility and lack of plans, and his participation in a Washington-backed plan of destabilization while the president undergoes chemotherapy. It appears alongside footage of the demonstrations described above. They call on the people of Miranda to demand that Capriles show his face and govern, already. And in the face of the dismal crime statistics of the state, Capriles is in no legitimate position to blame Chávez for the insecurity problem, much less launch a new (and illegitimate) campaign (in MIAMI!) for his own presidency after losing the REAL vote, which took place last October. He’s discredited even among his own. He should take his lumps, admit he lost fair and square, and get down to his job, which is governing the state of Miranda, not all of Venezuela as a wholly owned subsidiary of Washington.

PS on Tuesday, 5:40 pm: Out of respect for today’s bad news from Venezuela, commenting on this entry is now closed. I’ve gotten two pathetic, lonely boys looking for love in all the wrong places so far. Fair warning: All trollish attempts will be subjected to a trashing (complete with IP and e-mail doxxing) on Saturday’s wankapedia. I know you fascists out there have no shame, so I feel none dishing it back to you. If you shit-eaters have no respect for someone’s death or their family, or my blog (which is NOT your toilet!), you deserve none either. And you WILL get gay porn spam…count on it. Meanwhile, Chavecito vive…la lucha sigue. He’s more alive than ever now, you fucking bastards. Just like Che and Camilo before him. ¡VIVA CHAVEZ, CARAJO!

The muddled feminist and the abusive cowboy (and the irresponsible publisher)

alisa-valdes

By now you’ve probably heard about Alisa Valdes, the romance novelist who penned a memoir about how she let a right-wing cowboy named Steve rope and tame her like a mustang mare. You’ve probably also heard how all the right-wing anti-feminists seized on that tale and crowed about it, claiming it validated their half-baked theories about women “needing” a dominant male to “take a firm hand”; that it was “just human nature”, and so on. And you may also have heard that she later tried to come clean on her personal blog about what horseshit that memoir actually is, revealing that Cowboy Steve didn’t merely tame her, he broke her. He lied to her, cheated on her, and insulted her (and her son), and that was just the beginning; he also raped her. In every sense, he abused her. And you might even know that her publicist freaked, and warned her to take that harrowing blog entry down. Alisa Valdes complied. But Google still has it cached, and it reveals not only the details and extent of the indignities she suffered at the hands of Cowboy Steve — but also, of all people, her own publisher:

I’ve had more than a dozen books published, but never have I had a publication day come and go without so much as an email from my editor, wishing me well — until now. With the recent publication of my first memoir, The Feminist & The Cowboy: An Unlikely Love Story, I have had the odd experience of having been essentially shunned by my publisher, one assumes because the reality of my life more than a year after having turned in the final manuscript is different from the ending one might have liked to have seen if my life were the made-for-TV movie or fairy tale my publisher seemed to have hoped they might market my book as. I have been advised not to discuss any of this publicly, to just accept this cold shoulder and lack of support as my penance for the crime of being openly broken up with the cowboy when I should have just pretended we were still together long enough to sell books.

Nice, eh? Big Publisher is more intent on racking up sales than on making sure the whole story is told in an honest, above-board manner. Big Publisher wants the writer to pretend that everything is exactly as it is not. Big Publisher, in short, is playing the censor. And who suffers the most? A woman who, one would think, has already suffered more than enough:

There is a LOT you don’t know about the cowboy and how he treated me. I kept a lot of it under wraps, because I had turned a book in and I was trying to be a good contract employee and not completely sabotage the book by telling the whole story on my blog. But with my publisher’s complete lack of support now, and with the reviews so clearly describing for me the fact that healthy women, whole women, are able to recognize in the cowboy a dangerous man that I was, in my blindness and lack of experience with abusive men, unable to see, I feel that the only possible way for any of this to make sense to anyone is for the entire story to be known. To be honest about it puts me in danger — real physical danger — so I am reluctant.

Again, note that lack of concern on the publisher’s part for her well-being. “Trying to be a good contract employee” is like trying to be a “good” abused woman; it’s bound to cost you your integrity, and it may end up costing you a lot more than that. The Cowboy refuses to compromise and let Alisa be herself; he must have her perfectly submissive or he will not “put up with” her at all (his words). The publisher shows zero willingness to hold off publication and give the author a chance to revise the manuscript into the cautionary tale it actually is. One can’t excuse them for jumping the gun, since the publication process is at least a year long between receiving the manuscript and putting the book out in print. That is plenty of time for revision, and they would not consider that. Nope, they had what they thought was a sure-fire bestseller on their hands, something that would generate tons of buzz, so they wanted to go with that.

I am inevitably reminded of the prude-shaming backlash against feminists who criticized the movie Deep Throat. And how the star, Linda Lovelace, later wrote Out of Bondage, telling all about her abusive ex-husband, Chuck Traynor. Ol’ Chuck brutally strong-armed her into not only making the porno, but smiling through all the incredibly phony promotional appearances she had to put in afterwards. But there’s a difference: Linda Lovelace had her publisher’s support for that memoir. Alisa Valdes doesn’t. The terrible truth — and the uppity woman who dared try to tell it — could just go hang.

So what to do next? Well, how about this:

I have been working on a sequel about the cowboy and me, and though I am quite sure my publisher won’t want it I will likely self-publish it soon. In it, I plan to detail the ways I was fooled and manipulated, the mistakes I made in choosing to ignore red flags, the many unfortunate ways that I started to subsume and lose myself in order to please an unpleasable and controlling man. I hope that in doing so I will help to make sense of the first book, both for you guys and for myself. What I want to emphasize here is that the first book was NOT an attempt to sell a lie; it was a sincere, heartfelt memoir that came during the honeymoon period of an abusive relationship, before I understood just how much danger I was putting myself in, with me justifying the hints of violence through my own romanticized version of the American cowboy icon and, unfortunately, with me blinded by this man’s almost unfathomable physical beauty, which was almost impossible to reconcile with the brutality that this most handsome shell encased.

[...]

I’m sure I’ll get shit for posting this. I’m betraying my publisher, who would have liked for me to be the next Ree Drummond. Hell, I would have liked for me to be the next Ree Drummond. But I wasn’t. I was the only Alisa Valdes, learning as I went along, living honestly and hopefully, trying to love. The only way the memoir works is if it is allowed to be what it IS rather than what others might like for it to have been. What is it? It is a guidebook for women on what falling in love with a controlling abuser looks like. It is a handbook on what NOT to do, what to run away from. I did not know it then. Then, I felt safe and thrilled, impressed with myself for having secured such a hot, strong, strapping, manly man. It was an illusion. Underneath it all was a scared, insecure boy, who talked the talk but didn’t walk the walk, a man who only felt good enough when he was making others feel badly. The memoir is important, and it is valuable, but not without this afterward. The message of the book, as I see it? Even smart, educated, self-sufficient, thoughtful women can get sucked into abusive relationships, and it will happen slowly, a little at a time, like a frog in a pot of cold water that is placed over a low flame, that even someone like me can, sometimes, be slowly boiled to death.

Well, she DID get shit for posting this, but I’m still glad she came forward. Even leaving out the gory details of the Cowboy’s abuse (which other bloggers and journalists have already covered ad nauseam), this is a nightmarish experience nobody should have to live through. Alisa Valdes has a long and muddled history to process here, and I don’t envy her the task. I hope she’s on a better road now.

I also hope this cautionary book she talks about does come to light; I’d buy it in a heartbeat. It could teach a lot of women not only about the perils of loving an abusive man, but the more insidious dangers of sticking with an irresponsible publisher.

And I’d leave that sugar-coated cowboy romance on the fiction shelf, where it belongs.

The truth about Attawapiskat

The People of the Kattawapiskak River by Alanis Obomsawin, National Film Board of Canada

A Cree filmmaker takes us inside the lives of her brothers and sisters in Attawapiskat, Ontario. If what you see here doesn’t leave you outraged at the lies in the right-wing media and the numbskulls in Ottawa who dare to put the town under “third party management” (euphemism for a bean-counting hack who tells the SupposiTories just what they want to hear), then you probably don’t have a pulse, and you’ve probably got shit where your brains ought to be.

Sorry to Grinch you, but…

…this seasonal message just had to be said:

bethlehem-ghetto

And while we celebrate the birthday of Jesus, how about the death of irony?

Gaza militants violated laws of war by launching hundreds of rockets at Israeli civilians during last month’s fighting, Human Rights Watch said in a release Monday.

The Israeli military said 1,500 rockets were fired at Israel during the eight-day offensive against Gaza militants, including the first rockets from the Gaza Strip to strike the Tel Aviv and Jerusalem areas.

The rocket attacks killed three Israeli civilians and wounded dozens. Israeli assaults killed 169 Palestinians.

“Palestinian armed groups made clear in their statements that harming civilians was their aim,” said Sarah Leah Whitson, Middle East director at the New York-based rights group. “There is simply no legal justification for launching rockets at populated areas.”

Yeah? Tell that to Israel, Sarah…they started it. And what exactly did they launch at Gaza? Not only rockets, but ol’ Willie Peter. Which is also illegal, but hey.

Now, the real question is: Who would Baby Jesus bomb?

Worst. Symbolism. EVER.

ironic-coat-hanger

If this were meant to be some kind of ironic statement, I’d laugh. Sadly, it looks like it’s all too real. And it’s clear that the dry-cleaning establishment in question has no sense of gynecology, history OR irony, seeing as the chemicals they use can cause miscarriage in some pregnant women.

Defeat THIS, CIA!

Think you can take this guy, motherfuckers? Rafael Correa says “Make my day, punk”:

The president of Ecuador, Rafael Correa, said today that there is an alleged plot by the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) to prevent his re-election in the presidential elections, to be held on February 17, 2013.

The head of state denounced the matter by way of his Twitter account, referring to an article published on a blog by the former UK ambassador to Uzbekistan, Craig Murray.

“British ex-ambassador says the CIA has plans to topple Rafael Correa,” wrote the president.

According to Craig Murray’s blog, the CIA has invested 87 million US dollars into its efforts to sink the Ecuadorian president.

Following the Venezuelan presidential elections of October 7, in which Hugo Chávez was re-elected president for the third time, the Pentagon tripled its budget for influencing the Ecuadorian elections, writes Murray.

“This will find its way into opposition campaign coffers and be used to fund, bribe or blackmail media and officials. Expect a number of media scandals and corruption stings against Correa’s government in the next few weeks,” added the former British diplomat.

Craig Murray maintains that the State Department was surprised by the triumph of Hugo Chávez in the last Venezuelan elections.

He adds: “I do not have much background on Ecuadorean politics and I really do not know what Correa’s chances of re-election are. Neither do I know if any of the opposition parties are decent and not in the hands of the USA. But I do know that the USA very much want Correa to lose, were very confident that he was going to lose, and now are not.”

According to US sources cited by Murray, the administration of president Barack Obama will not use those funds to foment another coup against Correa. “That has apparently been ruled out.”

In the event of a pro-US leader coming to power in Ecuador, the asylum granted by Correa’s government to Wikileaks founder Julian Assange could be cancelled, the ex-diplomat said.

“[T]he Metropolitan Police [could be] invited in to the Embassy of Ecuador to remove him, and Assange sent immediately to Sweden from where he could be extradited to the United States to face charges of espionage and aiding terrorism.”

Assange has been taking refuge since last June in the Ecuadorian embassy in London, following a request for political asylum, which Quito granted near the end of last August.

The Australian applied for asylum in Ecuador to avoid being extradited to Sweden, where the authorities have laid claim to him over accusations of sexual assault, which he denies.

Assange fears that this would be a step towards extraditing him to the United States, where he would be tried for espionage or sentenced to death for publishing thousands of secret diplomatic cables on his website.

Translation mine. Linkage to Craig Murray’s blog added.

Incidentally, Craig Murray says it’s the UK’s coalition government that is the main reason why the US hasn’t extradited Julian Assange from London yet. They are too divided amongst themselves to arrive at a consensus regarding Assange. An interesting theory, but it can’t be the only reason; I suspect that the real problem is not so much getting the UK government to hand over the pesky Aussie (I’m sure they’d be only too glad to get him out of their hair!), but rather the need to prove that the US have a claim to him. That means having to prove that he actually committed espionage on someone else’s behalf. A tall order, since there is not a shred of evidence that he was working for any foreign government or terror group. And the Swedes have already made it clear that they don’t want him, either. They don’t even want to question him; they already have, and they let him go! They are, however, less divided and more docile than the UK government, and so more likely to hand him over to the US even without demonstration of probable cause. (Those rape charges? Might as well have gone poof. We’ll never see him prosecuted on those, bet on it.)

Meanwhile, under Correa, Ecuador has enjoyed previously unheard-of political stability and economic progress, and even is making some encouraging noises on the environmental front. Meaning, Big Oil, with its extensive CIA ties (and these go way back, right to the agency’s successful coup against Mossadegh in Iran, if not earlier) has a vested interest in seeing him toppled for their own benefit. Even if Julian Assange airing all their dirty laundry via Wikileaks weren’t an issue, Rafael Correa insisting that they pay fair prices for Ecuadorian oil (and cough up for the clean-up of all the rainforests they’ve fouled) would still be a major thorn in their collective side.

So yeah, Craig Murray’s analysis is right on the money insofar as his prediction that there will be a lot of dirty tricks on the opposition side of the electoral campaign. And the Ecuadorian private media, too; we already know from how they behaved during the coup attempt what bag those cats come out of. Expect a big hue and cry from the IAPOA about supposed interference with “press freedom”, and nary a word about how fascist, and beholden to foreign interests, that “free” press actually is.

And not a word about the press freedom of Wikileaks, either.

The strange case of Máximo Laura

The following article was sent to me by my friend Sasha, who divides her time between Canada and Peru. It’s by Antonio Rengifo Balarezo, and it describes some disturbing tendencies afoot in Peru today:

The reason for accepting the charge of Ambassador of Brand Peru is “to serve the homeland” and be on display for the media backed by government and big business. Vargas Llosa would not have accepted such a charge, and neither did Máximo Laura need such repayment for his actions.

However, Máximo Laura, our greatest master in the art of tapestry weaving, accepted the nomination of Ambassador of Brand Peru plain and simple. The Peruvian state wanted to use, for publicity reasons, his great international prestige as an artist and his national flavor to promote sales of Peruvian merchandise abroad, and to attract foreign investment to our country. Laura did not realize that, upon accepting this charge, he would be accepting the official politics of the government, and was mercilessly thrown out the window.

PromPerú irrevocably withdrew his nomination as ambassador of Brand Peru, due to his statements in which he expressed “sympathies” to the Shining Path guerrillas in an interview given to the newspaper La República.

To explain the defenestration of Máximo Laura it is of greatest importance that the text of that same interview be placed in its social context. The interview in question took place in a moment in which the Executive Power had prepared a legal project, called “negationism”, and applied all its artillery of propagandistic supersaturation to bring about its approval in the Congress of the Republic.

According to said project, which would modify the Penal Code, those who denied the grave damage the Shining Path and MRTA had done to the country would be committing a crime. That is, anyone who publicly approved, justified, denied or minimized the crimes committed by terrorist groups in the country, in accordance with Article 2, Law 25475, would be sentenced to between four and eight years in prison.

The justification at the heart of the penal code is to protect the victims of terrorism, and to protect public peace. However, the law, as defined, only deals with violence and terrorism by non-state actors. Even though we know full well that the former members of the Colina group of the armed forces have committed violations of human rights, they were not included in said legal project. There is a direct correlation between this project and the recent sentence handed down by Judge Villa Stein against the Colina group.

The Colina group is the tip of the iceberg, since it officialized the counterinsurgency operations manual, M 41-7. Let’s appreciate what said manual serves up:

“In more than ten years of internal warfare, more than 12,000 officials passed through the different emergency zones, carrying that manual as though it were the Bible. There were human rights violations on both sides. In the case of the members of the forces of public order, the manual told them they had to physically eliminate not only the armed elements of Shining Path, but also their political directors and administrators, who didn’t necessarily have to bear weapons. [...] They were given carte blanche to kill whomever they suspected of belonging to the organization, even if it wasn’t an armed combatant, but only a simple administrator. [...] This manual undermined the morale of the soldiers and many of us refused to abide by it.”

Those are the words of then-lieutenant and today president of the republic, Ollanta Humala, in his book, From Locumba to Candidate for the Presidency of Peru, printed in Mexico in 2009, by Quebecort World S.A., Querétaro. (See pages 36-64.) Tell me, reader, if Ollanta Humala should have been thrown out of the presidency for saying “There were human rights violations on both sides”.

However, PromPerú wasn’t satisfied with the explanations given by Máximo Laura after the interview with La República. Let’s look at the “sensitive” bits taken as causes for his defenestration:

What did your father want you to become?

I think something different from him, nothing more. Because I am a huamanguino of the generation of the ’60s and ’70s, it was impossible to predict what one could be.

You studied at San Cristóbal de Huamanga when Abimael Guzmán was there. Did you know him?

Yes, because Huamanga is very small. There were these conferences, meetings, totally free public debates. Since we were just boys, nothing was alien to us.

Did you have sympathies for the Shining Path as an idea?

Oh yes, definitely…

Was Abimael a seducing kind of guy?

Not only that. One of the ideologues, Víctor Zorrilla, was an extraordinary theoretician. Luis Kawata, what a pedagogue he was! You received a class in materialism, and you never forgot it.

And when did you break with that line?

I didn’t break with it, exactly, because my work was not political but rather literary. That was what I studied. I never finished, because when I moved to Lima to carry on with my studies, I began to work in weavings.

That is, you went back to your roots.

To those that were known. I used my ability to draw since I was very small to get a grasp on Peruvian iconography and recreate it.

What is your outlook now on Abimael Guzmán and the whole Shining Path process?

I think it was one of the most important movements we have had, historically speaking, a political project to change Peru.

In spite of the violence?

When it comes to a change of systems, it effectively has to be that way. But now, I do this kind of work, I make what I make, and I’m in the middle of the system.

And the system hasn’t treated you badly.

Oh no, on the contrary, I’m a proud defender of the system and the reality of the country today. If you look at my career from 1985 onward, when I began to have my first exhibitions, I’ve been incredibly fortunate to this day.

Crystal-clear answers in the interview. But the Torquemada who took the decision to leave him without the title of publicity ambassador brought in the machinery of the times to reverse the actual experiences of Máximo Laura’s youth.

In sum, what happened to Máximo Laura is a warning signal in the field of the arts and culture of the law of “negationism” and the current tendency of the government. And it is written in the “purges” of the personnel of the State, the raid on the Vórtice publishing house, the sentence handed down by Judge Villa Stein, the bloody repression of the people of Cajamarca for their just acts of self-defence against the implementation of the Conga mining project, etc.

Our Peru is a land of surprises, but no one ever imagined that Máximo Laura would become a “socio-political subversive”. Still, he has antecedents, because I published Máximo Laura: Subverter of Traditional Weaving in the newspaper El Comercio on January 22, 1989. He has lived up to that title. He is one of our universal Peruvians.

Translation mine. Linkage added.

Strange that what’s fair in Ollanta Humala’s court is somehow foul in that of Máximo Laura, a master weaver who never hurt anyone, and whose early ideological sympathies for the Shining Path came into existence before the drug wars of the ’80s, with all their corrupting influences and horrific terrorism — a terrorism certainly not limited to Maoist insurgents, as Ollanta’s own army memoir makes clear. A most disturbing case of “do as I say, not as I do”. Is it because the one enjoys only symbolic power as “one of our universal Peruvians”, while the other’s power is more concrete?

Rhetorical question. We all know the answer to that one.

Clip ‘n’ Save: Nope, no government help here!

Google gets evil in Cuba

Well, well, well. What have we here? Someone trying to turn Cuba into a closed society…and it ain’t Fidel Castro!

Cuba on Tuesday accused Google of “outrageous censorship” after the US internet giant blocked access to a web traffic analysis tool to comply with US sanctions against Havana.

Google Analytics, a free tool allowing website operators to see when people visit and from where, stopped working in Cuba after a software update that brought it in line with US restrictions.

“As a US company, we comply with US export controls and trade sanctions that limit us from offering certain services in certain countries,” Google said in an emailed reply to an AFP inquiry.

“In order to abide by these laws, our terms of service have always prohibited the use of Google Analytics in sanctioned countries,” it said. “There’s now a technical block in place as well.”

The list of countries where Google products or services face sanctions included Cuba, Burma, Iran, Syria, Sudan, and North Korea.

In other words, a corporation is kowtowing to state censorship…not by the Cuban state, which doesn’t censor any information (Cuban newspapers are concise, but accurate), but by the United States of So-Called Freedom-Loving America.

And of course, this being corporate news, it’s justified with the usual drivel:

US sanctions have been in place against Cuba since 1962.

Limited political debate in the Communist-ruled island nation is carried out on blogs and social networking websites, but opposition to the ruling party is banned and the media is under state control.

Actually, opposition isn’t banned (they’re merely unpopular, but nobody’s stopping them from believing what they will), and the debate isn’t limited; internet access in Cuba is, because the infrastructure is severely underfunded. (That would be the fault of those fifty-year-old sanctions by you-know-who.)

It’s interesting, however, that one prominent opposition voice hasn’t been silenced, as is commonly asserted; indeed, she has dedicated servers (conveniently located outside of Cuba!) and non-Google translation into numerous languages, and one wonders where she got the considerable money needed for that. Bet Google Analytics won’t be blocking her, though, since her incessant (uncensored! in Cuba!) whinings about how repressed she is conveniently serve the corporatist agenda.

In other words, all that hoary commie rhetoric about capitalist running dogs…is correct. Who’d of thunk it?

Imagine if this happened in Venezuela…

Where is the IAP(O)A on this one, I wonder?

When President Obama addressed the American Society of News Editors convention last month, the real news was what didn’t happen. The watchdogs didn’t bark. No discouraging word from the gathering of 1,000 of the country’s top news people, facing a president whose administration has led a vigorous attack on journalism’s most indispensable asset — its sources.

Obama took office pledging tolerance and even support for whistleblowers, but instead is prosecuting them with a zeal that’s historically unprecedented. His Justice Department has conducted six prosecutions over leaks of classified information to reporters. Five involve the Espionage Act, a powerful law that had previously been used only four times since it was enacted in 1917 to prosecute spies.

Whoa, that’s harsh. But wait! They go into actual cases too:

Some spies. We’re no longer in the era of Aldrich Ames, Robert Hanssen or Kim Philby, infamous Cold War turncoats.

Instead, there’s Thomas Drake, a career official of the National Security Agency, who faced 35 years in prison for telling a Baltimore Sun reporter about what The New York Times called “a potential billion-dollar computer boondoggle.” At stake was bureaucratic embarrassment, not national security. (The case against Drake collapsed last summer.)

Then there’s Shamai Leibowitz, a translator for the FBI, who believed he had intercepted evidence of illegal influence-peddling by the Israeli embassy. When his boss wouldn’t act, he leaked transcripts to a blogger. He got 20 months.

Ex-CIA agent John Kiriakou was indicted in January for allegedly identifying a Guantánamo interrogator (who was not working undercover;) Stephen Kim, a State Department analyst, allegedly told a reporter for Fox News — wait for it — that the U.S. was worried North Korea might respond to new U.N. sanctions by testing another A-bomb; and Jeffrey Sterling, who allegedly disclosed a botched CIA operation in Iran that was described in a 2006 book by a Times reporter.

And there’s the biggest case, the court martial of Bradley Manning, the Army private accused of engineering the mammoth dumps of U.S. military and diplomatic data that Wikileaks, the online whistleblower network, turned over to leading newspapers in 2010 and 2011.

The administration seems undeterred by the scanty evidence that any of these defendants was out to hurt the country, a mainstay ingredient of espionage, and the Manning judge has even warned prosecutors they must show he believed he was “aiding the enemy” or she would toss the most serious charge against him.

The public is generally unaware of how essential nominally classified information is to coverage of diplomatic and strategic news. As Steven Aftergood, director of the Federation of American Scientists’ government secrecy project, put it: “The administration’s aggressive pursuit of leaks represents a challenge to the practice of national security reporting, which depends on the availability of unauthorized sources if it is to produce something more than ‘authorized’ news.”

“Authorized” news? That sounds like CRAPAGANDA to me.

So why is this happening? Well,

What’s behind the administration’s fervor isn’t clear, but the news media have largely rolled over and yawned. A big reason is that prosecutors aren’t hassling reporters as they once did. Thanks to the post-9/11 explosion in government intercepts, electronic surveillance, and data capture of all imaginable kinds — the NSA is estimated to have intercepted 15-20 trillion communications in the past decade — the secrecy police have vast new ways to identify leakers.

So they no longer have to force journalists to expose confidential sources. As a national security representative told Lucy Dalglish, director of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, “We’re not going to subpoena reporters in the future. We don’t need to. We know who you’re talking to.”

It doesn’t appear that the current prosecutions required the help of journalists, which helps explain the ASNE’s equanimity when President Obama met the press last month.

Press barons complacent when sources get pinched? Sounds like the sort of thing that could only happen under totalitarianism. So much for the idea that socialists and communists are the authoritarians. Capitalists, those guardians of free speech, have them beat nine ways till Friday for state censorship. And nowhere more so than the “freedom-loving” US of A!

But hey. It’s kind of nice to see my pet hate, the Miami Herald, reporting (a) REAL news, and (b) actual free-speech violations that occur continually on US soil. They should do that more often!

If only they were not also complicit in the “authorized news” game, that is.