Posted by Lisa English
Lately, I've been making friends with lots of folks from around the world.
"Yeah," you say, "Isn't the Internet just the most amazing way of connecting?"
Ummm, actually, it's not through the web that I've been discovering the diversity of global culture. Nope. It's been through customer support 800 numbers provided by some of America's most successful companies. Seems like each and every time I lift the phone to find help for some software or electronic glich, I'm meeting and greeting a world of newly employed and happy folk...people who have taken American jobs through a phenomenon known as US offshore outsourcing. Sure is an inconvenient time for this to be happening, eh?
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, more than 9 million Americans are out of work. Figure that number is significantly off mark because the unemployed are staying out of work longer these days. Stats on the long-term out-of-work are tough to come by once the unemployment checks run out. Fact is, we're talking about a whole subclass of formerly working people who are unaccounted for in the statistics. Rest assured that's a lot of pissed off people, who are now facing foreclosure and bankruptcy.
Where, oh where, have their jobs gone? Well, it seems they've drifted off to exotic destinations like India and the Philippines.
"Netgear. How can I help you."
That quote up there? Well, that's a close approximation of what the operator at the other end said to me the other day.
I think.
You see, it was a real challenge figuring out what this gal was saying. Her English first had to be sifted through an impossibly thick accent.
"Where are you located," I delicately asked.
"India," she somehow managed clearly.
So difficult was this brain-drain of a telephone translation, that throughout our 45-minute conversation she was required to repeat nearly every instruction, two or three times. But worst of all, cultural wimp that I am, I found myself apologizing for those repetitions - blaming them on a "lousy connection" that was quite good, actually, rather than screaming, "I don't understand WTF you are saying!!!!"
Hey, don't get me wrong...I'm a big supporter of cultural diversity. It's just that when trying to get that computer network set up - a feat mired in techno babble to begin with - it's not unrealistic to want support from people whose pronunciation of abstract commands, letters and numbers is clear. Well, is it?
Well, actually, yeah that is an unrealistic expectation...
See, American companies like Netgear, Sony and Handspring - the trio I've recently had to deal with - are typical of the outfits laying off American workers and then replacing them with cheap global labor. Hey, how's that for corporate patriotism? Oh, and one other thing: we're not talking just customer support positions, either. White-collar engineering jobs are being lost to Indian workers who command only 10% of American wages.
That's right, David Beckman of WashTech News tells us that Democratic Representatives Jay Islee and and Adam Smith of Washington State have asked that the General Accouting Office (GAO) conduct a study to determine the effects of offshore outsourcing of US jobs. According to Smith's office, they're hoping the request will be bumped up to higher priority now that Rep. Ike Skelton (D-MO), ranking member of the House Armed Service Committee, has signed on.
Alright, I'll admit it: this is a big problem with no simple solutions...at least none that appear ready for the grab. Playing devil's advocate, I can see that Big American Corporations, many of whom are working on government contracts (nice touch, eh?), are struggling to retain those high profits and low costs. But must their creative way of dealing with this be by kicking your backside out the door and opening shop in Third World countries? The deal is this: if Americans aren't working, we can't afford to buy all that Made & Supported Anywhere But in the US Nonsense that these uber-patriotic (cough) companies have to sell. Right?
It's time, don't you think, that the American people demanded an investigation and a national discussion of the issue? I mean, how long are we planning to sit back and watch our jobs and homes disappear? Hmmm...?
As usual, you can play a role...
Help move things along in a positive direction by insisting that your Congresstypes and Senators support Inslee and Smith's request for this GAO study. Here's a quick and painless way to do just that.
Go ahead. Get out there and spread the word.
Posted by Lisa English
Every federal employee, including every member of Congress, gets to choose the health coverage that best fits their needs. If it's good enough for the employees and the members of Congress to have choice, it's good enough for our seniors to have choice when it comes to health care plans, as well.
That quote up there? According to the Washington Post, that's George W. Bush speaking last month at a Connecticut hospital. He was making certain that folks know just how much of a compassionate conservative he'd like them to believe he is. It's not the first time Bush has insisted that senior citizens deserve no less "choice" than he or our representatatives enjoy. See, the man is no fool. He knows that Medicare and prescription drug benefits for the nation's seniors is a big Democratic concern - one that he's feigning an effort to resolve. By grabbing a Dem issue, he hopes to defuse a ticking time bomb for his side. There's just one thing he forgot to tell those Connecticut hospital workers. See, "choice" is no choice at all when the only plans seniors will be afforded are inferior political bandages applied to a gaping social wound. Will the president's smoke and mirrors work? That all depends on the Dems...
The problem here for Bush and the majority is that the plan proposed by his side looks nothing like the plans offered Federal employees like Mr. Bush. Seniors will have to pay lots more for less in the way of coverage. It's unlikely the president or his congressional cheerleaders would be happy living with that kind of plan for themselves or their loved ones, so why should the nation's seniors feel differently? Shouldn't seniors have the same choices? Seems we've got ourselves a bit of a conservative problem here, eh?
Well, that's what Sen. Mark Dayton (D-MN) thought, and so the other day he put forth an amendment that would equalize the congressional prescription drug plan with the one ultimately agreed upon for America's elderly. I mean, you've got to love the guy. He was merely following along on the President's line of thinking: if it's good enough for seniors, it should be good enough for our representatives. If the seniors pay more, then the representatives should pay more. If the seniors get less coverage, then the representatives should get less coverage. Well, Dayton's colleagues in the Senate thought his amendment was a really sterling idea, and they voted for the measure, 93-3.
Then, lo and behold, something not-so-funny happened.
It turns out that although our elected officials voted in favor of equality, they really didn't mean it, and the vote is destined to be overturned when the House and Senate bills come to negotiation. According to Rick Santorum (R-PA), it's like this...
Most members saw this as demagoguery. And we weren't going to condone it publicly by taking it seriously. So we all voted for it.
So, in other words, the Republicans didn't want to seem gluttonous and hypocritical, so they cast a load of bad-faith votes to cover their backsides. Later, when nobody is looking, they'll cry foul. Bottom line: Bush can't deliver a prescription drug plan to America's seniors that is in any way as generous as the one he and Congress and other Federal employees enjoy. Not while he's bankrupting the country with tax rebates for the uber rich. Not while he's launched a never-ending war in search of a never-reaching peace.
You know, if the Democrats were smart, they'd go to the daily trouble of highlighting the differences between themselves and their right-wing counterparts. They'd be as In The Nation's Face as the opposition routinely is.
Fortunately, here's another way for the Dems to do just that: they should take this vote seriously.
They should group together on the steps of the Capitol and stand shoulder-to-shoulder with the nation's seniors - demanding Congress give seniors what Bush promised, or Congress lower their benefits to the level ultimately afforded the elderly.
They should pummel this Bad-Faith Vote until the American people get the message: the Republicans have distorted the issue for political gain,and the prescription drug problem will not be solved with half-baked measures.
Rick Santorum calls this demagoguery? I don't know...sounds to me like Dayton was playing Conservative Hardball. If the Democrats want to win on this issue, they need to get sharp: they need to join Dayton's team and play ball, too.
Posted by Lisa English
Billy Tauzin is a Congressman from Louisiana. He is also the Republican chairman of the House Commerce Committee and he has from all appearances, an intravenous connection to Big Media. While working on legislation that benefits their industry, Billy Tauzin accepted gifts of trips offered up by the same outfits who were lobbying him. According to a Charles Lewis' (Center for Public Integrity) article that appeared a few years back in the Columbia Journalism Review...
No member of Congress traveled more frequently on the media industry's nickel than Congressman Billy Tauzin, the Louisiana Republican. He and his senior staff have been taken on forty-two trips -- one out of eight junkets the industry has lavished on Congress. In December 1999 Tauzin left with his wife Cecile on a six-day, $18,910 trip to Paris, sponsored by Time Warner and Instinet, ostensibly for a conference there on e-commerce. Another member attending the same meeting, Rep. John E. Sweeney, a New York Republican, reported half the costs incurred by Tauzin, $7,445. Tauzin's wife and his son Michael have accompanied him on several industry-sponsored trips to New York, New Orleans, and Palm Springs, California.
Sounds like influence peddling to me. How about you? By the way, the numbers are significantly worse today, in June 2003.
Now, you might say that these things are done all the time, and you might then just be inclined to dismiss this information as more of that Same Old, Same Old, but I encourage you to stick with me.
The American media is not just any industry. Our media shapes public opinion. They wield greater power than any other business, and many believe the media lobby in Washington is the most powerful and influential in the land. How powerful? Well, they were strong enough to defeat a universally popular Clinton proposal that broadcasters provide free airtime for all candidates. Broadcast airtime is the single most expensive ticket item in a candidate's budget. Without money, there's no airtime. Without airtime, a new face - yours, mine or his - on the political horizon has virtually no chance of defeating an incumbent. Once you're "in," you're "in" unless someone can come up with enough money to outshine you on TV, radio and print. Without free airtime, politicians become beholden to special interests as they beg for more and more money in order to pay the broadcaster's bill. It's pretty incestuous stuff. As Lewis notes...
The dirty little secret is that from 1996 through 1998, the NAB [National Association of Broadcasters] and five media outlets -- ABC, CBS, A.H. Belo, Meredith Corp., and Cox Enterprises -- cumulatively spent nearly $11 million to defeat a dozen campaign finance bills mandating free air time for political candidates.
In a nut: they were mighty successful. This industry, that publicizes itself as replete with integrity and stands bias-free is anything but. The spookiest part, is that our lawmakers are petrified to do anything about it. You'd be scared too, if raising your voice in favor of Free Airtime meant an opponent got as much spotlight as you. You'd be scared too, if fighting Big Media's assault on democracy meant that the camera steered clear of your face in political retribution. Is that a valid fear? Were I a politician, I'd venture to say, "yes."
Rep. Tauzin leads one of the most powerful committees in Congress and it's looking as if he's not going to permit a bill that rescinds the FCC's Giveaway to Big Media to reach the floor of the House.
Why should he?
He's been bought and paid for by the same big outfits that like things just the way they are, thank you very much. Some might call Rep. Tauzin a political whore. Whatever he is, he's not listening to the voice of the American people. Were he listening, that bill would be moving rapidly to the House of Representatives.
Emma at Notes on the Atrocities makes a good point this morning. She suggests that while we're clicking around today (see below), sending messages to Congress that we want a roll back on the FCC's vote of June 2, that we phone up Representative Tauzin and give him a piece of our collective mind. That we tell him to get that bill out of Committee and onto the floor. See, being the Chair of this important committee means that Billy can and likely will continue doing all he can to subvert the will of the people. I imagine if a million of us were to swamp his office with calls, Mr. Tauzin might be more interested in doing our bidding than the bidding of those who send him, his wife and the kid around the world in an effort to subvert the people's voice.
While you've got 'em on the line, you might want to tell these folk that you're onto Tauzin's Tricks and if the American people have their say, he either jumps when we say, "JUMP!" or he finds himself another job.
The American people...Left, Right, Green or Otherwise is the special interest lawmakers should be listening to. When our elected officials disregard the interests of the people for the interests of the media conglomerates, they become poster children for all that's wrong with government today.
Email Me | Comments (2) | TrackBackPosted by Lisa English
After witnessing the Clinton Witch Trials, I'd have never figured on the stomach for another one. Now? I can't wait.
What's this? We learn that while the administration was making public pronouncements about the solid connection between Saddam and al Qaeda, they'd consistently been told otherwise by the handful of captured bin Laden bigwigs. Nice, eh? Add this to the growing global peeve over those Really Hard To Find weapons of mass destruction, and I want to know why the hell we're not pursuing impeachment on this son of a bitch. I don't give a rat's ass how the Right try to spin this one - we're talking a far greater sin than any lies about a blow job. Anyone who can't see that, needs to untie the flag from around their partisan eyes. From the NY Times' Captors Deny Qaeda Worked With Baghdad...
Abu Zubaydah, a Qaeda planner and recruiter until his capture in March 2002, told his questioners last year that the idea of working with Mr. Hussein's government had been discussed among Qaeda leaders, but that Osama bin Laden had rejected such proposals, according to an official who has read the Central Intelligence Agency's classified report on the interrogation.
In his debriefing, Mr. Zubaydah said Mr. bin Laden had vetoed the idea because he did not want to be beholden to Mr. Hussein, the official said.
Separately, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the Qaeda chief of operations until his capture on March 1 in Pakistan, has also told interrogators that the group did not work with Mr. Hussein, officials said.
Oh yeah, and while they've got the impeachment hearings underway, can we see about jumpstarting the 911 investigation? I want to know why this incompetent corporatist peckerwad failed to protect the country, as plane after box cutting plane took out life after American and internationalist life.
You don't have to tell me. I already know: these lines of inquiry aren't supposed to happen. We shouldn't be talking about such things. Karl Rove has deemed them inapproporiate and anti-American threads of conversation. This line of chatter doesn't fit nicely into the Perfect Presidency that Bush's Brain has devised (with the aid of smoke and mirrors, great background, excellent lighting, and It's a Wrap).
I don't know about you, but I've grown sick of the lies and the secrecy. And aside from that, Karl Rove can kiss my middle-aged ass.
It's Monday. I've not yet found my groove.
Email Me | Comments (11) | TrackBackPosted by Lisa English
Tell me something...why is it that Americans pay some of the highest costs for pharmaceuticals in the world, when our government subsidizes these same pharma companies to the tune of multitudinous bazillions? That's right. Our tax dollars subsidize a large chunk of pharmaceutical research. Why is it that other governments have put price controls on drugs - so that their citizenry don't have to choose between bread and heart meds - but we won't?
Could it be because the government of this country has become so incestuously connected to the corporate special interests that you and I have lost all say in the matter?
Well, as an answer to this problem, lots of storefront operations are opening up around the US - discount pharmaceutical procurers - that do nothing more than bring in the same needed drugs - at discount - but from abroad. If it's cheaper in Canada, why not import the drugs from Canada instead of let's say, New Jersey? The US pharma co's are understandably outraged. I mean, having Americans get all revolutionary on them is unheard of and they're not going to tolerate it. In fact, some are succeeding in closing down these small shops. Here's a snip from today's New York Times article, Canada Fills US Prescriptions Under the Counter...
Drug company executives say the discount stores, which generally make a small commission for arranging each order and delivery, threaten their ability to invest in medical research, and the companies have begun limiting shipments to their Canadian suppliers. Health regulators say the stores, which often operate without regulatory oversight or even licensed pharmacists, are a danger to public health, and they have begun a crackdown.
Still, even if regulators succeed in closing the stores, the underground importation of drugs is already shifting to a more elusive sales channel: drug parties akin to those for Tupperware.
The parties and the discount stores, which refused to discuss their precise fees, are the latest manifestation of the conflict created by the enormous differences in prescription drug prices around the world. Even as governments in almost every industrialized country mandate steep cuts in drug prices, American consumers are paying among the highest prices in the world, and those prices are increasing annually.
Geez, I wish I knew about these folks when a couple of weeks ago I had to lay out major league change after our 12-year old developed an ear infection. The antibiotic, you see...a new time-released product that the physician prescribed - was not covered under the pharmaceutical rider of our family's Oxford Health Plan...the plan we're paying 700 some-odd bucks a month for. At the register, I was asked to cough up over $50 for five tablets.
We're getting ripped off. Bigtime.
I know all about those tax gifts to the wealthy. I know all about the big contracts going to Bush's friends for the rebuilding of a country we bombed to smithereens. What I want to know is this....
When the hell are they going to do something for the poor and working class of this country? How's about they start by giving us prescription drug protection from the insurance and pharma industries?
Email Me | Comments (3) | TrackBackPosted by Lisa English
Imagine if you will, a wealthy Conservative or a wealthy Liberal or a wealthy Green owning all of the influential media in your town. Come at it from the oppositional viewpoint and now you see the political problem. Imagine if you will, garbage television produced for our youth while exemplars of excellence in broadcasting are tossed in the can. Remember, this is the same American media that raises the rates of commercial advertising during political seasons so that our representatives have to raise more money and be more beholden to special interests. This is the reality of a barely regulated industry. We're going to let them operate under even slimmer guidelines? Are we CRAZY?
As Avedon Carol reminds us...we've one last shot before the vote. Now is the time to encourage all around us to fax off letters to their representatives in protest of FCC plans.
The main thing is to get people to act NOW. Ask them to protest this rush vote and to demand FCC public hearings on the issue. The public cannot make an informed decision on this vitally important issue unless the public is informed.
Posted by Lisa English
It's not only about newspapers and talking head rant. The FCC's runaway train toward the further consolidation of the American media goes beyond that...it rams its way straight into the hearts and minds of America's children...
When I was a young mother, I made some unspoken promises to my kid. I vowed she'd be raised strong and independent. I promised to do all I could to help her develop critical thinking skills. I made a pledge to bring up a compassionate and curious child.
The way I planned to mold my kid into the person I hoped she'd be was by showering her with simple but healthy experiences and by filling her life with good stuff, like art, literature and music. As backdrop to this plan, I convinced her skeptical father that color played an important role in a child's development, and then shipped him off to paint her room in primary hues. Next, I loaded her shelves with books and tunes, and brought in gender-neutral toys like fire trucks and balls, crayons and paints. Finally, I officially banned Barbie from the household. This being my eighth month of pregnancy, the kid wasn't even born yet. I was set to parentally rock and roll...
I'm still no expert, and I've made my share of mistakes. But I've learned a thing or two about raising kids in these last sixteen years. You give it your all and you hope for the best, but bringing up a child in these modern times is frankly, something of a crapshoot. Sometimes, things just don't turn out as we plan...
Case in point...
My daughter was three when The Barbie Doll invaded our home. It was during an innocuous enough birthday party and it happened so fast, that it's become a blurry memory. I do recall that the wrapping paper was off in a matter of seconds and next thing I knew, my kid's life was turned upside down by the ubiquitous Mattel-motif: hearts, flowers, lace and even a bubblegum pink plastic doll-sized convertible. Those gender-neutral playthings suddenly held no interest and our kid had finally discovered the truth: she was a girl child being raised in Toys-R-Us America. Unfortunately, that was seen as a very cool concept - one she quickly embraced. I had no alternative but to bring in the heavy equipment. I began pushing the books. Bigtime.
"Alright, this is the deal," I said in similar words on very many occasions, "If you behave yourself, I'll take you to the library this morning. You can take out ALL the books you want. And...if you're EXTRA GOOD, I'll even let you watch Reading Rainbow. But listen here, Missy...that means no decorating the walls with that address stamper or tormenting the cat. Got it?"
It was parental propaganda. I'll admit it. I was messing with my kid's head - hoping she'd crave the books I'd elevated to toy status. I couldn't help myself. But having lost the Barbie Wars, I wasn't about to surrender the rest. As it turns out, I didn't have to.
Reading Rainbow is celebrating its 20th consecutive season in children's programming. After all these years, this amazing and award-winning show is still hosted by the engaging actor, LeVar Burton. At each episode, Burton introduces a nation of 6-8 year olds (and younger, if Mom parks them in front of the tube) to some of the finest in children's literature. Each episode involves an author (or an actor, filling in) reading his/her work, and in addition to dramatic recitations, these lucky kids are treated to a quality production - one that brings them inside these books and onto those exquisitely illustrated pages.
My daughter, and later her little brother, were captivated by Reading Rainbow. Their library wish-list was developed in part by exposure to the program. After awhile, Barbie hit the road and Anne of Green Gables and Treasure Island moved in. Today, my kids - like millions of other Reading Rainbow alum - are both voracious readers and critical thinkers. And I'm not exaggerating when I say millions. We're talking multitudinous millions of American kids who learned to love reading, thanks to this innovative program. Well, according to the Associated Press' David Bauder, those fun and vitally important lessons may soon be coming to an end.
In his piece, Reading Rainbow: Fighting for Survival, Bauder explains why this exemplar of excellence in children's broadcasting is facing a bleak future...
"Reading Rainbow" has several strikes against it in the battle for funding. For starters, it has no access to merchandise licensing deals, an increasingly important part of PBS' funding scheme for children's shows. There are no "Reading Rainbow" action figures to sell, no "Reading Rainbow" jammies to keep kids warm at night.
The series is also 20 years old when many corporate benefactors prefer being involved with something new. And the show's narrow audience — children 6 to 8 who are just learning to read — doesn't give sponsors the broad exposure they're seeking, said Amy Jordan, senior researcher on children and the media at the University of Pennsylvania's Annenberg Public Policy Center.
Other programs, like "Clifford the Big Red Dog," have book series attached to them. But "Reading Rainbow" is the only one that introduces children to a wide range of literature, Jordan said.
"What `Reading Rainbow' saw, before anybody else saw it, is that you can use this medium of television to get kids excited about reading," she said.
Reading Rainbow is proof positive that quality programming is possible in our TV-Wasteland America. But the Big Media players - the ones who make mega bux off of their free use of the public's airwaves - don't feel they're raking in quite enough dough off of Reading Rainbow. It boils down to their not being able to sell all the peripheral junk - the lucrative stuff they move so easily with the more commercialized programs.
In a fair world, LeVar Burton would not have to go begging for pennies, and programs like Reading Rainbow would be part of Big Media's debt to the American people. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC), the licensing body that oversees the public's airwaves would be enforcing the rules that call for broadcasters to air a modicum of programming in the public interest, and money would be made available for the LeVar Burtons of the world. If we were truly concerned about fairness, American kids would have a healthy selection of quality fare to choose from on the commercial networks. Why doesn't the FCC do its job?
Instead, on Monday, June 2, the Federal Communications Commission, under the leadership of its chairman, the corporately buttock-kissing Michael Powell, is planning to dismantle media rules and put more power into the hands of those who know how to make cash, but haven't a clue how to honor their obligation to America and its children. It's time we put the brakes on this runaway FCC/Corporate train. It's time we made both parties keep their promise to American kids.
Click here and let True Majority help you contact the FCC and your legislators. Remind them that Big Media has reneged on their promises to the children, as well as the adults of this country. Tell them that they owe US...we don't owe them. Tell the FCC to vote NO on plans to hand over more power to Big Media. This instant activism won't take but a moment of your time, and if nothing else, it will show the corporate players that Americans will simply not sit back silently, anymore.
Oh, yeah...and P.S. - if you know anybody with deep pockets and a mind toward philathrophy, put them in touch with LeVar Burton. He's got this guaranteed way to launch the littlest of American kids onto the joyous path of lifetime reading.
cross-posted at Blog Sisters
Email Me | Comments (6) | TrackBackPosted by Lisa English
While many Americans are finally waking up to the June 2nd Federal Communications Commission (FCC) vote on the issue of media concentration - there's a journalistic passion play unfolding in the background - one having to do with media responsibility. It's the story of Jayson Blair and plagiarism at The New York Times, and it's a story that has morphed into many column inches of other discrepancies and suggestions of journalistic wrongdoing. Each day, new allegations are emerging of reporters who have twisted the truth or otherwise shaded the story. It's open season on journos right now, and the Grey Lady is at pains to reveal all in a surreal daily confessional.
Don't get me wrong. I'm all in favor of journalistic ethics and transparency. That's not the issue. It's just that I sure as heck wish the New York Times would be more selective about this ongoing expose. You see, not every issue is a "Blair" issue. Not every gaffe requires public scrutiny. The latest reporter to take a hit - Rick Bragg - has been suspended for what amounts to common reporting practice. Differ if you will, but that's the way it is. Bragg did not commit a "Blair." Now, if the Times really wants someone to nail...
The paper should be going after writer Judith Miller, who in an effort to promote her neoconservative view of the world, has been relying on questionable sources to convince the NYT and the world at large that Iraq was a haven for weapons of mass destruction. This is serious stuff. Rather than checking a broad range of sources, Miller relied on the purely partisan intelligence provided by one Ahmed Chalabi - the long discredited head of the Iraqi National Congress and Wolfowitz poster-child for a Saddam-free Iraq. Had Miller bothered to talk to anyone at the State Department, they'd have long ago told her Chalabi "commands little respect or legitimacy." But Judith Miller didn't do that. Instead, Judith Miller used the "intelligence" offered up by Chalabi to fill article after article after damning NYT article - each one that went a long way toward supporting the Pentagon's wacky world view of Iraqi nuclear and biological madness - a world view that is today treated by most as fiction.
How do we know Miller used Chalabi as her primary source?
Well, as Howard Kurtz at the Washington Post reports, emails that had been exchanged between Miller and NYT Baghdad bureau chief, John Burns, have been leaked to the press. In their correspondence, Miller admits...
"I've been covering Chalabi for about 10 years, and have done most of the stories about him for our paper, including the long takeout we recently did on him. He has provided most of the front page exclusives on WMD to our paper."
Huh? The arguably most influential paper in the USA is relying on Ahmed Chalabi - an ex pat who until recently, and under the guiding hand of the Pentagon, had not stepped foot on Iraqi soil since the 1950's? The NYT has been relying on this character as a primary source for the existence of Iraq's weapons program?
Note to Executive Editor Howell Raines: snap out of it. Please stop wasting our time by publicly investigating the placement of every wayward comma and stringer dissatisfaction. For the Blair Problems, hire yourself an ombudsman to check out reader/reporter gripes. Certainly, Blair would have been nailed early on if there were an ombudsman on staff. For the Even Bigger Problems: put a little elbow grease into scrubbing the pot of Anonymous Sources. If reporters like Judith Miller don't have the common sense to discern truth from fiction, then maybe editors need to know who their reporters are counting on for intelligence. Maybe editors need to employ that same common sense and discernment in determining whether those sources are reliable.
On June 2, the FCC will be voting to put greater control and influence into the hands of Big Media. The New York Times would do well to stop begging the public for more power, and instead make more responsible use of the power it already has.
Care to make your views known on the subject of media consolidation and responsibility? Why not do as reader Hobson suggests: engage in some instant activism by visiting True Majority and faxing off your opinions to the FCC commissioners. It won't take but a moment of your time.
Email Me | Comments (3) | TrackBackUPDATE: In comments, Julia reminds us of Judith Miller's extremist allegiances: "Miller is also a house 'expert' for Daniel Pipes' little Middle East think tank," she says. "Also - the group that's sponsoring Chalabi? Leslie Gelb is on the board."
Thanks, Julia!
So, in a nut - Judith Miller, the "unbiased" NYT reporter is connected to the Middle East Forum, that extremist wingnut pro-Israeli lobbying outfit. While the NYT comes clean on journalistic screw-ups, monumental and picayune, they conveniently forget about Miller - propagandist voice for neoconservative hawks - and her very own far more serious journalistic setbacks.
Posted by Lisa English
I've spent alot of time lately thinking about Memorial Day. It's the last one we'll be spending in this house - a home we sold last week - a place we've lived in since our youngest was two. Fourteen years is a long time, made even longer by a seemingly endless struggle to overcome a lousy regional and national economy. But as can probably be expected, my thoughts today don't focus solely on the economy and this house, or of bbq's and friends - I'm also thinking of the day's true purpose...memorializing our wartime losses.
In honoring those lives ended on the field of battle, I'm hoping we'll not forget the thousands of innocent Iraqis who, thanks to American defense technology, perished in the recent invasion. According to the International Committee of the Red Cross, we could be talking about upwards of ten thousand civilians killed. At this juncture, it's hard, they say...to give accurate figures. There are limbs, you see... scattered everywhere - pieces of people tossed like the contents of an unboxed puzzle - unknown numbers of pieces, found across the acreage of wartime fate.
Stunning, isn't it? With all of that budget busting, high-tech precision US bombing wizardry, we find ourselves excelling at the haphazard bombardment of innocents. I can't speak for you, but I'm floored by an evolving tragedy that begs the question, "Why?" Why are we facing the largest episode of US-inspired civilian carnage since Viet Nam?
Was it to further the portfolio aims of rich and powerful men? Was it to advance the payroll plans of US defense, construction and energy companies - GOP backers, all? Was it to seize control of someone else's sovereign state and resources for regional as well as economic calculus?
Let's cut to the chase and say, "Yes."
When cranking up the bbq on this Memorial Day...when snapping pix and keeping pace alongside the uniformed and saxophoned high schoolers, marching their way down the Main Streets of America - we should take time to remember all the innocents, all the casualities of war. American corporate war on this planet began well before 9/11/01. Many have given their lives so that outfits like Bechtel and Halliburton could survive. We should honor their sacrifice by speaking out against unchecked boardroom greed and corporate colonialism. We should honor their sacrifice by questioning why one in five US kids live in poverty, why millions of Americans are without work or health coverage and why we're seeing more foreclosures and bankruptcies than at any time in recent memory. We should honor their sacrifice by asking how it is with our civil liberties being crushed and with all the rest as a backdrop, that this administration and its cabal of corporate ideologues is able to pursue a war without end - an adventure that curiously benefits only major GOP contributors.
Are we ready to do that? Are we ready to take responsibility for the role we've played through complicit silence that stems from unquestioning acceptance? I don't think so. Not yet. But one day, Americans - young and old, Left and Right - will certainly come to terrible terms with the terrorism our corporate and political leaders have heaved upon this world.
In the meantime, however...forgive us our trespasses, for we are far too busy eking by and flying tattered flags off of our SUV's to notice. But like I said, it's raining hard, so who knows? Maybe for the time being at least, the Gods above are crying those tears we've yet begun to shed.
Posted by Lisa English
I want to be a wealthy woman, and I've got a plan.
I'm going to contact the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and see about getting one of those licenses to broadcast over the people's airwaves. Yeah, that's the ticket. Then, I'm going to charge advertisers mega bux to run their commercials incessantly, before your eyes, over your airwaves. Pretty cool, eh? My goal here is to get lots and lots of advertisers and to be raking in lots of dough. It's a flawless plan.
Months pass....
What's this? You say you're looking for more diversity on the political dial? That as far as you can tell, all those ranting talking heads I've hired sound conservatively alike? And huh? You're not happy with all these thirty variations on a Survivor theme that I've come up with for the prime-time lineup? Well, maybe you've a point, but listen, my primary concern here isn't quality programming. My focus is on making bux off of these public airwaves, your public airwaves, and I'm not so sure that your issues are ones which will help me find the financial nirvana I seek. And aside from that - I'm a Big Media Player now, and I operate without constraints or criticism. So, like...chill.
Back to me and my interests...
I want to make money and lots of it, and it's all do-able, you see, and thanks to my unfettered use of public property - your property - the public airwaves - I'm going to be one very rich woman.
That is my plan.
You laugh, eh?
Why is it we're not laughing when ABC, CBS, NBC, Time-Warner, etc. do the very same thing? How is it that they can pull this off when I, a lowly weblogger can't?
Maybe it's because ABC, CBS, NBC, Time-Warner, etc. have more than enough money to bribe FCC officials, and I simply don't? Ah, but wait a second...in the interest of fairness, it's incumbent upon me to report that according to no greater source than CBS, the FCC has been handing out all these goodies in the interest of...get this... media education.
Right. Believe that one, and I've got this bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to sell you.
But back to bribery and influence peddling ...it's amazing what millions of media dollars, thoughtfully invested in trips to Paris and elsewhere will do for US media policy. Don't you think? I mean, we've little more than a week until the FCC votes to allow the major corporate outfits even greater control of our public airwaves, and most Americans haven't a clue. Wow. Wonder how that happened?
Big media needs to get a grip. Big media needs to regain a sense of social responsibility. Six mega-corps should not be permitted to monopolize the voice of America. They should not be allowed to make fortunes off of the public's property without giving something substantial back.
The FCC needs to get a grip and start doing it's damn job - first, by rejecting applications for re-licensing when broadcasters have failed to offer the programming diversity that is the public's right. Next, how about the FCC shoot down Big Media's June 2 plans to ram through their further consolidation without public debate? Hmmm? Then, how's about the FCC begin demanding that Big Media start broadcasting programs in the public interest: educational, political and culturally diverse fare? Finally, how's about the FCC put the brakes on Big Media's Race to Monopoly?
Fight Media Consolidation by adding your voice to the mix. Consumers Union has an easy way for you to do it. Click here and tell your legislators and the FCC that you stand opposed to further media deregulation, consolidation and FCC payoffs.
Email Me | Comments (2) | TrackBackPosted by Lisa English
Bennett is a director of Empower America, together with former vice presidential nominee Jack Kemp, former U.N. Ambassador Jeanne Kirkpatrick, former U.S. Rep. Vin Weber of Minnesota and former Secretary of Defense Bill Cohen. . . . Empower America opposes the proliferation of casino gambling, and its co-chair, Kemp, recently lambasted lawmakers who "pollute our society with a slot machine on every corner." ~ Gaming Foe Characterized as High Roller, Journal Review
The Republicans are amazingly effective at running political damage control. Case in point: no sooner do we discover that Bill Bennett, the GOP's Patron Saint of All Things Virtuous, is a compulsive gambler, than the faithful ooze out of the pond to defend their boy. This is the same Bill Bennett who wrote multitudinous books on conservative family values. This is the same GOP that raked Clinton over the coals for everything from blow jobs to penny-ante land deals. Let's be real, alright? Were Bennett a registered Democrat, he'd be tarred and feathered by now.
"Hey, it's only slot machines. He likes gambling. Gambling is legal," his defenders say.
Only slot machines? Well, then why is it that Bennett's organization, Empower America is opposed to casino gambling? Why is it that Jack Kemp, Bennett's co-director is on the record as saying that slot machines are "polluting" this nation? Sounds like the organization and Kemp think it's a substantial enough issue to be concerned about. In fact, according to the Review Journal, Empower America "recently published an 'Index of Leading Cultural Indicators' that reported 5.5 million American adults as "problem" or "pathological" gamblers." This Right Wing think tank can now add one more American adult to that number: Bill Bennett.
And what's the story with this argument making the rounds, that since gambling is legal, Bennett's actions are A-OK? Dig this: hypocrisy is legal, too. That doesn't make it a virtue. See, the problem here (as if the Right Wing didn't know it...) is that Saint Bill has made virtue his calling card. He writes books about the virtue of virtues. Bill Bennett is being hoisted on his own petard after saying one thing and doing another, after saturating our airwaves and podium with speeches about solid values and moderate living. He became a wealthy man while promoting this world view that if only we had more regulations on American behavior, if only only we had more of those family values he spoke of - honesty, faith, discipline, etc. - well, then...our problems as a nation would be solved. Apparently, the anointed one had trouble following his own sage advice. I'm sorry, but discipline and moderate behavior don't jive with Bennett's reported $18 million gambling jones. Bottom line: Bill Bennett is a fraud.
In a logical world, it would be impossible for a Bill Bennett to resume the milking of this sanctimonious cash cow. The virtuous days would seem to be over. Right?
Well, not necessarily - the uber-disingenuous conservative spin doctors are now out there defending Bennett's actions. They're aiming to elevate this self-styled morality cop back up to the podium of those $15,000 speaking gigs. Sure, you know...the ones where he pontificates about all that moderate faith-based living that we should be engaged in, but that he seemingly wants nothing to do with himself. Doesn't much matter that he preached one thing and did something altogether different.
Hmmm...
I wonder what's in store for Saint Bill. I wonder if America will be asked to buy into some kind of Born Again Caught Red-Handed instant bestseller. I wonder of John and Jane America will run out to pick up Bennett's future confessional page-turner - one dressed in the obligatory red, white and blue cover, in which Bill outlines how it was through a personal relationship with Jesus Christ that he found the strength to lift his sweaty palm from the slot machine lever.
That sounds about right, doesn't it? Using faith as a public relations ploy? Wrapping Bennett's schizophrenic lifestyle up in the flag and The Holy Book, so that he'll then be able to deftly seque out of a controversy that mortal men, women and liberals simply couldn't escape. If you pay close attention, you'll notice how perfectly Bennett and his cheerleaders will avoid the dichotomy that exists between neo-faith and the hallmarks of gambling: greed, temptation, exploitation of the poor, deceit, etc. Hey, I can see it coming. Can't you?
"You're a hypocrite," is what they'll say when confronted straight on. "You're attacking Bennett when not long ago you defended Clinton's bad behavior."
Hypocrite?
Nope. No hypocrite here.
Hypocrisy, thy name is GOP.
UPDATED 8:46 a.m.
Email Me | Comments (26) | TrackBackPosted by Lisa English
Bruce Springsteen, the all-American rocker, took some time out recently to post a special message on his website. His statement is generating a lot of controversy among those who've got the flag wrapped a little too tightly around their head. See, The Boss is sticking up for The Dixie Chicks, that group of Texas-based songbirds who thought that as Americans, we've all the right to express political viewpoint without retribution. Well, they've since learned otherwise. American corporations have rallied up a hate campaign to damage The Chicks financially, and worse - the band has come under death threats.
But back to The Boss for a moment...so many of those comments on his discussion board, made in response to a thoughtful message, are abrasive and boil down to a simple sentiment: "SHUT UP!!!" It's a familiar refrain in these politically disturbing times. Bottom line and to paraphrase: "If you don't like our president and the extremist agenda he's prosecuting, then we'll make you Shut the Hell Up."
Democracy at its finest, eh??
After reading those messages for a bit last night, I lost count just how many times some dense dog would pop off with the idea that Sure, the Dixie Chicks Have the Right to Free Speech - and Americans Have the Right to Ruin 'Em.
You know, we've got a lot of dumb people in this country, and by and large, they vote Republican. Think about it. Who gets the KKK vote? Who gets the fascist patriot movement vote? The anti-gay vote? The anti-woman vote? The uber-intolerant-Christian vote? The anti-poor vote? The anti-peace vote? The anti-worker vote? The anti-teacher vote? The anti-environment vote? The anti-democracy vote? The anti-Social Security vote? The anti-civil liberties vote?
This underbelly of American democracy doesn't appreciate that political free speech shouldn't get you fired, and in the case of The Chicks, corporations shouldn't be permitted to rally up vitriolic protests against them.
Now, here's where we get to the meat and potatoes....
American Big Business is encouraging these numbnuts, and they're wrapping their corporate message up in the flag of faux patriotism, so that super righteous Americans - extremist and Main Street, buy into it. American corporations are rallying up protests against citizens who speak out against this president and his corporate policies - policies that benefit business interests, the affluent and the wannabees.
There's something wrong with this picture. So, let's ask ourselves some questions: Is a corporation a person? Should a corporation have the same rights as you and I? Should corporations that borrow our US airwaves use them to foment propaganda?
Should they?
Well, right now, that's just what's happening in this country. Outfits like Clear Channel Communications, the radio monopoly that allowed its broadcasters to assemble pro-war rallies and anti-Chicks CD burnings are drumming up fascism in America. They've the "right," you see.
Fact is, corporations have greater rights that we do. Think about it and look around. As the Right wing aims to regulate Americans to the spleen, they are simultaneously doing the bidding of their corporate masters by deregulating everything in business sight. End result? Americans are coming up with the short end of the stick, and we're seeing the problem manifest itself straight across the board - from jobs to investments, from health care to media, from campaign finance reform to the environment, from education to sensible foreign policy, and beyond.
Thom Hartmann wrote about this phenomenon late last year in a must-read book, Unequal Protection: The Rise of Corporate Dominance and the Theft of Human Rights. In it, he charts the course of American democracy and pinpoints the exact place where we went off track - the moment when this nation's legal system turned over the reins of democracy to corporate power...
Because of a mistaken interpretation of a Supreme Court reporter's notes in an 1886 railroad tax case, corporations are now legally considered "persons," equal to humans and entitled to many of the same protections guaranteed only to humans by the Bill of Rights - a clear contradiction of the intent of the Founders of the United States. The results of this "corporate personhood" have been:Unequal taxes
Unequal privacy
Unequal wealth
Unequal trade
Unequal media
Unequal regulation
Unequal responsibility for crime
Unequal protection from risk
Unequal citizenship and access to the commons
There's a way to stop all this nonsense.
There's a way for the people of this country to regain a sense of balance between the corporate and the public, but it involves our getting off our collective backside and doing something about it.
Is American democracy worth that much to you?
We're talking about the need to change law. We're talking about constitutional amendments that would put the power back into the hand of the voter.
Right now, more than ever...Thom Hartmann's book should be picked up and read. It should serve as the basis of a grassroots movement to reclaim American democracy.
You know, there are all sorts of ways to get your hands on this book - it's on the shelves of your library, it's in your bookstore, and it can be ordered off of Hartman's website. You've no excuses. Just read it.
Then, let's engage in a national discussion about fixing this problem of "corporate personhood," an issue that should serve as the foundation of a coalition platform between Democrats, Greens, Independents and others. If the Democratic Party doesn't lead, if the party decides its not in its interest to solve the problem, then the Democratic Party deserves defeat. I'm hoping the Dems will instead find merit in tackling this populist issue, and thereby distinguishing itself from the Right in a meaningful way. Without this change, we're just spinning our wheels.
One more thing - you know, the Internet is a rich information resource, and weblogs are great sport for readers and writers alike. But how's about the leftist weblogging community Get Real, and begin using this medium for more than just the back and forth banter on banalities and the bashing of Right wing personality? Instead, what about using it to also highlight and solve problems?
THIS is the biggest problem our nation faces. What say we all get up to speed, get focused, and be part of the solution?
UPDATE: Be sure to check out ReclaimDemocracy. The good people at this organization are leading the charge toward a more democratic America - one that's not ruled by corporate governance. Visit ReclaimDemocracy. Make it a permalink on your browser or blog, and let's do something about this issue.
Email Me | TrackBackPosted by Lisa English
If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual (gay) sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything. ~ Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA) voicing support for Texas' Old Testament-style sodomy laws
You know, I've never understood the concept of "Gay Republicans." I mean, it's always seemed the quintessential political oxymoron. And please take note that this is not one of those issues of my being flat-out anti-conservative. I can readily accept that uber-capitalist/pro-war types come in an assortment of ideological flavors. Hell, we've even some on the Left. But what I can't fathom is why anyone in the American homosexual community would choose to align themselves with a political organization that loves their money, but finds their "lifestyle" criminal and immoral.
Let's take it down to brass tacks, alright? The super-righteous and McCarthyite-Bush Right Wing LOATHE you. L-O-A-T-H-E. LOATHE. Which brings me to this: if you are a gay or lesbian American (YES, YOU...I'm talking to YOU) and at this moment you are so much as contemplating a Republican vote in the next election, please tell someone.
Please drop what your doing and let someone you love, someone who cares about you, know of your plans.
That way they can do the right thing...they can institutionalize your loony toon backside before Election Day rolls around.
When you come to your senses, pick up that phone, dial the congressional toll-free number at 1-800-839-5276, and ask for the office of Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA). Be sure to tell his staff that you'd like Santorum to apologize and resign his position as chairman of the Senate Republican Conference. Anyone who equates incest with consenting same-sex relations is not fit to lead.
Then, for goodness sake, have a modicum of self-respect and get yourself out of the Republican Party.
Email Me | Comments (8) | TrackBackPosted by Lisa English
So, what do you do when you've this whole load of folks who are dissatisfied with a party that's complacent and appears little more than an echo of the right? Maybe you do as the Republicans did some years back: maybe you bend to the interests of your diverse constituencies and formulate an activist platform that envelops a broad range of viewpoint? Yes...the Bush Administration is prosecuting an activist platform, and we can, too. . .
In Dem circles, "It's the economy, stupid," is routinely hailed as that winning Clintonian theme - the one responsible for his ascension to the White House. Call me a cynic, but I think a spoiler by the name of Ross Perot had as much to do with our party glee - not once, but twice. Spoiler candidates develop out of a sense of dissatisfaction. There's a lot of dissatisfaction in the Democratic Party. We'd be smart to examine why.
If you're a Dem like me and so many of my friends and family, you've either lost your job or are on the verge of losing it. You're struggling to make house payments or you're on the brink of foreclosure. You've watched your earnings diminish and your savings evaporate. Your health care plan is a shell of its former self and you're contributing more for the privilege. Lots of folks who used to have health insurance, don't - not while they're working as contract employees. These are the people who each day roll the dice and figure it's all a health care crapshoot. And what's all this talk about pensions? Here's another stunning truth: most Americans don't have one. Got a retirement, Bud? With corporate restructuring of the staffing/benefits paradigm - a phenomenon that's been going on for over a decade - as well as downturns in the economy and the stock market in the crapper, you're wise to figure that most working class Americans will be working until their dying day.
Does all this come as a surprise to you? I mean, I can understand your shock and awe...after all, bad things don't happen to good American professional folk. Right?
Wrong. Look around. Bad things are happening to lots of us, and the stunner here is that while these troubles have been exacerbated and magnified by King George's Reign of Terror, these problems are not new. Like a cancer that's caught in its final stages, this has been going on for some time. Fact is, the people of this country are in this difficult place thanks to the policies of both major parties. With all due respect to my politically fundamentalist Dem friends, it's time to get the party back on track.
Heresy? Yeah, hold your tongue...I've heard it all before.
See, I'm no Democratic Spring Chicken. I've been around the liberal block since registering with the party at age 18. That's over 27 years ago if I've got the math down. But listen here...it's crucial that you know this: while politics is vitally important, I'm not a Born Again Dem. I don't see the party as a religion requiring belief in the face of disbelief. In other words, politics is subject to criticism, and criticism of party is not sacrilege in my book. It's healthy and it's what promotes growth. I guess you can figure that this isn't much of a popular point of view among some of my liberal friends. To the party faithful, it's simply not Good Democratic Form to question in the face of GOP strength. It's traitorous to mention the wisdom of a policy espoused by let's say a Nader or a Kucinich, or a now-gone Wellstone. After all, criticizing our own (read: Terry McCauliffe's Democratic Party) or pointing a positive spotlight on alternative liberal visions, only serves to highlight our disarray and Goodness Gracious, it might well fracture a fragile Left.
I don't put much stock into that kind of thinking. I figure we've got a chance at the White House in 2004, but only if we find a way to bring the entire party under one roof - only if we find ways to honestly look at the problems facing Americans - only if we include people of divergent liberal view at the table of party discussion. Isolate the Russ Feingolds and anyone else to the left of John Breaux as the Wacky Left, and we'll have a repeat of 2000, only this time...more folks will be walking the Green walk, not fewer. That's a bet I'm comfortable making.
So, what do you do when you've this whole load of folks who are dissatisfied with a party that's complacent and appears little more than an echo of the right? Maybe you do as the Republicans did some years back: maybe you bend to the interests of your diverse constituencies and formulate an activist platform that envelops a broad range of viewpoint? Yes...the Bush Administration is prosecuting an activist platform, and we can, too.
What do we have to lose? Hmmm? We sure as hell ain't winning now.
Wouldn't the party be smart to take on the Rightistas by Doing What They Won't Do, like how's about our crafting a balance between corporate greed and social conscience? Wouldn't we be smart to promote the merits of a Democratic coalition party...one that encouraged and incorporated the best of liberal policymaking...not simply the centrist-right policymaking that's acceptable to the major campaign contributors?
"A fanciful dream," you say?
Well, you know what? It's a dream that can become a reality if we've the national gonads to incorporate the best of Green ideas into a Democratic platform. It will work if we pull the rug out from under the political influence peddlers. Believe it or not, there are strategies out there designed to empower the citizenry, not just the corporate boardroom. Shouldn't we stop replacing sound policies with Solomonic compromise?
I don't know...call me nuts for asking, but wouldn't it be smart to do all we can to stem the development of another liberal Perot...of another Nader? It may be "the economy, stupid" but I don't think we stand a snowball's chance in hell if our side's got the spoiler again.
Email Me | Comments (40) | TrackBackPosted by Lisa English
Now we know.
The missile attack on that Baghdad marketplace last week - the one that took the lives of 62 innocents, was the patriotic work of American force and justice.
You remember that incident, don't you? Unsuspecting shopkeepers - men, women and children - torn to shreds? Almost immediately, the US and British administrations took to the microphones and assigned blame elsewhere. The carnage, they said, was likely the result of an Iraqi missile gone astray.
We learn today that the remains of the marketplace missile have been examined. We learn that a serial number has been discovered and the weapon is now determined to be American. Made in fact, right here in the good old US of A.
The Iraqi people can thank George Bush and politial campaign contributor, Raytheon for those deaths.
But we needn't worry, because you see, the White House tells us that the Iraqis are so grateful to be rid of Saddam Hussein, that no matter how many lives lost...it's all worth it. We'll be embraced, they tell us, by the grateful people of Iraq. Somehow, I can't imagine that mother who just the other day watched her young daughter's heads blown off their shoulders will be getting over her grief and anger anytime soon.
Truth is, we have invaded their country. Truth is, Shock & Awe is not easily replaced with Calm & Gratitude. Tell me the people of Iraq are not suffering - at minimum - from the after effects of post-traumatic stress. At most, their suffering will bring us a repeat of 911 or the type of Gaza violence that the Israelis and Palestinians think of as the norm.
I think we should be worried, because ignorance is not bliss, and some would say that we in America have our heads in the sand.
Consider this: the US population is routinely shielded from truth by a government and "free" press that censors unflattering reports from the foreign media. The upshot being that the world is witnessing a different story from one we're being fed. Outside the US and Britain, our "Iraqi liberation" is interpreted on television and Internet news as the handiwork of a violent and unmerciful invader, and if anything...the anti-American sentiment is likely to get worse..
When aggression is met in kind, and US families come face to face with the new terrorism - that lowercase shock & awe - I don't want to hear all the indignation and see all those Made-in-Taiwan US flags a-flyin'. At least not before I witness some American acceptance and responsiblity for bringing the horrors upon ourselves.
Email Me | Comments (7) | TrackBackPosted by Lisa English
Yesterday, I had the pleasure of working with The Sideshow's Avedon Carol on We Want the Airwaves, the weblog version of her media awareness site. This move from a hand-coded page on over to Blogger software will provide an easier interface for those of us on the other side of the template. It also offers up room for interaction with sharp readers like yourself through a comments facility. We'll be doing our best to keep you abreast of media news and we hope that you'll let us know when you've written about, or have come across media-related material. We hope you'll link the site and visit frequently.
The subject of media deregulation and consolidation should be one, I think, that we all latch on to.
Why?
Well, let me ask you this...are you happy with the wartime coverage being fed you by the American media? If your answer is "no," then you join a growing chorus of Americans who feel betrayed by a mainstream press that appears more interested in towing the government line, than in making journalism of the discerning and democratic sort. The immediate upshot? We are hearing reports that Americans are seeking out international news venues at a rate significantly higher than before the war. Americans are searching for a diversity of view that they are unable to find stateside. The success of Eric Alterman's latest book and my blogging colleague, Sean-Paul Kelley's website, is indicative of the public's dismay.
We didn't arrive at this dangerous place of a fawning and complicit media overnight, and this is certainly not to suggest that all reporting is done in this vein. But most is...and through the continuum of corporate consolidation, we have seen our media shrink in ownership and perspective. In a nutshell - our press: broadcast and print, is falling into the hands of a very few, and those few are of a corporate ideological bent. These are the folks who practice the political theology of monopolization and less government regulation. We can argue night and day over the advantages/disadvantages of regulation, but our media is not just any "product." Our media is the foundation of our democracy and should be protected from corporate ideologues.
This problem becomes even more explosive when we factor in the Drop Dead Date.
What's the Drop Dead Date? Be certain to mark June 2 on that calendar of yours.
On the second day of June, if Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Chair Michael Powell (son of Colin) has his way, the commission will vote to remove some of the last vestiges of government regulation on our media. Here's what's going on...Powell and the corporate media elite would like to see the day when one owner can buy up all the newspapers and television in a given market area and be permitted to impress their sole view upon you. Imagine your community when all the media is owned by one corporation. Just imagine the predictability of political endorsement, for instance.
I ask you...how does that idea promote American democracy?
It doesn't. But the moguls figure that you don't need media democracy and diversity because they say that we've the Internet and cable to fill those cavernous gaps in perspective.
They're conning you. Don't buy it.
Fact is, most Americans get their media the old-fashioned way: from newspapers and network television. When the rules that right now protect us from being fed a daily diet of one CEO's world view, what will we be left with? How's about a nice overflowing plate of Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Michael Savage, and their ilk? Surely these folks deserve a forum. They are not, however, entitled to hijack the national microphone.
Think it can't happen?
It's already happening...just take a look at MSNBC, where their highest rated talk show host, the liberal Phil Donohue, was canned so that managment could out-Fox the Fox Network by replacing him with the more WWF/lowest-common-denominator crowd pleaser, Savage. We need to fight this...not encourage it. These are, after all...the public's airwaves and we've every right to insist on media democracy. Michael Powell wants to make sure we've no chance at a fight.
"How bad can it get?" you ask.
Well, take a look at what's been done to American radio. The same folks who deregulated radio...and turned it into a bastion of right-wing hate are the ones who are leading the charge here. Think about radio for a moment. Think about the case of Minot, ND where Clear Channel Communications, absentee monopolizer of that market's radio stations, aired canned programming instead of informing Minot of an environmental emergency underway. Clear Channel was the emergency broadcaster of record and they failed the people of Minot. As a massive cloud of anhydrous ammonia fertilizer fell over the community, the people of Minot, including the one person who died, hadn't a clue about the train derailment that precipitated it or the dangers involved.
Consolidation takes locals out of the picture and replaces them with an impersonal mega-corporate monolith. The people of Minot learned their lesson the hard way.
How long will it take the general population to learn theirs?
Still not convinced? Alright. Step away from the computer for a few minutes and find me an AM station airing a liberal point of view.
I'll wait.
Having a hard time? You're not the only one, and this is what we can expect from the further consolidation of our print, televised and radio media.
Get informed and take a stand. We don't have much time.
To that end...be sure to put the Airwaves blog on your favorites list and visit frequently for media updates on where we're headed.
Email Me | Comments (41) | TrackBackPosted by Lisa English
I've long opposed the military draft, but lately have been warming up to the idea. Everyone serves. No deferments. No exemptions. I can't help but think we'd not be in this Iraqi place today were the children of our House and Senate willing to give their lives. Today, only one member of Congress has a child on active duty.
Time and photographs...
This past week I've been pouring over photographs of American soldiers...kids like 19-year old Jessica Lynch, who joined the Army for the same reason so many choose the military these days: because she needed a job.
That's it. Nothing a whole lot more glorious than that.
I know many kids like Jessica Lynch, and next year a bunch of them will be headed off to get their education through Uncle Sam. They see it as their only shot. Now, I look at their faces in my daughter's yearbook, imagine them in uniform and I ponder the crapshoot before them.
Let's call a spade a spade. Alright? In this country of ours, opportunity doesn't always come knocking and education is a privilege afforded those who can afford. That's how our legislators have set things up for us. So, people do what they gotta do in order to survive, and in these difficult economic times, the military is a chance at an education and a future. Jessica Lynch's friends and family tell the media that she faced 15% unemployment in her West Virginia county. Straight out of high school and without a job to pay for college credits, what was she going to do? She signed on the dotted line. That's what she did.
Today, Pfc. Jessica Lynch is among the missing in Iraq. On Sunday, her supply convoy was ambushed by the Iraqis and out of that episode came the images of five frightened POW's, and a unknown number of unidentified dead. Her family sit and wait - they hope and pray that she is among the living. They're optimistic, they tell the media.
Why is it always the Jessica Lynch's of the world who have to fight Their Wars? Why not the children of Ivy-leagued privilege? How fair is it that by circumstance of bank account, some face war and others cotillion? Don't we all have a stake in protecting this "democracy" of ours? Or are Their Wars not nearly as pressing if their children were called to fight?
Girls like Jenna and Barbara Bush, with their trust funds and endless opportunities don't have to get their nails dirty with war. Not when they've got the Jessica Lynch's of America to do it for them
I love this country, but I hate what our affluent and uninspired leadership has done to it. They have brought shame on this nation. I blame them for every casualty of this war: American, Aussie, British and Iraqi, civilian and military. If they believe so strongly in this war, their children should be fighting alongside Jessica Lynch.
Their absence speaks volumes.
UPDATE: 4/1/03 - According to the Associated Press via the New York Times, Pfc Jessica Lynch has been rescued by American forces from POW captivity. In these days of so much grief for American and Iraqi families, this is an occasion of great thanksgiving.Email Me | TrackBack
Posted by Lisa English
Correct me if I'm wrong, but we've been led to understand that Iraq presented such a clear and present danger to American interests an ocean away, that George Bush felt compelled to attack without UN authorization. We needed to rid Iraq of Saddam's weapons of mass destruction (WMD).
That is why we are leveling Baghdad, isn't it?
It's why we are destroying families and turning formerly parented children into orphans. It's why we've thumbed our nose at the international community and walked away from diplomacy. It's why we continue, as I type, to chance fear in the hearts of all sensible people, the world over....
All because we know there are weapons of mass destruction that sit...silently...waiting to do us harm.
Right?
Well, if that be the case, then please explain why it is that Iraq has yet to use these weapons. They've yet to meet devastating American force in kind.
Why not?
What are they waiting for?
Could it be that George Bush was wrong?
Could it be that Iraq wasn't lying? That after more than a decade of sanctions that stripped its shelves bare, Iraq really was a mere shell of its former self?
"Well, what about those dangerous Scuds they fired at Kuwait, yesterday," you say.
You were misinformed.
According to Paul Richter of the Los Angeles Times, the actual Iraqi response has fallen short of the drama expected. Here's a snip from Richter's piece, US Leaders Wait for Hussein to Do His Worst, appearing in this morning's San Francisco Chronicle:
Despite some erroneous reports on Thursday, the Iraqis have apparently not fired any of the banned Scud-B missiles, which were their most damaging weapon during the 1991 Persian Gulf War.
Hussein's forces have apparently fired no more than a dozen shorter-range missiles, although they were believed to have had hundreds in southern Iraq and were expected to lob many of them into allied forces in Kuwait.
In a media marketplace dominated by 24/7 cable news, here we discover the downside of minute-to-minute coverage: inaccurate journalism that confounds the public interest by more often than not, standing uncorrected in the minds of American media consumers.
So, where are the weapons of mass destruction?
Shall we figure that they'll likely materialize post-conflict, when conveniently discovered by Americans in need of justification for war?
One hopes that if that be the case, our media will rise to the challenge of investigating the facts, and not merely reporting as truth the spin of the invaders.
Email Me | Comments (39) | TrackBackPosted by Lisa English
CNN is reporting that American troops have seized control of the Iraqi oil fields. I suspect the Oval Office and Halliburton are pleased. After all, that's been one of the primary goals of this loathsome exercise. Now that the Oil Boys have their fields and the Defense Industry has had a chance to show off their new equipment, it's time to set up Iraq as the 51st state, and move on to Iran.
It's surreal, isn't it? All this is going on under the media's new stab at reality tv: Shock and Awe - that massive campaign of bombardment involving 300-400 cruise missiles dropping on the people of Baghdad in a single day. As a frame of reference, just consider that these numbers refect more armament than was unloaded in the entire Gulf war the last go 'round. Stunning, isn't it?
Try to imagine that many bombs dropping in your neighborhood....around you and your loved ones. Let's employ some creative imagery here and how's about we conjure up lots and lots of World Trade Centers bursting into explosions of flame and falling like toppled tinker toys, as far as the eye can see. Think about the distant screams and the cries of children as they watch their parents blown to shreds, their intestines splashed against the walls before them.
It's not always useful, taking pains to see the other side,is it? One could lose their sense of "patriotism" at breakneck speed.
So, tell me again why it is we're doing this?
They call it Shock and Awe, but to me that's nothing but a publicity jingle for something far more simpler: American Terrorism. You know that, too. So does the media. But most of us are too damn frightened to tell it like it is. We figure it's easier to just go along for the ride. Plaster the US decal on the SUV and fly the stars and stripes from the porch. That's what Being American means to most folks...supporting the Taiwanese flag industry.
But what if we were to stop and look around and examine what we see? What would confront our eyes?
We'd see our longtime allies demanding we cease this aggression. We'd recognize the fear we've engendered from one nation to the next - each country aware that what we've done to Iraq, we can as easily do to them.
We'd notice the global citizenry taking to the street in anti-war protest. Moms and Dads and librarians and senior citizens, blending with the young.
We also see anti-Americanism taking root, throughout the world in the most unlikely places. We'd see people just like us...petrified and angry and demanding an end to US aggression.
George W. Bush is to blame for what we see.
He is to blame for this apocalypse on the people of Iraq.
He is to blame for whatever subsequent terrorism comes to the global community as a result of this immoral campaign...and you know that we're in for some Horrific Tit for Tat. You know it as assuredly as you know your name.
Violence begets violence and George Bush has managed to guarantee a future of violence for us all.
The writing, as they say, is on the wall, and while I wish no ill will on anyone, I can't help but think that it's only a matter of time before someone decides to Shock and Awe George Bush. How many of us will then pay for his crimes on that terrifying day?
If the American people can do nothing to stop this madman, then the American people need to get on their collective knees and approach their God of choice...Allah, Vishnu, Yahweh, Whomever...and ask for forgiveness, because if today's polls are any indication, we permitted this tragedy to unfold, and in the vernacular of the faithful, we most certainly have sinned.
Email Me | Comments (7) | TrackBackPosted by Lisa English
While bombs rain down on a mass of innocents and a handful of tyrants in Baghdad, another battle is being waged on Capitol Hill: the Affluent v. the Working Class. Using Iraq as a nighmarishly convenient distraction, Washington turns its head now to George Bush's tax cut package - the one that issues welfare checks to the wealthiest among us, while simultaneously decimating those programs - health, education, environmental, security, etc - that are important to all who earn under $100,000 a year.
It is a difficult thing - squaring the thought of rich Americans reaping lots of money from the federal till - especially while the country is hurting, at war, and in deep deficit. The only conclusion left to draw is that George Bush has also declared war on the American working class.
Now, you'd think this revelation, shared by many, would inspire the administration to cease and desist from messing with us further, wouldn't you? You'd figure they'd not have the brass nuts to play hardball without a ball, but you'd be wrong. Fact is, this package before Congress doesn't even begin to address the cost of Mr. Bush's War Against the World. There's not even a nickel allocated for that ignoble purpose. Amazing, isn't it? From the Boston Globe, here's a slice from Glen Johnson's, Bush's New Tax Cut Bid Stirs Outcry...
The Bush administration is pushing for a new round of tax cuts even before it explains how much war with Iraq will cost the American taxpayer, triggering cries of fiscal irresponsibility and charges of a Texas political two-step.Many Democrats and some moderate Republicans have banded together to oppose President Bush's proposed $726 billion tax-cut package, but they are split about what to do next, leaving the administration hopeful that it can win approval of the entire amount. Senator Edward M. Kennedy argues that there should be no tax cuts at a time of war, especially when the House and Senate do not know the price tag for the war, which Bush's former economic adviser once estimated could run $100 billion to $200 billion.
Can you believe it? Nobody knows how much this multi-layer conflict will cost us.
"But what about all those 30-some odd supporter nations in this war on terror," you ask. "What about them? Won't they help out?"
Don't count on it. In the last go ' round, when we had the allegiance of our long-time wealthy allies, the cost came to over $60 billion and that was shared by the alliance of nations, but we're not likely to get that kind of economic help when our friends in Gulf War Redux include such economic lightweights as Eritirea, Ethiopia and Colombia. Figure we're talking zip, nada, bupkiss on that score.
We'll be coughing up the bux for Bush's War.
To the Oval Office chickenhawks charged with running this apocalypse, it's the least We, the Working Class People can do. We are called up to die for their wars and to foot the bill for whatever is required in their quest for world domination. Some deal, eh?
Still, one needn't be a Nobel economist to figure that when the bill does come due, the cost will be astronomical. But, whatever you do, be quiet about that factoid. Speak in hushed tones, because Americans are not supposed to know about the Big Secret.
We shouldn't be privy to the reality that our government is bankrupting our children's future to fund an Immoral War Without Pricetag, where the only good that comes of it will be the propping of an ailing defense industry, a major campaign contributor.
Yes, there's more...
Americans aren't supposed to know about the Larger War Plans of the Bush Administration: taking out Syria, Iran, North Korea, et al. But just imagine...if the American people actually set aside thirty minutes to examine what was going on here, if they had a US media that reported the news instead of manufacturing NFL-like team coverage of this war, they'd realize they were being conned. They'd not then buy into the melodies of war, or the neat network graphics of Nintendo conflict. They'd question why it is that every talking head is a present or former government employee. They'd instead come face to face with what the rest of the world realized some time ago: that America has become the danger. That as of a little after 5 a.m. Baghdad time today, America, in the eyes of so many, became a terrorist nation.
We're not supposed to talk about that, though. God forbid we highlight the only constant out there: that no matter how much we spend or how many lives we shatter, this is a war that will Never Be Won.
Never. Not so long as our government and its pirates continue looting and depriving a world outside of our borders. Not so long as we continue to violently ram democracy down the throat of those very same people.
All of this brings us back to where we started...
As bombs drop on the people of Baghad, give some thought to playing a role in what's left of American democracy. To that end, pick up the phone and dial the congressional toll-free number at 800-839-5276, and tell your representatives that you're opposed to funding their neverending corporate war, and that you'll have their hide if they vote to hand over federal dollars to rich folks who don't need it.
In fact, while you have them on the phone, you might want to suggest that these politicians and their affluent friends, with their off-shore accounts, defense portfolios and lust for battle, step up to the plate and do the Right Thing.
Demand that they pay their taxes, that they don fatigues, and that they fight these wars themselves.
That should put an end to the warmongering...but fast.
Email Me | Comments (1) | TrackBackPosted by Lisa English
So, did you hear the news?
The US has finally come out and named the members of that rag-tag team they've put together to fight Saddam. It's no wonder they've been so hedgy over the past several weeks about bringing these guys out of the closet.
Coalition of the Willing?
How's about calling a spade a spade? How's about renaming these guys the Coalition of the Petrified & Paid-Off? According to the BBC, the US State Department has announced the names of 30 nations that have have stepped forward in support. They've also intimated that another 15 are willing to lend a hand, just so long as they are not identified.
Come again...?
They'll help us only if we assure their anonymity? Man, that makes me feel instantly more comfortable. It's always preferable that in the arena of foreign policy, we align ourselves with an international brigade of the Hit & Run. Not.
Here's the list of those who have agreed to take off their party masks...
Afghanistan, Albania, Australia, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Colombia, the Czech Republic, Denmark, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Georgia, Hungary, Italy, Japan, South Korea, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, the Netherlands, Nicaragua, the Philippines, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Spain, Turkey, United Kingdom and Uzbekistan
You know, if we could just get all these nations under one roof, it would sure make life a lot easier for the good folks over at the UN Human Rights Commission, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch.
You know what I'm saying?
Oh, and listen, one more thing...here's a parlor game for the entire family: go back to that list up there and find one Arab country that was willing to be listed. Afterward...and for bonus points, locate Israel.
Is it just me, or are you too starting to feel like you're watching an international shell game?
Email Me | Comments (4) | TrackBackPosted by Lisa English
This regime is out of control. It has lied and deceived the international community. With its aggressive military posture and stockpiled weapons of mass destruction, this regime is a danger to the world.
Saddam Hussein?
Hell, no. I'm talking about George Bush.
Did you happen to catch his speech to the nation last night?
George Bush - that reservist gone AWOL, that puppet of neoconservative hawks and moneyed interests - he did it again: he had the unmitigated gall to stand before the world and lie his Ivy Legacied Affluent Backside Off in order to get His War. You know, the same war that will be fought by those working class soldiers of America - the same low-income men and women, most of whom enter the armed forces for one reason only: a shot at an Associates degree they otherwise couldn't afford.
George Bush is a liar and a cheat and a thief, and last night he tried to convince us all that he was sincere, that he had patiently sought a UN solution to this manufactured Iraqi crisis. He told us he'd done all he could to avoid war by working the channels of diplomacy, when in fact, any sixth grader could see that he has sought nothing other than war.
Does he think we're stupid?
Certainly, Americans are a gullible lot, just so long as we have our SUV's and double latte's, but even so...what was our Selected One thinking when he demanded that the leader of a sovereign state, one that has done us no wrong, pack up shop and with his sons, leave the country within 48 hours? Clearly, the man was trying to Out-Tyrant the Tyrants. I've got news...he succeeded.
So tell me, what do you imagine is George Bush's motivation in advising journalists to hightail it out of Baghdad? We're not talking about bankers or oil execs or even coddled diplomats. We're speaking about media - it's their business to be where the action is. Could it be that George Bush would rather the eyes of the press not be on hand for Shock & Awe...as the US goes merrily on its way committing crimes against Iraqi humanity?
George Bush represents an American administration out of control - one that is hell-bent on making Baghdad the launching point of a multi-nation war tour. You've heard about this, haven't you? Once Bush takes out Iraq, it's then on to similar Shock & Awe gigs in Iran, Syria, etc. According to administration officials, Iraq is just the beginning of a US-effort to seize control of the region.
But what to do? What can one possibly do when faced with an America Gone Mad? How can the world community fight back against a unilateralist superpower - one possessing the world's largest cache in weapons of mass destruction, the same ones we insist on ripping from our enemy's hands? It seems that knocking some sense into this administration is something of a lost cause, doesn't it?
Well, not according to Michael, a friend of mine, who has thought some about the situation. He thinks that the solution lies in a multi-pronged approach of continued global antiwar protest, as well as domestic legislative and international economic pressure.
Economic pressure? Yes, indeed...
To hear Michael tell it, there's nothing dearer to George Bush's born-again heart than the American theology of expansion and free trade. But fact is, globalization doesn't work with uniliteralism. It's here, he says, where the majority of nation states that stand opposed to American imperialist aggression have divine leverage...
The independence of the world's nations depends on their ability to contain this expansionist regime in the US, which is clearly intent on controlling the world's energy resources. The taking of Iraq, the stationing of US troops in oil rich central Asia, and the targeting of other regimes which happen to sit atop substantial oil reserves makes the rest of the industrial world quite dependent upon the US. Considering the vast sums spent on the US defense establishment, containing the US militarily won't be possible, but other means are available. The US suffers from large trade and budget deficits, and is heavily dependent on foreign capital to survive. If the nations of the world treasure their independence, then they must launch boycotts of American goods and services, and launch disinvestment campaigns.
Given that the administration's intents go beyond the borders of Iraq, the crisis before us is unlikely to resolve itself any time soon. Economic pressure might well serve as useful a tool as Shock & Awe.
Maybe my friend is onto something here...
Email Me | Comments (21) | TrackBackPosted by Lisa English
The fundamentalist legislators of America - nearly all of them men - will decide today on whether this nation's women will be allowed to end pregnancies, that if carried to term pose a "grievous threat" to the health and life of the mother. The men, all bought and paid for by religious extremism, believe that a woman's life is not nearly as worthy as that of a fetus.
We're not talking about the wholesale slaughter of near-term babies. We're talking about a rare situation...where two doctors, unrelated to abortion, come together and agree that the pregnancy should end for medical reason. The extremists, who have no problem executing children and men on death row, have problems terminating pregnancies where the mother's health is in trouble. It's murder, they say. God told them so.
This country is headed down a dangerous path...one that many a civilized place has been dragged before us. I'm reminded of Afghanistan.
Afghanistan used to be a very cultured and enlightened place. Women went to university, and society, while not perfect, was dominated by moderate think. It was a place where the bedouin, the traditionalist and the modern managed to live together under one flag. Enter the Taliban. Fundamentalist repression became the day to day. Allah knows all. People know nothing. We know how that story turned out.
Well, we've our own Taliban in this country. Religious extremism is alive and kicking in this here America. It's kicking us in the ass. It's also playing a leading role in the march to war. Extremist Christianity and their Zionist bedfellows are strange indeed - an unholy alliance.
It's a shame the fruitcakes have been given such legitimacy. We've a tendency to do that in this generous country of ours: bestow legitimacy on the wholly illegitimate. We permit fools to take form instead of taking them out in public debate. A civic discussion of issues involving social importance would go a long way toward marginalizing the extremists.
People need to speak out on behalf of sensible policies.
If the health of a pregnant woman is in an immediate danger that could be alleviated through termination of that pregnancy, shouldn't we stop relying on providence and instead rely on science? Shouldn't each situation and medical decision be left to the doctors involved, instead of some fundy fruitcakes who get their marching orders from On High?
Providence gets you only so far before the shackles are applied and enlightenment is shadowed by repression.
The fundamentalists have shown us that much.
It's going to be a busy day here in New York and I'm unlikely to make it back to the blog until evening. I hope you'll have an opportunity to check out the links to some fine alternative news sources in the left-sidebar. If you travel just south of those, you'll then find blogger links to the best of the American Left.
I hope you have a good day.
Email Me | Comments (70) | TrackBackPosted by Lisa English
The other day, in a dip of spirit, I'd written a friend and asked about the likelihood of impeachment. Having lived through eight years of investigation, compounded daily by fruitless Clinton investigation, and facing as we do now, gross domestic mismanagement and an obscene foreign policy, I wondered why the hell we couldn't get some articles of impeachment drawn against Bush. Surely, his bad conduct dwarfs some lousy lie about a blow job? Oh, I know the score: Clinton lied in court testimony. But, enough already with the stupidity of equating the apples of sex with oranges of global outrage. As far as I'm concerned, Bush has gone off the deep end and needs to be stopped. My friend sent back a long and considered letter that addressed the practicalities of getting this guy nailed.
I read it.
I reread it - and ultimately sighed the sigh of resignation and moved on.
Today, we learn that impeachment may not be so far off an idea, after all.
Should George Bush be so bold as to launch a pre-emptive attack without new congressional approval, he will come face-to-face with articles of impeachment. So say members of the Progressive and Congressional Black Caucuses.
Get ready to rumble.
According to David Enrich, in reporting for The National Review, the Congressional Dems Are Ready to Avenge:
Over the past few weeks, some of the most liberal members of the House have discussed the possibility of impeaching Bush. Talks have intensified this week, lawmakers say, largely because war with Iraq appears imminent.At least one senior House Democrat has produced a draft impeachment resolution. It accuses Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and Attorney General John Ashcroft of more than a dozen "high crimes and misdemeanors," including bombing civilians in Afghanistan and constitutional violations in the domestic war on terrorism.
The resolution also charges Bush with "threatening the independence and sovereignty of Iraq by belligerently proclaiming an intention to change its government by force while preparing to assault Iraq in a war of aggression." A congressional aide provided the resolution's text on the condition of anonymity.
White House spokesman Scott Stanzel said he had no comment on the impeachment resolutions that are being discussed.
Enrich seems to think impeachment has everything to do with the Left's want for post-Clinton revenge.
Not according to Rep. Danny Davis (D-IL), who in an interview with broadcast journalist Amy Goodman, gets to the bottom line. The point behind this drive to impeach, is to lay some cards on the table. To let George Bush know that someone is prepared to play hardball. The idea, he says, is to use impeachment as a method of deterrence.
Deterrence? You bet.
Back when George I was planning his war against Saddam, similar articles of impeachment had been drawn. Some suggest that George Bush had second thoughts about prosecuting Gulf War I for that very reason. His decision to go ahead, say caucus members, is due more in part to timing than particulars.
Are they onto something here?
Time will tell.
But this go 'round, with public opposition to war higher than during his father's administration, and with a longer lead time for that opposition to have festered, both domestically and internationally, folks are not so likely to be shaken off path once bombs drop, and George W. Bush may indeed have plenty of reason to be concerned.
But wait...what are the particulars of this impeachment campaign? What's deterrence if there's not some foundation or fist behind the action? Well, judge for yourself. Here's a snippet from these articles of impeachment that have been drawn by University of Illinois law professor, Francis Boyle:
ARTICLE IIn the conduct of the office of President of the United States, George Walker Bush, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has attempted to impose a police state and a military dictatorship upon the people and Republic of the United States of America by means of "a long Train of Abuses and Usurpations" against the Constitution since September 11, 2001. This subversive conduct includes but is not limited to trying to suspend the constitutional Writ of Habeas Corpus; ramming the totalitarian U.S.A. Patriot Act through Congress; the mass-round-up and incarceration of foreigners; kangaroo courts; depriving at least two United States citizens of their constitutional rights by means of military incarceration; interference with the constitutional right of defendants in criminal cases to lawyers; violating and subverting the Posse Comitatus Act; unlawful and unreasonable searches and seizures; violating the First Amendments rights of the free exercise of religion, freedom of speech, peaceable assembly, and to petition the government for redress of grievances; packing the federal judiciary with hand-picked judges belonging to the totalitarian Federalist Society and undermining the judicial independence of the Constitution's Article III federal court system; violating the Third and Fourth Geneva Conventions and the U.S. War Crimes Act; violating the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination; reinstitution of the infamous "Cointelpro" Program; violating the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, the Convention against Torture, and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; instituting the totalitarian Total Information Awareness Program; and establishing a totalitarian Northern Military Command for the United States of America itself. In all of this George Walker Bush has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President and subversive of constitutional government, to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.
Wherefore George Walker Bush, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office.
For Americans and internationalists like myself, hoping to change the course of an aggressively destructive Bush campaign headed for preemptive war, this tactic may be our one last hope.
For more information on this story, cruise on over to listener-supported radio at Democracy Now. The audio program is about a half an hour long. If you experience problems accessing this segment, you'll likely need to download a free copy of RealPlayer audio software
Email Me | Comments (6) | TrackBackPosted by Lisa English
What will it take for America to wake up?
Will it take the abduction of two small boys by our intelligence agencies? Might that do it? Is that enough to waken the apathetic American soul? I wonder...I really do.
In her post US Interrogating Children, Jeralyn Merrit at TalkLeft is on top of the story of two little boys, ages nine and seven, who were kidnapped by the United States and are being used as pawns in a sick game to get their father, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, an al Qaeda deputy to talk. You may call "kidnap" too strong a word. I don't. By what moral authority does the United States have to remove these children from their homeland? Which dimwit thought this one up?
The children in question have been in Pakistani custody since September, when agents descended on their home. Their father managed to escape but the children remained, cowering in a closet when discovered. Mohammed had been on the run since that time when he was picked up last week by Pakistani authorities. This past weekend, the children were turned over to CIA custody and shipped off to some undisclosed US location.
I encourage you to head on over and read what Jeralyn's got to say. I couldn't agree with her more.
While it's all well and good that we bring the architects of 911 to justice, it is morally reprehensible that we are using children as leverage.
On what charges are we holding these children?
Are they considered "enemy combatants" once-removed?
How does the United States of John Ashcroft justify the incarceration of these kids? And, please do yourself a favor and don't give me this nonsense that they're are in good hands and not being hurt. Bottom line: they're being kept against their will and aside from their captors, there's not a soul who can vouch for their safety.
How does the US explain its actions? According to Britain's Telegraph, our rationale goes like this:
"His sons are important to him. The promise of their release and their return to Pakistan may be the psychological lever we need to break him."
Two boys...
Nine and seven years of age...
Being held as pawns in a game of psychological torture...
I ask you...are you prepared to have some country storm these shores and steal your children away in the night? Are you prepared to have your kids used as a psychological tool to pull information from you?
If you're not, then I'd suggest you be outraged and opposed to what's going on here.
Here's the nut, and it's really very simple: if the United States of America can get away with this, what's to stop any other nation from doing the same damn thing against the children of our military and intelligence?
Wake up and think about it.
Email Me | Comments (10)Posted by Lisa English
Other than blind-eyed partisans and members of the US mainstream media, I challenge you to name one person who caught that last-minute pre-fab presidential press conference the other night, who didn't walk away wondering about the mental and physical health of George W. Bush.
"Is he alright?" asked my daughter.
"I think he's sleepy," said her brother.
"Why is he speaking so S L O W L Y?" came a friend's instant message onto the laptop across the room.
Anyone tuning in with an open mind, knew something was amiss. Here was an event that by all rights, should have been a cinch: the president's handlers had prepared him with a printed list of accomodating reporters to call on; they knew in advance the questions that would be asked; and they took care to ship all those inquisitive journalists who might have thrown Bush a curveball or two, off to Press Corps Siberia. Yep, they sent that segment of professional troublemaker press into the back rows, where they'd be more easily avoided by The Scripted One. This was as choreographed as community theatre - everyone knew their lines, and everyone was on queue. Yet, despite all the planning, George Bush's performance was bizarre.
Bizarre. Surreal. Strange.
How on earth do you explain this one? Here we had a president who was conducting his first press conference in over a year and a half. All the "i's" are dotted, all the "t's" are crossed and then the guy shows up stunningly zoned-out. His delivery was monotone, slow and disinterested. His body language was forced and out of synch. George W. Bush sounded more like a man whose Paxil needed adjustment, than that confident cowboy riding into necessary battle against the forces of evil. George Bush came off every bit the space cadet - distracted and bored.
All this is unusual in itself, but the story grows even more bizarre when you factor in the silence of the media. That's right...despite this un-presidential, strange and otherworldly performance, few in the media stepped long enough away from the script to question Bush's wacky demeanor. With rare exception, mainstream broadcast and print simply carried on, treating the incident as a non-incident.
Where is the critical thinking in our mainstream press? Why don't they question the obvious? Why is every action and utterance out of the Oval Office deigned the unadulterated truth? Why is the American position always held aloft as The Answer when faced with an alternative internationalist view that often times makes more sense? Why does our mainstream media treat war as just another product: Showdown With Saddam. Why?
I'm not the only one asking these questions. These are among the same concerns addressed earlier this week in a letter written by some of the nation's most respected journalists, writers and communications academics. It's a letter that was sent to the giants of American media, and by all rights, should have found its way onto the Op-Ed pages of the New York Times, the Washington Post and Los Angeles Times.
But it didn't.
In a real bizarre twist, only if you happened to be a subscriber to the likes of the Asia Times, might you have caught mention.
Here's the letter you missed....
March 4, 2003Dear Editor, Publisher, Producer, Reporter:
We are writing to convey a level of heightened expectation in your forthcoming coverage of the U.S.-Iraq situation.
War coverage, and coverage of the period preceding war, test the reliability of our news media. Access to truly independent sources of information is essential, given the government's control of knowledge, data, pictures and other information during this period. The media's display of all significant points of view is especially important because of the tendency of our top officials to equate patriotism with uncritical support of official policy. Precisely for this reason, the public expects its media to meet this challenge by maintaining its independence for the good of the country. It is your professional duty and your obligation to our democratic ideals.
Unfortunately, objectivity and critical questioning of official sources, which is a measure of your separation from officialdom, have not been true in war-time reporting during Gulf War I and during the present proposals for Gulf War II.
Our experience as readers, viewers and listeners of print and electronic media has given us concern for a repetition of the following patterns:
1. The Horserace Syndrome: Highlighting Tactics Over Political Analysis
In the period before and during war, newspapers and the electronic media tend to cover the diplomacy and military engagements as if they were covering a horserace. In the questions about a possible war, the media too frequently limit themselves to details of tactics, weapons and military maneuvers, abandoning the critical balance that is journalism at its finest. The government has exploited this tendency, providing graphic material and features that limit reporting to battlefield tactics.This tendency is already discernible in current media coverage of the crisis over warmaking decisions, particularly among the electronic media. Endlessly repeated news features with titles like "Showdown with Saddam" present a grave matter as though it were a high-stakes sports contest. The result has been to obliterate broader concerns of consequences over security within the United States and globally.
There are numerous examples of the confrontation with Iraq that the media have underplayed. To name three:
Heightened risk of terrorism due to a war. The October CIA letter to Congress received little more than one-day's coverage in most news outlets. The letter had a startling message: Iraq poses little if any terrorist threat to the United States, but a war would pose a real risk of inciting such terrorist activities. This alone should be the topic of far more reporting and analysis. This is a real threat to the security of the United States -- brought on, not prevented by war. Surely, this demands further inquiry by the Fourth Estate.
Oil and the war. While it is surely an oversimplification to say a war with Iraq would be only about oil, it also be misleading to deny the fundamental importance of oil to the present conflict. It is not credible that there would be such a strong push for war if there were no oil in Iraq. Nonetheless, there has been very little reporting focused on the extent to which obtaining control of oil has motivated the administration or informs their geopolitical strategizing, the posture of the oil industry toward a war, possible discussions between the administration and the oil industry related to Iraq, and scenarios for how Iraqi oil would be controlled in the event of a U.S. invasion and who would benefit.
U.S. transfer of weapons of mass destruction materials to Iraq. The process by which the U.S. edited the December Iraqi 12,000 page submission to the UN before permitting it to be shared with all of the members of the Security Council -- and edited out references to U.S. corporate transfers of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) materials to Iraq -- received very little attention in the United States. By contrast, the editing and the transfer of WMD materials to Iraq by Western firms was a major story in Europe, and a German newspaper released the names of the U.S. companies that sold these materials. A 1994 Senate banking committee report also documented U.S. transfers of biological agents -- including stock for anthrax and E. coli -- to Iraq. Saddam Hussein's use of chemical and biological weapons against Kurds and Iranians was criminal, but surely more present-day references to these acts as justification for a war in the media should be accompanied by reference to the U.S. role in facilitating Iraq's acquisition of such weapons.
We understand, of course, that some outlets have done some digging in these areas. For every issue we highlight in this letter, there are exceptions. But, in general, we believe it is safe to say -- and Lexis searches confirm -- that there has been, relatively, very little reporting and analysis in these areas.2. Protesting Government Control of Information
As Pulitzer Prize winner Pat Sloyan has written, the government's information policy during the Gulf War was to freeze out the media both logistically and substantively from what was going on. This pattern was repeated during the military operations in Afghanistan. The media cannot allow this to recur without sustained and high-level protest.One key issue is the number of Iraqi casualties in event of war, particularly but not only among civilians. The Pentagon resists releasing its estimates of combatant and non-combatant casualties, but journalistic challenges to this practice are rarely heard. One legacy of the media coverage of the Gulf War is that many Americans believe only a very small number of people died in the conflict -- when in fact a small number of U.S. soldiers died, but tens of thousands of Iraqis perished.
3. Maintaining an Arms-Length Relationship with Government
The media must keep an objective, arms-length relationship with the government. A separation of state and the fourth estate was lost in 1990-91, most notably with the presence of government-approved retired military and intelligence consultants shoulder- to-shoulder with network anchors. State-controlled media comes in many garbs.4. Questioning the Official Story
During the Vietnam war, for example, the finest journalists were the ones who trusted their public to know the truth and who refused to repeat misleading, false, and manipulative allegations transmitted from official sources. The media should never confuse patriotism with obeisance and a rubber-stamp mentality. Patriotism in reporting the news is searching out and conveying what is factual, relevant and true.In the lead-up to the Gulf War, manufactured and widely publicized stories about Iraqis throwing babies out of incubators in Kuwait helped build support for war. Those stories were later shown to be fabrications.
During the Gulf War, the media repeated the U.S. military claims of its high-tech weaponry success -- replaying videotapes showing targets being hit, as part of its high-tech coverage -- though the alleged accuracy of the Patriot and success of other "smart" weapons was later shown to be untrue.
In the present run-up to war, there has been as well more than the standard reliance on unnamed "officials," an always undesirable practice that is even more questionable in war or during wartime preparations. Quoting anonymous officials conveys to readers that these sources are trustworthy and authoritative, without equipping the reader with any basis for independent determination, and moves the reporter closer to the role of simply reporting the government's press releases. Unless government employees are offering views that are contrary in some way to the government's official line, there is no justification for quoting them anonymously.
5. Presenting a Diversity of Viewpoints
Because any attack on Iraq would be a pre-emptive one rather than our country responding to an attack, there is an increased obligation of the news media to report the variety of dissenters from a wide variety and massive numbers of citizens of our country. The media must not march in lock-step the moment military action begins. Such a dismissal of the public's right to know in a full and timely manner weakens the meaning of the First Amendment and the pride a democracy has in keeping open channels of public response.Probing coverage is not achieved alone by having the intrepid reporter on the scene. It also requires courageous and independent editors and publishers who conform to the importance that Thomas Jefferson placed on a free and inquiring press in times of strain, crisis or governmental officiousness.
What is required is not just a matter of covering the antiwar movement, or reporting on demonstrations, advertisements and other signs of public opposition to the war. There is a duty to seek out and quote the many experts who express skepticism about claims by the state, rather than simply to rely on the same pundits repeatedly. There are numerous retired diplomats and high-ranking military officers who are expressing deep reservations about the Bush administration arguments, but who are receiving little media attention. Many critical experts, though by no means all, are identified by the Institute of Public Accuracy on their website, .
It is incumbent on editors, publishers and producers to see that their op-ed pages, letters-to-the-editor sections and talk shows are open to a vigorous diversity of viewpoints.
6. Radio
Radio, in particular, has sunk into a pronounced pattern of bias and ideological performance. This extends beyond the opinion of the talk show host to the choice and rude treatment of the occasional guest with an opposing viewpoint. "Shout" radio should remember that it is using public property -- the public airwaves -- and that the 1934 Communications Act that guarantees this public ownership is still the law. Years ago, radio actually acknowledged the concept of orderly debates with widely varying viewpoints. It should do so again.What we are requesting in the final analysis is a journalism that rises to the occasion and satisfies the finest journalistic standards and practices. This requires considerable review and introspection, with due regard to the fine and insightful advice of your own colleagues who know how "better and best" can be defined. This is no time for relying solely on official sources and their supporters. Now is the time to do your duty to our democratic society. Too much depends on which course you pursue.
Sincerely,
Patricia Aufderheide (Professor of Journalism, American University)
Ben Bagdikian( former Dean of Graduate School of Journalism at University of California at Berkeley and author of Media Monopoly)
David Bollier (Author)
Robert Boynton( Professor of Journalism at New York University)
Pat Choate (Author and Economist)
Susan Mango Curtis
Phil Donahue (Journalist/Talk show host)
Mark Dowie (Investigative Reporter)
Ben Franklin (Editor of the Washington Spectator)
Saul Friedman (Columnist)
Amy Goodman(Host of Pacifica Network's "Democracy Now")
William Greider (National Affairs Correspondent, The Nation )
Edward S. Herman (Professor Emeritus of Finance, Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania)
Nicholas Johnson (Former FCC Commissioner)
David Kairys (Professor of Law, Temple University)
Naomi Klein (Author)
Barbara Koeppel (Washington-based freelance journalist)
Nick Kotz (Journalist and Author)
Arno Mayer (Dayton/Stockton Professor of History Emeritus, Princeton University)
Robert McChesney (Professor of Communication, University of Illinois, Urbana, Champaign)
John Moyers (Editor, TomPaine.com)
Ralph Nader (Consumer Advocate)
James Ridgeway (Reporter, Village Voice)
Matt Rothschild (Editor, the Progressive)
Jon Rowe(Writer)
William Serrin (Faculty, New York University School of Journalism)
Patrick J. Sloyan (Reporter)
Carol Sternhell (Associate Chair, New York University Department of Journalism)
Studs Terkel (Author)
Nina Utne (Chair, UTNE Magazine)
Gore Vidal
Robert Weissman(Editor, Multinational Monitor)
Mary Ann Weston (Associate Professor, Medill School of Journalism, Northwestern U.)
Tom Wicker (Retired)
Ellen Willis (Professor of Journalism, New York University)
The letter above was drafted and circulated days before George W. Bush fell asleep on live television. It was being fobbed off by mainstream media before a weakened Colin Powell had the hubris to stand before the UN Security Council and demand faith from a disbelieving world.
The letter is an important one. It goes straight to the heart of The Problem: our media no longer reports the news...it choreographs the news and it cheerleads American policy, right or wrong. The corporate media filters the news, giving us only those stories they deem appropriate for us to hear. They insult our intelligence.
Sick of the filtering? Had it Up To Here with the cheerleading? Want the truth?
If you're after the real story, follow the lead of many Americans who now supplement mainstream coverage with the diversity of view that's found in the alternative and international press. To that end, check out the NEWS section of the left-hand sidebar for a breakout of alternative, international and mainstream outlets.
Email Me | Comments (6) | TrackBackPosted by Lisa English
What would you think of a scenario whereby a foreign power, seeking US troops and ammunition to help fight their war, was told "no" by our democratically elected leaders, and yet Refused to Take No For an Answer?
What would you think if this foreign state were to come back, this time bypassing our Congress and administration, and instead headed straight over to our Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines for help?
Then, let's push this hypothetical a bit more and how's about we say that those Pentagon-types being lobbyied, were suddenly to show up on the floor of the Senate and begin pressuring, and in some cases, threatening, segments of American society - that unless we went along with what the Camouflage Set had in mind, we'd be looking at some rather unpleasant incidents popping up in certain uncooperative American voting districts.
Hmmm?
What say ye?
You'd be shocked. You'd be outraged. Right?
Sure thing. After all, you live in a democracy, and America doesn't tolerate that kind of nonsense. You'd find fault with any foreign power that went outside normal diplomatic channels, and you'd have every right to be frosted over a Pentagon that was dabbling in camouflage diplomacy.
Well, guess what?
You're about to be outraged, because the Bush Administration has been doing just that: dabbling in camouflage diplomacy.
That's right, having been given a loud "nope" by the Turkish parliament to our request for US deployment onto their soil, we, the self-proclaimed global peddler of democracy, are now working outside normal diplomatic channels and actively engaged in discussions with the Turkish military. You read that right. We are pushing Turkey's Generals to get us approval for an American military presence in their country....the very same approval that the democratically-elected Turkish government has already declined to give.
Well, lookee here...it's the 500 lb Gorilla at it again, creating a ruckus and playing global pressure politics. Acting on behalf of the American people, the Bush Administration is encouraging the Turkish military to act against it's own people. Bottom line: if the Turks don't like what the Generals have to say, the Kurds will be punished.
Do you approve of this brand of strongarm politics?
Well, the Turks sure don't.
Click here to pick up a short but fascinating BBC/NPR The World broadcast entitled, Turkish Army Backs US, Warns Kurds. This audio piece features an interview conducted earlier today with a Turkish foreign relations official who prefers a peaceful, "legitimate" and diplomatic solution to the crisis in Iraq. He also has a thing or two to say about American interference in Ankara democracy, and especially our discussions with their military.
Elsewhere in the interview is discussed that infamous US effort to bribe the Turks with some 15 billion in US taxpayer aid. According to this official, the Turkish people aren't interested in handouts. Aside from that, he says, the 15 billion mentioned wouldn't even begin to cover his nation's expenditures in a new and manufactured regional conflict. As a matter of fact, he tells us, in the last go-round, the Turks needed nearly 10 times that amount to get back in gear.
Nope, it's not aid that Turkey seeks. They're just looking for new terms on those loans they've got with the IMF and World Bank. According to this fellow, Ankara wants to pay off its debt - they're hoping for an extension on repayment. They're hoping for terms that will enable the nation to advance through these tough economic times. But they're not interested in swapping new terms for cooperation with a illegitimate US war.
That's right...the democratically-elected leadership of Turkey want to resolve the Baghdad crisis through diplomatic means, and they're looking for a better economic future at home. Contrast their agenda with an undemocratically-selected Bush administration, one that wants to talk only of war, and preferably only with the Turkish generals. You know, the same guys who are then sent out to rough up democracy and the Kurds?
Is it any wonder that the world is opposed to the United States of George Bush?
It's about time, don't you think...that Americans stopped asking "why do they hate us?" and began taking some responsibility for the world's displeasure?
What I mean to say is this: we make enemies the old fashioned way. We earn them.
Email Me | Comments (2) | TrackBackPosted by Lisa English
When I was growing up in Brookyn, NY, Bernadette Devlin was a heroine to all those Irish-Catholic kids I jumped rope with on the playground at Holy Innocents School. Devlin appealed to their working class, church-going and recently-emigrated parents, who for the longest time didn't question aloud. Devlin took no gruff from the Protestant Brit colonialists and she dared to dream of a free Northern Ireland. Many an Irish-Catholic cop, firefighter and laborer discovered a voice in Bernadette Devlin. It's been a long time since I've thought of Devlin and that community of people who found hope in her message.
Last night, I dropped on over to Max's and there I learned of Bernadette Devlin's recent US deportation.
Bernadette Devlin McCaliskey, the world-renowned Irish civil rights leader was refused entry into the United States of Ashcroft. At Chicago's O'Hare, she was told that she presented a danger and wouldn't be permitted to step foot on American soil. She begged them to recheck their computer. She insisted there had to be a mistake. She told them she came in peace. They said that Tony Blair's British government had told them by fax a different story. They said she was a risk. Yes, this is the same Devlin who at 21 became the youngest MP elected to Parliament. Deported.
Last Friday's arrival in Chicago wasn't the 55-year old grandmother's first visit to the US. Hell, no...she'd been here some 30 times before in as many years. She had come this time on a visit with her daughter and didn't expect trouble. Why on earth should she? Devlin had never before encountered difficulties, but never before was America ruled by Aschroftian justice.
Bernadette Devlin was next intimidated and harrassed before being led to a flight back home.
Here we have another big story that's left largely untold. Here again, the media is silent. Other than Jimmy Breslin and Amy Goodman, where is the American media?
Is the obvious too painful a truth to reveal: that America under George Bush has gone off the deep end?
Do we have here one of those stories that languishes for the right patriotic "hook"... or is this another case where there simply wasn't enough room in the media lineup for a true-take on crushed liberties?
So why WAS Devlin deported? Is it because she spoke out against US-British plans for a war on Iraq? That does seem to be the common demoninator in locking up or deporting activists and academics these days. Her story reminds me of Eugene Angelopoulos, a professor at the National Technical University of Athens. Have you heard about Angelopoulos' recent adventures in the Big Apple? Fasten your seat belts for this one...
Last week, Eugene Angelopoulos arrived at JFK enroute to New York University, where he had been invited to speak at a conference on Philosophy and Politics. The Greek academic was instead detained at the airport, shackled and interrogated. He was asked to explain his views about an American war on Iraq, and immigration officials demanded to know if he was "anti-American." Ultimately, he found his way back to Athens, but his NYU stint was not to be, and he was shaken to the core.
Have you noticed that the Bush administration doesn't easily tolerate an alternative view to their own? If not, where have you been? Their message is clear: life would be so much simpler if the millions of anti-war protesters, the Devlins and Angelopoulis' of the world would simply shut the hell up.
Do you recognize this America?
I sure as hell don't. Seems to me we are deluding ourselves when comparing Bush's wholesale attack on civil liberties to the McCarthy era. Goodness, these fellows at Justice and 1600 make McCarthy look like a decent chap. We've a real police state in the making, now don't we?
This morning, the Feds are claiming that Devlin's visa had expired and that's the reason for her deportation. It's interesting to note that Devlin's papers had been checked in Ireland before she embarked for the US, and no flags were raised then. Something smells...
You know, I used to believe what my government told me. I used to move unquestioningly throughout the day. But that was long ago. I learned a thing or two from those Irish-Catholic kids on the playground, not the least of which is that patriotism is not defined by blind allegiance.
Email Me | Comments (21) | TrackBackPosted by Lisa English
The City of New York, home to some of the largest, most outlandish and internationally acclaimed parades, is refusing to issue a permit for one taking place this Saturday, February 15. Granted, this isn't just any parade - its message of peace flies in the face of a White House bent on global warfare.
Event organizers have not given up hope. If they get their way and win an injunction against the city, this is their plan...
The corner of New York's First and 49th is to be the starting point of an anti-war march that will move hundreds of thousands peacefully past the United Nations. It's a simple idea, they're well coordinated, and the city has been given fair notice.
Average people - workers, families, seniors, college kids, ministers, etc are expecting to take part in this parade of non-violent direct action against US war plans. Theirs is a global effort - similar walks will be taking place on the same day, throughout the world. But unlike their global brethren, New Yorkers may not get that chance.
What does it tell you when the City's GOP leadership goes flying into court, with a battery of legal eagles, trying to shut down a walk of peace? If Mayor Michael Bloomberg is successful in paralyzing the New York hub of this global event, hundreds of thousands will be forced to stand - still - in an area north of the UN - a small hinterland of designated protest.
Why?
Well, here's where we enter the Theature of the Politically Absurd, so assume your seat and make yourself comfortable. Ready?
As Newsday columnist Jimmy Breslin - the voice of New York - sees it, the city is essentially playing partisan White House suck-up games. To that end, they're throwing every No-Parade excuse against the wall and praying that something will stick. Breslin is right.
They're telling us that it has to do with stop lights and intersections. People don't move in parades when the light turns green, they say. People just stand there. What's a cop to do?
Ridiculous, eh?
What else?
Well, they're concerned about so many bodies winding their way around the Big Apple, when winding millions of bodies around the City is done each and every day without fuss or bother. United for Peace, the mainstream organization sponsoring this event has online coordination plans that would render the most obsessively concerned among us, Xanax calm.
The City's argument didn't make sense. So, they needed to come up with a better story.
They found one. How's about this for limiting dissent...
They say that it wouldn't be wise for the City to permit a large-scale parade during this new and conveniently announced time of heightened national security. Code Orange. Although it doesn't matter a hill of beans to them, their argument manages to fly right in the face of Homeland Security recommendations that Americans "not cancel events or travel plans." Anti-war events, are apparently another matter.
You're familiar with this song and dance - right? Each and every time the public's reaction registers concern over Bush's war jones; every time the presidential approval ratings sag or unpleasant allegations are released about this quasi-totalitarian administration and it's corporate lust for war, they move to Plan B...they pull out the colors.
Code Orange...
Instill some fear. Ratchet up the public concern.
"Tell me you're kidding," my sister says. This was news to her. You see, like most stories having to do with anti-war or anti-administration issues, this story is getting little play in the press.
She lives close to the UN and had been planning on just walking over at noon on Saturday. She doesn't care about color codes. She says that since September 11, she lives a life on high alert all the time, 24/7. She's more frightened of a president she calls "the madman" than of any two-bit tyrant who has the distinction of sitting atop the globe's second largest reserve of petroleum. Color-coded alerts long ago lost meaning for her.
She's not alone. Here, at the epicenter of American tragedy, nobody buys into these Political Color Schemes. Doesn't matter whether they be Conservative, Liberal, Green, Indy or Otherwise. The reality is that Manhattan, like the rest of the country, goes on about its business regardless of what colored hue is snapped onto the screen of CNN.
"That madman is begging for terrorism," she says.
So, how about that parade...
"I'm marching," she says.
What if they don't allow it?
"I'll go out anyway. How can they stop me? Tell me. Who the hell is going to stop me from carrying a sign and walking down that block? I'm an American. I'm a taxpayer of the City of New York. They can't shut me down."
Sure they can.
This woman is no radical. You know people just like her - she's a hard worker, she's on the Parents Association at the kids' school, she's a mental health professional who volunteers clinical time at the local center. She's big into family and community. Even if you've not crossed paths, I guarantee - you know someone just like her. She's an American who thought she was living the American dream. Now, she and her husband struggle to keep afloat with job uncertainties and repeated layoffs. Code Orange? The least of her concerns.
The Political Color Schemers...
Truth be told, Mayor Michael Bloomberg is making nice with the Feds - he's kissing up to his Republican pals in the White House. It's important to have friends in high places when you're facing a 3 billion dollar deficit - all thanks to Governor Pataki's version of Trickle Down Economics, a plan that landed right atop a national recession. They know their argument is weak, but they're in Bush administration CPR mode.
Terrorism. Fear. Time to clamp down on those civil liberties.
Meanwhile, in the background....
Bill Moyers, the well-respected American journalist, on Friday night told a PBS viewing audience about a secret Justice Department document that reveals shocking administration plans to further diminish American civil liberty. They're talking secret arrests, locking up Americans of dissenting view - a whole cavalcade of repression one wouldn't normally associate with the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave.
As if things weren't bad enough...
Lock 'em up and throw away the key
Hide the painful images of war
Let me ask you something...
What does all of this tell you about our government's determination to push this war?
What does it say about the value of your voice and your liberty in this dwindling democracy?
For my sister and the hundreds of thousands who next Saturday expect to march, shoulder to shoulder, against a war nobody wants, the message delivered by the Political Color Schemers is transparently clear.
What remains uncertain is how long We the People will tolerate that message before we fight back.
~~~~
Speak Out In Support Of The Right To March
~~~~
Sign the Petition
Posted by Lisa English
It's an important one, and it's not being covered.
After Colin Powell spoke to the UN Security Council yesterday, a bi-partisan bill was introduced in Congress by Reps. Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.) and Ron Paul (R-TX). It wasn't just any bill - this is legislation that looks to repeal the Iraq Use of Force Resolution passed by Congress in October.
If you're wonkish about these things, you might recall that similar legislation was put forward a couple of weeks ago by Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX). It didn't get more than a mention here or there in the press, but it's important to note that DeFazio and Paul's bill is different. Jackson's "sense of the Congress" bill, if passed would have taken the body's "temperature" on the issue. That's all.
DeFazio and Paul's effort goes beyond the thermometer. Faced with the administration's Rush to War, DeFazio and Paul are looking for a prescription. If they were to get this one passed, the outcome would be legally binding, and the October bill then outright repealed. Congress could at that point thoughtfully revisit the issue of Iraq - the danger it presents and the costs of war.
Big story. Right?
So, where's the media?
Yesterday, DeFazio and Paul conducted a press conference that the major media outfits were invited to. Did you see it on C-SPAN? Nope. CNN? Nope. Did you read about it in the New York Times? Nope. They were all invited to attend the news conference. How about the Washington Post? Nope. But the story nearly saw daylight there. Almost. Almost? Almost."We decided not to run it," says a low-level staffer.
Why not?
"Hold on," I'm told, as he runs to check.
"Because our editor decided not to run it."
It's as simple as that. One gets the sense that one best take it or leave it.
"Leave a message in his voicemail."
Back to yesterday's press conference....after this low-attendance event, and later in the day, DeFazio appeared on The O'Reilly Factor: seven minutes of airtime, the usual back and forth, until the mic is silenced, the lights lowered, and O'Reilly has the last word. War.
Other than a handful of local radio interviews, a small story here and an AP wire there...that's the sum total of major coverage.
No Imus. No Chicago Tribune. No ABC News.
Major bipartisan legislation opposing a war nobody wants, and what do we hear? The sound of media silence.
Where's the American media?
Perplexing, isn't it? Especially given that yin and yang make for great journalism. Informing the public interest makes for legitimate journalism. Why the silence?
But wait...what's going on over in this corner?....
We've got Colin Powell running around Capitol Hill today, pumping hands and begging for the Blessing to War. Where's the media? Oh, the media is covering Colin Powell. They monitor his every breath and movement.
In the surreal world that is today's media, Colin Powell has no opposition. None. There is no alternative view. None. In this Kafkaesque place, Reps. DeFazio and Paul didn't conduct a press conference yesterday. Nor did they introduce legislation that counters George Bush and Colin Powell's world view...a world view, mind you, that the world doesn't share.
Colin Powell tells us that the next 24 hours are crucial. Crucial? Apparently not crucial enough to hear the voices of dissent - even Congressional dissent. Why have the voices that question....moderate voices, voices of Moms and Dads and scout leaders and nuns and grandmas...why have they gone silent? Why is their legislation invisible?
Ask that our media do us a favor, and report the news, instead of choreographing it.
Ask that they cover DeFazio and Paul's bill to repeal the Authorization for Force on Iraq. Whether that bi-partisan legislation is in keeping with the editorial page views of some in the American media is frankly immaterial.
It's a news story. An important one. It mirrors the views of many Americans - most, if you believe the polls - and it's barely being covered.
UPDATE:
Many have taken the time to write me about this article, and I thank them. To those who have argued that the media has no obligation to report this story because it is not news or "major" legislation, let me say this...
I beg to differ that this is not a major piece of bi-partisan legislation. I think one can define "major" in several ways. The method I am using is by virtue of its national and international importance.
Certainly, the mainstream media cannot publish news about every piece of legislation that runs through Capitol Hill, but this is not just any piece of legislation.
The media is charged with informing the public interest. I am aware that AP and Fox mentioned the story, and that was addressed in my piece. This however does not consitute the type of coverage one would expect on such an important bill, one that runs counter to Bush and Powell's view...one that runs counter to world view and for that matter, polled American opinion. For the record, a review of Lexis/Nexis or Google at the time I wrote this article, would clearly indicate that our media had dropped the ball. As with the Washington Post, they decided simply "not to run it." Not the press release, reference to the press conference, or the AP story.
The American press does not exist to merely report on those items of legislation which are "likely" to pass committee. Were that the case, the minority party should simply pack up and go home, no? The press exists to report on issues of public importance...public interest. I realize that this is not the prevailing view among some who practice journalism. But fortunately, there are many for whom this is the prevailing view.
Were the press informing on this piece of legislation, and were the public so inclined, they would then have the opportunity to pressure their representatives to bring the bill to the floor. That is what democracy is all about...the will of the people.
When our press refuses to publish stories which impact the public interest, they are defeating the will of the people before the game so much as even begins.
L.E.
Agree with DeFazio and Paul? Dial up the Congressional toll-free switchboard at 1-800-839-5276 and urge your Congressman to sign onto their bill, H.J. Res 20, which aims to repeal the Iraq Use of Force Resolution.
Take Back The Media has a network contact directory with email, phone and physical addresses to the leaders in mainstream print and broadcast journalism. Click here to access that list. It's time to write some letters and email.
This piece was simultaneously published over at StandDown, the left-right weblog opposed to preemptive action against Iraq. Be sure to visit and contribute to the thoughtful debate and diversity of viewpoint.
Email Me | Comments (31)
Posted by Lisa English
Email Me | Comments (25)Dial 1-800-839-5276 NOW
TELL YOUR SENATORS TO
FILIBUSTER MIGUEL ESTRADA, THE INVISIBLE MANWho is Miguel Estrada?
Well, Miguel Estrada doesn't want you to know the answer to that question, and therein lies the rub.
You see, Miguel Estrada is in line for appointment to the DC Court of Appeals, the second highest court in the land. He has been widely discussed as a possible Supreme Court nominee, but get this: unlike other nominees, Estrada refused to answer the most basic of questions posed to him at his recent Senate Judiary Committee hearing. Neither he nor his handlers in the Oval Office will release information on the man's judicial philosophy or the legal briefs he has written. Miguel Estrada, a 41-year old corporate lawyer who has never been a judge, and who stands inches away from lifetime appointment to that mighty powerful DC Appellate, a hop-skip-and-a-jump from the SCOTUS, would prefer you see him as the Invisible Man. Miguel Estrada is an Unacceptable Nominee.
You might wonder about the importance of the DC Court of Appeals. In a nutshell, we're talking about a body that is presently balanced. The possibility of Estrada tipping it to the extremist right is the equivalent of Appellate Nirvana for those who want to turn back the clock on environmental, consumer and worker protection laws. You see, that's just what's going on here with the nomination of Miguel Estrada. According to the Independent Judiciary, this DC court is in a unique position, because it has "exclusive appellate jurisdiction" over these very issues. Make no mistake about it - these are the very areas of law that the neo-conservatives want to make corporate-friendly. While Mr. Estrada has no experience on the bench, he is indeed a practicing attorney - one whose anti-consumer, anti-union, anti-environmenal corporate advocacy is well-documented. He'd just rather not talk about those things with you.
What is it that Mr. Estrada is concerned you might learn about him? Why the unprecedented secrecy? A simple examination of his work history and associations reveal a hard-core conservative ideology. Miguel Estrada is not simply a Republican. That wouldn't be an issue. Miguel Estrada is an activist and extremist. While he has every right to strongly-held views and associations, our Courts have no room for activist judges, whether they be from the left or the right. An independent judiciary is a fair judiciary. Americans of moderate view should fight this appointment. Here's what we do know about Miguel Estrada:
* he was part of the legal team that suppressed the Florida vote count and secured Bush the presidency;
* he is a member of the ultra conservative Federalist Society and Center for the Community Interest;
* he is a corporate lawyer, whose work involves defending the interests of America's most anti-consumer companies. Estrada represented Aetna in arguing against patient coverage and reimbursement;
* he is being sold as the administration's token Hispanic nominee, but has garnered mostly opposition from the Hispanic community;
* his pro bono legal work (voluntary) has had him challenging death row inmates and vagrants.
If Mr. Estrada is opposed to revealing his judicial temperment and qualification the old fashioned way - through the candor of open hearing - then we've no alternative but to judge the man on these associations.
We need to do something...and we need to do something NOW.
The administration is pushing for a vote on Estrada that will come soon...anytime between now and Colin Powell's speech before the United Nations tomorrow. Distract the people and they'll not think to protest the packing of uber-conservatives with lifetime appointments onto the nation's courts.
Timing is everything. Do these two things. It will take you TEN MINUTES:
1. Pick up the phone - right now - and dial the toll-free congressional switchboard at 1-800-839-5276. Urge your Senator to FILIBUSTER the Estrada nomination. That's it. You'll be asked your name, address and phone. Simple and to the point.
2. Follow up that call with a visit to True Majority and send off their fax which calls for an Estrada filibuster. The fax is already written. If you agree with the verbage, just sign your name and move on. If you'd like to craft your own personal message, take the opportunity to do so.
We are talking ten minutes of your time. Ten minutes that can make a difference. Our country cannot afford to tolerate the corporate and religious ideologues being pumped out by this administration onto our courts.
Do you have ten minutes to give your country?
This is serious stuff. Don't wait. Take action NOW.
Posted by Lisa English
Seventeen years ago this week, I was teaching a class in lower Manhattan, when the Challenger space shuttle exploded. As soon as we heard the news, everyone took leave of their studies, and there we sat, before a small tv screen, watching the video replayed, over and over, and over again. Catastrophe - regardless of whether born of O-rings or terrorism - has a way of paralyzing the strongest among us, simultaneously stilling the air and clutching the heart. I'm certain you know what I'm talking about. I bet you were similarly gripped. You and I, we were stunned and shocked, but before long, we began to look for answers, and in the case of Challenger, the blame game got underway quickly. The result? Funding was increased, safety was made a priority and in a few years, the program was back on track.
In the aftermath of Saturday's Columbia shuttle tragedy, and before lab tests have provided conclusive evidence as to why, the finger-pointing has begun anew, with the most intriguing of these accusations coming from one Don Nelson. According to Guardian UK, Don Nelson served with NASA for 36 years until he retired in 1999. It was Nelson who authored a letter to President George W. Bush "warning that his 'intervention' was necessary to 'prevent another catastrophic space shuttle accident'." We now learn that Nelson wasn't alone. There were others who saw trouble and sought help. Was safety compromised while the agency worked within the constraints of a shoestring budget? That's a question many are asking and if you're like me, you might well be wondering about that budget..."just how lean was it?"
According to Leona C. Bull, reporting for the September 2001 issue of Aerotech News and Review, the US space shuttle program, when adjusted for inflation, had, at the time of her writing, been cut 40 percent over the previous 11 years.
Think about it. Nearly half of NASA's funding was slashed. That's some chunk of change lost, and the drop in federal monies came only seven years after the Challenger disaster. Seven years after the American heart had mended, slacker safety was given the green light to head back to those pre-Challenger days. Tell me something....who are these idiots we elect to make decisions on our behalf? What on earth do they do all day other than dialing for the next election's campaign dollars? Huh? The apathetic callousness of this funding policy is malfeasant, and it is especially intolerable given the current administration's priorities. You know the drill: the affluent and corporate get to eat first, and my how lavishly they dine. Here's a slice from Bull's 2001 article:
Astronauts and ground crew would be endangered by proposed cutbacks in space shuttle safety improvements, according to a panel of astronauts, industry executives and other experts that testified before a Senate panel last week.
"I'm concerned if we don't do the safety upgrades, we're going to have another catastrophe," said Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.). "The manned space program cannot stand that."
Nelson, then a U.S. representative, has flown onboard the shuttle. He organized last week's hearing before the Senate Subcommittee on Science, Technology and Space. "I wonder if the lessons of Challenger are fading," said Nelson who was referring to the 1986 disaster when the shuttle Challenger exploded shortly after liftoff, killing all seven aboard.
A projected $4.8 billion in cost overruns on the International Space Station have forced NASA managers to cutback and postpone the $1.9 billion in upgrades and regular maintenance operations that NASA had planned for the aging shuttle fleet over the next five years.
Heartbreaking. If ever there was an example of political malpractice, this would certainly rank right up there.
Check out the remainder of Bull's article and Nelson's prescient comments by clicking here.
Wouldn't now be a good time to write a letter and back it up with that phone call to your representative? You know the one I'm talking about...the one where you demand that this Congress rescind what's left of Bush's 2001 federal tax bonanza to the rich, so that we can get ourselves back on track? So that we can stop starving, and start funding the programs that do us good?
Email Me | Comments (1)Posted by Lisa English
Dennis Duggan, the Newsday columnist calls them Albany's Very Own Axis of Evil, and he's right. New York's Troika of Trouble comes from the right and the left side of the aisle, but that's where the differences end and the similarities begin.
Who is it that makes up this trio? According to Duggan, it's none other than State Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver (D-Manhattan), Senate Majority Leader Joseph Bruno (R-Brunswick) and Gov. George Pataki(R) - each who played a pivotal role in that familiar vote-getting game that's now come back to haunt them: slashing taxes. Even at the time, the elimination of one particular tax seemed privately ludicrous and overkill. But hey...what politician can say no to cutting taxes?
Pandering to a suburban base that was in large part not effected, or minimally effected by their scheme, these state legislators and their Governor promoted the idea of rescinding the New York City "commuter tax." Their idea caught on like wildfire and before they knew it...the tax was yesterday's news.
Today, the game is over. New York no longer sees that much needed commuter revenue. The city is facing massive deficits and lots of fiscal pain, and it's in part, thanks (no thanks) to the election strategies of Silver, Bruno and Pataki. But whatever you do, don't get to thinking that things are better elsewhere in the Empire State. Fact is, wherever Manhattan's economy leads, so goes the state. The road ahead can be an instructive lesson for all legislators - state and federal, alike.
According to Duggan, it happened like this...
The legislation was cobbled together in secret by this trio; Pataki signed off on the bill. There were no hearings or study, little debate. It was politics triumphing over policy. It affected 800,000 commuters, almost 60 percent living in New York State who paid a tax of 0.45 percent on taxable income.
Thus, a commuter earning $75,000 - roughly the average commuter's salary - was paying $350 a year in return for protection by the city from crime, fire and all the other amenities of a great city.
It seemed like a small price to pay, and commuters weren't lobbying against the tax. It was the pols who stabbed the city in the back.
What a price. The city is now looking at a three billion dollar deficit, and the increasingly unpopular Mayor Bloomberg is having to get mighty creative to make up the difference. What does the crystal ball hold in store for the future? Well, New Yorkers might want to wrap their heads around the notion of bridge tolls, where before there were none. Property taxes will rise, and the revenue-generating idea wheels will keep turning. A new game has begun. Fact is, the money has to come from somewhere, and more than likely...those very same folk who no longer have a commuter tax...they'll be facing some other tax in its place.
There's a lesson to be learned here. Whether we are talking about New York City's commuter tax or a Federal Estate Tax or one of a multitude of other levies being eyed for elimination, the story remains the same: when you eliminate revenue in the fat years, there's not enough cushion in the lean. The bills always come due, and all the smoke and mirrors devised by politicians who seek temporary election favor through the elimination or reduction of taxes, do us no favor at all. They merely change the gameboard and present us with another puzzle we need to solve down the road.
As lousy luck would have it, New York City, like so many local governments across the country, now finds itself standing shoeless on that very road.
Email Me | Comments (2)Posted by Lisa English
Somewhere back around the time of the fall elections, a good friend of mine saw the writing on the wall. "He's going to torch those oil fields," my friend told me. "He's going to set those fields afire if we try to screw around with him."
My friend was talking about Saddam Hussein. At the time, the election debate had inexplicably turned from domestic issues to that of a war we suddenly had to have. Right now. Immediately, if not yesterday. My friend is a sharp guy. He's well-versed in international politics, and he has a uncommonly good eye for strategy. His idea made sense. If you're Saddam Hussein, and the US storms your soil - it's over for you. Might as well take away all that American incentive for seizing your resources. In recent weeks, the administration has been floating that possibility around, too. They've been preparing us and the world for what would amount to a massive assault on the global atmosphere. According to the New York Times, plans are in the works to amass the firefighting power to put out their burn, so we can then assume control of their resources:
A Pentagon spokesman, Lt. Dan Heplage, declined to comment on any contact with oil firefighting companies, saying the Defense Department did not discuss contingency plans or talks with private companies unless a contract is signed. "But it is part of our job to be ready for different situations," he added.
The Bush administration says that restoring Iraq's oil production is paramount to the United States' long-term interests in the country and the Middle East. Revenue from oil exports would be crucial to reviving the economy if Mr. Hussein is ousted, and a healthy economy, in turn, would shore up political stability. So if Iraq's oil industry were damaged — a possibility very much on the minds of American military planners — companies that battle fires would need to get to the fields fast to limit the destruction.
We want that oil. We want control of the region, and we will go to Hell and Back to get it, even at the expense of great casualty and environmental desecration.
One wonders how this Bush strategy is meant to slow the fans of terrorism. Looks to me like we're in for a big and long burn.
Just a closing reminder: Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX) introduced legislation last week that aims to repeal the unprecedented authority Congress gave George Bush last fall...the power to declare war whenever and for whatever reason. Jackson Lee and her co-sponsors in the House, Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), Barbara Lee (D-CA) and Diane Watson (D-CA) need your support. Pick up the phone, dial your representatives ( 1-800-839-5276), and let them know you want to repeal the authorization for use of force against Iraq.
They will assume you're OK with this unless you voice your discontent.
Do it. 1-800-839-5276
Email Me | Comments (0) | TrackBackPosted by Lisa English
RANDI RHODES:
ONE LIBERAL VOICE AGAINST THE CONSERVATIVE MEDIA GOLIATH
Buzzflash has published an eye-opening interview with Rush-busting ratings queen, the liberal talk show host, Randi Rhodes, and it's one you shouldn't miss. WHAT? You've never heard of her? Well, funny damn thing - you're not the only one.
Randi Rhodes is the American liberal radio voice of the moment. A sharp, outspoken and charismatic personality, Rhodes is also something of an endangered species: a lefty, in what has become a mostly right-wing collective known as American talk radio. In a media marketplace of shrinking ideas, Randi Rhodes stands out because she's smart, she has panache and she's got guts - three things that the American Left could use a lot more of in their spokesmen and women. This trio of qualities has made Randi Rhodes a superstar in the media market of Palm Beach, Florida. You know, the Land of Pat Buchanan's Republican Jews & Hanging Chads? They like her. They really like her, and it's a market she's fast outgrown. But the fact is, those folk in Palm Beach haven't an exclusive on vehement opposition to the Selection of 2000. Nor are they the only ones disturbed by a growing US imperialism in pursuit of Pax Americana, or this uber-strange CEO-governance we've got going on up at the Oval Office. There are tons of Americans, all across the country who Have Had It Up To Here with crushed civil liberties, spy agencies and secrecy, with administration-related corporate malfeasance, and this Rich Man First vibe. Randi Rhodes would sell from sea to shining sea. Tell me she wouldn't. Just try...
So, let's say you're a smart corporate type, and you've got this engaging media personality on your hands - one whose ratings are the highest out there, ok? Tell me - would you really want to hide her? No way, right? Well, don't answer so fast, because if you were Clear Channel Entertainment, the world's largest organization of its kind (an advertising conglomerate disguised as a free press), and the syndicator of Rush Limbaugh's media enterprise - you might be content leaving this liberal celebrity hidden in the boonies of American media obsurity. That's exactly what many believe is going on here: that Clear Channel has no interest in syndicating Randi Rhodes, or getting her out there so that the rest of the country can hear her message; that she's apparently too damn effective a voice for the American left. But you know, if the conservatives were counting on Randi Rhodes being a pushover, they've discovered otherwise. Just ask Ollie North...
That's right, Oliver North, the Iran-Contra figure who recently stormed out of Rhodes' studio after finding the questions a little too hard to answer in an on-air interview. He learned that Randi Rhodes is no marshmallow, and that's why folks like her. This is the same gal whose South Florida listening audience think she's the best thing since sliced bread, and have rewarded her with the highest ratings out there. Take THAT, Clear Channel: Randi Rhodes is putting Rush Limbaugh to shame in the rating wars.
Be sure to check out this Buzzflash interview - it's a great one; meet Randi Rhodes, and get yourself informed on the issue of media concentration and deregulation. When you're finished, how's about getting involved in the push for media reform? Without media reform, everything else is inconsequential. A free and unfettered press - radio, print and televised - is needed if we are to take part in true democracy. When the people's voice is sold out to the highest bidder - like Clear Channel, for instance - we the people lose. This is not a subject for future debates - the problem is staring us in the face, and demanding a resolution - now.
Here are some great places where you can get yourself up to speed on the issue of media democracy and reform:
The Center for Public Integrity - What Media Corporations Don't Tell You About Their Legislative Agendas - The giant media corporations of today are special interests in their own right, with unique legislative agendas that they push on Capitol Hill and in the offices of federal regulators. The companies that dominate the airwaves and purvey the news in print are little different from any other industry. They spend millions on campaign contributions. They fly lawmakers and regulators around the world on all-expenses-paid junkets. They hire a "who's who" of former congressional staffers, members, and FCC officials to plead their cases in the nation's capitol. And more often than not, they get what they want, which is why media corporations are widely regarded as the most powerful special interest in Washington. Click here to learn more and to download the complete report in PDF format
Reclaim the Media - Act now to save media diversity! The site is filled with recordings and articles, facts and figures on the problem of media consolidation.
Take Back the Media! Ever wonder "Who Owns the Media?" Click on over and find out for yourself. Warning: it's an incestous mix of players..
We Want the Airwaves - commentary, articles and links, links, links
A Call For Media Democracy from FAIR (Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting)
Note: This piece was posted and then lightly edited in the wee small hours of the morning.
Email Me | Comments (11) | TrackBackPosted by Lisa English
Avedon Carol has taken the bull by the horns and created a much needed online resource called We Want the Airwaves. Check it out. She is on the case of media deregulation, and the ultimate price that will be paid: the surrender of our democracy. This is, I think - the biggest issue out there today. Without a free and unfettered press, we might as well kiss this sucker goodbye, and that is precisely what the Bush administration has in mind.
Michael Powell, son of Colin, heads the Federal Communication Commission (FCC) and his sole purpose, before dismantling the FCC, is handing off the public airwaves to the big corporate players - the AOL/Time Warners, the Rupert Murdochs, the Disneys and GE's. Yes, you read that right - his aim is to dismantle the commission he's been charged with protecting.
What's the upshot? Well, figure that when this incestuous band of players is finished, your media market: newspapers, cable, internet, radio, etc. will likely be owned by the same corporation. Hopefully, that corporation will have your political interests in mind - but as they say, if wishes were horses, beggars would ride. It ain't gonna happen. Period, end of subject. The corporate media is not of a liberal ideological bent. And since I've touched on the element of politics, let me have you ponder this one: just imagine what the endorsements will look like come voting day when one player owns all of the editorial pages. Not a whole lot of diversity, eh? Figure we're talking a conservative coup. This is where we are headed.
There are a number of folks online who have spoken about media reform, but when Avedon writes on the issue, she has always managed to capture my attention, and let me tell you something: this is one of those times when we need passionate spokesmen and women. She has deep conviction and she has the facts.
We don't have a lot of time, folks...in fact, truth be told - time is running out. You're just hearing about this for the first time? I'm not surprised, because frankly, the American media has a whole lot of difficulty getting this subject on the front burner. As the NY Times said in a spring editorial, earlier this year...it's very hard framing a debate about yourself.
This is the deal: if Michael Powell had his way, the public airwaves would have been yesterdays news. It's only because voices of dissent are starting to bubble up in the grassroots community, that we've a chance at saving what's left of Media Democracy.
Help yourself out by learning all about this issue - become involved, talk it up and share information. Start at We Want the Airwaves! first. Make this a personal ministry. Here's a slice from her opening piece:
The broadcast airwaves are limited, and regulation is necessary to prevent everyone from trying to use the same frequencies, thus making none of it really useful to any but the biggest, strongest, and most expensive transmitters. Because the airwaves belong to the public, broadcasters are in theory required to serve the public interest - by keeping us informed and giving us a voice. In practice, however, broadcasters have always limited the range of expression they will allow, with the connivance of the FCC. Americans were largely accepting of this level of conservatism as long as it meant the far right and far left were equally excluded.
However, as the far right has taken control of the airwaves, even mainstream liberal voices are being squeezed out, replaced by more and more fanatical right-wingers who now almost completely dominate broadcast radio. Television news and news-talk shows "balance" coverage by showing a narrow range of centrists, along with a broad range of moderate right-wingers and far rightists; left-liberalism and the far left are largely unrepresented. Indeed, much of mainstream liberalism - the sort that most Americans agree with - is left off the schedule most of the time
What Powell is proposing is not only aiding and abetting a corporate media - one that has given little back to the public - but Powell is also providing an unlimited resource to the right wing community. American conservatives already own most of the radio airwaves as a result of the last go round of deregulation. Don't believe me? Scan the AM radio dial and then tell me how many liberal stations you come up with. If you find one, right now...among the dozens on your reception, I'll be surprised. Liberal stations are a rarity. Media diversity is the promise of our free press, but they are not delivering. "But what about the Internet," you might ask. Doesn't the Internet provide more of a diverse selection of viewpoint? Well, here's what Avedon has to say about that:
For many, the Internet has held out hope as an antidote, but media corporations are trying to foreclose on this freedom, too. Control of music, which helps drive radio listenership, can shut down much of Internet radio. Cable companies are fighting to be able to dispense with Usenet, our rapid-fire one-to-many communication system. Weblogs will survive only if Internet providers permit us the freedoms we have so far enjoyed. Censorship and other pro-corporate regulation drive prices up for individuals as well as interfering with content. Free speech must not become a privilege for only the most wealthy and powerful.
She's right - this is what's in the offing - the diminishment of free speech, the crushing of our free press. The very foundation of our democracy is at stake.
This is too important an issue to be left to the Washington politicos and pundits to move on. We need to take the bull by the horns and run with it. Let's build a case and how's about we start by clicking here?
Email Me | Comments (1) | TrackBackPosted by Lisa English
AN INSPIRING STORY
I first heard about this back in November on NPR, when knowledge of the incident all at once uplifted, confounded and infuriated me. Then, driving home, the car laden with gifts on Christmas Eve, I learned a new chapter had been written. Here is a wonderful and inspiring story, and it goes like this...
Eduardo Delacruz is a 37-year old New York City cop. In his life outside of the department, he's got a wife and five kids. He's a member of the city's Homeless Outreach Unit - a group of nearly 50 officers charged with the impossible: shuffling the city's most needy from one place to the next, so that New York's investment income class doesn't have to look these folks in the eye, day after day.
You see, the city has a burgeoning homelessness problem. Add Bush's recession to the after-effects of 911, and if you're Mayor Michael Bloomberg, you wake each morning to the human cost of the mathematics. For over a year now, the soup kitchens have been having bigtime trouble meeting the demand of the hungry, and the shelters are bursting at the seams. So, what do you do if you're a Big Apple politician? Simple. You get tough - you get tough on the homeless bastards who are messing with Affluent New York's quality of life. You push them out of public view. Enter Officer Delacruz...
One night last month, Delcruz was making the rounds with another cop. They came upon a couple of sleeping homeless men - two guys who when prompted, refused to move from the parking garage where they had finally found comfort, warmth and safety. Instead of handing them their walking papers and pushing them off to the nearest shelter, Delacruz, like a Magus bearing holy gifts, passed them a bag of warm clothing, and let them be. The officer had done the unforgiveable: in a police force known for examples of front-page brutality, he defied a superior's orders and did a wonderful thing: he delivered compassion.
To fully appreciate this story, you've got to understand that for those without a roof over their head, being ordered to a homeless shelter - in Brooklyn, Queens, Staten Island, the Bronx or Manhattan - is more often than not, an exercise in futility. The places are packed to the rafters, and you end up going from one facility to the next, with nary a bed to be found. But, in New York, that's almost the point. You see, keeping the homeless on the run, in this political shell game that's played, is thought to be better than watching them accumulate in one place. It's better to shuttle them around, than face up to the failing social policies that brought us this problem in the first place. Making their plight an invisible plight is the name of the game. In fact, some are suggesting the city should push these folks off onto ships and have them float on the East or Hudson River. Out of sight and out of mind, as the saying goes. But what do you do when they refuse to move? What then? Well, then you arrest them and incarcerate them. Surreal, eh? Especially when a makeshift bed in a parking garage is considered a whole helluva lot more appealing - and some say, safer - than one in a city jail.
Eduardo Delacruz got himself into a whole lot of trouble when on that night, he chose humanity over cruelty. For his kindness, the brass over at the NYPD handed Delacruz a thirty-day suspension without pay. Here we have a department already reeling from a spate of nightmarish public relations, human rights fiascos, and law suits - and what do they do? They go ahead and confirm the bad rep: New York's Finest are also New York's Meanest. Are we talking dumb, or what? Well, you know they weren't about to get away with it. Not without incurring the public's wrath.
Columists and talking heads and the Average Joe took to writing articles, letters, opinion pieces and Mayor Bloomberg quickly got the message: his city was pissed. But you know, all the outrage in the world wasn't about to help Officer Delacruz in the eyes of the department. Hell no...they wanted to inflict a bit of that Down Home Insult to Injury: Delacruz got his 30-day suspension without pay, the NYPD cut him off from the press, and they set him up for a departmental trial for insubordination.
Well, the homeless of New York were so moved by this man of compassion and conviction, that they set about organizing a fundraiser among themselves. They wanted Delacruz and his family to have what they themselves wouldn't have: a wonderful Christmas - one with a roof over their heads, and one with gifts under a tree. New York's Most Needy began redeeming bottles and some turned over parts of their welfare checks, and on Christmas Eve they returned the favor - where on the steps of City Hall, they presented Delacruz (through his attorney, Norman Siegel) with three grand, the money he'd have earned from the department had he not been suspended for being such a good man.
Homelessness should not be an invisible crisis. We've a problem and we need to solve it, not hide it. But that's exactly what we are doing at the local and the national scale: we are putting on blinders and pretending not to see. We've an administration in power whose sole purpose is to enhance the riches of the rich, while it summarily goes about slashing programs for the poor and middle class. These are very difficult times made worse by the socially unconscious and powerful.
At Christmas dinner last night, this is the story we focused on. It's one that inspires my family with hope - even as we know that the road ahead for Officer Delacruz may not be smooth: he still faces those charges of deparmental insubordination. But you know, Delacruz did the right thing and I hope his story, and the story of the homeless who appreciate him, inspires your family, too. While our goverment of CEO's is increasingly discovered to be corrupt and ineffective, it is so good to know that the people of this country - the ones who pay the taxes and lose the jobs, and try like hell to find hope in the mess we've been left - those same people are inherently good and generous. Here's hoping that in the New Year, more people - civilians and the uniformed - do as Officer Delacruz did: proudly defy the unholy practices of medieval politics and a public mindset that prefers denial to action.
To that end, get to know some good people with a good cause. Click here and spend some time with the folks over at the National Coalition for the Homeless (NCH). They are out there on the front lines fighting the good fight for housing/economic/health care and civil rights justice. You can help them out by making a donation, or if you're broke in these lean times, how about voting for their cause on the Working Assets 2002 Donations Ballot?
Working Assets is about set to divvy up the donations earned this year between 50 worthy charities, NCH, among them. Be sure to click now, because the deadline of December 31 is fast approaching, people are needy, and as they say, there but for the grace of God, go I.
Note: this has been lightly edited since it was first posted at 5:30'ish this morning.
Email Me | Comments (0) | TrackBackPosted by Lisa English
HYPNOTISM
Happy Holidays.
Years ago, I was a smoker. I used to put away a couple of packs a day, and deep down, I really wanted to quit. I tried all sorts of unsuccessful techniques - even a host of guaranteed solutions by mail order, like the special "breath mints" that when combined with the drag on a cigarette, would violently alter the oral chemistry. Think: rubbing alcohol mixed with spent brake fluid.
Then one day, someone referred me to a hypnotist. It worked for her, she said. I had two sessions with this character. He talked and I listened. Mostly, I wondered what on earth he was up to, and how he could even think of screwing with my mind. The hypnosis didn't do the trick. He said that a small percentage of the population couldn't be hypnotized. Given how this nation has wrapped itself up in tinsel and denial, I can see his point about that larger percentage. Fortunately, not everyone is under the spell...
While driving into work this morning, I found myself at the corner of Cedar and Broadway, waiting for the light to turn green. I had holiday music blasting from the speakers, and out of the corner of my eye, I caught sight of a guy picketing in front of the local supermarket. He was wearing a dark blue coat that on one shoulder bore the emblem of the MTA. Here we had a token clerk, a train conductor, bus driver, or one of the other hardworking types who service New York's Metropolitan Transit Authority, and he was picketing on Christmas Eve. But hadn't the city and union declared a temporary truce last week? Did I miss something?
As I stepped on the gas, he turned to face me, his placard bearing three carefully written words, the trio penned in the largest of blood-red letters, and underlined for emphasis.
War Is Terrorism, it read.
Eggnog and depleted uranium. Christmas carols and bombs. In this Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace, we're either complacent and apathetic, or we've been hypnotized into believing that might is right, and up is down. That, by the way, is the title of a Gore Vidal book - one you should gift yourself this holiday season - one that focuses on US propensity for masterminding military havoc around the world. None of what Vidal talks about is a secret, and yet our leaders have the unmitigated gall to wonder aloud, "why do they hate us?"
In a similar fashion and on this Christmas Eve morning, my son and lots of kids like him, want to know why North Korea is flaunting weapons of mass destruction in the face of this nation? Dare we tell these children that the North Koreans - no paragons of virtue themselves - are plainly suggesting that if we use violence, so will they?
Before I head out the door, I need to finish up a bit of work on this yuletide eve, and then like so many, I'll be running off to pick up last-minute gifts for the kids and friends. Lots of merriment ahead in this blessed season of national hypnotism and US military violence.
To all of you who celebrate, I wish you a joyous and a Merry Christmas - one that I pray is enhanced with intelligence, compassion and discernment.
Email Me | Comments (1) | TrackBackPosted by Lisa English
The Los Angeles Times is reporting this morning, that Don Rumsfeld's Guantanamo concerns haven't been addressed. What was Rumsfeld's beef? Well, the Secretary of Defense noticed that a high number of prisoners were, get this - innocent, and should have long ago been repatriated. That's right - 59 men, which works out to being somewhere in the vicinity of 10% of all those being held - taxi drivers, farmers, folks who by the crossing of stars, and whole lot of bad luck, found themselves holed up in hell for no darn good reason. The interesting thing here is that US military officers agree with Rumsfeld, and have tried like the blazes to get the administration to see the wisdom of releasing the innocents, but apparently, that wouldn't be prudent. Now would it? Here's a snip from Greg Miller's article, Many Held at Guantanamo Not Likely Terrorists, appearing in this morning's paper:
Dozens of the detainees are Afghan and Pakistani nationals described in classified intelligence reports as farmers, taxi drivers, cobblers and laborers. Some were low-level fighters conscripted by the Taliban in the weeks before the collapse of the ruling Afghan regime.
None of the 59 met U.S. screening criteria for determining which prisoners should be sent to Guantanamo Bay, military sources said. But all were transferred anyway, sources said, for reasons that continue to baffle and frustrate intelligence officers nearly a year after the first group of detainees arrived at the facility.
"There are a lot of guilty [people] in there," said one officer, "but there's a lot of farmers in there too."
It's been nine months since Donald Rumsfeld told us, "The first people who were brought down were the hardest of the hard-core....Now it is a mix. They run pretty much across the spectrum.... Some may be transferred to other countries, some may be released, some may be held for the duration, some may be tried in one or more of the various mechanisms that are available."
So, in the course of nearly a year, what exactly has changed? What makes it so darn hard to send the innocent home to their loved ones and neighborhoods? Well, Miller tells us that we're talking about a flawed screening process, and the sense that nobody wants to take a chance that releasing one of these innocents, will bring about the unintentional release of the amorphous 21st hijacker.
This is America Under George Bush - you're guilty, even if you're innocent, because they don't want to take a chance on justice. This is America Under George Bush - where we look forward to having our telephone calls intercepted, our mail rifled through, our Internet communications tapped. Seems to me that if we get so far as to releasing the innocents in Guantanamo, we might want to set aside one of Cheney's Brown-Root cells for some of the guys at 1600; the same ones who are turning the American presidency into a dictatorship. I'd sure as heck vote for that one. And hey, I bet some of our loyal, hardworking and underpaid military folk might feel similarly. Here from the piece is one of their concerns:
The sources' accounts point to a previously undisclosed struggle within the military over the handling of the detainees. Even senior commanders were said to be troubled by the problems.
You betcha. George Bush and his Chickenhawk friends up there in Washington, men (and Condolezza Rice) who've never once faced death in the battlefield eye, are scaring the pants off of the pros:
Maj. Gen. Michael E. Dunlavey, the operational commander at Guantanamo Bay until October, traveled to Afghanistan in the spring to complain that too many "Mickey Mouse" detainees were being sent to the already crowded facility, sources said.
One senior Army officer described Dunlavey's visit as a "fact-finding" mission. But another who met with Dunlavey said the general's purpose was more direct: "He came over to chew us out," the officer said. Dunlavey, an Army reservist, declined to comment.
So, who are among the likely innocents being detained? Check this out:
One prisoner was transferred because he was Arab by birth and had once fought for the Taliban, thereby meeting two key screening criteria. But before the war he had sustained such a massive head injury that he could utter little more than his name and was known by interrogators at Guantanamo Bay as "half-head Bob." ..."He had basically had a combat lobotomy," the interrogator said. "Every [intelligence report] on him from Afghanistan said, 'No value, no value, don't send him.' "
and how's about this other guy who...
"...had the mental capacity to put flatbread in an oven and that was the extent of his intellect," the interrogator said. "He never got trained on a rifle, never got pressed into service. But he was Arab by birth so he was picked up and sent away."
As our civil liberties are being daily hacked away by Aschroftian justice, we need to be very concerned. Not only for ourselves, but for a planet of people who are being summarily pissed off by a Pax Americana policy that leaves them innocent, imprisoned and without recourse.
So, tell me: are we trying to stem the tide of terrorism, or exponentially increase it?
Email Me | Comments (0) | TrackBackPosted by Lisa English
It's become a regular thing to wake each morning, read the newspapers and sit in disbelief. From the administration's In Your Face corporate suck-uppance and domestic attack on civil liberty, to a foreign policy most noted for promoting war and regime change (Iraq and Venezuela being the most recent), you'd think we'd all have gotten used to the Daily Bad News by now. But, you know - these folks really know how to outdo themselves, as evidenced by the latest news that the administration is looking to increase taxes on the poor and middle class - all of course, while lowering taxes on the wealthiest Americans. According to the Washington Post, economists at Treasury are doing some anti-progressive number crunching, trying mighty hard to get poor and working stiffs to do the right thing by their moneyed peers. Their justification is being explained the old fashioned way - with smoke and mirrors. From Jonathan Weisman's New Tax Plan May Bring Shift in Burden:
Answering critics who say the working poor do face high taxes because they pay high Social Security payroll taxes, outgoing White House economic adviser Lawrence B. Lindsey told the AEI tax forum that the 12.4 percent Social Security levy should not be considered when tax burdens are calculated. Lindsey said the Social Security tax is ultimately returned to the taxpayer as a benefit.
Lindsey compared the Social Security tax to a deposit in a neighborhood bank's Christmas Club. In such clubs, periodic deposits are returned in a lump sum during the holiday season, and Lindsey said no one would consider such deposits a tax.
They're up to their old tricks. Yep, the party of Good Old Wealthy White Boys is banking on your being ecstatic over prospects of shouldering more of the rich man's burden. They also want you to catch the vision of Social Security as an investment, as opposed to this trust fund thing - long ago established for your protection. That's right, they're taking your money to fund their wars and line their pockets and then they are paving the way to play with what pennies you have left through the privatization of Social Security, AKA The American Stockbroker's Full-Employment Opportunity Act. Clearly, they haven't learned the lessons of this past year - among them: that the market is a crapshoot, especially when deregulation is the name of the game and corporate malfeasance remains largely unaddressed.
Think about it! They want you to carry more of the federal load, while at the same time, they're promoting (with religious zeal), the cause of diminished government services. Think about it! Exactly what's in that load you're carrying? Why not open that grocery bag of federal purchases and let's take a look? Do you realize that we spend more in Aid to Dependent Corporations than we do in Aid to Dependent Children? Yup, lots of corporate subsidies are in that bag. Corporations, I might add, that lay off American workers and drive their jobs to Third World countries, where salaries are slashed to Nearly Nothing, and employee benefits and worker safety issues aren't a bleep on the corporate radar. We also have in here the looting of the national purse so we can pay for a massive defense, one that does little more than piss off the planet and line the pockets of the military industrial complex. Oh, and What's This? We have the lowest corporate tax rate since the Eisenhower administration, and Lookee Here: we've got ourselves a significant number of major corporations who pay no tax at all! Every bit of this is going on at the same time we're cutting taxes for America's most affluent. Now, you tell me: what's in the bag for you? How's about the privilege of footing their bill? Too poor to cough up? Tough Nuts - they want blood out of the national stone. Think about it! According to Citizens for Tax Justice, this new adventure in Bush tax play works like this:
* People making $1.5 million each—the best-off one percent—will get average tax reductions of $159,501 a year. Their share of total federal taxes will fall to only 15.6 percent, well below their expected share of pretax income that year.
* Meanwhile, the four out of five taxpayers making less than $100,000 will face average annual tax increases of $3,089 each.
You might ask, "What on earth is going on here?" Well, Bob McIntyre, director of Citizens for Tax Justice has an answer for you. He says, "The administration has finally admitted that its maniacal zeal to cut taxes for the very wealthy will have to be paid for by much higher taxes on the vast majority of Americans. Now that the cat's out of the bag, it's time for the public to wake up—before it's too late." He's right.
You know, the media finally got it straight when they eventually jumped on the Trent Lott story last week - a story that is as much about the American media's lackluster performance at informing the public interest, as it is one man's loathsome life of bigotry. Isn't it about time this issue - the royal screwing of America's poor and working class - got the media's attention? If the newspapers and talking heads won't bring it up, don't you think that it's about time that We The People, pushed them to it? Maybe we need to devote as much space and outrage to this story as we did to the one about that bigoted Republican politician?
Ya think?
For more info, high tail it on over to Citizens for Tax Justice and pick up their press release, White House Reveals Nation's Biggest Problem: Rich Not Rich Enough, freshly delivered to the press and public.
One last thing: ignoring this development, while hoping and praying that the Poor and Working Class will be primed to vote Bush out of office come 2004, is a crapshoot we can't afford playing. We need to address this one now.
Note: Be sure to check out Max Sawicky's thoughts on this issue.
Email Me | Comments (0) | TrackBackPosted by Lisa English
The word that comes to mind is hypocrisy. That's it, they're a bunch of whining hypocrites. The "they" I speak of is the American Right - the conservative movement, the party that was selected to assume control of the White House through a series of legal maneuvers and outright theft of vote. I suppose after all of that, the word "hypocrite" is tame stuff, but this is a PG-rated weblog and being a leftist, I'm fairly restricted by civility. Why are they hypocrites? Well, we'd be here all day if I gave you the laundry list, and I really need to get out the door by 6:30 and head off to an early day at work. How's about I just restrict the definition to their latest bout with hypocrisy? We can get to the prior days, and the day before that, and the one that preceded that one, ad nauseam, another time. This time - it had to do with hair. It had to do with their carping and moaning and deriding about a haircut - Senator Bob Kerry, a possible Democratic presidential candidate's....haircut.
No sooner than Kerry (D-MA) indicated he was headed in the direction of a presidential exploratory committee, the right wing machine was all over this one. Oh, yes - they took to the airwaves with all manner of indignation, after having unearthed the Crime of the Costly Coif. I can't help but wonder how much Mellon-Scaiffe, et al spent on private investigators, lawyers and staff spies, to uncover that one. But how much of a crime is a $75 haircut, anyway? I mean, really...and while all of this was going on, where were the Democrats?
While the Right was obsessed with hair styling, let's just say that the American Left had more important things in mind - they weren't getting all thirty shades of Elizabeth Arden Red Door on the country. Instead, and among other things, the lefty leadership was, Thank Goodness, doing what we sent them there to do: lobbying the White House to roll back those hefty bonuses. You know, the pricey "thank you's" that Bush thought to bestow upon his affluent political appointee buddies... just in time for the holiday gift-giving season? The same bonuses which had been rescinded after his father, Tin-Eared George I, smothered HIS friends with government holiday cash, back in the days of "it's the economy, stupid." Today's Bush Gaffe comes at a similarly crappy time - just when the country's economy is in the national toilet. Just when the rest of the country, including its civil servants, have been told to Get Lean, Get Mean, Cause We Gotta Fight That Costly Terrorism Machine. Funny how that same dynamic doesn't extend itself to Bush's wealthy friends, for whom taxpayer-funded generosity knows no bounds.
You've got to hand it to them - the right wing is certainly well-oiled. The Distortion and Lies Department of their able machine always manages to get their message out onto the talking head circuit and into newspaper columns. It's an enviable infrastructure, and their message of the day: Expensive Lefty Haircut Should Put Kabosh on Kerry Campaign, was one of their more classic efforts. They are nothing if not a well-coordinated machine. Apparently, that coordination stylishly extends itself to cashmere coats, $6,000 suits, and other haute couture. From a May 2001 article by Lisa Lenoir of the Chicago Sun Times, now conveniently appearing over at the Oxxford Clothes website (?!?), we learn just why the affluent in America require all these tax breaks and bonuses. For goodness sake, isn't it clear? John and Jane Q. Public need to clothe their greedy backsides in the style they've become accustomed:
President George W. Bush steps into the spotlight looking like a man fresh off the pages of GQ magazine. His black cashmere overcoat delicately drapes his shoulders, the blue stripe tie radiates against his white shirt and the suit perfectly fits his fit form.
snip
Oxxford has dressed some of the most powerful and famous men in the world, in addition to the current president, his father and former Presidents Gerald R. Ford and Lyndon B. Johnson, mob boss Al Capone, Cary Grant and Edward, the Duke of Windsor. Hollywood stars Nicolas Cage in "The Family Man" and Jeff Bridges in "The Contender" were costumed in Oxxford suits.
When brothers Louis and Jacob Weinberg founded the company in 1916, they were determined to make the best suit. They used the finest fabrics and designed only simple, timeless shapes. This guiding principle ensures Oxxford continues to create top-notch garments for a price --$2,000 to $14,000 --that loyal customers are willing to pay. Oxxford produced 25,000 handmade garments and had $30 million in sales last year, according to Roger Parfitt, the company's chief operating officer.
Oxxford's signature details include pockets lined with Belgian linen to prevent sagging and silk thread for enhanced durability .And, of course, only the best gabardine, flannel, silk, tweed and cashmere from European mills are used.
Oxxford understands that custom tailoring is an essential part of customer service. Rocco Giovannangelo, 61, the company's master tailor, flew to Austin for President Bush's fittings. A tailor since he was a 10-year-old in Italy, he knows the importance of being well-dressed. "You can make an impression on society if you decide to dress well," he says.
Maybe that's what they mean when they say that clothes make the man. Do you think that The Promise of America might then be fulfilled if all we working class warriors were similarly suited? Just a thought...because from personal experience, I can sure as shootin' tell you this: the occasional pricey haircut just ain't cuttin' it.
Email Me | Comments (0) | TrackBackPosted by Lisa English
That's a nice little company you've got there, Eli Lilly. Would be such a shame if something happened to it.
It's at times like this when I get to understanding the lure of being part of The Family. I'm speaking of course, about the Tony Soprano made-for-tv-type-family, who when in a pickle, take care of business the old-fashioned way. They wack somebody upside the head, they fit the guy with cement shoes, or maybe, as in the real-life case before us, their types clandestinely wedge a provision limiting pharmaceutical company liability into an Oval Office-rushed bill, and Ba-Da-Bing - problem solved. Now, I don't want to hear any business about ethnic slurs, because I'm not talking ethnicity here. I'm talking about political crime. Fact is, I don't know any Tony Sopranos in the day-to-day, and frankly, I don't care to get involved in that kind of business. But like I said, one can certainly understand the lure of an easy fix - especially after having just read Sheryl Gay Stolberg's piece for the New York Times, A Capitol Hill Mystery: Who Aided Drug Maker? You know, it's a funny damn thing, in a town known for major league egos - where people take credit for breathing - to discover that there's not a single politician out there willing to step forward and claim responsibility for inserting this provision into the Homeland Security bill. I don't know about you, but given how Eli Lilly has maneuvered its way out of liability for the exponential increase in autism, I'm not terribly comfortable that just this past week, the FDA approved Lilly's new drug, atomoxetine HCl, for the treatment of attention deficit disorder in children. Before any doctors set about prescribing this latest wonderdrug (for yet another ailment which has in recent years exploded on the pharmaceutical scene), I'd first like to know who on Capitol Hill values Eli Lilly more than the health of America's kids.
Somewhere out there, somewhere in the halls of Congress, we've got ourselves a Crime Family - a cabal of bad-seed politicians - who have managed with that one little provision - hidden deep within some unrelated Oval Office legislation - to knock out those American families who were suing the pants off of Eli Lilly, the manufacturer of thimerosal, a vaccine additive likely to have caused autism in their young children. What's that you say? You think this story will be swept under the rug because the Republicans are in power? Ordinarily, I'd agree with you, but dig this reality: the increased incidence of autism in American children is not limited to Democrats and their families. From Stolberg's article, meet a pair of devoted Republicans - Joseph and Theresa Counter of Plano, Texas.
The Counters' 6-year-old son, Joseph Alexander, was normal and healthy until he was 2, they say. Then he took an unexplained downward slide. Today, the boy struggles with words. He cannot zip his pants, snap buttons or tie his shoes. His parents say tests eventually showed that he had mercury poisoning, which they attribute to vaccines. They sued last year.
"I know that our legislative system can be very, very messy at times," said Mr. Counter, a political consultant, who with his wife has spent many thousands of dollars on medical care and therapy for their son. "But for them to attempt this, in the dead of night? It disgusts me. This morning, I am ashamed to be a Republican."
So, whodunnit? Which politician sold his/her soul to save the corporate backside of Eli Lilly, the largest producer of mercury-laden thimerosal - the preservative added to that Measles Mumps Rubella (MMR) shot that your kid, or grandkid, or nephew, niece or friend got injected under his/her skin. The same shots that Federal law requires schools demand of every child wishing admittance to class. Remember, mercury is poisonous - it can kill and when it doesn't kill, it can cause serious neurological damage. So again I ask, "which politicians are Eli Lilly's whores?" I want names. Don't you?
With lawmakers now scattered across the country, Washington is rife with speculation about who is responsible for aiding Lilly, a major Republican donor. During the 2002 election cycle, the company gave more money to political candidates, $1.6 million, than any other pharmaceutical company, with 79 percent of it going to Republicans, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonprofit research group that monitors campaign finances.
Critics of the provision, mainly Democrats and trial lawyers, are quick to point out that the White House has close ties to Lilly. The first president Bush sat on the Lilly board in the late 1970's. The White House budget director, Mitchell E. Daniels Jr., is a former Lilly executive. The company's chairman and chief executive, Sidney Taurel, was appointed in June by President Bush to serve on a presidential council that will advise Mr. Bush on domestic security.
A political crime has been perpetrated upon the children of this country, and we deserve to know whodunnit. To learn more about this issue, pick up the remainder of Stolberg's piece by clicking here, but for goodness sake, don't stop there. Take a few moments, take these steps, and be the activist you know in your heart you are....
1. Do as Brief Intelligence suggests and Boycott Eli Lilly! If you are in need of an Eli Lilly medication which can be safely substituted with another manufacturer's product, get your physician to do it. Brief Intelligence has pulled together an informative piece on Eli Lilly's influence peddling. Check out her facts and figures.
2. Contact Eli Lilly and tell them how much you want to see these lawsuits move forward. Your message needn't be long. A three sentence message is better than no message at all.
3. Beginning Monday, December 2, telephone the toll-free congressional switchboard at 1-800-839-5276 and contact your Senators and Representatives. If you don't know their names, just ask the operator to assist you. Once you've someone from your legislator's office on the telephone, tell them what you think about politicians who defend corporate interests at the expense of American families and kids. Demand that your representatives loudly support legislation repealing the entire Homeland Security bill, or failing that, supporting legislation to repeal this provision. We want these lawsuits to move forward.
The next two years are going to be chock full of legislation aimed at appeasing the corporate special interests. While it is understandably tempting to sit back and simply wait for the misery of this Republican-Big Business Administration to end, we don't have the luxury of complacency. It's really not a tough one to figure out, folks...those among us who choose to be complacent, will also be complicit. Get on the stick. Make those calls and write those letters/emails.
A Related Link To Bookmark: Public Campaign - Clean Money, Clean Elections. Let's get Big Business - companies like Eli Lilly - out of the business of government.
Email Me | Comments (0)Posted by Lisa English
"If we bring it up, we're accused of paranoia," my friend tells me. "Really," I say, "Is it still paranoia if people truly are out to get you?" He laughs his hearty laugh and we get on to finishing our coffee in mostly silence - one punctuated periodically with reports of his daughter's first semester in college. We'd been talking about Marc Ash's commentary, Terror on the Hill, appearing in the most recent online edition of Truthout. Read it and then tell me - honestly - that you've not thought these thoughts.
I'll be 46 years old later this week and as birthdays are prone to do, I'll be reminded of the good, the bad, the hilarious, the heart-wrenching and some strange and haunting episodes - like the time in second grade at Holy Cross School in Brooklyn, NY when in preparation for my First Holy Communion, I was told that I'd be kneeling before a priest to unload all of my seven-year old sins. Honest to God, I couldn't think of a damn one, but I was told to Think Harder. You know, I could have sat there all day...all weekend in fact, and sin would not have materialized simply by virtue of my having thought harder. But even at age seven, I was sharp enough to realize that grownups sometimes prefer lies to truth. So, I made some sins up. I mean...you gotta do what you gotta do. "Bless me Father for I have sinned, " I lied, "this is my first confession." I paused and then took one of my earliest stabs at creative writing, "I have talked back to my parents and I've wet my bed." This memory jogs an earlier one...from around that time and place - a classroom filled with those same second graders, all perfectly uniformed and studiously and silently completing a purple inked ditto sheet, the precursor to photocopies. Our assignment had been to draw lines from cartooned drawings of animals and things to their textual descriptions: lion, bear, desk, etc. I remember the fragrant smell of the ditto - a generational memory - one the Gen-Xeroxers can't relate to. It's a clear recollection - deeply impressed into my brain, as if it had happened yesterday. The teacher told us all to put our heads on the desk, and within that close proximity, our senses became intimately familiar with the sweet floral smell of that paper. You do what you're told, and so we did as she said, and then the radio went on and we heard that our president, John F. Kennedy had been shot. We sat that way for an hour, at least - in total silence. Tears and teachers - coming and going - and a roomful of uniformed kids with their cheeks glued to dittos for seemingly ever. We were told everything was OK. We shouldn't worry. We just needed to stay still, stay silent, and all would be alright. I'll be 46 years old later this week. I'm still being told everything is OK, I'm still told to be silent.
Popular left-leaning politicians don't have very long life-spans in this country. They are taken from us early through assassination and accident. Were I a popular lefty pol and running in a tight and important race against some handpicked Bush type, like Coleman in the case of Wellstone, or Ashcroft in the case of Carnahan two years earlier...well, I'd think about taking out some major league life insurance policy to benefit my survivors. The odds just aren't real kind to lefties in those situations. Right wing types somehow manage to avoid the tragedies which fall disproportionately to the left.
I've so many questions about so many issues. They all seem to segue into one big interrogatory after awhile. Where is the Wellstone NTSB report? Where is the black box? Where is the investigation? Those questions blend into other cases: Why do we permit elections to be stolen in this country and not make a peep? Why won't Cheney turn over the energy documents? Why are the families of 911 being fobbed off, and an investigation into the circumstances surrounding that national tragedy falling by the wayside? Why are we embarked on a never ending war to seize someone else's resources? Why are we inspiring terrorism? One could make a frustrated career out of posing the many unanswered questions, yet when the government wants answers to their inquiries, they simply clamp down on civil liberties, shut the valve on Freedom of Information, lock 'em up, throw away the key, and contemplate military tribunal. If only the people had the same leverage with our politicians.
The good sisters at Holy Cross would tell me that all is ok, that I shouldn't worry, that I just need to sit tight and all will be alright. I didn't buy that story when I was seven...I'm sure as hell not swallowing it at 46.
Email Me | Comments (0) | TrackBackPosted by Lisa English
Not In Our Name (NION), and ANSWER, the anti-war umbrella groups, responsible for coordinating peace protests throughout the United States have come under criticism for the communist roots of its organizers. There is a growing debate among liberals about the strategic smarts of aligning with this leadership when our goal is the development of a broad-based, mainstream coalition of sympathizers. Over at StandDown, the NoWar Blog, Bob Morris of Politics in the Zeros, has a post in support of NION. I recommend you check it out. Here's a snippet from his piece, in which he writes:
This is no big deal for a number of reasons.
1) Both organizations have gotten way way larger than their initial founding. Check their websites, they have endorsements from multitudes of groups.
2) As mentioned, these are umbrella groups, and volunteers from many other groups are helping organize also. I helped organize the Oct 6 NION protest, and lemme tell ya, it took hundreds of people to pull this off. Most of whom don't even know or care who RCP is.
3) The groups do not appear to be pushing any particular agenda except opposition to the war. Indeed, it would be dumb for them to do so, as this would drive people away.
Click here for the remainder of his thoughts.
Morris offers reasonable argument why we needn't worry about those "commies" leading the anti-war movement. He makes some great points, and were this a perfect world, I'd agree, but ours is not perfect, and with an American conservative movement salivating for lurid liberal detail, I think we've every reason to pause.
Bill Scher, the political strategist and founder of Liberal Oasis, speaks to this very concern in the most recent issue of the online Intervention Magazine. Scher calls for a "smart peace movement" and he talks about a growing reticence about Not in Our Name (NION), even on the part of the more leftist among us. He quotes Todd Gitlin, co-founder of the 1960's lefty group, Students for a Democratic Society (hardly a DLC-type troupe) as describing NION as, "self-proclaimed anti-imperialists who seem to have little to no interest in the security of Americans or the world.” Here's a clip from Scher's piece:
Critical liberals are aching for, in Cooper's words, a “smart peace movement” -- one that can appeal to the broader public, not just the ideologically extreme; one that recognizes that a nuclear Iraq is a real concern and puts forth practical solutions to prevent that from happening; one that wouldn't put Ramsey Clark and other leftists with baggage, such as Cynthia McKinney and Al Sharpton, in front of a microphone.
Liberals are certainly correct in believing a movement too closely identified with anti-American socialism, or even pro-American liberalism, is inherently and unnecessarily limiting.
Consider that 57 percent of Americans are either flatly opposed to war with Iraq (34 percent) or opposed to war without support from our major allies (23 percent), according to a recent Pew Research Center survey. Yet only 19 percent of Americans identify themselves as liberals (a figure that has been steady since 1968, according to Harris Interactive). It is safe to assume that the percentage of self-identified socialists is negligible.
For a movement seeking to expand the parameters of participation, I think this is a salient point. You know, liberals often times get flack for investing too much in the way of self-examination. Sometimes, the criticism is well deserved. But in this case, I think we do need some introspective in discerning the specific goals of this anti-war movement, and in assessing our weaknesses. While I in no way condone the avoidance of NION - I happen to support the group and think the diversity of viewpoint against first strike attack against Iraq, is vital - From a strategic standpoint, I do think we've reason for legitimate concern, and I am confident the American right wing would agree with me.
Check out the rest of Bill Scher's piece by clicking right about here.
Don't forget to bookmark StandDown, the NoWar blog as a favorite. There's lots of diversity of viewpoint over there, which makes for thoughtful discussion. Please visit - your contributions and comment are welcome.
Notes:
Bill Scher writes to clarify, "...my piece didn't get into Not In Our Name, but instead was focused on A.N.S.W.E.R. I don't know enough yet about NION to criticize, quite frankly."
Posted by Lisa English
The Republicans invested tremendous effort in getting out the vote during the last month leading up to the fall midterms. In the past, their strategies for Election Day vote-getting fairly well surrounded sitting back, smoking a cigar, and letting the telemarketing people make the phone calls. This election was important to them and they pulled out all the stops. They got their feet onto the pavement...they walked door to door, they registered voters and then they made sure those voters got out to cast ballots. They ran hard races, coast-to-coast, and fascinatingly enough, came up against little resistance. With some exception, including the State of Florida where over 90,000 voters still erroneously remain off the voting rolls, conveniently until after Election Day, the GOP deserve their wins. The American people are the losers.
I wonder, what's to come of the Democratic Party in this country? Some might say that the Dems ran hard - that I'm being unfair to the Left. "After all," they'd say, "the races were close," as if that's an indicator of lefty effort. You know, there's zero reason the conservatives should be celebrating victory this morning. The country is in shambles, we're worse off than we were two years ago, we've launched Perpetual War across the globe in a brazen attempt to snatch somebody else's resources and pump up profits for the President's Favorite Biz Sectors: defense and energy. The GOP won, because the American Left was unable to coalesce and distinguish itself from the Right. They tried to Out-Republican the Republicans. I blame it on the Fear Factor...the Left has become so petrified of telling it like it is, that they're rendered neutered and silenced by the opposition. There's a message here and I hope Terry McAuliffe is listening: the Democratic Party had best regain its sense of purpose, or it will become a relic of politics past, and deservedly so. The Dems blew it...bigtime.
Starting here and starting now, we need a movement planted - one which will germinate and grow for the working people of this nation, the people who have been routinely screwed by the pimps of Big Business and their whored politicians on the Right and yes, even on the Left. We need a movement of public servants who set out to do the Business of the People and not the biz of big business. But it's a hard go when you can't get your foot in the door of DC politics without scads of Influence Peddling Cash in hand. But wait, there might actually be a ray of hope out there...
McCain and Feingold have returned to the legislature with new ways to improve on campaign finance reform. The main piece of legislation, which passed in January of this year goes into effect today, but there's still much to be done. The idea behind this latest step in the right direction is that candidates should be able to take advantage of OUR AIRWAVES...the people's airwaves, with free public service airtime afforded them by the broadcast networks during campaigns. The media doesn't like this one bit...they've gotten used to ripping us off and laughing on the sidelines at our national apathy. Fact is, American broadcasters are apoplectic at the very notion of providing free airtime. But, you know...Tough Nuts!! It's the staggeringly high cost of political advertising that is turning our elected officials into political prostitutes. American advertising and media are ripping us off and making a joke out of democracy. With this proposed legislation, average people, people who are not hooked up intraveneously to special interests, will be able to run for office, get their message out, and dig this: they'll have a chance at winning elections. The alternative means that only the wealthy and the sell-outs will continue to be elected and permitted to promote their agenda - agendas which have nothing whatsoever to do with the people's agenda.
How bad is it now? Well, last night, C-SPAN reported that Jeb Bush spent THIRTY-SEVEN MILLION DOLLARS for another term as Florida Governor. That's one hell of a big number, especially when you figure that one in five American children live in poverty; that millions of Americans are existing without health care, without job security, and glancing bleary-eyed toward a future without retirement. Most Americans will work until their dying day and have little in the way of cushion. There's something wrong with this picture. We need to implement some serious change in this country, but where do we go when most of the public servants are now gone from politics...Wellstone was one of the last of the People's Servants. Most folks who think of politics as a ministry are gone from the Hill because they can't afford to serve us anymore. Not when they're up against money machines like the one providing life support for folks like Jeb Bush. We need to get the public servants back...
The Alliance for Better Campaigns seeks to develop a new atmosphere, one to which public servants will be inspired to return. But with a Republican controlled Congress, I'm not so certain this kind of thoughtful legislation will be eagerly embraced. The Powers That Be have a vested interest in rendering true public servants politically impotent. That's why we need to make one helluva stink so that they can't ignore our message.
Check out the Alliance, aka Free Airtime, and how's about we figure that this day...right now...marks the beginning of our war? The one where we commit to doing everything in our power to take back the White House and Congress come 2004. The one where we make a promise to behave as Liberals, distinguishing ourselves from the Republicans, instead of modeling ourselves after them. I hope the American Left, in the form of the Democratic Party is ready for us. If they're not...they'd best get their collective ass out of our way.
PS. Wondering who is involved with Alliance? Count on Jimmy Carter, McCain, Feingold and a whole host of good people. THIS is the next big issue. Let's get crackin'...
Email Me | Comments (0) | TrackBackPosted by Lisa English
The Theology of Peace
This entry was cross-posted at Stand Down, the bi-partisan no-war blog. I encourage you to drop on over, read the diverse perspectives, and join us in contribution and/or comment.
A common ground for Americans choosing to protest war as a first option against Iraq, can be found in local churches, synagogues, mosques, etc. Diverse voices in the fold of mainstream religion have over the course of the past couple months, announced opposition to preemptive military action and have rallied to offer support for followers who are of like mind. Given the Bush administration’s close ties to members of the "religious right," opposition from the spiritual community may come as a surprise - but it shouldn't. Most of the folk who are so keenly aligned with the Oval Office on the issue of promoting holy war, represent the fringe of American organized religion – the fundamentalists and extremists. Those with more moderate views will find within the community of mainstream faith a wealth of opportunity for voicing opposition to war, as well as support for a renewal of arms inspections. To that end, here are some people and places you might want to check out...
Sojourners is a Christian ministry whose mission involves the integration of spiritual renewal and social justice. In the current issue of their Sojourners Magazine, you’ll find articles on nuclear disarmament, as well as Jim Wallis’ piece, Hearts & Minds: Disarm Iraq…Without War. Now, there's an interesting concept worth looking into. Wallis, a pastor, activist and founder of Sojourners, also lasers in on the link between war and poverty. Be sure to check out their resource center for additional activist links.
The Yiddish word “tikkun” means “to mend, repair and transform the world.” This simple concept defines the mission of the Tikkun Community, begun in 1985. Its magazine of the same name provides a space for Jews who seek to renew their faith, as well as a home for both Jews and non-Jews alike, to “shape a politics out of spiritual values.” In the current issue of Tikkun, founder Rabbi Michael Lerner makes the case against war.
The Muslim Peace Fellowship has published a series of talking points which support their Campaign of Conscience against a war on Iraq. Visit their site for additional writings, resources and activist links.
The American Friend’s Service Committee (AFSC) is a Quaker organization which was founded in 1917 during World War I as a support network for conscientious objectors who wanted to provide aid to victims of war. AFSC brings together people of diverse faiths who are committed to the causes of social justice, peace, and humanitarian service. AFSC’s Ten Reasons to Oppose the War With Iraq is a must read, as are their ideas for common sense activism.
Father John Dear is a Jesuit priest, an author, and an activist in the tradition of Thomas Merton. Check out his speech, delivered on October 26 to a group of anti-war activists in front of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld's Taos, NM home. Peruse Dear's site for writings, inspiration and a calendar of upcoming events.
Responding to the Threat of War, is the published pastoral letter of President William Sinkford, leader of the Unitarian Universalist Association, which calls for alternatives to preemptive attack. Visit UUA for a wealth of resource links to many faiths and activist groups, which stand similarly opposed to war as a first option.
While this collection of links and articles barely touches the surface of religious dissent on the issue of Iraq, it does offer a starting point for those interested in exploring this angle of opposition. The important message here is that the diverse community of mainstream faith stands largely opposed to a first strike doctrine against Iraq, and promotes instead diplomacy and disarmament as solution. This is hardly the message we're hearing from the warmongering religious zealots out of or aligned with the Oval Office.
Care to express a different message from the extremists? How about one held by the majority of mainstream Americans? If you are so inclined and of a spiritual bent, you might wish to voice opposition by signing your name to this: the Disarm Iraq Without War Statement which tells Bush, Blair and U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan that war with Iraq would be illegal, unwise, and immoral. The document stresses the importance of disarmament and is signed by leaders in American and British churches, theological seminaries, as well as faith-based organizations like Habitat for Humanity - mainstream organizations, all.
Email Me | Comments (0) | TrackBackPosted by Lisa English
Blame That Messenger
“...the widest possible dissemination of information from diverse and antagonistic sources is essential to the welfare of the public.” ~ SCOTUS, 1945, Associated Press v the US
The other day, a friend of mine emailed me his thoughts on the headlines which make for American daily priorities. "So I'm looking at my handy snapshot of the news on Netscape's homepage," he says. "There's a murder-suicide mom, there's a woman crushed by an obese guy on a plane, there's a sniper update...lots of entertainment news... there's nothing about Saddam." My friend goes on to tell me that he then got curious. He began thinking about a story he'd recently read, so he clicked on over to Information Please, a website he figures "as good a source as any." My friend, a Phd who has made his living in the entertainment industry, has in recent years developed an avocation for helping teenagers cope with the problems life inevitably throws. He's good at it, and everyone around him knows that it's his "calling." So, it wasn't much of a surprise to discover the topic he'd been curious about. "Here's what I learned," he said, "Since 1981, 20% of American children live below the poverty level. That's one child out of every five! That's 21 years - ever since the beginning of the Reagan Revolution!"
My friend had stumbled upon a stunning statistic which we don't hear much about on the evening news. One might then wonder, as do I, and as does he, "Why can't we, as a nation, keep our eyes on this bit of information? Shouldn't we consider this every day? We're starving our own future to fund the present," he says, and it's not even a "present" in which all of us can share and participate in...it's a present which offers benefit to the very few. "Is it too depressing [for us to examine]?" he asks, "too inconvenient?"
His words got me thinking - first about the high rate of child poverty in this, the world's richest nation - a nation which has no trouble spending billions on armament destined for another people's destruction, and which lays out more in corporate subsidies annually than we do on Aid to Dependent Children. He got me to thinking about our apathy as people and how it is that we so cavalierly permit this injustice to continue. Call me an idealist, but I do believe in the inherent goodness of man, and I believe that when the people of this country are given the facts, you can bank on our making the right decision - decisions in this case, which would lead to a reordering of priorities. But you know, all the best of intentions have nowhere to go, if they've no beginning. The American media has the power to suppress or highlight issues in the public interest. The American media needs to take some responsibility for our disordered sense of priority, and by extension...for those one in five kids living in poverty.
Have you ever heard the expression, "don't shoot me, I'm just the messenger?" Oh, it's classic line, and one heard alot among people who carve out a living in journalism. For a long time, in a different America, I bought into the mantra, too. But nowadays, I've changed my tune. When the messenger neglects to pass on the important messages, I think we've got every right to assign blame. We in America are not hearing the important stories from our corporate press. For the most part, we are being fed a pabulum of consumeristic drivel, sensationist spin and conservative rant. And you know...just like I told my friend - if we don't focus on this issue, it's likely to get worse before it gets better.
You might look at all this as some kind of real radical think. You might then ask, "if it's not news they're giving us...what the hell is it?" Well, I and a lot of folks - people who are inveterate media watchers - have come to believe that what the big players in American media call "news" is for the most part, little more than "filler" for advertising. Bottom line: our beloved media is reneging on its responsibility to provide us with more than a passing program in the "public interest." Stories like the one my friend brings up - those 20% of American children, who live in poverty - those stories don't see much of the light of day - they're not sexy enough - they don't sell enough widgets and laundry soap - they run counter to the corporate ideology. But make no mistake about it, these are the important stories.
The folks who control American media number only a handful and they are the most powerful lobby in Washington. That's right, we're talking about a small conference table of voices which determines the informational content of our airwaves and our print. In a nutshell, these are the same characters who are limiting American public debate by virtue of their monopoly of the media microphone. As the New York Times admitted in an editorial on media reform they ran earlier this year, it is a mighty difficult thing for this industry to frame a debate about itself. But debate this issue we must.
What's to debate? Well, think about this...think about the power of the press and consider for a moment the simple practice of political endorsements. When all of the market, owned by one company endorses one candidate...one candidate who likely carries their water - is this an example of democracy in action? Of course not, but that's what's to come if Michael Powell, head of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has his way.
The FCC has been lobbied hard by the media conglomerates who want to break up anti-trust law which now prevents them from consuming local markets. If you want to see what the future for print and television looks like under their media wet dream, just turn on the radio. Since radio was deregulated at the beck and call of corporate America, you have to do some serious hunting to find yourself one of those rare birds: a progressively slanted AM talk program. And I'm not talking about radical leftism...I'm talking about mainstream liberal talk radio. You think I'm kidding? Ponder this: in the last presidential election, far more than half of the voting population opted for left-of-center candidates in Gore and Nader. Yet, when you turn on AM talk radio, you'd think the entire country were praying to the gods of conservatism. Diversity of view is absent in radio broadcasting. Corporate radio equals conservative radio. THIS is the end result of media deregulation and this is what Powell and the megamedia corps are shooting for. Some democracy, eh? The problem is daunting but it's one which can be solved.
Get familiar with the growing movement of media reform and with people, like Robert McChesney who have made a career out of bringing this issue to light. With media reform, issues like Social Security, education, campaign finance, enforceable accounting reform, affordable health care/prescription drugs, etc. would stand a chance of being really hashed out, not merely skimmed over. Without reform, we're talking about one in five kids who reside in the richest nation on the face of the planet living in poverty - all because the messenger chose not to deliver that message. For additional info, visit the Media Reform Information Center by clicking here.
Email Me | Comments (0) | TrackBackPosted by Lisa English
Intervention
I've a friend who tells me that her husband is an alcoholic. Nice guy when he's sober, but the wrath of a zillion demon emerged when each time he kicked back with a few martinis. "It's the gin," he used to say. "I just can't tolerate gin." I use the past tense here, because my friend's husband doesn't drink booze anymore - not since putting his fist through plate glass, after having missed his wife's teeth by a few drunken imperial inches. I'm told that in the end, his family stopped buying the excuse that it was "the gin," recognized it was alcoholism, and with the help of friends and professionals, took the extraordinary step of pulling off something known as an "intervention." It took the shock of confrontation to shake him from the grip of booze. I wasn't there because I'm not part of their "inner circle" but I learned about this story after hearing of another, seemingly unrelated one. You see, this gal brought my attention to an article appearing in the New York Times about the CIA coming forward to say that contrary to administration spin, Iraq presents no clear and present danger. My friend thinks that that the agency is performing an intervention for the people of this country.
In recent weeks, we've learned that Bush has been relying on intelligence gathered, not from federal agencies or international allies, but from private Republican think-tanks - houses of policy-making where ideologue pundits and chickenhawks - like William Kristol, Charles Krauthammer and William Bennett - toil away their time, crafting blueprints for war-mad administration officials. Today's drive to attack the people and nation of Iraq comes from such partisans, who are pushing the White House to fullfill their frightening aspirations of global domination. In the background, toils the American defense and intelligence community - wondering when the destructive behavior will stop, when the administration will take hold of its senses and begin to steer a course of sobriety, one not intoxicated by overdoses of power and grandeur, over fantasies of oil and death.
Earlier this week, small voices in the American and international media felt empowered enough to print stories about the Central Intelligence Agency's differences with the White House. According to George Tenet, director of the agency, Iraq poses no immediate danger, but intelligence suggests that were we to launch an uprecedented first strike upon that nation, Saddam Hussein would then unleash a defensive response which would likely include conventional terrorism or perhaps biological weapons. Makes sense, doesn't it? When attacked, one fights back? But the bottom line remains: we've no reason to fear imminent danger from Iraq, a nation we've significantly weakened after 10 years of wretchedly painful sanctions and regular bombing campaigns.
The lies and deceptions coming out of the Oval Office are only matched for hubris by their counterparts on the Hill...Republicans and Democrats who, like roaches from fluorescence are scurrying away as fast as they can from common sense. Their goal is mid-term election and if agreeing with Bush's madness will leave them stain-free and re-elected, what's a couple hundred thousand innocent Iraqi deaths and the demise of American foreign policy? Bush's goal is global corporate domination and assumption of the region's resources. It all boils down to addictive power, now...doesn't it?
We here in America are witnessing our own family crisis featuring an administration-led walk to global animous, while on the homefront, we're falling apart: diminished civil liberties, loss of jobs, economic devastation, corporate crime, skyrocketing health care costs. We've seen our parents and grandparents wiped out or nearly wiped out from accounting scandals. You know what? I think my friend is right. America is in need of "an intervention." When our government, like an alcholic, has taken to global bar brawls and has left us...the national children, neglected, it's time to confront the derelict and say, "Enough with the weapons of mass distraction!"
If you're like me and have no interest in being further abused by this government and want to put an end to enabling the addiction of administration officials and their think-tank friends, write letters and telephone the media and your representatives. It will take the intervention of folks like you and I, to put an end to this destructive behavior.
In our case, and unlike my friend's husband, it's not the gin that's doing us in - it's the oil.
Email Me | Comments (0) | TrackBackPosted by Lisa English
Paging Mr. Gephardt to the American Empire...
So, the House is all in favor of the administration's goal of American Empire? It's a sad thing these folks have their eyes glued shut and can't see the danger they're exposing us and the world to. Once America institutes a preemptive attack on Iraq, every other pissed off nation on the planet will use that same excuse to vaporize their opponent. Think about Israel, Palestine, India, Pakistan, Russia, Chechnya, South Korea, North Korea, etc. etc. etc. George Bush's wet dream of Pax Americana is a global nightmare - one we can thank Republicans and weak-willed politicans like Dick Gephardt for.
You think someone might run a message up to Gephardt, that Newly Appointed Conservative? I'd like him put on notice that those presidential aspirations of his can now be directed into the round file. I don't know about you folks, but I'm getting mighty frosted over these schizophrenic DLC semi-Dems who walk like conservatives, talk like conservatives, but still tune in to NPR now and again. Frankly, it's no wonder Ralph Nader gets the attention he does. Me thinks that political sellouts like Mr. Gephardt and his buddy, Mr. Lieberman are far more dangerous to the party's future than Nader could ever hope to be. But I digress...
There's only one reason any elected official - Rep, Dem, Green, Indy, Whatever - would give this president or any other president, free reign to institute Pax Americana and launch a preemptive attack at whim and without evidence - and that is fear...fear of being labeled unpatriotic. Doesn't equate, does it? Well, I never claimed that the US House of Representatives was a sharp or discerning lot. Fear and one-dimensional thinking is the calling card of the Republicans Without Question and their counterparts, the DLC. Americans should be outraged with these politically petrified types and their non-existent analytical skills. Thanks to these folk - the political and spineless, we are witnessing the coronation of the American Imperial Presidency, and while I'm not a betting woman, I'd wager my paycheck that this development will bring us nothing but national and global grief.
Now might be a good time to shoot a fax off to our representatives in the Senate, reminding them not to do as their colleagues in the House have done: politicize the lives of our working class warriors (Army, Air Force, Marines...) for their very own election day gain. Their short-sighted and selfish positions may get them reelected but American Empire and the havoc that is likely to inspire, may ultimately make that a moot point.
Email Me | Comments (0) | TrackBackPosted by Lisa English
Are You a Woman or Do You Love a Woman? If so, read on...
They tell me that October is Breast Cancer Awareness Month. I don't know where these folks live, but in my corner of the world, breast cancer gets the full-calendar, 12 Month A Year kind of attention. There are so many women in my constellation of friends and acquaintances who have been touched by this disease, that it's become as familiar to me as the common cold. Were only the path of breast cancer as easy to travel.
Until 13 years ago, I'd never known anyone to develop cancer in her mammaries. Back then and outside of the erotic and push-up, I didn't give much thought to my tits. And then I learned about Cathy, my neighbor's daughter: a 30-something beauty who having survived the disease, was at the time I met her, in the throws of a heartbreaking divorce. A nice guy, but he had this really tough time dealing with her disfigurement and all of that chemotherapy business. Whatta guy, huh? With the help of good reconstructive surgery, a supportive family, some counseling, and I gather a prescription for Zoloft, she was back in fine fettle some two years later - just in time to help her older sister come to terms with her diagnosis. Nowadays, we all know women like these gals. Stories like theirs cause us to look at our breasts in a different way. They've become sort of like our personal pair of armed devices, set to go off at any time. It's no wonder that the women I know - Republican, Democrat, Green or Purple - all have an innate calling for nuclear disarmament. We live with that kind of fear every day.
A couple of years after losing the left and the right one, respectively, both women were back under the knife at Sloan-Kettering, each having her remaining breast removed, because it too had been found cancerous. The cycle began anew - loss of job, depression, recovery, reconstructive surgery, and recovery again. If it doesn't kill you, breast cancer will certainly test your mettle.
Another friend, who happens also to be my brave and wonderful boss, knows all about that fear. Susan had her left breast removed some 15 years ago. She relives the pain, and comes face to face with her mortality when each year her annual mammography returns inconclusive results. Thus begin her annual cold sweats - the ones that precede the pushing, the prodding, the exploratory procedures - the ones which thankfully, have for 14 years returned with good news: the lumps they discovered were merely cysts.
To my knowledge, the Breast Cancer Survivor's Club has never been incorporated, but its roster of members is impressive and long. Susan is joined on that list by young and old, by the celebrated and the not-so-well-known, like those two young mothers who live nearby. Last year, both of them discovered their own lumps during breast self-examination and soon began their own course of discovery, anger, acceptance, surgery, treatment and recovery. Fortunately, their husbands and children remained steadfast and supportive.
Breast cancer exacts a great price from the lives it touches. Right now, there is no cure for the disease but research continues through such organizations as The Breast Cancer Research Foundation, founded by cosmetics icon, Evelyn Lauder. Fact is, that until there comes a cure, the best defense we've got is regular breast cancer screening. Breast self-examination is encouraged for all women, but according to the Associated Press, without medical screening, the do-it-yourself method is not likely to save your life. This is not good news for the millions of Americans who are without health coverage in these days of tax break bonanzas for the wealthiest among us, and a manufactured war which benefits the military industrial complex and energy interests. If you don't mind my saying so...our priorities as a nation are screwed up.
If you are a woman, or you are someone who loves women, please make sure you know the signs to look for, but most of all...get on into that doctor's office for a breast exam. For more information on breast cancer - information which may help to save yours, or the life of a woman you love, click here.
Email Me | Comments (0) | TrackBackPosted by Lisa English
More Stain-Fighting Power: the marketing of war
It's still early on the East Coast. I'm nursing a cup of hot chai tea. It's good stuff, and if you're into tea, you might want to check it out. Chai is a black tea laced with spices like cinnamon, orange peel and cardamom, and it speaks of crisp autumn days and falling leaves and all that good stuff. While nursing this cup of goodness, I've gotten to wondering what reason du jour for unprecedented aggressive US action, the Oval Office will spin today. It's becoming a daily fix...betting on the boys at 1600.
First, they said Iraq was responsible for 9/11; that Baghdad had harbored and financed al Qaeda. When proven wrong, they danced around a whole lot until coming up with the Weapons of Mass Destruction Argument. Then, just in case there were some folk who didn't catch the first round of poli-fecal matter, they reprised the al Qaeda argument. When that one failed to mobilize the troops, Bush appealed to the heart of every US son and daughter: American lives and treasure are to be sacrificed because Saddam had tried some umpty-ump years back to kill his Daddy. You know, I have an easier time getting the straight homework scoop out of my middle-schooler.
There's a pattern here with George Bush and his Cabal of Corporate Whiners. When they can't sell their "product," they just go out and market that sucker in a different way. You know, they throw on a bright yellow, star-shaped sticker that screams "new & improved" or "more stain-fighting power," and the expectation is that we, the consumer will scarf up the remarketed retread. That's how it's worked on Madison Avenue for years.
But American consumers have become a more suspicious lot, and so the "new sticker" trick is not quite as effective a marketing ploy as it used to be. Nowadays, corporations - like the Bush presidency, for instance - bolster that kind of advertising with public relations, where stickers and songs are replaced with the testimony of liars and incompetents. I'm specifically thinking of the administration's recent embrace of the Iraqi National Congress, that consortium of ex pat bankers who have zip for brains, but whom the US is grooming to take over Saddam's place. This group would of course, be amenable to US Rule by Proxy, and that's really what the deal is here.
According to this morning's New York Times, a group of American congressmen who traveled to Baghdad in hopes of securing a more peacable means to an end, say that the Iraqi's are willing to give "unrestricted, unfettered'' access but they want "their sovereignty respected.'' One of the congressmen, Rep. Jim McDermott (WA-D), believes the administration would go so far as to rebuff this gesture and instead deceive the American people to achieve its aims. You can be certain the White House will pull out the tattered American flags and pseudo-patriotism to counter that one. It wouldn't be the first time we were deceived. After all, despite spin to the contrary, it was not Iraq which pulled out of weapons inspections last time...it was the United Nations Special Commission known as UNSCOM which left, only after learning US bombs were to be dropped. Today, we have Iraq offering us access - any time of the day or night - and one would reasonably think that US leadership, ostensibly aiming to quell tensions and promote democracy in that region of the world, would embrace this diplomatic offering. But one would be wrong, because diplomacy and democratization of regional politics is not what George Bush seeks. This administration of men (and Condoleezza Rice), who've made their fortunes off of energy and defense portfolios, want war and regime change and puppet governments, and they want someone else's oil.
I'm not sure there's a bright yellow sticker big enough to hide that product.
Email Me | Comments (0) | TrackBackPosted by Lisa English
The Sound of Silence
Today's quote from Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. is as meaningful this morning as when first spoken, nearly forty years ago at an Upper West Side church in Manhattan. He was right - it's never easy being the voice of dissent, but at some point, our silence can be mistaken for complicit approval of wrong. Our failure to speak becomes a betrayal of what we know is right and just. In this case and on this morning, we know that Bush's aim is war and to get there, he'll toss into the air a new crisis, new meaningless "proof" each and every time the public's bullshit meter goes off. We know what we're facing, and I don't think we can afford any longer to be silent in the face of war and death and loss.
You know what I wish? I wish we were all to gain strength from one another, knowing that there are many like us who oppose this ill-devised plan. I wish we'd stop worrying about how others will respond to our admonitions, and instead just do and say what we know is right.
I wish that Dems on the Hill would move from the chorus of depression that every day sings the same song: "We can't get our message out because this latest manufactured crisis is so damn distracting. Nobody wants to think about the upcoming election and the people's issues: unemployment, health care, poverty, corporate crime, environmental destruction, etc." Enough already...
We need to deal with the reality that war is the issue on the table. I want the Left to embrace the subject of Bush's Manufactured War of Convenience. Over the next many weeks and leading up to the midterms, nothing would please me more than the American Left focusing like a laser on this dangerous pre-emptive strike doctrine, and on a Bush imperialistic push toward global domination. We can't afford to change the subject.
I wish the Left would address the root cause of growing anti-American sentiment among our allies and foe alike, and I want them to drill home the cost of war, because in this media-numbed country of ours, one which has difficulty telling the difference between real and pseudo-reality television, I frankly don't think we're prepared for war or ready to pay the bill when it comes due. War exacts a heavy price in newly-invited terrorism, in battlefield losses and in a deepening national deficit for a country that is already hurting. And for what? Someone else's oil? Control of someone else's region? US-imposed change of someone else's regime? Saddam is no saint but let's face it...nor is George Bush, and unless we've proof positive of US danger - proof that comes from a more reliable source than that newly formed cabal of pissed off ex-pat bankers, the Iraqi National Congress - we need to say NO. We need to be repetitive and loud in our opposition and we need to beat this little fascist at his own game.
This weekend, lots of folk in Great Britain will be taking to the streets in protest of US-led and Blair-followed insanity. Because so many are against this action, Blair may be forced to back down from his alignment with US aggression. Why the anti-Americanism? Well, like lots of people around the world, the British have caught onto this strange and public dream of American hegemony, and they've noticed other stuff as well, such as the hypocrisy of an American campaign to slay the demon of a UN-resolution dodging Iraq, while our friend, the state of Israel, makes sport out of killing Palestinians, and dodges resolution after resolution, all without fuss from Washington. Add to that score, the perception of America being hell-bent on a globalized vision which features the rich getting richer, while we threaten to mete out pre-emptive strike punishment on anyone standing in our way. Not exactly the best way to win friends and influence people. If you've not read Bush's document which lays out US plans for global domination...you really should. It's an audacious, offensive, and frightening piece of anti-diplomacy. Therein lies the latest international reason for Bush-bashing.
When we stand alone against a world which says NO, a world of countries which don't seem prepared to give us our demanded coalition of bullies, we need to ask why and then question the course of action this administration proposes. We need to speak up and tell our representatives NO.
I don't think we've the option of remaining silent anymore.
Email Me | Comments (0) | TrackBackPosted by Lisa English
I'm angry. I'm angry at the men who murdered so many in NY and DC and PA. And I'm also angry at those among us who are destroying that which long ago made this country great and respected around the world. These same people have wrapped themselves in the American flag and in doing so...they've insidiously managed to establish that any of us who differ with their world view are traitorous. They, who seek to silence the voice of question and dissent, are themselves the traitors. But that's now how they're spinning it and deep down...we know what they're doing.
There is a strange and surreal game of political smoke and mirrors going on these days in an America I barely recognize, and it is being led by an unlikely group of men who know how to make money in defense and energy, but who have never served their country on the battlefields. They don't really know the price of war - not intimately. We can tell them the price...can't we? It's a price that's paid by the young sons and daughters of America's working class - people who pay the bills, and people who struggle to keep their heads above water, and who fly their flags, school their kids and church their souls in houses of many faiths. We know that in this democracy of diversity, there's more than one way to protect this country, and that we needn't resort to being the Pre-Emptive Boogeyman of the World by now attacking Iraq, and increasing the likelihood of terrorism upon these shores and elsewhere. But then again...we can't expect them to understand. We only fight and fund their wars. We're not factoring in the gainful economics of war.
I am angry because this group has sold us a rotten bill of goods. They have lied to us and along the way, by distancing ourselves from their message of intolerance and hate and greed, we have permitted them to capture the symbolism of America. In doing that, we've given them even greater leverage. I say this as someone who steers away from jingoism and nationalism. I'm someone who believes as Edward R. Murrow did that "critical thinking is compatible with patriotism." But I also recognize the power they've gained from stealing for themselves the symbols of democracy and freedom. They've become untouchable.
Their kind need to be confronted - we can't shy away from their loud and obnoxious voices, while they methodically go about their business, dismantling our rights, liberty, our jobs and access to simple information. We can't permit them to use our deep loss of 911 for their personal gain. We can't ignore their silence in the face of our many questions. It is we who fight their wars and run their companies and it is about damn time we took our country and our flag back from them.
Fly that flag. Get it on your home...on your website, and be a proud and flaming liberal who fights for what is right, and calls for some serious change in a strong and honorable America.
...an America that is part of the world community - not the pariah of.
Email Me | Comments (0) | TrackBackPosted by Lisa English
Vineyards and Violence
I woke this morning to good news, learning that Iraq has agreed to an unconditional return of UN arms inspectors. According to Jonathan Wright of Reuters, UN Secretary General Kofi Annan made the announcement yesterday after receiving a letter from the Iraqi Foreign Minister Naji Sabri. One would think this would "do the trick." In other words, the heat would be off and the inspections would soon begin, with the world returning to some semblance of post-911 normalcy. That is, if the United States finds the Iraqi gesture acceptable. I'm not so certain we will.
Like you, I've been reading all I can on the subject and last night caught a CSPAN program in which former UN weapons inspector Scott Ritter was interviewed. Ritter came under a barrage of critical calls, each one sounding as if they were originating from the Bush War Room. Questions about his integrity, suggestions that he was a pawn of the Iraqi government were met with apparent candor and references to online data where average Americans could determine his veracity. Following that broadcast was a breezy interview featuring another former UN weapons inspector, David Kay, who appeared recently before lawmakers to condemn Ritter's push for peace. While Ritter spoke in serious terms of peace and the bean counting of weaponry - biological, nuclear, chemical and conventional, Kay, the anti-Ritter hawk, was given to a collegial type of fun-jock banter about need for new regime and the loveliness of the Iraqi countryside - how he could envision vineyards to rival California, how the best melons in the world could be found in Iraq. Frankly, in his head, the US has already established permanent residence in Iraq and it's really just a matter of when it would brought into the fold of statehood. Kay, no doubt is developing post-war vacation plans.
The joviality continued to the next broadcast with Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld calling for war, calling for death and fairly well discarding all options for peace. How on earth these subjects can be tossed about in such a light and festive manner is a credit to Mr. Rumsfeld's personality...he has the uncanny ability to make the worst in life seem rather delightful. Seems to me that these guys have bombs and melons on their mind and talks of peace just aren't going to dissuade them from moving forward with their dreams of vineyards and violence.
I hope I'm wrong.
Email Me | Comments (0) | TrackBackPosted by Lisa English
Those Who Do vs. Those Who Shuffle the Papers
The other day I was driving along when on the radio came the instantly recognizable voice of actor Ozzie Davis, who spoke about the plight of home health care workers, many of whom will be going out on their first ever strike this Wednesday if negotiations prove fruitless. During these surreal times of high political drama, corporate crime and impending war, it's easy to forget about these men and women who go from home to home, caring for the elderly and the infirm. While they toil at $6 to $7 an hour without paid vacation or health care for themselves, sick time or pension, they are there for our parents and grandparents and for us, should we need them.
A friend of mine, a 100 year old woman - yes, you read that right...she's 100 years old - is a bright and vital senior citizen whose physical health has only recently taken a turn for the worst. Last year, she had hip replacement surgery and still finds it a bit hard getting around, what with the arthritis compounding her troubles. Many days she is in considerable pain and needs help navigating the simple things. Hers is a close family - two children who are devoted and are at her side when they're not at work themselves. So, a home health care worker is essential in her life to fill the void left when her son and daughter struggle to earn their own living - earnings which supplement the meager income of my centegenarian friend. She needs someone to assist her for a few hours a day with the walks and exercise needed for her recovery; to help her complete simple tasks which are so difficult at times.
Her aide is a cheerful woman who arrives each morning at 8 a.m., having many hours earlier prepared the day for her small children - making sure they are cared for in her absence to earn a few bucks. She has never once missed a day; even during the most inclement of weather and traffic snarls, she'll manage to wind her way here, some 2 subway and 2 bus rides later - a significantly long journey. My friend, who lives on social security and a small pension herself, rubbing pennies together as it were, expresses concern that this gal might find the going too hard and one day stop coming. She's become a friend as well as a compassionate aide - a companion who gives so much of herself and receives little in return, not nearly enough to clothe, house and feed herself and two children.
On Wednesday, the health care worker union will for the first time in its history go out on strike if negotiations with Premier Home Health Care Services which employs nearly 3,500 of these workers fail to arrive at a reasonable solution. Here is another case of the vast gulf that is part of the geography between those who have and those who don't. Arthur Schwabe, the president of Premiere takes in about $18 an hour in reimbursement from the government for services provided by workers like those who care for my friend. Yet Schwabe, living in the lap of Greenwich, Connecticut luxury and doing very well for himself, thank you... only pays these workers approximately $6.50 an hour. The inequity and unfairness of this equation scream for attention and change.
Here's hoping that a better balance can be found between those who actually do the work and those who merely shuffle the papers.
I'm not the only one chiming in with an opinion here. Millions of Americans are calling for change. Visit the New York Times and read what Bob Herbert has to say on the issue. Then take a moment to reflect back on the bottom line: in a country as rich as ours, don't our workers deserve a livable wage? Learn more about this issue by checking out the Universal Living Wage Campaign.
Email Me | Comments (0) | TrackBackPosted by Lisa English
Devil In A Blue Dress
Eric Alterman has once again taken on the venomous Ann Coulter - this time in his fresh column over at The Nation. Check it out while it’s hot.
A couple of weeks ago, a friend sent me Coulter's new screed (I know - with friends like this...) - that piece of libelous lunacy which shall go unnamed. I don't want to give her any more business than she already has. The slanderous thing sat here on my desk for two weeks before I decided to crack it and what then did I find? Hmm...where to start?
This story begins in Boston where a good friend - one who derives pleasure from intellectually slapping right-wingers around, happened to receive the book as a birthday present. Some present...I know. But you see, my friend loves this stuff. He lives to dissect conservative intestinal poli-blockage. It fills him with an unearthly happiness to correct the volumes of lies and distortion that the right-wing cranks out in sewage pumping proportion. And when he's happy, his wife is happy and then the kid is happy. So, when my friend was finished highlighting this mostly error-filled text and penciling in corrections and annotations, the book had taken on a rather bilious neon/first draft quality and then he prepared to ship it off to me. You got me so far?
I was next in line to read this trash, but you know...occasionally life throws you a curve ball. Next thing I knew...a worthy opponent moved to the head of the line - his sister-in-law, (drum roll here...) the conservative. Suffice it to say, by the time Coulter's book arrived on my desk, it was a visual nightmare of yellow and lime green fluorescence compounded daily by footnotes and margin comments from the left...and from the right - some clearly written in the throws of anger and therefore undistinguishable from chicken scrawl. I can't imagine that reading the rant of Coulter is ever an easy thing. But in this case, the process had been made all the more difficult by some very passionate post-publication editing.
Bottom line: I’m not reading this piece of detritus. Instead, I’m leaving criticism of this one to the pros - to my friend whose life purpose is to slay the dragons of conservative venom, to the bloggers out there like Scoobie Davis who have the constitutional fortitude for this kind of crap, and to Eric Alterman who manages somehow to stay composed and professional while ripping this chick to shreds.
I do wish someone would feed this angry pit bull of a woman. Could it be that she's starving? You know, it might be as simple as that.
In the meantime....check out Alterman’s Devil In A Blue Dress and be sure to visit Altercations for the blog and for the e-mail feeding frenzy.
Email Me | Comments (0) | TrackBackPosted by Lisa English
Bankers in Camouflage
Reuters is reporting via the New York Times that after more than a decade of lobbying Washington, the Iraqi National Congress - that primary opposition group to Saddam Hussein - is finally getting some attention. The Administration, being pummeled with the question, "who fills Saddam's shoes when and if you oust him," may have found their answer. In late September, the Iraqi opposition is planning to meet in Amsterdam, during which time they'll elect an American-backed government in exile.
The Iraqi National Congress was formed in 1992 by Ahmed Chalabi, a former banker who is also considered a contender to replace Hussein.
As the days unfold, the Iraqi scenario is starting to resemble another recent bout of American interference: the attempted coup of Venezuela's democratically-elected leader, Hugo Chavez, by the US-encouraged head of Venezuela's Chamber of Commerce, businessman Pedro Carmona.
You know what they always say...when you want a send a warrior into battle - find a businessman or, failing that...a banker.
Email Me | Comments (0) | TrackBackPosted by Lisa English
Of Golf Pants & Triple-Digit Deficits
On Tuesday, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) issued their bi-annual report on the condition of our economy. Their projections are enough to make one sweat. Bottom line: we're in worse shape than originally anticipated. Compounding the gloom of that news is Goldman Sachs' prediction. Their crystal ball sees a solid decade of triple-digit deficits. We're talking about the kind of news that makes for cautious spending and prudent investing.
Now, given this reality...one would assume the administration might refrain from promoting continued tax breaks and fiscal contrivances for the wealthy. But you know...having reached the wizened age of 45, and having lived through the Selection of 2000, I've learned not to assume because when one assumes...well, you get the picture, I'm sure.
According to the Washington Post's Jonathan Weisman, the White House has emerged with a novel idea. Try this one on for size...how about tax cuts for investors? This of course, while federal receipts are at a nightmarish low and our deficit is looming. Now, while you're picking your progressive jaw up from the floor let me just say that none of us...not you, me or the press believe that these guys are completely stupid. Greedy and loathsome, perhaps..but not stupid. They know they've not a snowball's chance in hell of getting any of this passed in Congress because nobody with an ounce of integrity - even on their side of the ideological aisle - agrees that this is sound policy. Hey, and don't forget about the Average American - everyone I talk to, regardless of political stripe...is bigtime (as Cheney would say), peeved about the sodomizing of this nation's economy as done by our elite. The last thing they want to see is the investor class getting federally gifted at the nation's expense, yet again. They know that these surreal deficits the nation faces are the creation of the Bush/Cheney Moneyed Set. They know that these suckers rise each and every morning and ask themselves on the 9th tee of the course, "Damn, Sam...how might we federally help our greedy plaid-panted selves today?" Still, given that we know this and given that the Oval Office knows we're onto their scam, why is it then, that they continue to propose greater deficits for our kids and grandkids to clean up?
Because they want to get the investor class to the polls in November. They want to continue on the path of American economic destruction.
OK. So, how's about you and I do the unthinkable? How's about we get real and when next we greet a friend or a new acquaintance, the first thing we ask is "are you registered to vote?" I mean, all this "how are you" stuff is way overrated, anyway. Right? If they're not registered, let's make sure they get that way. WE need to get to the polls come November and we need to show these people what IS is.
via Altercation
Email Me | Comments (0) | TrackBackPosted by Lisa English
"If statistics are any indication, the system may well be allowing some innocent defendants to be executed…Serious questions are being raised about whether the death penalty is being fairly administered in this country. Perhaps it's time to look at minimum standards for appointed counsel in death cases and adequate compensation for appointed counsel when they are used." -- Sandra Day O'Connor 7/2/2001
Justice is not perfect. Not when innocent people like Eddie Joe Lloyd are coerced into confessions later used as justification for life sentences. At the time of his confession for a rape and murder he never committed, Lloyd was being treated in a mental hospital and under heavy medication. Earlier this week, Eddie Joe Lloyd became the 110th incarcerated American to be exonerated on the evidence of post-conviction DNA testing. Here's something to think about: back in 1985, when he was first convicted, the presiding judge lamented the lack of a death penalty to punish him with. How many innocents have been put to death on the merits of imperfect evidence?
You might ask, "what's imperfect evidence?" Think in terms of mistaken I.D., false confession, police misconduct, bad lawyering, forensic exclusions and more. These are among the most common factors leading to wrongful conviction, according to statistics compiled by The Innocence Project, the well-known legal clinic associated with the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law. The brainchild of lawyers Barry C. Scheck and Peter J. Neufeld, Innocence was established in 1992 and only handles those cases where conclusive proof of innocence can be found in post-conviction DNA testing of evidence. The work of the clinic is performed by the students of Cardozo under the supervision of attorneys and clinic staff.
On July 18, the Innocence Protection Act (IPA) was approved, by the Senate Judiciary Committee. The legislation is now expected to be brought to the floor and voted on by the entire Senate later this year. The Act already has the support of more than half of the House of Representatives. IPA would grant all inmates convicted of a federal crime the right to petition our federal court for DNA testing if post-conviction evidence supports a claim of innocence. It also provides standards for testing, payment and punishment for the destruction of evidence.
Eddie Joe Lloyd is not an anomaly. Check out The Innocence Project and encourage your legislators to strengthen our access to justice through the enactment of SB 486 - Innocence Protection Act of 2001 and HR 912 - Innocence Protection Act of 2001.
via TalkLeft
Email Me | Comments (1) | TrackBackPosted by Lisa English
It's lunchtime in New York and I'm doing what every self-respecting blogger does at lunch: I've grabbed one of those dreadful cardboard-like "meal option" bars from the depths of my credenza and have come online to blog for a half an hour.
I dropped in on Tim Dunlop over at Surfdom and and usual, he's got a host of stimulating topics. One I find particularly interesting is the discussion about the Federal Estate Tax and the generosity of Americans. He's titled the entry, Giving Until It Hurts. Check it out. I wanted to post a response, but can't access his comment facility. Bummer. I've some thoughts on our national largesse and part of its cause. Here goes...
I think that Americans are a magnanimous people who are inspired by progressive tax law. That's it in a nutshell but here comes the expanded view. The affluent in the U.S. have, because of this law...established a standard of generosity (money as well as good works) that has been modeled by the rest of our society. By the way, it was the well-heeled who introduced this type of encouraged giving...people like Andrew Carnegie - big buck folk with social conscience and a desire to have America be a meritocracy rather than an aristocracy.
The way our system works is like this: Americans choose either to contribute to public causes as legislated by our House and Senate through the receipt of tax monies...or we select our own socially beneficial programs and make contribution there. That contribution reduces the income and estate taxes we pay. Our giving is inspired by a confluence of conscience and the desire to spend our damn money the way we want, while happily reducing our taxes.
There's all sorts of creative techniques people employ which benefit both the giver and the receiver. You can obviously make an outright gift. You can make a less-than-complete gift where you put your property in trust, for example...a trust where you retain a benefit, like a life interest. Or you can retain the right to get the property back after a given time or how's about you set it up where at the end of your life, a charity has the right to receive for “x” number of years the income from the property. Clever affluent givers can make for some very happy charities.
At the present time, the Estate Tax stands at 55% with an exemption of a million bucks. It is not a “death tax” - it's an inheritance tax! But you've gotta give it to the anti-tax crowd...the "death tax" tag was a brilliant albeit intellectually dishonest public relations ploy by those who sought and still seek to eliminate all unpleasant fees and levies from their lives. Their antisocial dream, if fulfilled, means an even greater gulf of inequity between those who have and those who don't. I mean...let’s call a spade a spade. When you get down to brass tacks and when you’ve examined our tax and social structure...that’s really what we’re talking about. But lo and behold... they’ve come up against a potent oppositional force: charitable organizations and an American people who have begun to realize that the philanthropic largesse of the affluent is for the most part inspired by dollars and cents. Do away with that inspiration and guess what? Tuitions rise, museums cease to function as they had, and organizations from Habitat for Humanity all the way to Hadassah and the Catholic Church will be impacted negatively. When nobody is inspired by the holy dollar to contribute to that new library, or to establish a chair at the local university or perhaps build a new wing onto that hospital for a cancer center....well, I’m certain you get the picture.
Right now, the choice is this: if wealthy Americans make no charitable gifts, they will see half or more of their estate (that which is over the million buck exemption) go to a government which will enforce it’s own brand of charity...OR....the affluent become the philanthropists this country needs. When and if the estate tax is permanently eliminated, the options will be even simpler, if not Dickensian: affluent Americans will be charitable or they will keep everything. Guess which way that one works out? This is why every major charitable organization (I’m not including the ones which were established in an effort to fight the Estate Tax) in the United States is opposed to the elimination of the Estate Tax, and justifiably so.
The answer, I believe...as does Bill Gates, Sr., Warren Buffet and a host of other progressively-minded Americans...is to reduce the Estate Tax somewhat and increase the exemption.
If you do away with the Estate Tax, America will suffer and greatly. Elimination will turn Americans from being the most philanthropic to being the most socially miserly. Things are bad enough. I’m certain that’s a distinction nobody wants their name engraved onto.
By the way...through the efforts of those who sought to make the "death tax" an issue, the US Federal Estate Tax has been temporarily repealed - for one year, 2010. Those who are fortunate (?) enough to have loved ones who die that year, will inherit free and clear of taxes. The law goes back into effect in 2011. Hopefully, in the interim, a sensible policy will find its way to legislative approval.
In the meantime, you can learn more about this issue by visiting Reponsible Wealth, a project of United for a Fair Economy where Bill Gates, Sr. and his friends Warren Buffet, George Soros, Steven Rockefeller and 100 others stand opposed to a repeal of this most progressive of US taxes.
Long live American generosity.
There goes that half an hour - an hour later.
Email Me | Comments (0) | TrackBackPosted by Lisa English
We Westerners control a lot of things in our world. We control our debt, both federal and personal; we control the weather to some extent...what with our polluting ways and all; we control precisely how apathetic or proactive we wish to be in terms of civic responsibility. We control our weight and the color of our walls. We control the amount of time we spend online and with our loved ones. Freedom is what permits us these controls and freedom is a wonderful thing. Freedom also involves responsibility. Sometimes, we fob off that responsibility and opt for couch potato freedom, figuring that someone else will come along and eventually clean up the environment, elect the unpopular but honest leader, pay off the national debt. Freedom lost is not easily recovered.
Amina Lawal Karami doesn't have the luxury of freedom. This single mother was found guilty of having had sex outside of marriage and an Islamic high court in Northern Nigeria rejected her appeal for sanity. Amina will be stoned to death for her crime, the punishment expected to be rendered in two years time. By then she will have weaned her now 8 month old daughter and will be given the go ahead for an incomprehensibly cruel death sentence handed down by the Islamic male jurists.
It is hoped that in the case of Amina Lawal Karami, the European Union will come to her rescue as it has done in the past in similar circumstance. The EU recently succeeded in pressuring the fundamentalist powers to spare the life of another woman, who had been found guilty of the same "crime." A lot is banking on the activism and success of the European Union. We shall see.
Freedom is a precious thing that we take for granted. We Americans have this past year looked away while our civil liberties were casually diminished and US citizens held without representation and labeled enemy combatants. We've looked the other way while the idea of citizen detention camps is bandied about as a possibility by our US Attorney General as well as a Bush-appointed civil rights official (see quote below). We behave as if we've no more freedom than Amina Lawal Karami, when in fact we do. But will we exercise this freedom by demanding an end to Ashcroftian justice? Or will we instead recline deeper into the hope that someone else will come along and eventually rescue us? We shall see. Won't we?
"Not too many people will be crying in their beer if there are more detentions, more stops and more profiling." ~ Peter Kirsanow, U.S. Civil Rights Commission member
Posted by Lisa English
I'm a great believer in knowing thine enemy. Back when I was a kid growing up in the super righteous atmosphere of the School of the Holy Innocents, I knew then...even at the tender age of eight, that if I was nice to Brenda Mahoney, she'd leave me alone. Brenda was everyone's enemy. We'd learned that if we smiled and avoided confrontation...she'd refrain from beating the crap out of us. Brenda took special pleasure in scaring the pants off of the good kids, the ones who clapped erasers. I never played with Brenda Mahoney...nor did I carry her books or share my candy. But I was polite and watched my back. Even today, at 45, I still think it's a good idea to be friendly but sometimes wary....especially when dealing with strangers bearing gifts.
Back in the spring of this year, I discovered a very unusual website developed by the Republican Party. The aim of the GOPTeam Leader program is apparently to enhance the political spamming talents of America's teens and college students through the lure of 40-something premiums like canvas duck bags and leather Palm Pilot covers. While I'm all in favor of expressive democracy, the carrot at the end of this stick is a bit disturbing. The idea is a simple one: they recruit America's kids to send oppositional letters to the Democratic Congress and media. The more e-mail letters you send, the more "GOPoints" you earn. Curious to learn more, I clicked on a box labeled "Benefits - What can Team Leader do for me?". You can imagine my joy upon discovering that in addition to being given a "political edge" over the competition (any party other than Republican?), I could "earn GOPoints for each Action Item completed." You might wonder, as did I, what precisely an Action Item is and so let me clue you in: "Action Items range from writing a letter to your editor to calling local voters and gauging public opinion. The GOPoints you earn can, in turn, be redeemed for collateral of your choice, ranging from coolers to mouse pads" Stunned, for who on earth could ever fathom reading the words "collateral" and "mouse pads" in the same sentence, I began to imagine a nation of pimpled youth with little or no interest in politics, clogging the bandwidth with partisan diatribe, all for a neat new beverage cooler!?! "Hmmm," thought I.
Since joining the GOP Team Leader program...I get regular e-mail updates from party biggies who encourage us to get the word out. And if ideology isn't enough to move me, maybe a nice fleece pullover will inspire my venomous writing talents. Now, truth be told, I've never once sent off a single of their canned spam spin..so, I've not earned any GOPoints and can't attest to the quality of their merchandise...but it's not only the Made In Taiwan knickknacks and outerwear that frost my cookies...it's this wholly American Amway vibe that gives me the heeby-jeebies. That's right, this group has latched on to the tried and true pyramid scheme. Why not? If we can get our friends in on this gig, we can increase our haul of GOP Loot. Apparently, in some circles, one can never have enough GOP emblazoned baseball caps.
While it's true that I'd not attended meetings or stuffed envelopes for these folk and my participation was limited to completing an online application, I did after awhile begin to feel a little tawdry - occasionally opening their e-mail, masquerading as a Cyber Right Winger. But being on the periphery, I was afforded a priceless birdseye view into rightist political strategy and having been exposed now for several months to this strange Student Green Stamp version of Right Wing Democracy, I suppose it was due time I'd come clean. But you know what they say about habits...you drop one only to pick up another as its replacement?
Lately, I've been eyeing that Operation TIPS program which recruits neighbors to spy on neighbors. Khaki compliments my skin tone and I'm curious as to what these lunatics are up to. I wonder what's involved in becoming a TIPS Volunteer? Perhaps a simple online application is all that's required and before I know it, my e-mail box will be filled with messages from John Ashcroft, imploring me to wear sunglasses and trench coat at all times.
I wonder if they offer TIPSPoints that might be redeemed for corporate premiums like beach towels and picnic baskets?
I might well have a go at it. These characters sure beat Brenda Mahoney all hollow.
Email Me | Comments (0) | TrackBackPosted by Lisa English
Living this close to the Indian Point Nuclear Power Plant and preferring not to ruminate about the sort of fireworks that my friends, both 3-D and virtual most fear, I yesterday proposed to the family, "what say we get away for a few days?" True, I've a couple of projects pending in the office and yes, we finally did get the medicine cabinet stocked with that county-recommended two-week supply of potassium iodide, and it's also true that the likelihood of attack is remote...but hell, if you can't be guilt-free leaving town now, when can you?
The first thing I do is sit my fifteen year old down at her father's laptop and suggest she "find a place where we can have fun, why don't you? And...(I say lightly....) make sure it's not near any nuclear power plants. OK?"
Later, I find her cruising the web and sort of sullen. Liz does an excellent sullen when she wants to. "Well, what did you find? Anything good?"
I'm offered a list of various coastal destinations but each presents a problem, she thinks. This one should be nixed because, "you don't really want to go and see all that obnoxious wealth, Mom - do you? I mean...really?" Then, there is the little resort town she remembers from summers past and that might be fun but if she weren't able to bring a friend on such short notice, it could get "real boring." Okeedokee. I suggest she continue on until something appealing catches her fancy.
My understanding is that if the nuclear power plant goes kaboom there's not a soul within a 4-7 mile radius who is going to survive and those of us downstream can count on some real Chernobyl-like conditions popping up for years. Not to fear, though...the lucky ones who live within ten miles of Indian Point were each given one "starter" pill, which in the event of an attack, they should pop in their mouths as they run out the door, start up their engine and head off for.....hmmmm. Where do people go?
"So, where are we headed, Liz? Have you found any fun places for us to visit?"
In a flash of dark humor, she laughs and shows me the "The Virtual Nuclear Tourist" website. "Can you believe this, Mom?" Some people seek out the woods, some the sand and surf...some folks dig museums and others amusement parks with slides and bumper cars. This guy apparently gets into visiting...nuclear power plants. Whatever floats his boat, I guess. You know, I'm really not picky...my interest is in some fun destination, within a 5-hour drive where the local amenities don't include reactors. I send her back to the keyboard. "Find a place that doesn't feature a nuke plant, OK?"
"Mom?"
"Yes, Liz?"
"Can you come check out this map?", she asks and points to the screen and a map that is vaguely reminiscent of Election 2000. "Which state is that, Mom?"
"Hmm. That's not a state, Lizzie. I think that's Lake Michigan." From the map, it looks like it's is one of the few places on this side of the nation where we'll not find a reactor.
The Fourth is approaching. I figure we might just crank up the BBQ and take in the fireworks at the high school. I could pick up some watermelon at the farm stand and yes, we'll be keeping those pills on hand.
Email Me | Comments (0) | TrackBack