Alternatives International

Obama's War on Whistleblowers Continues

Joel Balsam — 2012-06-02T01:54:17Z

The 1917 Espionage Act, a World War I-era law originally meant for German and Russian spies, has been used six times against current or former United States government officials who have leaked secrets to the public during Obama's term in the White House. That is twice as many prosecutions on whistleblowers as any other administration put together.

New legislation passing through Congress is meant to change all that. This past month the US Senate passed s.743, the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act, after over 12 years of lobbying and discussion. Among several reforming measures, the bill will allow disciplinary measures to be consigned to federal departments that retaliate against whistleblowers and reform non-disclosure agreements.

Organizers of May's "Whistleblower Summit: A Civil & Human Rights Conference" in Washington, DC praised the new legislation, saying it is a step in the right direction against Obama's “war on whistleblowers.”

However, one clause in the bill gives the Merit System Protection Board the right to refuse a jury trial to whistleblowers and victims of civil rights abuse. The right to a jury trial was earned in the 1964 Civil Rights Act and is seen as a strong tenet of civil rights in the US. This obstacle could bring the whole bill down in the House of Representatives.

John Kiriakou is the most recent American to be indicted for whistleblowing. The former Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) officer known for unveiling waterboarding to the public in a 2007 interview with ABC News faced 50 years in prison for disclosing the identity of a CIA interrogator to the media, three Espionage Act counts, and for lying to the CIA's Publications Review Board. The information about waterboarding led to widespread condemnation of CIA torture tactics and forced Obama to release dozens of documents on George W. Bush-era interrogation methods shortly thereafter.

Kiriakou's trial date has been set for November 26.

David Carr of the New York Times believes indictments under the Espionage Act are used to scare people away from speaking out. “The majority of the recent prosecutions seem to have everything to do with administrative secrecy and very little to do with national security,” he writes. “In case after case, the Espionage Act has been deployed as a kind of ad hoc Official Secrets Act, which is not a law that has ever found traction in America, a place where the people's right to know is viewed as superseding the government's right to hide its business.”

While Kiriakou was charged for speaking out about waterboarding, a practice Obama has repeatedly referred to as torture, no one who has actually taken part in waterboarding has ever been taken to court in the US.

Obama promised “a new era of openness” for whistleblowers on his first official day in office. He later said these promising things about federal secret tellers: “Often the best source of information about waste, fraud, and abuse in government is an existing government employee committed to public integrity and willing to speak out. Such acts of courage and patriotism, which can sometimes save lives and often save taxpayer dollars, should be encouraged rather than stifled.”

Instead of keeping this promise, federal whistleblowers like Thomas Drake have been exposed to ruthless court prosecutions. Drake was charged for leaking information to The Baltimore Sun about a National Security Agency spy program that cost Americans over a billion dollars, in addition to their privacy. Facing 35 years in prison and 10 felony counts, Drake's case collapsed and he had to plead guilty to only one misdemeanor–the misuse of a government computer.

Drake was positive that the government made an example out of him, telling Antiwar.com: “The government convinced themselves I was a bad guy, an enemy of the state, and went after me with everything they had, seeking to destroy my life, my livelihood, and my person–the politics of personal destruction, while also engaging in abject, cut-throat character assassination, a complete fabrication and frame up.”

Another whistleblowing case, perhaps the biggest of all time, has also occurred on Obama's watch. US soldier Bradley Manning was charged with 34 counts including “aiding the enemy” for leaking hundreds of thousands of diplomatic cables to Julian Assange at WikiLeaks. The current government says the leaks endangered national security, but supporters of Manning like Daniel Ellsberg, the famous whistleblower who in 1971 was the first to be prosecuted under the Espionage Act for leaking thePentagon Papers, call him a hero.

The accusations against whistleblowers are all part of the “criminalization of whistleblowing,” says Jesselyn Radack, director of national security and human rights with the Government Accountability Project. Radack knows this because she experienced it herself.

When working as a Legal Advisor at the US Justice Department, Radack advised her bosses not to interrogate (or torture) a terror suspect named John Walker Lindh in the early days of the invasion of Afghanistan. She soon found that not only had her warnings gone unheeded, but had “disappeared” altogether from the file. She subsequently wrote a book entitled TRAITOR: The Whistleblower and the ‘American Taliban'. Radack soon found herself under criminal investigation and penciled into the notorious “No-Fly” list.

After beating the charges, Radack decided to dedicate her life to defending whistleblowers in court so they would not have to suffer for speaking out like she did. She wrote on Salon.com that “the war on whistleblowers is also a war on journalists.”

Journalists whose careers and reputations depend on their ability to protect their sources are being targeted for writing the stories of whistleblowers according to Radack.

James Risen from The New York Times is another example of a journalist affected by the “war on whistleblowers”. He was asked to testify about whether information from his 2006 book, State of War, came from Jeffrey Sterling, another CIA officer accused of leaking classified information.

Risen, a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist, refused to give up his sources, citing the First Amendment right to freedom of speech and of the press. Yet, even without Risen's testimony, the government had access to “numerous telephone records, e-mail messages, computer files and testimony that strongly indicates that Sterling was Risen's source.”

What was once kept private for the sake of keeping a source's identity secret has been tossed out the window with floppy disks and the rotary phone in favour of a “high-tech war on leaks,” as Adam Liptak of The New York Times calls it. He quotes Lucy Dalglish, executive director of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press recommended in his article: “For God's sake, get off of e-mail, get off of your cellphone. Watch your credit cards. Watch your plane tickets. These guys in the National Security Association know everything.”

Joel Balsam is a freelance journalist from Ottawa, Canada. For his blog and portfolio go to joelbalsam.wordpress.com. You can follow him on twitter @JoelBalsam.

Spinning Classes

Joel Balsam — 2011-03-15T15:52:42Z

Carefully placed on a round table in the lobby of the Sheraton Hotel in downtown New Orleans lay a number of special edition Jewish Federations of North America General Assembly (GA) Ha'aretz newspapers. Inside, an article highlighting the Chairman of the Jewish Agency's rebuttal to a controversial piece written by City University of New York Professor Peter Beinart entitled “The Failure of the American Jewish Establishment.”

Beinart's article asserts that young Jews are becoming more detached from Israel due to the silencing of criticism. This issue had heavy undertones throughout the 79th GA.

Pollster Frank Luntz, the self-proclaimed “word-doctor” who is mentioned at the beginning of Beinart's article, draws on focus groups to determine what kinds of rhetoric work and what kinds do not. He has become internationally renowned in his trade, having won awards by Time magazine, Business Week and the Washington Post as well as being interviewed on nearly every major American television network. Such Fortune 100 companies as McDonalds, General Motors and Disney have hired Luntz as a consultant.

Last year, a document was leaked to Politco.com written by Luntz advising another one of his employers, the US Republican Party, on how to win the healthcare reform debate. Using simple vernacular and a dumbed-down approach, Luntz recommends words, phrases and general attitudes in a 28-page booklet called The Language of Healthcare 2009.

In the how-to booklet, Luntz suggests compiling a list of problems with treating “diseases that touch the most people in the most personal ways, like cancer and heart disease,” in Canada and Great Britain. This “personalizes the harm of government-run healthcare in a powerful way,” writes Luntz. He advocates using “words that work” to change the debate and quell criticism. In other words, he is a spin-doctor.

In 2003, Luntz was hired by The Israel Project (TIP) to conduct focus groups to find out what Israel can do to improve its image in the world. As Beinart points out at the beginning of his New York Book Review article, Luntz diagnosed what TIP feared – young American Jews are disconnected with Israel.

The word-doctor devised a plan to remedy this problem by creating a 116-page document to teach readers how best to defend Israel. Luntz briefly summarized the TIP document, called The Global Language Dictionary, at a talk at the GA called “Advocating for Israel Online”.

Rule #1, he said, is to speak visually with phrases like “learn to live together” or “learn to live side by side,” when referring to the Middle-East conflict. He continued in a controlled manner, firing rules, phrases and “commandments” on how to win debates about Israel.

On the large screen to his right, Luntz pulled up a video of Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu's most recent speech from the White House lawn where he proceeded to praise Netanyahu's use of alliterations like “partners in peace” to sway listeners.

A young Zionist in the audience stepped up to the microphone during Q&A and asked Luntz about the best way to defend Israel on a university campus– a location viewed widely at the GA as a hotbed for anti-Zionist sentiments. “Establish the framework,” suggests Luntz. By asking if someone believes in Israel's “right to exist” as a Jewish State, “you learn where they stand,” right from the start.

Over 600 students participated in the GA. In conjunction with the larger conference, a small seminar of about thirty students called Do The Write Thing taught young journalists how to use their writing to support Israel.

USD Hagshama, the university and young professional's division of The World Zionist Organization, hosted the journalism workshop. One exercise invited volunteers to come to the front of the room to comment on a picture of former Israeli Defense Minister Amir Peretz monitoring an Israel Defense Force drill. After looking at the drill, Peretz turned around and gave the thumbs up that everything was good. There was only one problem— the covers were still on his binoculars. This picture was clearly not good PR for Israel, the speaker said, before asking volunteers to spin the situation to make it positive. The answers could not help but look at the comical side of the situation as spinning it any other fashion proved to be an impossible task.

During another lecture at Do the Write Thing, Yigal Caspi, Deputy Director General for Media and Public Affairs at Israel's Foreign Ministry, told the thirty young students that the best way to deflect criticism of Israel is to “promote the good side of Israel.” This includes talking about Israeli innovations like cell phones and technology for social networking.

Caspi is a press relations professional, his job is to defend Israel from critics, especially from the over 800 journalists within Israel itself. But spin-doctors like Caspi are often considered enemies of journalism as information goes through these gifted speakers instead of straight from the mouths of power-brokers and politicians.

From the comedy of the Peretz binocular gaffe to the tragedy of the Gaza flotilla interception, Israel is no stranger to negative PR. Caspi admits that in the past press relations for Israel have had their holes, blaming his office's meager means in comparison with the inflated budgets of multi-national corporations like Pepsi.

But it was precisely the institutionalization of PR, spin, and what Rae Abileah sees as “silencing dissent” that pushed the young activist to what she confessed was a “last resort” as she and four other young Jews stood up, one after the other, in the middle of Netanyahu's speech at the GA with banners calling occupation, settlement construction, the siege of Gaza, the proposed loyalty oath, and silencing of dissent de-legitimizations of Israel, “We have written hundreds if not thousands of letters to Congress, to the Israeli Embassy, we've visited these offices, we've called, we've written op-eds, and letters to the editor. Traditional tactics are not working so we go to direct action to make a point and to get into the limelight.”

The member of Jewish Voice for Peace and Code Pink: Women For Peace thinks that what the TIP may see as defending Israel runs contrary to both Judaism and democracy, “On one hand, the Jewish values we've grown up with— Tikkun Olam and social justice and all of this identity of the religion— and then on the other hand the political reality of Israel and the fact that we are taught not to make any comparisons between the two. This is like a don't-ask-don't-tell situation.”

Abileah has a history of direct action having done similar demonstrations against Netanyahu and Shimon Peres at AIPAC the last two years. Her goal is not to transform the vision of Israel in the eyes of Israel's staunchest supporters, but rather “to reach a lot of the young people, to spark a discussion and a dialogue.”

Something that Abileah has in common with TIP is that she too thinks the media is biased, but rather in support of Israel, “It wasn't a media stunt,” she said about disrupting Netanyahu's speech, “but unfortunately sometimes the media is so biased these viewpoints don't get into the media very often.”

Speaking the following day after the demonstration, Luntz said that Abileah and the other protesters “practiced silencing” Netanyahu, which is the polar opposite of what they say they were attempting to prove by protesting against the obstruction of criticism.

When asked if she believed in Israel's “right to exist,” Abileah replied:

“It's not about that, it's a country. It's been a country for sixty years. No one can go back in time and reverse that.” She went on to apply the same question to her own country. “Do I think the US has a right to exist after annihilating the native-American people? I don't know, but that's not a point that I want to negotiate because it's been hundreds of years.”

“Expect more of this,” wrote Beinart, the man who kicked off the debate on the state of mind of young Jews, as he re-tweeted the news about the protest while it was happening. Whether or not Beinart will prove correct remains to be seen, but judging by the tone of the GA, it is a trend that the North American Jewish establishment hopes it can effectively combat by winning the war over words.

Joel Balsam is a freelance journalist and student at Concordia University.

Moving Forward

Joel Balsam — 2010-08-02T16:21:34Z

“The idea is definitely to bring people together.”
Socially conscious rapper Lou Piensa chats with the AIJ.

Lou Piensa is co-founder of the multi-cultural, multi-lingual, eclectic hip-hop super-group called Nomadic Massive. Montreal's own will be playing at this year's Journées des Alternatives on August 28th. I spoke with Lou about hip-hop and activism.

How do you think music can influence society to make change?

The most important thing is that music kind of penetrates people's consciousness in a comfortable way. More so than discourse, a speech or written document.

Music is based on vibration and stuff that people feel physically. Depending on where you get the emotion you can definitely reach a lot of different people that are feeling different things and through lyrics you can bring consciousness of issues to them in a way that is very natural. Doing it through music is a natural process as opposed to something where you are forcing the idea.

Can you explain the concept of Edutainment?

Who coined that phrase was Krs-One when he was part of Boogie Down Productions. It's educating through music. Not everybody uses music for that purpose, but we come from a certain type of hip-hop that we appeal to and we support and we really like. Not to say that it's all we listen to, but its something that stuck out for us. Hip-hop has brought concrete change to community, it has brought concrete change across the world as far as lifting people's spirit up and making them feel like something can be done and they can make something out of their selves also. Through music as an artist or through music within themselves. I can definitely say that I am a result of edutainment as far as music goes. I've always listened to music that has opened me up to a lot of things that help the way I perceive things across the world.

…Hip-hop music in particular?

Hip-hop has that history of being that force. Coming from political conflicts where people weren't given a voice – hip-hop has that history of being that voice that was used in many different ways throughout history. It definitely has a political aspect that is extremely valuable and it still exists today, but it is not necessarily pushed by corporations or major media networks.

As a multi-lingual and multi-cultural collective, is Nomadic Massive a model for Canada?

We are definitely a result of multi-cultural Canada in the sense that we all live in Montreal and we all come from different places across the world. This is especially reflected in a lot of neighbourhoods across Montreal.

A lot of us are based out of Cote-des-Neiges – it is like the most multi-cultural neighbourhood in the country. You have over 150 nationalities out here; people mixing up and people that are efficient cultures already. I work for a Canada Youth Centre here. I was just with a young rapper here who's half-Hungarian, half-Laotian. That's just one example, but if you look at all the kids they are almost all different nationalities so, it is representative of a lot of the realities in Canada.

As far as a model it is something that happened naturally. We try not to push too much this whole idea that we are this cultural mosaic or whatever. Its just a natural thing, we are human beings before anything, but a lot of people find it interesting that we kind of represent coexisting in a way.

The idea is definitely to bring people together. I think that's reflected in our crowds. You see people from different communities; different backgrounds areas and music scenes all come together. We do that not because we are different origins, but also through our musical perspective that we try to see music as one and use a lot of different influences that are related to hip-hop no less, but people don't necessarily attach to hip-hop. We try to mix it up as far as that goes and we try to mix it up with our ideas as well we are not really stuck on one particular way of thinking or one political wave or whatever.

Other than spreading the message through hip-hop what other activism do you do personally?

That's funny I was just talking to a friend of mine who is very involved in rallies and writing letters you and getting into a lot of other social issues. I use music as social inspiration and to try to create some of the messages. Other than that you still gotta use that mentality everyday when you wake up or go to bed.
I work with youth everyday as well. Everybody in Nomadic is actually involved with youth or education through social programs and stuff like that. I think the term activist sometimes corners people into a corner and creates an image of what you should be. I think that people can be activists in their own rights and their own ways I think they are just important everyday in trying to bring something to help people.

Nomadic Massive is working on a new mix-tape and a follow-up to their self-titled second albumhttp://www.nomadicmassive.com/music.htm.

Joel Balsam co-edited this month's Alternatives International Journal and is a student journalist at Concordia Univeristy.

NGO MONITOR-ing

Joel Balsam — 2010-06-02T17:54:02Z

An investigation into NGO Monitor's participation in the de-funding of Canadian human rights organizations Kairos and Alternatives.

At the end of August 2009, an Israeli-based non-governmental organization (NGO) called NGO Monitor wrote a letter to the Canadian Parliamentary Committee to Combat Anti-Semitism (CPCCA) identifying 33 Canadian organizations that exemplified “the emergence of an anti-Semitic global movement”. This list included smaller organizations, such as Alternatives and the Canadian Arab Federation, as well as larger ones like Oxfam-Quebec and World Vision Canada. Unfortunately for many of the organizations listed, the weight of NGO Monitor's influence likely played a role in the federal government's decision— via the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA)— to in some cases delay renewal of long-standing subsidies and in others cut funding altogether.

NGO Monitor was created in response to the UN World Conference on Racism of 2001 in Durban, South Africa. President of NGO Monitor, Gerald Steinberg, explained in a conference held by the Jerusalem Centre for Public Affairs (JCPA) that NGOs, especially at Durban, “use the legal system around the world to promote their political agenda – the isolation of Israel through these cases and the branding of Israel as a war criminal”.

As an NGO itself, NGO Monitor is less constrained in this debate than most. Since it is privately funded, it is free of public funding regulations. In his 2005 article “Monitoring the Monitor”, Jewish writer and critic of NGO Monitor Leonard Fein writes that NGO Monitor is “an organization that believes that the best way to defend Israel is to condemn anyone who criticizes it… all NGOs— NGO Monitor no less than Human Rights Watch— have an agenda” and none of them are beyond criticism. NGO Monitor's agenda is formed in part by its mother organization, the JCPA, and in part by its donors, who are primarily American family foundations. Dore Gold, President of the JCPA, is the former advisor to Ariel Sharon and Binyamin Netanyahu (1st office). He has refuted calling Palestine “occupied” and is, in direct conflict with United States policy, a defender of Israeli settlements.

United Nations Resolution 242, which calls for an abandonment of the “territories occupied” in 1967 has expanded into further condemnations of Israel under international law. In response to these accusations, the JCPA “seeks to present Israel's case” against the international legal criticism of Israel, or “lawfare,” which NGO Monitor says is “the exploitation of courts in democratic countries in order to harass Israeli officials with civil lawsuits and criminal investigations for "war crimes," "crimes against humanity," and other alleged violations of international law”.

NGO Monitor wishes to debate with NGOs and welcomes them to the discussion, as explained in this statement sent to this journalist upon request for an interview. Managing Editor Naftali Belanson specified that this statement be placed in full:

Free speech, along with transparency and accountability, are key elements for a functioning democracy. To promote the informed debate and discussion that are essential to democracy and pluralism, NGO Monitor provides documented information on the activities and funding processes for powerful NGOs. While not taking a position on specific legislation or procedures, NGO Monitor generally supports initiatives that increase transparency and accountability in government funding processes. Attempts to portray our well-documented and detailed research as a threat to free speech are themselves an effort to block free speech and democratic debate, while diverting attention from the substance of NGO Monitor's analyses.

Otherwise put, NGO Monitor conducts content analysis of the websites and public reports of publicly-funded NGOs and submits the reports of their findings to governments. They do not take positions on “specific legislation or procedure”, i.e. international law or regulations placed on NGOs within their own region. Instead, they support “initiatives to increase transparency and accountability in government funding processes”. Initiatives have thus far included the August 2009 submission to the CPCCA, an oft-updated list of NGOs who criticize Israel on NGO Monitor's website and advocacy through private lobbying.

Gerald Steinberg stressed a willingness for an open debate with NGOs when he said: “We do not claim and our agenda is not to prevent NGOs from functioning or to undermine the important role that many NGOs do play in civil society, but we do think that it is important to present ethical and moral principles – nobody gets a free ride.” In Canada at least, the contrary is the rule. NGO Monitor's criticism of specific NGOs and their subsequent demands that CIDA stop supporting these NGOs infers a willful attempt to incapacitate.

The first and most publicized funding cut by CIDA was KAIROS Canada, a social justice organization comprised of 11 church groups, including the Anglican, Mennonite, and United Churches of Canada. Minister of International Cooperation Bev Oda, who made the final decision to deny KAIROS' request for funding of $7.1 million over the next 4 years, said of the cut in funding after 35 years of steady subsidization, “tough choices will have to be made”.

KAIROS has opposed the Canadian government on Albertan oil sands development, the Colombian free trade agreement, and its support for Israel's 2008-9 assault on Gaza. NGO Monitor did not feel it necessary to include KAIROS in the 2009 CPCCA submission, but there is an extensive report on the Christian organization's “demonization” of Israel on NGO Monitor's website.

Gerry Barr, President and CEO of the Canadian Council for International Co-operation (CCIC), which represents over 100 NGOs, said that “KAIROS will just be the first of many rights advocates who when their turn comes will receive their phone call about their lack of fit. Only the silent will qualify.” Critics of the decision to cut KAIROS' funding have also come from the opposition. NDP Leader Jack Layton said this of the funding cut: “It's reprehensible. It reminds me of the things we used to see from the Harris government.”

CPCCA member and Liberal MP Bob Rae called the decision by the Conservative Government “truly shocking.” NDP MP Ed Broadbent said this of the Harper government's policies of cutting the funding of human rights NGOs: “They are bringing what can only be described, it seems to me, as Middle East politics, directly into the heart of the centre. Never was there such interference before.”

In a speech in Israel for the Global Forum for Combating Anti-Semitism, Jason Kenney, Minister of Immigration and ex-officio member of the CPCCA, defended the decision on KAIROS when he said: “We have de-funded organizations, most recently like KAIROS, who are taking a leadership roll in the boycott.” KAIROS has denied participation in the Boycott Divestment and Sanctions campaign and Kenney has provided no proof for his claim.

At the 2009 anti-Semitism conference in Israel, Kenney, a devout Christian, also spoke of the growth of anti-Zionism as a new form of anti-Semitism. He called it “even more dangerous than the old European anti-Semitism". In response, Mary Corkery, Executive Director of KAIROS, said to the Toronto Star: "You cannot label someone anti-Semitic because they criticize a government." She has been vocal in her criticism of the government's “outrageous” decision.

According to Kenney, another reason that KAIROS was de-funded was their support of a Christian-Palestinian NGO called Sabeel, who he said “employs anti-Semitic themes and imagery”. On their website, Sabeel writes that it “does not think anyone, Jews or Palestinians have a particular vocation of suffering or should be stateless”. Despite believing in a two-state solution, Sabeel— with advice from NGO Monitor— has been labeled anti-Semitic by the Conservatives. The NGO Monitor's report on Sabeel quotes Sabeel's president, Naim Ateek, as saying: "Israel is creating Bantustans (homelands, reservations) for the Palestinians and an Israeli form of apartheid that is much worse than what was practiced in South Africa.” The accusation that Israel is creating Bantustans is akin to a statement made in the Guardian on April 19, 2002 by present-day Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff: "When I looked down at the West Bank, at the settlements like Crusader forts occupying the high ground, at the Israeli security cordon along the Jordan river closing off the Palestinian lands from Jordan, I knew I was not looking down at a state or the beginnings of one, but at a Bantustan, one of those pseudo-states created in the dying years of apartheid to keep the African population under control."

Similarly criticized for being “intensely hostile to Israel”, Alternatives' CIDA funding was suspended without notice. Alternatives learned of CIDA's tabled cut through a December 5th, 2009 article in the National Post. Alternatives has received $2.4 million annually from CIDA and is involved in the fight against climate change in Haiti, the rights of women and minorities in Iraq, the access to communication and information technology in the Democratic Republic of Congo, rural development in Afghanistan, and promoting workers rights in Central America, but Alternatives “does not fit with CIDA's current priorities”.

According to The Jewish Tribune, a Canadian weekly, NGO Monitor broke the story first. NGO Monitor's ability to know this information before taxpayers— and even before Alternatives— is “intriguing,” says Feroz Mehdi, Coordinator for Alternatives International, the umbrella organization that includes Alternatives Montreal and Alternatives Quebec along with eight other Alternatives branches worldwide. Due to the frozen, Alternatives' Quebec City office was forced to close its doors.

Alternatives and KAIROS have continued to function and are actively seeking alternative forms of funding. “They haven't stopped us and we're getting stronger,” says Darren Shore, Communications Officer for Alternatives Montreal. He continues, “We have a membership drive that is already producing results. We are joining forces with civil society organizations in Canada to push back against the repressive policies of the federal government. We will continue to encourage participatory citizenship with our events, including the Journées Alternatives and the World Education Forum in Israel/Palestine.”

Joel Balsam is an Alternatives intern and student journalist on Concordia Univeristy's The Link.

Photo: flickr/axe