A non-profit news blog, focused on providing independent journalism.

Monday 28 September 2015

Australian Government Warns That Alternative Rock, Teenage Rebellion Could Lead To Radicalization

The Australian government is fighting back against the unrelenting terrorist threat that threatens to consume every Western nation. It, too, has noticed that youngsters and their SnapChats are particularly prone to radicalization from outside forces. As Richard Chirgwin of the Register points out, it has chosen to address this threat to Australian society in the way only a government agency can: with a blend of the bizarre and the tone deaf.

Launched this week by justice minister Michael Keenan (who also glories in the title Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on Terrorism), the Radicalisation Awareness Kit is supposed to help school teachers identify which of their students is going to enter the adult world with a penchant for bomb-throwing.

Cue the cheery faces of unradicalized youth: 

The 32-page booklet starts with a long definition of radlicalization, hedged by warnings that not every diversion from the mainstream will result in violence. Then it heads into a series of "case studies" that indicate every deviation from societal norms is a warning sign of impending unlawfulness. 

The case studies are the best kind of hilarious: inadvertent. 

"Erin" joined a "hate group" and committed crimes against Muslims. After a stay in jail and laying off the booze, "Erin" turned her life around. Not completely, but it's a start.

It is now a number of years since she left the group and Erin has sought treatment for her depression, reconciled with her family, is studying and has made some new friends. However, it was a difficult and slow process. She has moderated her beliefs significantly and makes a point of educating herself on issues rather than just accepting what others tell her. She does not entirely trust the government or police yet – it takes a long time to change some habits of thinking.

If nothing else, this fabricated tale shows the government to be overly-concerned about its place in the world. "Erin" is still partly broken because she doesn't "entirely" trust the government or police. What a shame. But it is hoped "Erin" will be made whole in the near future -- full of trust in the government and prone to only tempered beliefs. 

But that's not the worst of it. Much like the Homeland Security Advisor's ridiculous claim that teens 

acting like teens

 pose a threat to national security, the Australian government's concerns about future radicalization are also tied to the hallmarks of adolescence. 

As Richard Chirgwin points out, the radicalization anecdotes reach their nadir with the story of "Karen," starting with setting these ground rules for Normal Existence.

Karen grew up in a loving family who never participated in activism of any sort.

This is called foreshadowing. Karen soon deviates from her family's path of loving do-nothingness.

When she moved out of home to attend university Karen became involved in the alternative music scene, student politics and left-wing activism.

And there you have it: alternative music is the gateway drug to terrorism. As is politics, oddly enough, considering this narrative has been written by a political agency. And let's not forget the activism -- the kind of thing her normcore family never felt compelled to participate in. 

Strangely, the government chalks this up to "normal teenage rebellion" before going on to warn parents about normal teenage rebellion.

One afternoon Karen attended an environmental protest with some of her friends. It was exhilarating, fun and she felt like she was doing the ‘right thing’ for society. She enjoyed spending time with this crowd. Over the next six months Karen progressively dropped out of university in order to live full-time in a forest camp, where she remained for a year. Her family were confused and disappointed and stopped supporting her financially.

:( 

You can guess what happened next. Logging operations were screwed with, Karen was arrested multiple times and, finally, she became disillusioned with her radical brethren and sistren. She chucked it all for a staid job at a "mainstream environmentalist organization." Happy endings all around, especially for Karen, who now realized the only way to fight the system was to become part of the system.

She now thinks illegal or aggressive direct-action campaigns only produce short-term solutions, and she is much more interested in working towards developing a sustainable solution using the legal system.

The warning signs the government says to look for are basically A Day in the Life of a Teen.

Issues that can help push someone onto a path of radicalisation may include: 

• changes in living or employment
• anxiety, depression, paranoia, suicidal thoughts or other mental health issues
• personal issues such as health problems, addiction, anger or social problems
• dropping out of school or university
• negative changes in friendships and/ or personal relationships
• confrontations with family members
• discrimination and social unfairness
• exposure to hateful attitudes and actions, either as victim or perpetrator, and
• overseas events that may harm their community.

Now, the report does go on to caution that these are normal and don't necessarily signify Early Onset Radicalization. However, the report does make it clear -- especially through its anecdotal evidence -- that these can lead to radicalization when combined with activism, alternative music and an apparently unearned distrust for the government. 

Perhaps sensing the sort of response this document might generate, the hefty propaganda leaflet also makes an effort to assure Australians that ASIO (the MI5/FBI of Down Under) is not allowed to crack down on radicalization warning signs -- at least not without going through the pre-lubed proper channels.

There are concerns that ASIO has extraordinary and unaccountable power. A review by the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor has found that ASIO’s powers have been used appropriately and effectively, with no evidence of abuses. As at November 2014, ASIO has not used its powers to detain anyone at all, and has used its questioning powers only 16 times since 9/11.

BUT OF WHAT YEAR? 

These questionable anecdotes notwithstanding, the document takes a fairly restrained look at radicalization and its causes. But the nuances of its more cautious wording are undercut by stories that equate trusting your government and steering away from activism with normality, not-so-subtly suggesting any deviations from the norm should be viewed with suspicion.

The Average American Worker Earns Less Today Than 40 Years Ago

Because most everything we buy gets more expensive over time, we have to earn more money each year just to maintain our existing standard of living. When we're not given raises that keep up with this rate of inflation, we're effectively suffering a pay cut.

That's why many American workers are actually poorer today than four decades ago. They may be earning more money. But, in real terms, they're getting less for it. Measured in 2014 dollars, the median male full-time worker made $50,383 last year against $53,294 in 1973, according to new U.S. Census Bureau figures.

At $50,383, the figure is the lowest it's been since 2006. It's also $450 lower than in 2013. Women have seen bigger increases in real pay in the last few years, though from a lower (unequal) base. The median female worker earned $30,182 in 1973 (in 2014 dollars), but $39,621 last year.

As we explored in our 

income inequality series recently

, technology, globalization, and reduced union bargaining power are all factors behind stagnating wages. The economy has been getting bigger, driven by 

continuing increases in productivity

. But, for one reason or another, workers haven't been sharing in those gains. But they're not just disappearing: They're 

making a small group of people very, very rich

. What are we 

going to do about that

?

Two-Tiered Justice: How DEA Agents Commit Egregious Acts with Zero Accountability

Screen Shot 2015-09-18 at 11.06.16 AM

The U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration has allowed its employees to stay on the job despite internal investigations that found they had distributed drugs, lied to the authorities or committed other serious misconduct, newly disclosed records show.

Lawmakers expressed dismay this year that the drug agency had not fired agents who investigators found attended “sex parties” with prostitutes paid with drug cartel money while they were on assignment in Colombia. 

Of the 50 employees the DEA’s Board of Professional Conduct recommended be fired following misconduct investigations opened since 2010, only 13 were actually terminated, the records show. And the drug agency was forced to take some of them back after a federal appeals board intervened.

In one case listed on an internal log, the review board recommended that an employee be fired for “distribution of drugs,” but a human resources official in charge of meting out discipline imposed a 14-day suspension instead. The log shows officials also opted not to fire employees who falsified official records, had an “improper association with a criminal element” or misused government vehicles, sometimes after drinking.

– From the USA Today article: DEA Agents Kept Jobs Despite Serious Misconduct

Nothing instills faith in American institutions like the increasingly obvious and oppressive two-tiered justice system. Forget punishment, this is a society so corrupt that the wealthiest and most connected players are actually rewarded for corruption, criminality and looting. The examples are endless, but no single act has been more blatant, perverse and destructive than the taxpayer bailout of Wall Street fraudsters in the 2008/09 period.

When the perpetrators are mere minions of the system as opposed to so-called “masters of the universe,” they have to settle for mere immunity from prosecution as opposed to trillions in taxpayer bailouts. No agency is more representative of this reality than the Drug Enforcement Agency, or DEA. Not only has the “war on drugs” been a barbaric, civil liberties destroying failure of epic proportions, but the agents themselves should actually be busting themselves for engaging in the exact behaviors they are purported warriors against.

Don’t believe me? Take the following examples from USA Today:

The U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration has allowed its employees to stay on the job despite internal investigations that found they had distributed drugs, lied to the authorities or committed other serious misconduct, newly disclosed records show.

Lawmakers expressed dismay this year that the drug agency had not fired agents who investigators found attended “sex parties” with prostitutes paid with drug cartel money while they were on assignment in Colombia. The Justice Department also opened an inquiry into whether the DEA is able to adequately detect and punish wrongdoing by its agents.

I covered that story earlier this year. See:

Government Report Finds DEA Agents Had “Sex Parties” With Prostitutes Hired By Drug Cartels

A one-off? Not quite…

Records from the DEA’s disciplinary files show that was hardly the only instance in which the DEA opted not to fire employees despite apparently serious misconduct.

Of the 50 employees the DEA’s Board of Professional Conduct recommended be fired following misconduct investigations opened since 2010, only 13 were actually terminated, the records show. And the drug agency was forced to take some of them back after a federal appeals board intervened.

In one case listed on an internal log, the review board recommended that an employee be fired for “distribution of drugs,” but a human resources official in charge of meting out discipline imposed a 14-day suspension instead. The log shows officials also opted not to fire employees who falsified official records, had an “improper association with a criminal element” or misused government vehicles, sometimes after drinking.

 

“If we conducted an investigation, and an employee actually got terminated, I was surprised,” said Carl Pike, a former DEA internal affairs investigator. “I was truly, truly surprised. Like, wow, the system actually got this guy.”

God Bless the Imperial Banana Republic:

Screen Shot 2015-09-11 at 10.03.46 AM

The DEA has long faced criticism for how it handles misconduct by its 11,000 employees. This spring, the Justice Department said it had “serious concerns” about the discipline meted out to six agents who left a handcuffed college student in a holding cell for five days with no food or water.

Oh yeah, I covered that one too:

DEA Agents Wrongly Jailed Student for 5 Days Without Food or Water Until He Had to Drink Own Urine; Nobody Fired

Another agent, Jeffrey Prather, was fired after admitting he let civilians use “DEA-issued fully automatic weapons” as part of a security training business he had set up, according to merit board records. The board also concluded that Prather, who it said established his own religion, had persuaded “vulnerable and struggling women” to have sex with him “by telling them they would be ‘healed’” if they did.

Where does the DEA even find these people?

Still another agent was fired after admitting that he crashed his government vehicle after a night of drinking and gambling in the Bahamas then repeatedly lied to his supervisors about it. In his defense, the agent told the merit board he was still “under the effects of the alcohol” when he lied to his supervisors in Miami 30 hours later.

So I guess now we know what it takes to actually get fired from the DEA. He probably works for the TSA now.

Of course, when they aren’t dealing drugs, torturing people or canoodling with drug cartel pros, the DEA can be found thieving from and spying on the American public. See:

This is How the Clowns at the DEA Screen for Drug Dealers on Amtrak

The DEA Strikes Again – Agents Seize Man’s Life Savings Under Civil Asset Forfeiture Without Charges

How NSA Surveillance Was Birthed from the Drug War – The DEA Tracked Billions of Phone Calls Pre 9/11

Your TV habit might be killing you


But as you get comfy on your sofa, you might want to consider this: Your TV habit might be killing you. A growing body of evidence links not just sitting in general but TV viewing in particular with all sorts of health problems. Those include obesity, Type 2 diabetes, heart disease and, yes, premature death.

Too much TV “is a really serious health hazard,” says Frank Hu, a professor of nutrition and epidemiology at Harvard University. For example:

– In a review of eight studies by Hu and colleagues, each two-hour increase in daily TV viewing was associated with a 20% increased risk of Type 2 diabetes, a 13% increased risk of cardiovascular disease and a 13% increased risk of death from any cause – translating to 104 extra deaths each year for every 100,000 people.