Matching Grant Challenge
alexPureWhen I met Alexander Cockburn, one of his first questions to me was: “Is your hate pure?” It was the question he asked most of the young writers he mentored. These were Cockburn’s rules for how to write political polemics: write about what you care about, write with passion, go for the throat of your enemies and never back down. His admonitions remain the guiding stylesheet for our writers at CounterPunch. Please help keep the spirit of this kind of fierce journalism alive by taking advantage of  our matching grant challenge which will DOUBLE every donation of $100 or more. Any of you out there thinking of donating $50 should know that if you donate a further $50, CounterPunch will receive an additional $100. And if you plan to send us $200 or $500 or more, CounterPunch will get a matching $200 or $500 or more. Don’t miss the chance. Double your clout right now. Please donate. –JSC (This photo of Alexander Cockburn and Jasper, on the couch that launched 1000 columns, was taken in Petrolia by Tao Ruspoli)
 Day 19

Yes, these are dire political times. Many who optimistically hoped for real change have spent nearly five years under the cold downpour of political reality. Here at CounterPunch we’ve always aimed to tell it like it is, without illusions or despair. That’s why so many of you have found a refuge at CounterPunch and made us your homepage. You tell us that you love CounterPunch because the quality of the writing you find here in the original articles we offer every day and because we never flinch under fire. We appreciate the support and are prepared for the fierce battles to come.

Unlike other outfits, we don’t hit you up for money every month … or even every quarter. We ask only once a year. But when we ask, we mean it.

CounterPunch’s website is supported almost entirely by subscribers to the print edition of our magazine. We aren’t on the receiving end of six-figure grants from big foundations. George Soros doesn’t have us on retainer. We don’t sell tickets on cruise liners. We don’t clog our site with deceptive corporate ads.

The continued existence of CounterPunch depends solely on the support and dedication of our readers. We know there are a lot of you. We get thousands of emails from you every day. Our website receives millions of hits and nearly 100,000 readers each day. And we don’t charge you a dime.

Please, use our brand new secure shopping cart to make a tax-deductible donation to CounterPunch today or purchase a subscription our monthly magazine and a gift sub for someone or one of our explosive  books, including the ground-breaking Killing Trayvons. Show a little affection for subversion: consider an automated monthly donation. (We accept checks, credit cards, PayPal and cold-hard cash….)

pp1

or
cp-store

To contribute by phone you can call Becky or Deva toll free at: 1-800-840-3683

Thank you for your support,

Jeffrey, Joshua, Becky, Deva, and Nathaniel

CounterPunch
 PO Box 228, Petrolia, CA 95558

Spying on Consumers

In Ten Years, We Will Have Zero Privacy

by DAVID MACARAY

A labor lawyer told me this story. A shopper who had slipped and fallen in a puddle of water in the frozen food section of a large grocery store became the plaintiff in a lawsuit. Both parties agreed that the water puddle was traceable to faulty condensation. The shopper, a middle-aged man, had badly injured his tailbone in the fall and was suing for damages.

During the trial store management tried to blame the shopper, suggesting he was either under the influence of alcohol, badly hung-over, or, in fact, a degenerate and untrustworthy alcoholic who had slipped in the puddle “on purpose,” looking to make a quick buck. They supported their claim by introducing a record of previous purchases, showing he had bought a significant amount of liquor. The plaintiff and his lawyer had no idea they kept a record.

This occurred in the mid-1990s, almost twenty years ago, back when computer snooping was nowhere near as sophisticated as it is today. When we consider the “progress” that has been made in the ability to delve into the private lives of consumers, it’s terrifying. They know where we shop, where we vacation, what we buy, what we read, what we watch on television, and what we visit on the Internet.

How this applies to “labor” is especially disturbing. Before hiring a job applicant, a company now has the ability to know more about you than was ever dreamed possible. It’s no exaggeration to say that prospective bosses can know more about you than members of your immediate family know. All they need do is purchase the information from one of the hundreds of databases available.

Concerned with rising health care costs and unwilling to take a gamble on “unhealthy” workers, future employers can learn how much snack food you buy, how much sausage you eat, how much booze you drink, whether you belong to a gym, and whether or not you’re lying about being a “non-smoker.”

Concerned with your “moral character” or sexual proclivities, they can retrace your steps on the Internet. Concerned with your political beliefs, they can find out if you subscribe to any left-wing magazines or belong to any lefty organizations (“Are you now or have you ever been….?”). Access to this information is for sale.

Years ago I began using different initials when joining organizations or subscribing to magazines, in order to track who was selling their lists and who wasn’t. It turned out that pretty much everyone was selling access to everyone else. One of the sterling exceptions was MAD magazine, which had an avowed policy of never, under any circumstances, selling its subscription list.

For instance, using the middle initial of “Z” I was disappointed to learn that the ACLU, of all people, had shared my name and address with other “progressive” organizations. I guess they figured that, because I was an ACLU member, I wouldn’t object to hearing from the folks at “The Nation” and “Mother Jones” magazine.

As alarming as the NSA’s vast database is (Greenwald claims they monitor 120 billion e-mails per month!), there are laws that regulate such surveillance. Granted, even though they get circumvented or ignored, there are, nonetheless, laws on the books that prohibit overreach, which is why Congress investigates them, and why stories of NSA excesses make the front page of the newspaper.

But not for the private sector. Not only is “spying” on consumers and potential employees entirely legal, it doesn’t bother most people, because they fear the “government” way more than they fear private business. As far as I can tell, the feds don’t know how much sausage I eat or what brand of toilet paper I use. But there’s a grocery store chain out there that does know.

David Macaray, an LA playwright and author (“It’s Never Been Easy:  Essays on Modern Labor,” 2nd edition), is a former union rep.  He can be reached at dmacaray@earthlink.net