Sunday, August 31, 2008

'Uncounted,' A Film That Will Leave Audiences Angry and Empowered

August 26, 2008 at 22:45:17

'Uncounted,' A Film That Will Leave Audiences Angry and Empowered

by Jason Leopold (Posted by Mary Mancini) Page 1 of 1 page(s)

www.opednews.com

vote nowBuzz up!
Tell A Friend

(0.0 from 0 ratings) View Ratings | Rate It

Link to Story

Last week, a major electronic voting machine manufacturer reported that a programming error caused votes to go uncounted in at least 34 states when memory cards designed to tally votes are uploaded to a separate computer.



The discovery was made in Columbus, Ohio, during a test of touch-screen voting machines supplied by Premier Election Solutions Inc., formerly Diebold Inc., and communicated to the company's 1,750 jurisdictions via a product advisory alert. Remarkably, Premier claims, the programming glitch went undetected for years despite previous tests of its machines.

The damning report was relegated to the back pages of some mainstream news publications (The New York Times devoted one-paragraph to the issue and buried it deep inside the A section), a reminder of how the media regards issues related to election integrity at a time when the country is about to embark on the most historic presidential election in U.S. history.

The federal Election Assistance Commission said it won't be able to certify repairs made to some of the flawed voting machines because of a backlog. The commission assumed the responsibility of testing electronic voting machines in 2002 but to date the agency has not certified a single machine.

So Premier said jurisdictions that use its decade-old voting machines will have to take measures to deal with the problem in its tabulation software that affect all 19 of its machines because the problems cannot be fixed before Election Day. The company said poll workers will be responsible for checking vote-count servers to make sure all memory cards are shown as uploaded.

When Premier was known as Diebold the company denied that it was responsible for the programming errors found in its machines and blamed the snafus on a "user error" or on antivirus software developed by others.

That the report on the voting machine failures surfaced in the state of Ohio is fitting and filled with irony. Who can forget the now infamous statement uttered by Walden O'Dell, Diebold's former chief executive, during a fundraiser his company sponsored for Bush in September 2003 when he promised that his company would "deliver" the votes needed to keep Bush in the White House for a second term.


Ohio was the battleground state where tens of thousands of votes intended for Sen. John Kerry, the 2004 Democratic presidential candidate, were handed to George W. Bush. Thousands more went uncounted. Chalk that up to a well-funded Republican machine, which used every weapon in its arsenal, such as shredding voter registration rolls, to make sure Ohio, the state that would decide the outcome of the 2004 election, went to Bush.

In other words, the 2004 election was stolen and the evidence to back up this flat out assertion is overwhelming to say the least.

"The notion of stolen elections is something we assign to Third World countries, but not this beacon of freedom and democracy that we like to view ourselves as," said Bernie Ellis, a prominent election integrity activist.

Although the mainstream media and even some of the more prominent progressive news outlets such as The Nation, Salon, and Daily Kos have refused to touch the story or have dismissed it as conspiracy theory does not change the fact that it happened--again.

Few people understand, or are even aware of what happened in Ohio during the 2004 presidential election. Even fewer people realize that history repeated itself during the November 2006 midterm elections.

That's where David Earnhardt comes in.

The Emmy award-winning director has made one of the most important films of the year; an urgent and convincing documentary chock full of disturbing factual data that by the time the final credits roll 90 minutes later you may find yourself firing off an angry email to your congressman/woman demanding they enact serious election reforms.

Uncounted: The New Math of American Elections, goes well beyond the electronic voting debate to tell a much more complicated story about the threat to American Democracy. The news that surfaced in Ohio last week only serves to underscore that point.

The film tells the story of the 2004 election and focuses on whistleblowers such as computer programmer Clint Curtis, who describes how he was told to develop software that will "flip" votes from one candidate to another, and Steve Heller, who leaked secret documents about the alleged illegal activities committed by a major voting machine company and was convicted of a felony for doing so.

Brad Friedman, the intrepid blogger whose website, BradBlog.com, is the go-to place on the Internet for comprehensive coverage on issues related to election integrity, said in an interview that Uncounted is really the untold story of how "American elections have become like a game of Russian roulette every time you go to the voting booth."

"Both of the major political parties have a serious case of shortsightedness," said Friedman, who appears in the film. "This is a battle about election integrity and that's what I think Uncounted is about. But Democrats are under the impression that by talking about election integrity it's going to keep people away from the voting booth and lower voter turnout. That's bizarre."

In a wide-ranging interview, Earnhardt, who spent the better part of 2008 on nationwide tour of theaters screening his film to a public hungry for information on election fraud, said Uncounted evolved organically.

Earnhardt had been searching for an explanation on how George W. Bush won a second term in office when exit polls clearly favored Kerry. He read the book Black Box Voting: Ballot Tampering in the 21st Century by Bev Harris, who is credited with breaking the story about programming flaws in electronic voting machines and the ease of which they can be hacked and voting results changed. Harris also makes an appearance in Uncounted.

"I assumed we would see a repeat of the 2000 election and a long fight, but Kerry conceded pretty quickly," Earnhardt said. "I was sure the media would then begin to look into these irregularities that took place, particularly in Ohio with the exit polls. I remember sitting in my favorite coffee shop reading The New York Times and looking for a story but there was nothing. Just complete silence. I thought I had to look into this as a citizen because it just didn't seem right."

In April of 2005, just as Earnhardt was contemplating going on the road to search for answers a National Election Reform conference was being held in Nashville, where Earnhardt is based. There, election integrity experts, activists, and computer experts met to discuss reforms and the dreaded 2004 election, specifically, what happened in Ohio.

Earnhardt wasn't yet fully educated on the nuances of election fraud but with more than 30 hours of footage he gathered at the conference he had the makings of his first full-length film.

"I think this is a documentary that takes a 30,000 foot view of this issue of election fraud and explains why people should be concerned," Earnhardt said. "We grew up believing in this dream of what this country is supposed to be and I think people are offended that they are being disrespected, that their vote is being disrespected."

Starz, the cable movie network, picked up Uncounted earlier this month for distribution ensuring the film reaches a wider audience. It premieres tonight, the first day of the Democratic National Convention, at 10:30 PM and again on Thursday at 10:00 PM. Uncounted will continue to air on the network through October. Uncounted gets a prestigious American Film Institute screening Sept. 9 in Silver Spring Maryland, hosted by veteran journalist Bob Edwards. The DVD of Uncounted goes on sale Tuesday.
"As this is one of the most important elections in our nation's history, premiering this thought-provoking documentary is not only timely, but necessary viewing," said Nancy Silverstone, Vice President of Program Acquisitions at Starz Entertainment.

With the presidential election less than three months away, the Republican strategy has focused more on purging individual voters from voter rolls and passing legislation that forces voters to produce photo IDs or even proof of citizenship in order to cast a ballot and combat what Republicans refer to as widespread "voter fraud."

While evidence of systemic voter fraud in the United States has not surfaced, many election integrity experts believe Republicans have used the suspicion of voter fraud as a ploy to suppress minorities and poor people from voting. Historically, those groups have tended to vote for Democratic candidates.



Justin Levitt, an attorney and an expert on voting issues who teaches at the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law, wrote last year that "the notion of widespread voter fraud ... is itself a fraud. Evidence of actual fraud by individual voters is painfully skimpy."



The numbers are fairly small. From October 2002 to September 2005, 95 people were indicted for federal election related crimes, according to figures compiled by the New York Times last year. Seventy resulted in convictions. Only eighteen of those were for ineligible voting.



Earnhardt agreed that the aggressive strategy employed by the GOP to implement voter identification laws will make it much harder for people to vote come November and beyond. He said the issue will linger and worsen unless Congress starts to get its hands dirty and begins to investigate and take measures correct the problem.



"The reality is our vote is not protected – and it's likely that the 2008 election results will be manipulated – even worse than in 2004 and 2000."

Paradigm Shift; Change Your Life:

August 26, 2008 at 14:09:34

Paradigm Shift; Change Your Life:

by Mike Folkerth Page 1 of 1 page(s)

www.opednews.com

vote nowBuzz up!
Tell A Friend

(0.0 from 0 ratings) View Ratings | Rate It

Good Morning America, your King of Simple News is on the air.

I find myself in an embarrassing predicament; I’m at odds with the richest man in the world. Warren Buffet believes that the economy will not only get better, but future Americans will live at much higher living standards than those of us hanging around the planet today.

I like Warren Buffet and I respect him for his modest lifestyle, so I hope he won’t take it personal that I can’t agree with his rosy outlook. After all, I’m sure he reads the King of Simple News every morning. Ha-ha.

David Walker, the former chief comptroller general of the U.S. doesn’t agree with Warren either, so that makes me feel a little better. Mr. Buffet didn’t talk about resources, population, energy, or world commerce. He said that we will continue to experience growth. Mr. Buffet believes that growth is good and perhaps if I earned billions of dollars on the single premise of growth, I would say the same. Actually, no I wouldn’t.

It’s not that I believe that your lives can’t get better, I’m positive that they can. What I don’t believe, is that government is suddenly going to get their act together and create that improvement. And certainly that illusive improvement will not be based on growth, in fact, very much the opposite.

I often talk about paradigms (pronounced “para-dimes”), the meaning of which is, “A set of assumptions, concepts, values, and practices that constitutes a way of viewing reality for the community that shares them, especially in an intellectual discipline.”

I also talk about “paradigm shifts,” which means to shift the very way that we view our current set of paradigms. Let me give you an example of monumental past shifts.

Our world before 1900 (a scant 108 years ago) was based primarily on the horse culture. Everything in life revolved around the horse for power and transport. When the gasoline and steam engines became commercially available, many people scoffed at the idea that these machines could replace the horse. Yet, this “paradigm shift” from the horse to the machine changed the entire world and all the paradigms or assumptions of the past were changed forever.

In 1752, a man returned home from 7-11 one night after picking up some whale oil for his lamp and said to his wife, “You won’t believe what that nut job neighbor Ben is doing. He’s out there in the rain flying a kite.”

Electricity eventually changed all the paradigms. It changed the assumptions, concepts, values and practices of the former beliefs.

Paradigm shifts are also referred to as “thinking outside the box.” In other words, questioning convention. I suggest that doing so at this point and time can change your life in a very positive manner. We can’t change the world, but we can change the way we live in it.

The shift that I suggest is only two fold. “Bigger and more are not always better, and two, growth is not always good.” We live eat and breathe these two basic tenets and they are slowing choking us to death.

We live under the paradigm that those with the most money, the largest homes, and the most personal possessions are the winners. I suggest a paradigm shift to, “Those with the least debt, the most free time, and who are satisfied with the simple things in life are the winners.” Economic recovery for an individual may well require only a shift in thinking.

I also suggest that such a paradigm shift is coming; ready or not. While many will see this as a step down from the consumptive nature of our past borrow and spend economy, I see it as an opportunity to live the real American Dream, not the dream that was created for us by those who benefit from having us work until we drop in our tracks. Or those who suggest that we work until we are 70 or 75 to save Social Security.

America is the greatest place on earth. You are free to shift your paradigms and that may very well shift your entire attitude from one of despair to one of pure wonder. You’ll wonder why you didn’t do it sooner.

www.kingofsimple.com

Mike Folkerth is the author of "The Biggest Lie Ever Believed" and is not your run-of-the-mill author of finance and economics. The former real estate broker, developer, private real estate fund manager, auctioneer, Alaskan bush pilot, restaurateur, U.S. Navy veteran, heavy equipment operator, taxi cab driver, fishing guide, horse packer and few jobs too embarrassing to mention, writes from experience and plain common sense. Mike's humorous systems of "Mikeronomics" and "Mikemathics" drastically simplify the economic and mathematic formulas commonly used by very smart, but terribly sheltered individuals.

Let Them Drink

August 26, 2008 at 12:19:33

Headlined on 8/26/08:
Let Them Drink

by Walter F. Wouk Page 1 of 1 page(s)

www.opednews.com

vote nowBuzz up!
Tell A Friend

(0.0 from 0 ratings) View Ratings | Rate It

Supporters of the 21-year minimum drinking age ignore the fact that 18, 19 and 20-year old adults are consuming alcohol, despite the law. The 21-year old minimum drinking age has resulted in an underground society of young adults who flout the law -- and rightly so.

The minimum drinking age is discriminatory based on age. It violates the Constitution by forcing states to comply with the federal government . It should be treated with contempt by young adults.

The law insults young adults like Army Specialist. Monica Lin Brown, a 19-year-old Medic from Texas, who is only the second female soldier since World War II to receive the Silver Star, the nation's third-highest medal for valor.(1)

Specialist Brown, of Lake Jackson, Texas, was part of a four-vehicle convoy patrolling in eastern Afghanisatn in April, 2007. A bomb struck one of the Humvees, which wounded five soldiers in her unit, Brown ran through insurgent gunfire and used her body to shield wounded comrades as mortars fell less than 100 yards away, according to the U.S. military.

Monica Lin Brown is a courageous young woman and a bona fide war hero, but if she is caught quaffing a beer in her home state of Texas, she would be charged with a Class C Misdemeanor. Her sentence would mandate a $500.00 Fine, 8 to 12-hours of Community Service. Her driver's license would be suspended for 30-days and she would have to attend a Mandatory Alcohol Awareness Course.

And that begs the question: is there a suppporter of the 21-year old drinking age that can stand up and--with a straight face--defend the notion that young adults such as Ms. Brown should be subject to onerous legal sanctions for merely sipping a cold beer with friends or having a glass of wine with dinner.
####

SOURCE:
1. - Female medic earns Silver Star in Afghan war - http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23547346/

http://www.wintersoldier.org

Vietnam veteran, editor and publisher of Rabble Rouser

THE COMMERCIALIZATION OF WAR

August 26, 2008 at 22:27:53

Promoted to column top on 8/26/08:
THE COMMERCIALIZATION OF WAR

by John Little Page 1 of 3 page(s)

www.opednews.com

vote nowBuzz up!
Tell A Friend

(0.0 from 0 ratings) View Ratings | Rate It

Throughout history nations have had to defend themselves from their neighboring countries constant desire to expand and dominate, all the while eyeing their own possible growth at the expense of these very same nations. The ebb and flow of these kingdoms over time have given rise to giant empires and great conquests, but nearly always these struggles have been between two warring nations in which the victor received the spoils and the loser achieves nothing more than just a footnote in the annals of time.

History is replete with such kingdoms that would grow to immense proportions until the burden of governing itself lead to its eventual downfall, almost always coinciding with a neighboring regime’s rise to prominence quite often over the same exact territory and the same people. These dynasties date back as far as recorded history can go and even before then. But again, nearly every war, every battle, every conquest and every defeat came at the hands of two nations in a do-or-die, winner-take-all, epic struggle that could last for decades up to 100 years and beyond.

According to the Peace Pledge Union, the arms trade, as we know it today, can be traced back to the Middle Ages. It began in the 14th century, when gunpowder was introduced in Europe.

The market for powder-charged weapons grew quickly. Kings and knights wanted cannons to demolish previously impregnable battlements. Far-sighted warlords began arming their troops with portable firearms: old-style pikemen and archers, or mounted knights in armor, were no match for the new guns. It was the beginning of that great and dangerous competition later to be called an ‘arms race’.

Big demand for the latest weapons created a thriving industry. Originally most weapons were manufactured for local users, but some entrepreneurs sold them throughout Europe to anyone who had the money to pay for them. The first steps towards the creation of an ‘international’ arms trade had been taken.

The arms industry first developed in Liège in Belgium. Iron and coal were in plentiful supply there, and the roads and rivers were more than adequate to transport both materials and finished weapons efficiently. The industry soon spread: up the Rhine to Solingen, eastwards to Prague in Bohemia, south into France (St Etienne and Bayonne), Italy (Turin, Milan, Florence, Brescia and Pistoia) and Spain (Seville and Toledo) and westwards across the channel to England (London and Birmingham). These towns and areas are still centers of the European arms industry.

By the time the 19th Century rolled around most fertile battlegrounds had already been blood-stained killing fields many times over. The great disparity in military might that promulgated empires and dynasties in the past no longer existed. In one last attempt at establishing world dominance, several European nations put their mightiest foot forward and promptly had it squashed by their neighbors. It had become apparent to all that going it alone was no longer a viable option. Cooperation between the various groups had become a necessity in order to preserve what they’ve already gained as well as to fend off the collective attempts of other nation groups in the region. . Instead of individual nations conquering their next-door neighbors, groups of nations began forming in a loose-knit alliance that basically proclaimed, "You watch my back and I’ll watch yours."

By the middle of the 19th century a truly international arms trade had been established. It bred its own rogue elements. For example, unscrupulous salesmen knowingly sold defective weapons. Others were happy to follow the long-ago example of Liége by selling arms to both sides in a war: their loyalty was to money-making.

It is said that at the Paris Exhibition in 1881, a man told Hiram Maxim, an American, that if he wanted to make a fortune, he should invent a machine that would help these Europeans kill each other. He did and sold his machine guns to European countries on the eve of World War One, and changed the nature of war. He founded the Maxim Gun Company in Britain to produce his new weapon and licensed it to the British Army and later to the Austrian, German, Italian, Swiss, and Russian armies as well. Maxim died on November 24, 1916, only days before the Battle of the Somme, during which over a million soldiers were killed – many advancing over and over into the machine gun's fire.

The 20th Century saw this rise in group dominance put to its severest tests This fragile fraternal assemblage of countries found their first major application in 1914 when Austrian Archduke Franz Ferdinand was assassinated in Sarajevo, Serbia. Serbia refused to extradite the murderer to Austria-Hungary and the fight was on. Austria-Hungary, Germany, Ottoman Empire, on the one side squared up against Russia, Great Britain, Italy and France on the other side with Serbia. Along with the major European nations declaring their allegiances, their colonies were obliged to follow suit. The first real world war was on and it raged for four years. This was the first time that groups of countries fought other groups of countries on different fronts around the globe.

But it would take a second world war for countries to start giving arms to each other. When Germany invaded Poland on September 1, 1939, the world was ill-prepared for the chaos and destruction that followed and no one could have predicted the final outcome in early August, 1945, with the dropping of the first ever atomic bombs: Little Boy on Hiroshima and Fat Man on Nagasaki. In between those two events, unparalleled destruction destroyed over 80% of the production capabilities of most European nations, thus precluding them from being able to manufacture their own military hardware even for purely defensive purposes. For the first time in history major players on the world’s stage were forced to purchase their military armament from another country.

In 1940 the United States of America passed legislation allowing the sale or transfer of military equipment to anyone it chose. The US arms industry grew prodigiously, supplying Britain, France, and the Soviet Union with huge quantities of armaments to fight the Second World War. When that war was over, former allies engaged in a ‘cold war’ between Western capitalist countries and the communist Soviet Union. The Cold War did not officially end until 1991. The USA supplied weapons to any state which opposed the Soviet Union, which also armed its own supporters. Many developing countries were flooded with weapons, with appalling consequences which are still being felt.

Following World War II many of the factories that had been devoted to military production during the fighting were converted back to their prewar, civilian uses. However, the cessation of fighting in Europe and Asia was not greeted—as the end of World War I had been—with a wave of revulsion against American arms makers. Instead, the nation's military industries were widely viewed as a major pillar of American military strength and an important source of technological innovation. Thus, when the Cold War began in earnest, most members of Congress were prepared to support a new round of arms transfers along the lines of the lend-lease program.

The resumption of U.S. arms aid to friendly powers abroad did not occur without prodding from the White House, however. With World War II barely concluded, many in Congress were at first reluctant to authorize significant military aid to the European powers—fearing, as had their counterparts in the 1920s and 1930s, that this would eventually lead to U.S. military involvement in overseas conflicts. To overcome this resistance, President Harry S. Truman and his close advisers, including Secretaries of State Dean Acheson and George C. Marshall, sought to portray the expansion of Soviet power in eastern Europe and the Mediterranean as a vital threat to the Western democracies and, by extension, to U.S. national security.

The first significant test of U.S. attitudes on this issue came in early 1947, when Great Britain announced that it could no longer afford to support the royalist government in Greece—which at that time was under attack from a communist backed insurgency. Fearing that the loss of Greece to the communists would invite Soviet aggression in neighboring countries, including Turkey, President Truman concluded that it was essential for the United States to provide arms and military training to the Greek military. On 12 March 1947, Truman appeared before a joint session of Congress to request funding for this purpose. In what became known as the Truman Doctrine, the president articulated a new guiding principle for American foreign policy: "I believe that it must be the policy of the United States to support free peoples who are resisting attempted subjugation by armed minorities or by outside pressures."

As noted by many historians since then, this speech shaped U.S. security doctrine for the next several decades. Henceforth it would be the unquestionable obligation of the United States to provide economic, political, and especially military assistance to any nation threatened by Soviet (or Soviet-backed) forces. As the first expression of this principle, Congress voted $400 million in military assistance for Greece and Turkey on 15 May 1947; this was soon followed by the appropriation of even larger amounts for these two countries and for many others in Europe and Asia.

1 | 2 | 3

http://beyond.euskalaretoa.com/belief/YaBB.pl

53 year old Californian male - I've lived in three different countries, USA, Switzerland, Mesico - speak three languages fluently, English, French, Spanish - parttime journalist for Empower-Sport Magazine

The False Enemies of the United States

August 27, 2008 at 09:30:39

Headlined on 8/27/08:
The False Enemies of the United States

by John Little Page 1 of 2 page(s)

www.opednews.com

vote nowBuzz up!
Tell A Friend

(4.2 from 3 ratings) View Ratings | Rate It

From the very beginning, the United States had been a warrior nation. It had just defeated England to gain its independence. But at first, the original thirteen colonies had more out of common than in common. Therefore, it decided to look for a unifying force that would unite the various colonies into a cohesive force. The war against the motherland, England, was exactly what the doctor ordered.

To unify such disparate viewpoints and future goals, the newly formed government knew that it needed as many uniting elements as possible. Fortunately, the then recent war of secession with England provided the necessary catalyst needed at that time. France also became an early enemy of the United States because of their involvement of sinking US merchant ships in the Mediterranean and elsewhere.

But these enemies lived far away from US soil and both had been allies at some previous point. Therefore, the US needed another enemy, one that was closer to home and easily vilified. The American Indians fulfilled those requirements and much more. Even though many of these same groups had often come to the aid of the first pioneers and European settlers to arrive in the new world, they were condemned at the same time by the ultra-religious groups who had first come over as heathens, people who did not believe in the God of these newcomers.

There was also a more useful and practical reason to fight the Native Indians in war after war. In order for America to expand, it needed new territories to conquer and although the Native Indian did not understand nor agree with the concept of possessing land, the colonialists were certain adherents who saw the current occupants of the lands west of the thirteen original colonies. The vilification of the American Indian provided the right ingredients to unite the colonists against a common enemy and for a common purpose. What was later termed as Manifest Destiny started out as a series of wars against those Indians who refused to leave their land and emigrate west past the Mississippi River.

Manifest Destiny was a phrase that expressed the belief that the United States was destined to expand from the Atlantic seaboard to the Pacific Ocean; it has also been used to advocate for or justify other territorial acquisitions. Advocates of Manifest Destiny believed that expansion was not only good, but that it was obvious ("manifest") and certain ("destiny"). It was easy, therefore, for Americans to justify the slaughter of whole tribes and the deliberate infection of others with Small Pox and other diseases against which the American Indian had no immunity.

The only major country to stand in the way of America's march to the Pacific Ocean was Mexico. It is not surprising, therefore, to find Mexicans vilified in the American media and the largest of these wars, the Mexican-American War which lasted from 1846 to 1848 was the first major conflict driven by the idea of "Manifest Destiny"; the belief that America had a God-given right, or destiny, to expand the country's borders from 'sea to shining sea'. This belief would eventually cause a great deal of suffering for many Mexicans, Native Americans and United States citizens. Following the earlier Texas War of Independence from Mexico, tensions between the two largest independent nations on the North American continent grew as Texas eventually became a U.S. state. Disputes over the border lines sparked military confrontation, helped by the fact that President Polk eagerly sought a war in order to seize large tracts of land from Mexico.

But having achieved the grand illusion of a United States whose borders went from sea to shining sea, the US found itself in a particular dilemma. After the great cessations of territory by the Mexican government allowed the United States to link both the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans, it became obvious that the necessary bogeyman, the longed-for major enemy of the US that could galvanize its people into one common cause, was no longer available.

Not having any external nemeses to speak of, the US decided to turn its bellicose desires inward. For years, northern states had professed a virtual slave-free social lifestyle much to the chagrin of the southern states. To be sure, the African hostage who was dragged to the US through unspeakably horrible conditions did not lead a marvelous life in the northern states even though that person could no longer be bought and sold like a sack of potatoes or a bale of hay. The African-American employment opportunities were relegated to the lowest and hardest tasks of all, often with very little in the way of accommodations and wages. The existence of racism was just as bad in the northern states as it was in the southern states, but the outward manifestation of it was certainly not as readily available.

By 1861, there had been enough erosion of commonality between the two factions that a Civil War inevitably followed. Then, as is often the case now, Americans started off looking at the first battles as a sort of gigantic theatrical play in which the two sides were to enact an ad hoc combat scene for the amusement and pleasure of the crowd in attendance. People would gather on hilltops and sloping ravines in an effort to get as close-up a view of the battle as was humanly possible. Today we have continued this morbid curiosity of ours by demanding that news reporters be present where the military is in action and document and film the action as close to real-time as possible. Of course, this same American population refuses to witness the blood, gore and mutilation which accompany war and the media has actively complied. The US media, while showing with great enthusiasm US soldiers firing machine guns, tank shells and smart bombs at its targets, this same media will refuse to show the end result of such excessive use of force. Therefore, there is practically no footage on US TVs showing the wounded civilians screaming in pain and agony, the understaffed and overcrowded hospitals which lack even the most basic of care, or the morgues and cemeteries where daily hundreds of innocent and dead civilians are taken. As the American Civil War progressed, more and more odium was heaped on the opposing faction by newspapers from both sides.

Throughout the rest of the 19th Century, the conquering of the Old West along with the continued vilification of the Native Indian proceeded with abandon. Indians are considered complete idiots with little redeeming value and are often brutalized for no particular reason. In the South, a new "enemy"- has arisen. Following the defeat of Confederate forces at Appomattox by General Ulysses S. Grant, the seething undercurrent of disgust shared by many Southerners is slowly transformed into organizations like the Ku Klux Klan. These racist groups actively pursue African-Americans across the South. Many innocent Blacks are beaten, mutilated and lynched as a result.

By the end of the 19th Century, however, the US found itself again without a major enemy with which the government could galvanize support from the American people and pursue their hidden agendas beneath the radar of public opinion. With the advent of yellow journalism by Joseph Pulitzer and William Randolph Hearst in the mid-1890s, the US and its media finally found a convenient source for its ire. Spain had once been the mother country of nearly every nation in the Americas excepting Canada and the United States and a few smaller nations. By the end of the 19th Century, Spain still held various small territories here, most notably Cuba.

When a boiler room aboard the USS Maine exploded in Havana Harbor, Cuba, on February 15, 1898, Hearst quickly launched his New York newspaper to declare that Spain had deliberately attacked the Maine while it was anchored there. Pulitzer's New York newspaper quickly followed suit and soon the battle cry, "Remember the Maine,"- was being evoked in all areas of the United States. By April 21, 1898, the US was at war with Spain. It is interesting to note that while Spain was being vilified as an imperial nation that enslaved poor countries around the world, most people forgot to acknowledge that the US was also in possession of various territories, including Hawaii and Puerto Rico. By the end of the Spanish-American War, the US would add Cuba and the Philippines to its growing list of overseas territories.

Up to this point the US had stayed out of the many conflicts that had engulfed the European continent over the centuries. While Europe set about destroying itself in countless battles of territorial possession and retribution, the US immersed itself in its Manifest Destiny genocidal attacks on Native Americans and brutal conflicts with Mexico. With the defeat of former world power Spain, the US made its debut on the world stage. But it obviously meant that the sacred bogeyman needed to rise in stature as well. During its formative years the US contented itself with small and local enemies, ones that could be easily spotted, singled out and acted upon. The American Indians and later the Mexicans easily filled this role. When the US became a world power, these fear tactics needed to be revised.

There needed to be a new enemy to bring the American people together. They were to get it in an unusual place and an unusual way. Karl Marx had written about a more equitable political solution to the industrial era more than three decades prior, but when Russia was finally taken over by the Bolsheviks in October, 1917, the US government found its golden bogeyman goose. Even though Lenin was far from incorporating most of Marx's suggested reforms, the American government found an "anti-American" bogeyman that they could lay their hat on and which would allow them a virtual carte blanche in any of their global affairs. As long as the US government could state that another country had Communist leanings, the American public gave them a virtual blank check to carry out whatever the government felt was necessary to thwart the "menace du jour."

Thus, in the guise of stopping the spread of Communism, the coming 75 years saw the US overthrowing country after country across the globe. In 1920 and 1922, the US overthrew the Guatemalan government. The American public was told that this was to curb the growth of Communism, but in reality, it was at the behest of the United Fruit Company, an American company located there. This scene was to be repeated time and again in Nicaragua, China, Cuba, Panama, Iran and elsewhere.

Even with the advent of WWI and WWII, the US did not end its portrayal of the Soviet Union as the evil empire. Certainly this thought was put on the back burner as another enemy took over the spotlight. In 1917, the US had allowed the cruise ship the USS Lusitania to embark on its voyage to England. On board were hundreds of passengers, and with them, thousands of tons of armament destined for the British government to be used against Germany. The German government did everything it could to warn people that the ship would be seen as a warship due to its cargo, and that it would be attacked if it left. They even took out a one-page ad in the New York newspapers. Nevertheless, when the U-boats sank her, the US government pointed the finger at Germany and rallied Americans against this new enemy.

1 | 2

http://beyond.euskalaretoa.com/belief/YaBB.pl

53 year old Californian male - I've lived in three different countries, USA, Switzerland, Mesico - speak three languages fluently, English, French, Spanish - parttime journalist for Empower-Sport Magazine

Contact Author
Contact Editor
View Other Articles by Author

Oxymoron of the Century: Freedom Cages

August 27, 2008 at 07:59:45

Oxymoron of the Century: Freedom Cages

by Barbara Zaha Page 1 of 1 page(s)

www.opednews.com

vote nowBuzz up!
Tell A Friend

(2.9 from 1 ratings) View Ratings | Rate It

Less than eight full years into the new millennium and already we have the oxymoron of the century: freedom cages. Although credit must rightly be given to the GOP for being the first to effectively silence the voice of the American people through the use of unjust Spartan detainment during the 2004 Republican Convention, in Denver, Democrats have heartily embraced the concept of incinerating the sentiments of the people with equal enthusiasm.

Despite the progressives' hollow mantra for change, their use of Orwellian tactics via the newly constructed freedom cages, rightly dubbed "Gitmo on the Platte," defines their aligned allegiance with the current regime. The fate of our eroding Constitution has thus been sealed with bi-partisan support to blatantly deny not only our votes, but also our voices; blindly following Bush's all too convenient mandate, "The Constitution is nothing but a god damn piece of paper."

This assault on democracy demonstrates a blockade so extremely contrary to the precepts this nation was originally founded on, and is no less than an absolute defilement of the Constitution in order to silence those brave, courageous souls who speak truth regardless of the threats wielded by political powerbrokers; essentially, a declaration of war on the American people.

As the newly self-anointed political elite destroy the very essence of democracy, the voice and vote of the people, as a eulogy to a democracy lost, with our outraged indignation let us honor the noble vision of our founding fathers by recalling the famous words of John Adams, "Be not intimidated . . . nor suffer yourselves to be wheedled out of your liberties by any pretense of politeness, delicacy, or decency. These, as they are often used, are but three different names for hypocrisy, chicanery and cowardice."

Take action -- click here to contact your local newspaper or congress people:
Oppose silencing the voice of the American people

Click here to see the most recent messages sent to congressional reps and local newspapers

A not-for-profit consultant specializing in fundraising and development, I have consciously channeled my outrage and frustration at the lawlessness of the Bush regime, the complacency and complicity of mainstream media, and the overall lack of moral clarity and democratic characteristics demonstrated by far too many Americans the past 8 years into grassroots activism and resistance to the political elite. I firmly believe America could be the greatest nation on earth, we have, by intent or default, recklessly delegated our responsibility to subversives with political power and/or connection. It is, in my view, time to separate corporation and state and use our political will for far more than a whispered vote every two years. We are responsible for holding elected officials accountable; whether we voted for them or not is irrelevant. We have created a political situation in which we voluntarily relinquish our vast rights in a democracy, preferring instead to grumble and moan, when those entrusted fail to enact laws and policies that are truly in our best interest. If there is disparity, poverty, strife, unemployment, war, unrest, inequality, insufficient health care, or violations of human and civil rights, then we must hold ourselves accountable for allowing these situations to exist, for allowing those we elected to act inappropriately or fail to address these critical issues. There's an old adage that states, "In a democracy, you get the government you deserve." America at the dawn of a new century has unequivocally proven the truth of that tenant. It matters less to me that you share my values or support the same political party as I do; what matters is that you actively participate in our sacred democracy -- that you prove your voice and use it consistently and constructively. This profile is intentionally less about me and more about the political landscape "we" have created and allowed to fester for decades, culminating in the creation of what is perhaps the most crucial time in our nation's history. Starting with the "me generation" of the 1970's too much focus has been placed on the individual; sadly even at times to such an extent it causes vast suffering of others. These challenging and horrifying times graciously offer a unique opportunity for all of us to look beyond our personal needs and preferences to manifest an interrelated, interdependent global community which seeks the greater good for all.

The Land of the Silent and the Home of the Fearful

August 27, 2008 at 10:56:52

Headlined on 8/27/08:
The Land of the Silent and the Home of the Fearful

by Dave Lindorff Page 1 of 1 page(s)

www.opednews.com

vote nowBuzz up!

Tell A Friend

(5.0 from 1 ratings) View Ratings | Rate It

By Dave Lindorff

I was a speaker last night at an anti-war event sponsored by the
Unitarian Universalist Congregation of Monmouth County, Progressive
Democrats of America and Democrats For America in Lincroft, NJ, near
the shore. It was a great group of activist Americans who want to see
this country end the Iraq War, turn away from war as a primary
instrument of policy, and start dealing with the pressing human needs
of the country and the world.

Yet even in this group of committed people, one woman stood up
during the question-and-answer session and said, “I want to get
involved in writing emails to members of Congress urging them to cut
off funding for the war and other things, but if I do that won’t I end
up getting put on a 'watch list’” or something?”

I told her the short answer was yes, she probably would. In George
Bush’s and Dick Cheney’s America, no one is safe from such spying, and
even from harassment, as witness Tom Feeley, the man behind the website
Information Clearing House, who had armed men invade his house at night and threaten his wife complaining about his First Amendment-protected effort to publicize important stories on the Internet.

But I also told her that it didn’t matter. She should defend her
freedom of speech and her right to petition for redress of grievances,
just as she was defending her freedom of assembly by attending last
night’s event.

The only demonstrably true statement George Bush has made in his
sorry eight years in office is that the Constitution is “just a
goddamned piece of paper.” While it wasn’t the point he was making,
when he reportedly shouted this at a couple of Republican members of
Congress who were questioning the constitutionality of some of his
actions, he was right that the nation’s founding document is only worth
the parchment and ink it’s composed of, unless people use it and defend
it.

There is a remarkable and palpable fear abroad in this land—not a
fear of terrorism, but a fear of speaking up, a fear of being labeled
as “different” or as a “troublemaker.”
People will lean over and whisper their opinions, if they think they
are anti-Establishment, as though someone might be listening. People
write me after some of my columns run, praising me for my “courage,”
though why it should be perceived as requiring courage to merely write
something in America is beyond me.

The worst thing is that every time someone says she or he is
afraid, or acts afraid to speak or write what she or he is thinking,
five more acquaintances become equally scared and silenced.

The corollary, though, is that each time someone forgets or ignores
or rejects that fear, five people gain courage the do the same thing.

Now I’m not saying that there aren’t people monitoring, and
reporting on, what we say. I know our government is busy doing that. I
assume that my Internet activities are being monitored by the National
Security Agency. I assume my phones are tapped. I assume there was some
agent or informant among the fine people at the church last night. But
these Stasi wannabes have no power if we don’t let them frighten us
into silence and inaction.

What I find discouraging is the widespread acceptance, even on the
left, of this effort to intimidate us, and the pervasive attitude of
fear that has grown up around us. I spent a year and a half living in a
truly fascistic society in China, where there are real, concrete
threats to life and liberty faced by those who stand up and say what
they are thinking, and yet sometimes I think that ordinary people I met
in China were braver about stating their minds than many, or even most
Americans are. I’m not talking here about saying things like that you
think the Post Office is dysfunctional, or that you think federal
bureaucrats are corrupt or that taxes are too high. I’m talking about
questioning the system, or challenging the war, or protesting military
spending. Chinese people would tell me all the time that the Chinese
Communist Party was a corrupt gang of thugs or that you could not get
justice in a Chinese court. Chinese people are closing down factories
that short them on their pay. They have rallied in the thousands and
burned down police stations when corrupt police have raped, killed and
then covered up the death of a young girl. They have marched in massive
impromptu protests at the theft of their homes through eminent domain.

If you want to see where we’re headed here in America, check out
the workplace. There, we Americans have, through years of collective
cowardice and unwillingness to stand together in organized labor
unions, allowed our constitutional freedoms to be almost completely
erased. Today, an American workplace is more akin to a police state
than to a democratic society. Say what you’re thinking on the job, and
you’re liable to lose it. Wear a shirt that says something the boss
disagrees with, and you either remove that shirt or you are unemployed.
Even that final refuge of free speech, the bumper sticker, can get
workers in trouble if the wrong one shows up in the company parking
lot. That loss of will and of freedom has in no small way contributed
to the loss of jobs and the decline in living standards of American
workers.

It’s time for all of us to put a stop to this creeping usurpation of our liberties.

The anxious woman who asked her question came up to me after the
meeting and said proudly that she would not be afraid, and would start
signing on to protest letter-writing and emailing campaigns.

We need lots more like her.
__________________
DAVE LINDORFF is a Philadelphia-based journalist and columnist. His
latest book is “The Case for Impeachment” (St. Martin’s Press, 2006 and
now available in paperback edition). His work is available at
www.thiscantbehappening.net

http://www.thiscantbehappening.net

Dave Lindorff, a columnist for Counterpunch, is author of several recent books ("This Can't Be Happening! Resisting the Disintegration of American Democracy" and "Killing Time: An Investigation into the Death Penalty Case of Mumia Abu-Jamal"). His latest book, coauthored with Barbara Olshanshky, is "The Case for Impeachment: The Legal Argument for Removing President George W. Bush from Office (St. Martin's Press, May 2006). His writing is available at http://www.thiscantbehappening.net

Call Girls at the Political Conventions

Posted by Catherine, The Frisky at 12:54 PM on August 26, 2008.


The RNC and DNC mean a boost in business for sex workers.
sexyflagc

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

Got a tip for a post?:
Email us | Anonymous form

Get Sex and Relationships in your
mailbox!


Cities benefit big time when they host major events like the Olympics. The upcoming Republican and the ongoing Democratic National Conventions are two such happenings that will bring in money to the restaurant and hotel businesses. But another business is looking forward to raking in some big bucks as well.

A rather disturbing ABC News article says that prostitution in Denver and Minneapolis will spike during the political conventions in the coming weeks. Apparently, there are ads on the Minneapolis-area Craigslist looking for "hostesses" to help entertain "high-end clients" during the Republican National Convention, which starts September 1. And, over on the Denver section of Craigslist, women are using the convention to push their services under titles like "DNC Delight" and "Help me celebrate democracy."

Has no one learned their lesson from former N.Y. Governor Eliot Spitzer? Seriously. [ABC News]

Digg!

Tagged as: dnc, rnc, sex work

Jon Stewart Attacks Fox News: 'It's a F**k You to People With Brains'

Posted by Isaac Fitzgerald, AlterNet at 1:53 PM on August 26, 2008.


Stewart doesn't think much of Fox's slogan, or their reporting; actually he doesn't think much of any cable news network.
jonstewartleaningondeskthumb

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

Got a tip for a post?:
Email us | Anonymous form

Get PEEK in your
mailbox!


Jon Stewart attacked cable news networks yesterday, taking the time to specifically call out Fox for its biased coverage and misleading slogan. As always, Stewart's analysis was as funny as it was true. The Washington Post's Howard Kurtz has the story:

DENVER, Aug. 25 -- Jon Stewart ripped the cable news networks Monday as a "brutish, slow-witted beast" and castigated Fox News as "an appendage of the Republican Party."
Wearing a gray T-shirt and a healthy stubble, the "Daily Show" host told reporters that Fox's fair-and-balanced slogan is "a (expletive) you to people with brains" and that only "Fox News Sunday" host Chris Wallace "saves that network from slapping on a bumper sticker ... Barack Obama could cure cancer and they'd figure out a way to frame it as an economic disaster."
"I'm stunned to see Karl Rove on a news network as an analyst," he said of the Bush White House aide-turned Fox commentator.

[...]
In his remarks, Stewart also included CNN and MSNBC in a far-ranging indictment of what he called "that false sense of urgency they create, the sense that everything is breaking news ... The 24-hour networks are now driving the narratives and everyone else is playing catch-up."

Stewart has criticized cable news in the past. Yesterday, though, the networks weren't the only ones to receive Stewart's insightful rancor:

He also took a swipe at the Democrats' choice of Denver, saying it hardly helps a party accused of elitism. "They chose a place that is literally one mile above the American people," he said. "I guess Mount Olympus was booked."

Digg!

Tagged as: jon stewart, fox news, dnc

Saturday, August 30, 2008

Dennis Kucinich: "Wake up America"

by: Dennis Kucinich, Democratic Convention Speech

http://www.truthout.org/article/dennis-kucinich-wake-america

Dennis Kucinich: "Wake up America"


It's Election Day 2008. We Democrats are giving America a wake-up call. Wake up, America. In 2001, the oil companies, the war contractors and the neo-con artists seized the economy and have added 4 trillion dollars of unproductive spending to the national debt. We now pay four times more for defense, three times more for gasoline and home heating oil and twice what we paid for health care.

Millions of Americans have lost their jobs, their homes, their health care, their pensions. Trillions of dollars for an unnecessary war paid with borrowed money. Tens of billions of dollars in cash and weapons disappeared into thin air, at the cost of the lives of our troops and innocent Iraqis, while all the president's oilmen are maneuvering to grab Iraq's oil.

Borrowed money to bomb bridges in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan. No money to rebuild bridges in America. Money to start a hot war with Iran. Now we have another cold war with Russia, while the American economy has become a game of Russian roulette.

If there was an Olympics for misleading, mismanaging and misappropriating, this administration would take the gold. World records for violations of national and international laws. They want another four-year term to continue to alienate our allies, spend our children's inheritance and hollow out our economy.

We can't afford another Republican administration. Wake up, America. The insurance companies took over health care. Wake up, America. The pharmaceutical companies took over drug pricing.

Wake up, America. The speculators took over Wall Street. Wake up, America. They want to take your Social Security. Wake up, America. Multinational corporations took over our trade policies, factories are closing, good paying jobs lost.

Wake up, America. We went into Iraq for oil. The oil companies want more. War against Iran will mean $10-a-gallon gasoline. The oil administration wants to drill more, into your wallet. Wake up, America. Weapons contractors want more. An Iran war will cost 5 to 10 trillion dollars.

This administration can tap our phones. They can't tap our creative spirit. They can open our mail. They can't open economic opportunities. They can track our every move. They lost track of the economy while the cost of food, gasoline and electricity skyrockets. They skillfully played our post-9/11 fears and allowed the few to profit at the expense of the many. Every day we get the color orange, while the oil companies, the insurance companies, the speculators, the war contractors get the color green.

Wake up, America. This is not a call for you to take a new direction from right to left. This is a call for you to go from down to up. Up with the rights of workers. Up with wages. Up with fair trade. Up with creating millions of good paying jobs, rebuilding our bridges, ports and water systems. Up with creating millions of sustainable energy jobs to lower the cost of energy, lower carbon emissions and protect the environment.

Up with health care for all. Up with education for all. Up with home ownership. Up with guaranteed retirement benefits. Up with peace. Up with prosperity. Up with the Democratic Party. Up with Obama-Biden.

Wake up, America. Wake up, America. Wake up, America.

»


IN ACCORDANCE WITH TITLE 17 U.S.C. SECTION 107, THIS MATERIAL IS DISTRIBUTED WITHOUT PROFIT TO THOSE WHO HAVE EXPRESSED A PRIOR INTEREST IN RECEIVING THE INCLUDED INFORMATION FOR RESEARCH AND EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES. TRUTHOUT HAS NO AFFILIATION WHATSOEVER WITH THE ORIGINATOR OF THIS ARTICLE NOR IS TRUTHOUT ENDORSED OR SPONSORED BY THE ORIGINATOR.

"VIEW SOURCE ARTICLE" LINKS ARE PROVIDED AS A CONVENIENCE TO OUR READERS AND ALLOW FOR VERIFICATION OF AUTHENTICITY. HOWEVER, AS ORIGINATING PAGES ARE OFTEN UPDATED BY THEIR ORIGINATING HOST SITES, THE VERSIONS POSTED ON TO MAY NOT MATCH THE VERSIONS OUR READERS VIEW WHEN CLICKING THE "VIEW SOURCE ARTICLE" LINKS.

Remembering When the US Government Was at Least Approachable


by Dave Lindorff

We've come a long way towards imperial government in the US - towards a view of the relationship between the federal government, and especially the administration, and the citizenry that has more of a ruler-subjects than a democratic feel to it.

Now I know it is easy to gloss over the way things were, and since I spent a few days in federal prison for protesting the Indochina War at the Pentagon in 1967, after being beaten by federal marshals for doing nothing more than exercising my constitional right to protest on public ground, I am well aware that 40 years ago we were also often treated like serfs. But that said, there was something different back then-a sense that you could deal with powerful officials as an equal.

Back in the summer of 1968, I spent one of several summers on the road (something more young people should do today). I had hitch-hiked across the country from Connecticut to Washington state with Allen Baker, a college buddy, and then, towards the end of that summer break, had bought an old pick-up truck for $100, which we were driving home via the West Coast and the central route. Not having much cash, we were stopping at cities along the way, where I would play guitar for gas money.

This was the late ‘60s, and there was a major and sometimes violent culture war underway between the long-hairs like me and the clean-cut American "Silent Majority," and my travel companion, Allen, and I were concerned that it would be tough scaring up much cash in the vast Republican stretches of desert, mountains and prairie that lay between Nevada and Missouri. So when we passed through Yosemite National Park, we decided to spend a day in the valley's main parking lot, raising donations from tourists.

While Allen dozed in the back of the truck, I opened my guitar case and put up the "Gas Money" sign, and then, sitting on the running board of the old Dodge, started to play.

The money poured in-over a hundred dollars in a fairly short amount of time. It was really astounding. People walking by really enjoyed the music and wanted to help us out.

Then a park ranger, an older fellow with a friendly smile, drove up. "I'm sorry," he said apologetically, "but I have been told to arrest you."

"What for?" I asked, genuinely shocked.

"There's no panhandling allowed in the park," he responded.

"What's panhandling?" I asked him, genuinely unaware of the meaning of the term, which I, an Easterner, thought must have to do with cooking with a skittle on an open fire.

"It's what you're doing right now," the ranger said.

By that point, Allen had woken up and sat up in the truck bed, rubbing his eyes.

"You'll have to come in too," the ranger told him.

We followed him back to the ranger station, where he proceeded to write up our tickets. I noticed that there were two actual jail cells in the station. Thankfully, at least we weren't going to be locked up. Then there was a loud bang outside. Suddenly, a younger ranger, looking like a recent Marine veteran, muscled and crewcut, ran in. "Where's the first aid kit," he yelled. " I was just bringing in a kid on a marijuana charge and he tried to run. I shot him in the leg."

Whoa! I thought. This is Dodge City!

The older ranger told his partner where to get the kit, and then turned his attention back to us. "Here are your tickets," he said. "And don't skip out on them. This is a federal offense, and the FBI will come after you if you don't pay it."

We left the building, and only then did I look at my ticket closely. The fine: $500! It was a fortune back then. Even today it is a big whopper-especially as a penalty for being poor.

I was pretty upset. That was about how much I had earned towards college that whole summer.

Well, the $100 I'd earned panhandling in the park got us back across the country, at least.

When I got home to Connecticut, though, my fine was rankling. Angry at the injustice of it all, I typed up a letter to the Secretary of the Interior, who at the time was Stewart Udall. I wrote about the shooting incident, saying that I thought it was an outrage that an unarmed young man arrested on a minor charge like marijuana possession would be shot in a national park, and I also wrote that it was unfair to fine someone $500 for simply playing music in a park parking lot. "I wasn't bothering people," I wrote. "In fact, they were coming up to me to hear the music, and the $100 they tossed into my guitar case is testimony to the fact that they liked what I was doing. That isn't panhandling, and in any case, it's pretty nasty to fine someone $500 when he's doing something because he needs money."

About two weeks later, I got my letter back from the Department of Interior. On it, in red ink, Udall himself had written, "I agree. Forget your ticket. It's been taken care of. Stewart Udall."

I have tried to imagine that same situation happening today. First of all, the unfortunate hippie who got shot that time long ago would probably have been killed, because the ranger would have been carrying a more high-powered weapon, and wouldn't have even been aiming to disable. Second, Allen and I would probably have been put on some database at the Pentagon, the FBI and the Transportation Security Administration, and would have been barred from flying or entering any national parks. More importantly, though, I tried to imagine the response I would have gotten writing to current Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne to complain about an arrest for panhandling. Or to his predecessor, Gale Norton. This is, after all, a department that has instructed its rangers at the Grand Canyon and other parks not to talk about evolution, and those at the Everglades National Park not to talk about global warming and the inevitability that rising ocean levels will swallow that sea-level park in this generation. Under both secretaries, the Interior Department has played a key role in the Bush administration's efforts to alter and to selectively censor government scientific reports on evidence of climate change.

I'm not saying it was all sweetness and light back in the ‘60s, or even that Stu Udall was representative of all government officials in the Johnson years, but there clearly was a different sense back then that ordinary citizens had a right to communicate directly with their leaders and to expect some kind of response.

Nixon began the end of all that, with his Imperial Presidency. It wasn't just his penchant for secrecy, though that was legendary. It was his desire to make the government something more remote and feared, something imposing and awesome, rather than down-to- earth and accessible. President Carter, to his credit, went a long way towards reversing that trend, but over the years it has continued, with Bush and Cheney taking it to an extreme. Today the White House is a bunker. Federal police carry assault weapons. Snipers man the roof of the White House. People who write letters of complaint to minor federal officials can end up being strip-searched and arrested.

And from the looks of things, it may not be much better even if Obama takes over the White House. The first day of the Democratic Convention in Denver saw anti-war protesters penned into the same kinds of "free-speech zones" that the Bush/Cheney administration has made into standard features of any "public" appearance they put in, while AT&T, the company that brought us the convention, kept even credentialed reporters away from a private party the company threw for those Democrats in Congress who obligingly passed immunity legislation to protect the company from lawsuits by those whose communications were spied on by Bush's National Security Agency. (Obama supported the immunity legislation.)

So even as we are all being reduced to a nation of panhandlers, it may be a long time before we can expect a handwritten letter from the secretary of the Interior Department or of federal department, or for help in getting off an unfair ticket.

Dave Lindorff is a Philadelphia-based journalist and columnist. His latest book is "The Case for Impeachment" (St. Martin's Press, 2006). His work is available at www.thiscantbehappening.net

Networks Sleep While Democracy Burns


by Timothy Karr

Sometimes mainstream media reveal their failures in displays so stark that it makes the job of media critics too easy.

NBC, ABC and CBS frequently forget to serve their viewers, to be sure, but certain miscues are a special boon to bloggers and media reformers, who work tirelessly to show that the titans of the mainstream consistently miss the most important stories of our time.

Network coverage of the political conventions this week and next is a case in point, as American politics takes a back seat to mainstream media reality.

The "Big Three" have decided that democracy is bad for business, and are treating viewers to excited hormones (ABC's "High School Musical"), miniskirts (NBC's "Deal or No Deal") and bachelor hi-jinks (CBS's "Two and a Half Men") instead of Democratic and Republican convention coverage in Denver and Minneapolis.

Citizens v. Consumers

At PBS, where "The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer" still thinks of its audience as "citizens rather than consumers," the conventions will be covered from gavel to gavel. ABC, CBS and NBC are yielding little more than an hour of prime time on most convention nights.

This is the sad reality of a corporate media that prefer laugh-tracks and the bottom line to political discourse.

While the networks yuk it up with sitcoms and teen libido, the message they're sending the American public is that the most important political gatherings of the last four years don't merit the nation's full attention - and certainly matter less than the standard prime-time fare offered up on any other night.

Television and the Age of Apathy

The damage goes beyond that: In the era of television elections voter turnout has been stuck between 50 and 55 percent. Over the same period, many young voters (aged 18 to 24) have increasingly passed on voting altogether - there's been a steady decline in youth turnout, despite spikes during the 1992 and 2004 general elections.

Even when they tune in network news, the public is spoon-fed coverage that rarely reflects the viewing public's political interests.

NBC, ABC, CBS and their cable counterparts overwhelmingly portray the elections as a horse race pitting TV-ready personalities against one another. Obama is the inexperienced firebrand, McCain the seasoned, straight-talking maverick. This drama may play well on the small screen, but it accomplishes little towards informing voters about the candidates' political views.

According to MediaTenor research from the 2004 presidential elections, less than 5 percent of networks newscasts dealt with candidates' positions on policy issues, such as health care, education, the war in Iraq, the economy and employment -- even though American voters consistently rank these topics as the "most important issues for the government to address."

The same pattern can be seen on the news in 2008. Candidates are not being identified according to their stances on the issues, but by their posture of the day. As a result, too much coverage emphasizes immediacy and spin over substance and issues. Who's up in the latest polls? Who scored the latest zinger on the campaign trail?

In 2004: Worm Munching Trumps Obama

In the face of this critique, network executives have circled their news vans and lobbed criticism at the conventions themselves.

In 2004, NBC's then anchor Tom Brokaw called the conventions heavily scripted "infomercials" not worthy of news. That year, NBC fed viewers a prime-time diet of worm munching on "Fear Factor" instead of featuring the debut of rising political star Barack Obama, who took the stage in Boston, delivered an electrifying speech and launched his political prospects.

NBC was not alone. ABC and CBS also deemed Obama's historic moment as "too scripted" for prime time.

To be fair, conventions are designed by the parties to spin their candidate before the media, but it's up to the networks to unpack the hype and deliver real political analysis and breaking news to their audience.

Turning their cameras on is a start.

As the Campaign Director for Free Press and SavetheInternet.com, Karr oversees campaigns on public broadcasting and noncommercial media, fake news and propaganda, journalism in crisis, and the future of the Internet.

The Greatest Failure of Thought in Human History


To solve climate change, we must overcome "systems blindness."

by Bob Doppelt

"Cap and trade" is the rage today as a primary solution to global warming. But the European Union's struggle with this approach indicates it has an uncertain future. This is because global warming, at its core, is not a technology or policy problem. It is the greatest failure of thought in human history.

Attempts to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions will fail unless people first alter their thinking and behavior.

Earth is warming because humans, primarily in industrialized nations, suffer from systems blindness. We have failed to recognize the effects of our insatiable use of fossil fuels, massive resource consumption, and huge emission of waste, including greenhouse gasses, on the ecological and social systems we depend on for life. That blindness threatens all life forms today and in the future.

Overcoming systems blindness requires a shift to what can be called "sustainable thinking." A growing number of private and public organizations and everyday citizens have shown that it is possible to think sustainably. They use a four-step process: discover, dream, design, and act.

Their first step is to discover the greenhouse gas emissions produced through all aspects of their activities. They start by assessing the emissions directly produced through their home and business energy use, travel, and waste. They then identify the emissions they create indirectly, including those generated throughout the entire life cycle of the goods and services, including food, purchased or used.

Discovery is often a life-changing experience. People become aware of the profound impacts of their activities on the climate and other people.

Albuquerque, N.M., and Portland, Ore., have completed greenhouse-gas "inventories" of the amount and sources of emissions generated directly through internal city operations and by the broader community. Some cities have begun to assess the emissions from products manufactured elsewhere that are used locally.

Xerox and DuPont are just two of the many private companies that use "life-cycle assessments" to quantify their carbon footprint.

Regular people are also doing it, such as those that attend the Climate Master program developed by my organization at the University of Oregon. Through this 10-week program, participants are taught how to think systemically and discover the full range of their emissions. Small towns such as Corvallis, Ore., big cities such as Denver, and individual groups in Maryland are now considering launching Climate Master programs.

The next step is to dream of new ways to lower our carbon footprint. Dreaming starts by envisioning what an ideal low or carbon-free condition would look and function like.

Dreaming leads to the design stage, where innovative ways of achieving the ideal are planned. Albuquerque established the nation's first municipal capital budget set-aside specifically dedicated to energy reduction and renewable energy projects. Portland developed a climate action plan through extensive community involvement. Xerox established the "Energy Challenge 2012," which involves the entire company, engages its full business value chain, and integrates climate protection into core business strategies and practices.

The last stage is acting. Start by increasing energy conservation and efficiency. Make behavioral changes - such as turning off unused lights, TVs, and computers - routine. Add extra building insulation. Use public transportation or walk more. Install green technologies, from CFL or LED bulbs to more efficient motors. After all possible efficiencies have been captured, shift to renewable energy.

In Portland, more than 40 high-performance green buildings have been constructed and more than 10,000 multifamily units and 800 homes have been weatherized. Albuquerque now gets 20 percent of its energy from wind.

Thinking sustainably produces impressive results. Emissions from city operations in Albuquerque have been reduced by 58 percent; Portland's have dropped 16 percent since 1990, Xerox's by 18 percent through 2006, and DuPont's by 67 percent. Climate Masters has slashed emissions by an average of two tons per person.

Hundreds of other organizations are beginning to think sustainably. The State of Florida, for example, recently completed a statewide emissions assessment. More than 850 mayors have signed the US Mayors Climate Protection Agreement that, among other actions, commits cities to inventory their emissions. IBM and Bayer have each reduced emissions by at least 60 percent since the early 1990s, collectively saving more than $4 billion.

Stabilizing the climate will ultimately require an 80 percent cut in emissions, so emissions trading and many other reduction strategies will be needed. But, no matter what the approach, these pioneers have shown that success ultimately depends on overcoming systems blindness and thinking sustainably.

Bob Doppelt is director of the Climate Leadership Initiative at the University of Oregon, writes a global warming column for two Oregon newspapers, and is the author of "The Power of Sustainable Thinking: How to Create a Positive Future for the Climate, The Planet, Your Organization and Your Life."

Big Oil's Land Grab



Did you know that oil companies are already sitting on 68 million acres of leases that they aren't even drilling? Which kind of makes you wonder: Why are Big Oil and its allies suddenly desperate to get their hands on the last few places that are still protected -- our natural treasures, wildlife refuges, and pristine coastlines? They wouldn't use the concerns caused by high gas prices as an excuse to grab it ALL, would they?

Big Oil and its allies would like you to think that more drilling will ease your pain at the pump, but that's not the truth.

The bottom line is this: More oil drilling will not lower gas prices or create energy independence - it will only make the world's richest oil companies richer.

Check out our map showing how much of our country Big Oil already has.

Average Americans are being squeezed by high energy prices, and the oil companies are taking advantage to push their long-term drilling agenda. They have been spreading a map full of lies though the Internet.

Help us counter their propaganda -- pass this map and the truth along to your friends and ask them to pass it along too.

Sincerely,

Greg Haegele
Greg Haegele
Director of Conservation

Shocking Video of Police Brutality Against Woman at DNC Protest


Posted by AlterNet Staff, AlterNet at 4:35 PM on August 26, 2008.


Cop slams protester to the ground, then detains her before she can talk to the press.

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

Got a tip for a post?:
Email us | Anonymous form

Get Rights and Liberties in your
mailbox!


The story from CODEPINK:

DENVER - Before arresting a member of the women's peace group, CODEPINK, police officers here shoved the woman to the ground with a raised baton, left her on the ground in pain for several minutes, and when she began answering questions to reporters nearby, an officers pulled her roughly away by the elbows to arrest her, according to eyewitness accounts at a press conference held outside the jail.
Alicia Forrest, 24, of Los Angeles, was arrested on charges of interference near 12 p.m. today, moments before the beginning of a demonstrator's march here during the Democratic National Convention. The Rocky Mountain News has released video documenting the events here (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/videos/detail/police-use-force/).
Forrest had allegedly witnessed the arrest of an unidentified man in the street near the Denver Civic Center Park when she and others nearby asked police why the man was being arrested. After she was pushed to the ground, according to an eyewitness account at activist group's Reacreate 68's press conference, police then arrested Forrest.
She was transported her to the warehouse processing center in Denver, according to city officials. By 2:30 p.m., she had been transferred to the Denver City Jail where bond was posted for $580 bail. She is awaiting release.

Digg!

Tagged as: freedom of speech, police brutality

Sunday, August 03, 2008

Electric Cars Are the Key to Energy Independence / Still on Hiatus...........BUT.........Check this out!!!!!!!

I'm still on Hiatus until Labor Day..........However I found this article and just had to post it.......I agree in principle with what the author is saying and look forward to the country finally moving in that direction........PEACE........Scott


Electric Cars Are the Key to Energy Independence

Electric Cars Are the Key to Energy Independence
By David Morris, AlterNet
Renewables won't give us energy independence unless that electricity is used as a substitute for oil in our transportation system. Read more »