October 25, 2009
Who is Howard Beale?
.
Incensed by the continuing wholesale kleptomania of the financial world as described in the Washington Post, El Jefe at Boiled Dinner did that "write to your senators" thing that passionate citizens do when they're mad as hell and not going to take it anymore. Kudos to Jeff for a succinct and effective note.
As happens from time to time, here is a typical "comment on a blog that became a post instead."
I have fear that increases a bit with each article I read about all this financial stuff. It's a fear that America, like some strung-out junkie, will have to hit rock bottom in order to snap out of the consumerist greedocracy in which it has become so comfortable living. And yes, as Jeff pointed out, rage is something else I have - it's about the only thing that keeps me from being burned out on concern for our nation's future.
It is a frustrating thing to be unable to muster any trust for our elected officials to fashion a proper solution to our troubles.
The only things that I can so far agree to, based on a plethora of news and commentary both organized and informal, are the following rather nebulous points of indeterminate feasibility:
1. Break the grip of the two-party system. One more viable party would great, two seems to be the impossible dream.
2. Declare 100 percent public financing of all elections. How much would this cost in comparison to American military deployments and financial bailouts? Seems like a bargain to me.
3. Reform of corporate personhood designations that facilitate loopholes in everything from liability to taxes to government lobbying.
4. (Write-in)
5. (Et cetera)
6. (Et cetera)
Incensed by the continuing wholesale kleptomania of the financial world as described in the Washington Post, El Jefe at Boiled Dinner did that "write to your senators" thing that passionate citizens do when they're mad as hell and not going to take it anymore. Kudos to Jeff for a succinct and effective note.As happens from time to time, here is a typical "comment on a blog that became a post instead."
I have fear that increases a bit with each article I read about all this financial stuff. It's a fear that America, like some strung-out junkie, will have to hit rock bottom in order to snap out of the consumerist greedocracy in which it has become so comfortable living. And yes, as Jeff pointed out, rage is something else I have - it's about the only thing that keeps me from being burned out on concern for our nation's future.
It is a frustrating thing to be unable to muster any trust for our elected officials to fashion a proper solution to our troubles.
The only things that I can so far agree to, based on a plethora of news and commentary both organized and informal, are the following rather nebulous points of indeterminate feasibility:
1. Break the grip of the two-party system. One more viable party would great, two seems to be the impossible dream.
2. Declare 100 percent public financing of all elections. How much would this cost in comparison to American military deployments and financial bailouts? Seems like a bargain to me.
3. Reform of corporate personhood designations that facilitate loopholes in everything from liability to taxes to government lobbying.
4. (Write-in)
5. (Et cetera)
6. (Et cetera)
Labels: gummint, justice, law, Nothing about Yoko, politix, rants, terms of enragement
October 03, 2008
One bad mutha...SHUTCHOMOUTH !
.
This just in:
I am a Wachovia customer. As I have deposits that amount to half a gnat's turd in the grand scheme of things, I have not been worrying much in the face of news about the bank's travails. But now I'm inclined to go get mine, slide (not stuff) it into the mattress and let these assholes duke it out without me.
But the BIG economic news, of course, is that the Bush Bailout+ finally, after five grueling days of uncertainty for Wall Street and its minions, slithered its 451-pages of graft through the House, which had wisely slapped down a much trimmer bill earlier this week.
Many economists are regarding October 3, 2008 as a date that will live in infamy. I use that turn of phrase to point out the irony of how the world's richest man, as told to Charlie Rose on Wednesday , regards the entire U.S. economic situation.
So, what are we being bombarded with? How about the "Exemption From Excise Tax For Certain Wooden Arrows Designed For Use By Children" which, appearing on page 301, is among hundreds of tax relief sausages cooked up on the big Congressional barbe-queue [sic]. The EFETFCWADFUBC, as I will fondly dub it probably just this once, applies (I think) to manufacturers of "certain wooden arrow shafts...consisting of all natural wood with no laminations or artificial means of enhancing the spine of such shaft (whether sold separately or incorporated as part of a finished or unfinished product) of a type which after its assembly (1) measures 5/16 of an inch or less in diameter and (2) is not suitable for use with a bow as described in bullah, bullah, bullah..."
What is this saying about Congresspeeps who, finding Monday's 108-page version of a free (and credit) market/home/business-saving $700 MMM financial rescue objectionable, switched their nay to yay for the fattiness that includes a children’s wooden arrow excise tax exemption in it? Only that as usual, they are all too willing to give their constituents the shaft.
With a h/t to DCup - "Because what goes around comes around"
This just in:
Wells bids $15 MMM for Wachovia; scuffles with Citi
Reuters, Friday October 3, 2008
NEW YORK - Wells Fargo & Co agreed to buy Wachovia Corp for about $15 billion, upstaging a government-backed Citigroup Inc bid for Wachovia's banking assets with a deal that would catapult it into the top ranks of national consumer banking.
Citigroup demanded Wells Fargo drop its surprise bid, which comes four days after Wachovia preliminarily agreed to sell its banking assets to Citi...
I am a Wachovia customer. As I have deposits that amount to half a gnat's turd in the grand scheme of things, I have not been worrying much in the face of news about the bank's travails. But now I'm inclined to go get mine, slide (not stuff) it into the mattress and let these assholes duke it out without me.
But the BIG economic news, of course, is that the Bush Bailout+ finally, after five grueling days of uncertainty for Wall Street and its minions, slithered its 451-pages of graft through the House, which had wisely slapped down a much trimmer bill earlier this week.
Many economists are regarding October 3, 2008 as a date that will live in infamy. I use that turn of phrase to point out the irony of how the world's richest man, as told to Charlie Rose on Wednesday , regards the entire U.S. economic situation.
So, what are we being bombarded with? How about the "Exemption From Excise Tax For Certain Wooden Arrows Designed For Use By Children" which, appearing on page 301, is among hundreds of tax relief sausages cooked up on the big Congressional barbe-queue [sic]. The EFETFCWADFUBC, as I will fondly dub it probably just this once, applies (I think) to manufacturers of "certain wooden arrow shafts...consisting of all natural wood with no laminations or artificial means of enhancing the spine of such shaft (whether sold separately or incorporated as part of a finished or unfinished product) of a type which after its assembly (1) measures 5/16 of an inch or less in diameter and (2) is not suitable for use with a bow as described in bullah, bullah, bullah..."
What is this saying about Congresspeeps who, finding Monday's 108-page version of a free (and credit) market/home/business-saving $700 MMM financial rescue objectionable, switched their nay to yay for the fattiness that includes a children’s wooden arrow excise tax exemption in it? Only that as usual, they are all too willing to give their constituents the shaft.
With a h/t to DCup - "Because what goes around comes around"
Labels: gummint, madness, No Ordinary Bill, Nothing about Yoko, politix, rants, taxes, terms of enragement
June 09, 2008
Try, try again
.
The gentleman from Ohio rises to the occasion and he has it right - "The House is not in order."
That Rep. Kucinich intended his opening proclamation to be so metaphoric of our nation's current condition is debatable, but it is highly relevant to the 35 articles of impeachment he presented against George Bush this evening (Raw Story has an article, C-Span video and partial transcript HERE).
UPDATE: A pdf version of the entire 65-page document is HERE
WTG, DK! Bush smugly says history will be his judge, and this will be one of the main reference points for the historians. It is in fact an excellent capsule. Thirty-five articles: torture, fraud, rendition, war crimes, obstruction, the Bill of Rights, the Constitution and international law. He’s throwing every book he can find and I say BULLY!
What are the chances that this gains traction? Perhaps very slight, but I don’t think Dennis has any illusions about what he’s doing. Perhaps I gush a bit, but I'd like to think his contemporary 35-part summary is being posted for posterity as forceful as Luther's 95 theses were attached to the Wittenburg gate. Maybe he could tack them to Nancy Pelosi's forehead.
Now some (maybe most) Democrats are saying the primary objective is to elect Obama president, and I don't dismiss that sentiment out of hand. By pursuing impeachment now the Democrats will at least help fill the insatiable news void and show that they are actually doing something, that being to stand up for the rights of law. Think about it - Congress goes after the criminals and Obama goes after the heir apparent to the familia. It could also put the entire GOP on their heels trying to save their own ass and not allowing them to sharply focus on going after Obama. And what could better bring along B.O.'s call for change than to pursue not only throwing the bums out but convicting them and incarcerating them as well? Hell, it should be part and parcel of every Democrat's House and Senate campaign this fall, and for what it's worth would be a huge bandage (with antibiotic ointment) on the sore they've left me with in the past year and a half.
I exhort you to call The Madam Speaker at (202) 225-0100 to let her know you want impeachment back on the table. She just might take to it now that the wife of the last impeached president is not going to be her party's nominee this year.
Hit it, Neil!
The gentleman from Ohio rises to the occasion and he has it right - "The House is not in order."
That Rep. Kucinich intended his opening proclamation to be so metaphoric of our nation's current condition is debatable, but it is highly relevant to the 35 articles of impeachment he presented against George Bush this evening (Raw Story has an article, C-Span video and partial transcript HERE).
UPDATE: A pdf version of the entire 65-page document is HERE
WTG, DK! Bush smugly says history will be his judge, and this will be one of the main reference points for the historians. It is in fact an excellent capsule. Thirty-five articles: torture, fraud, rendition, war crimes, obstruction, the Bill of Rights, the Constitution and international law. He’s throwing every book he can find and I say BULLY!
What are the chances that this gains traction? Perhaps very slight, but I don’t think Dennis has any illusions about what he’s doing. Perhaps I gush a bit, but I'd like to think his contemporary 35-part summary is being posted for posterity as forceful as Luther's 95 theses were attached to the Wittenburg gate. Maybe he could tack them to Nancy Pelosi's forehead.
Now some (maybe most) Democrats are saying the primary objective is to elect Obama president, and I don't dismiss that sentiment out of hand. By pursuing impeachment now the Democrats will at least help fill the insatiable news void and show that they are actually doing something, that being to stand up for the rights of law. Think about it - Congress goes after the criminals and Obama goes after the heir apparent to the familia. It could also put the entire GOP on their heels trying to save their own ass and not allowing them to sharply focus on going after Obama. And what could better bring along B.O.'s call for change than to pursue not only throwing the bums out but convicting them and incarcerating them as well? Hell, it should be part and parcel of every Democrat's House and Senate campaign this fall, and for what it's worth would be a huge bandage (with antibiotic ointment) on the sore they've left me with in the past year and a half.
I exhort you to call The Madam Speaker at (202) 225-0100 to let her know you want impeachment back on the table. She just might take to it now that the wife of the last impeached president is not going to be her party's nominee this year.
Hit it, Neil!
Labels: Bush, histoire, impeachment, Kucinich, politix, terms of enragement
March 26, 2008
McBush
.
"In remembrance of the 4,000 brave men and women who sacrificed everything for us -and the two men who would continue this great tragedy, despite the cost to our soldiers, our military, and our nation. "
- Nico Pitney at Huffington Post
"In remembrance of the 4,000 brave men and women who sacrificed everything for us -and the two men who would continue this great tragedy, despite the cost to our soldiers, our military, and our nation. "
- Nico Pitney at Huffington Post
Senator John McCain looks to be the Republican Party's nominee for president, so in the interest of helping undecided voters who may be considering a pull for the GOP this November, let’s examine some facts* about the Senator’s record on the Iraq war. While McCain has presented himself as a maverick and a critic of the war, a close read shows that his position has consistently matched that of the Bush administration.
Before The War:
McCain said that a policy of containing
“I know that as successful as I believe we will be, and I believe that the success will be fairly easy, we will still lose some American young men or women.” [CNN,
McCain co-sponsored the Use of Force Authorization that gave President George W. Bush the green light - and a blank check - for going to war with
McCain has constantly moved the goal posts of progress for the war—repeatedly saying it would be over soon. “But the point is that, one, we will win this conflict. We will win it easily.” [MSNBC,
McCain argued Saddam was “a threat of the first order, and only a change of regime will make
McCain echoed Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld’s rationale for going to war. McCain: “It’s going to send the message throughout the
During The War:
McCain echoed Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld’s talking points that the
McCain praised Bush’s leadership on the war. McCain: “I think the president has led with great clarity and I think he’s done a great job leading the country...” [MSNBC, Hardball,
McCain voted against holding Bush accountable for his actions in the war. McCain opposed the creation of an independent commission to investigate the development and use of intelligence leading up to the war in
McCain defended Bush’s rationale for war. Asked if he thought the president exaggerated the case for war, McCain said, “I don’t think so.” [Fox News,
McCain praised Donald Rumsfeld two weeks after the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse scandal broke in April 2004. Asked if Rumsfeld can continue to be an effective secretary of defense, McCain: “Yes, today I do and I believe he’s done a fine job. He’s an honorable man.” [Hannity and Colmes,
McCain repeatedly supported President Bush on the Iraq War - voting with him in the Senate, defending his actions and publicly praising his leadership.
At the 2004 Republican National Convention, McCain, focusing on the war in
“The terrorists know that this is a very critical time.” [CNN,
“Overall, I think a year from now, we will have a fair amount of progress [in
“We’re either going to lose this thing or win this thing within the next several months.” [NBC, Meet the Press,
McCain opposed efforts to end the overextension of the military that is having a devastating impact on our troops.
McCain voted against requiring mandatory minimum downtime between tours of duty for troops serving in
McCain was one of only 13 senators to vote against adding $430 million for inpatient and outpatient care for veterans. [Vote #98,
McCain has consistently opposed any plan to withdraw troops from Iraq, repeatedly voting against a timetable for withdrawing troops from Iraq [Vote # 322, 11/15/05; Vote #182, 6/22/06; Vote #181, 6/22/06; Vote #182, 6/22/06; Vote #182, 6/22/06; Vote #252, 7/18/07; Vote #345, 9/21/07; Vote #346, 9/21/07; Vote # 362, 10/3/07; Vote # 437, 12/18/07; Vote #438, 12/18/07]
McCain called proponents of a congressional resolution opposing the troop surge in
McCain has consistently demonized Americans who want to find a responsible way to remove troops from
“I believe to set a date for withdrawal is to set a date for surrender.” [Charlotte Observer,
McCain continues to maintain that the occupation of
McCain has been President Bush’s most ardent Senate supporter on
Asked if the war was a good idea worth the price in blood and treasure McCain said, “It was worth getting rid of Saddam Hussein. He had used weapons of mass destruction, and it’s clear that he was hell-bent on acquiring them.” [Republican Debate,
The Future:
McCain now says he sees no end to the presence of
“Make it a hundred” years in
“A thousand years. A million years. Ten million years. It depends on the arrangement we have with the Iraqi government.” [Associated Press,
So please, fence-sitters, don't be responsible for bringing four more years of this nightmare to bear. A hat tip to Archer for the link to the mosaic.
Labels: analysis, Bush, dead bodies, John McCain, Lies and Lying Liars, terms of enragement, violence inherent in the system, war
January 13, 2008
That's 212-664-4444
.
UPDATE BELOW
Well it wouldn't be an election year and this wouldn't be my blog if I couldn't start things off on the left foot with a good rant and a plea for support. I'm sorry if I'm bouggin' ya (I don't mean to boug ya) but there's this thing that's got me a bit steamed, and I think it's important enough to post and try to roust up some help here at 2:00 a.m. (and I've only had three beers, okay?). It will only take a few minutes of your time if you are so inclined to read/act.
Here's a pared-down version of a letter I got from the Dennis Kucinich presidential campaign (obviously I'm a supporter, but you don't even have to be a Democrat to see the validity in this):
Okay, a little more background for those who may need some convincing.
In an email to the Kucinich campaign on Wednesday, January 9, Democratic Party debates consultant Jenny Backus wrote:
NBC also sent a congratulatory note and an invitation to Rep. Kucinich to participate in the debate in Las Vegas, but less than 44 hours later the network notified the campaign that it was changing the announced criteria, rescinding its invitation, and excluding Kucinich from the debate.
NBC Political Director Chuck Todd notified the Kucinich campaign that, although he had met the qualification criteria publicly announced on December 28, the network was “re-doing” the criteria, excluding Kucinich, and planning to invite only Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama and former senator John Edwards. This marks the third time since the Iowa Caucuses that Kucinich has been excluded from a national debate for spurious, if any, reasons.
The criteria announced last month included a fourth-place or better showing in a national poll. The USA/Gallup poll earlier this month showed Kucinich in fourth place among the Democratic contenders. In the recent ABC/Facebook sponsored New Hampshire debate from which he was excluded, Kucinich, according to Facebook’s own figures, ranked fourth in popularity among Facebook members, AHEAD of New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson, who participated in that event but who has since dropped out of the campaign. By the way, Dennis Kucinich has won more than a dozen major on-line polls and post-debate surveys, including Democracy for America, Independent Voters of America AND one conducted by ABC News. He also scored high if not on top of the exit polls of the debates in which he has participated.
The Kucinich campaign filed an emergency complaint with the Federal Communications Commission last week because of ABC’s decision to exclude the candidate from a nationally televised debate, and is considering legal action to address “the blatant disregard of the public interest in silencing public debate that dissents with the views of NBC, its parent company GE, and all of the military contractors and their candidate-funding corporate interests. Corporate control of the media is one issue. Corporate media control of the information that is allowed to reach American citizens is much more dangerous, much more sinister, and much more un-American.”
“When ‘big media’ exert their unbridled control over what Americans can see, hear, and read, then the Constitutional power and right of the citizens to vote is being vetoed by multi-billion dollar corporations that want the votes to go their way,” the Kucinich campaign said.
Folks, I'm not voting for DK because I think he has a chance, I'm doing it because I think his voice needs to be heard (quite specifically so that he could earn some delegates to the Democratic National Convention and be allowed to speak and influence the party platform). To exclude dark horse candidates like Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul from debates is to say to the American people, "Here's your monologue, folks, enjoy the show."
What is NBC/GE, afraid of? All I am asking is for the opportunity to have the person who represents the thoughts and feelings of a significant portion of our citizenry be able to share his views with the nation. Is that just too inconvenient for NBC and the front runners in this election? Could it be because Kucinich is the only remaining Democratic Presidential candidate who voted against the original Iraq War authorization in 2002 AND every war-funding measure since; voted against the so-called Patriot Act; advocates a national, not-for-profit health system that covers all Americans; has called for the repeal of NAFTA and withdrawal from the WTO?
Probably, but if you please, call NBC/MSNBC at 212 664-4444 and ask for the Comment Line or email them at letters@msnbc.com to tell them you don't think it's in the interest of democracy to exclude a U.S. Congressmen who has put forth a valid effort in the presidential campaign to be excluded from national televised debates. Feel free to forward this to anyone who may be interested and by all means encourage a friend or three to contact NBC as well.
Thanks,
Tim the crazy politico
THIS JUST IN:
Judge says MSNBC debate must include Kucinich
Andrew Malcolm of the Los Angeles Times:
A judge in Nevada has just ordered MSNBC to include Rep. Dennis
Kucinich in Tuesday's Democratic Party presidential debate in
Las Vegas or he will cancel the forum.
Senior Clark County District Court Judge Charles Thompson vowed
to issue an injunction halting the nationally televised debate
if MSNBC failed to comply. Kucinich had filed a lawsuit seeking
to be included just this morning.
The judge ruled it was a matter of fairness and Nevada voters
would benefit from hearing from more than just Hillary Clinton,
John Edwards and Barack Obama. Kucinich had been invited to
participate in the 6 p.m. Pacific debate Tuesday, but that
invitation was rescinded last week ... So set up a fourth
podium.
RIGHTEOUS ! ! But I would not be surprised if corporate sponsors pressure MSNBC to let the judge cancel the debate in order to give their lawyers time to file appeals that would keep DK out.
UPDATE BELOW
Well it wouldn't be an election year and this wouldn't be my blog if I couldn't start things off on the left foot with a good rant and a plea for support. I'm sorry if I'm bouggin' ya (I don't mean to boug ya) but there's this thing that's got me a bit steamed, and I think it's important enough to post and try to roust up some help here at 2:00 a.m. (and I've only had three beers, okay?). It will only take a few minutes of your time if you are so inclined to read/act.
Here's a pared-down version of a letter I got from the Dennis Kucinich presidential campaign (obviously I'm a supporter, but you don't even have to be a Democrat to see the validity in this):
Dear Friends,
Once again, America is faced with questions about the rights of Americans to decide for themselves who they should be allowed to vote for in this crucial Presidential election. In Nevada, it's a question of whether the GE-owned NBC television network should have the power to decide who your choices should be for President.
The decision by NBC to exclude Dennis from next week's Presidential debate - even though he met the criteria - is outrageous. NBC and MSNBC have made a corporate decision to exclude the one and only voice who represents you and those things that the Democratic Party should stand for. If you are as outraged as we are, please call NBC/MSNBC at 212 664-4444 and ask for the Comment Line or email them at letters@msnbc.com
PLEASE share this message with everyone you know so that the voice of the people will be heard.
Strength through Peace,
The Kucinich Campaign
Okay, a little more background for those who may need some convincing.
In an email to the Kucinich campaign on Wednesday, January 9, Democratic Party debates consultant Jenny Backus wrote:
“Now that New Hampshire is over, we are on to Nevada and our Presidential Debate on Tuesday January 15. This letter serves as an official invitation for your candidate to participate in the Nevada Presidential Debate at Cashman Theatre in downtown Las Vegas. You have met the criteria set by NBC and the Debate.”
NBC also sent a congratulatory note and an invitation to Rep. Kucinich to participate in the debate in Las Vegas, but less than 44 hours later the network notified the campaign that it was changing the announced criteria, rescinding its invitation, and excluding Kucinich from the debate.
NBC Political Director Chuck Todd notified the Kucinich campaign that, although he had met the qualification criteria publicly announced on December 28, the network was “re-doing” the criteria, excluding Kucinich, and planning to invite only Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama and former senator John Edwards. This marks the third time since the Iowa Caucuses that Kucinich has been excluded from a national debate for spurious, if any, reasons.
The criteria announced last month included a fourth-place or better showing in a national poll. The USA/Gallup poll earlier this month showed Kucinich in fourth place among the Democratic contenders. In the recent ABC/Facebook sponsored New Hampshire debate from which he was excluded, Kucinich, according to Facebook’s own figures, ranked fourth in popularity among Facebook members, AHEAD of New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson, who participated in that event but who has since dropped out of the campaign. By the way, Dennis Kucinich has won more than a dozen major on-line polls and post-debate surveys, including Democracy for America, Independent Voters of America AND one conducted by ABC News. He also scored high if not on top of the exit polls of the debates in which he has participated.
The Kucinich campaign filed an emergency complaint with the Federal Communications Commission last week because of ABC’s decision to exclude the candidate from a nationally televised debate, and is considering legal action to address “the blatant disregard of the public interest in silencing public debate that dissents with the views of NBC, its parent company GE, and all of the military contractors and their candidate-funding corporate interests. Corporate control of the media is one issue. Corporate media control of the information that is allowed to reach American citizens is much more dangerous, much more sinister, and much more un-American.”
“When ‘big media’ exert their unbridled control over what Americans can see, hear, and read, then the Constitutional power and right of the citizens to vote is being vetoed by multi-billion dollar corporations that want the votes to go their way,” the Kucinich campaign said.
Folks, I'm not voting for DK because I think he has a chance, I'm doing it because I think his voice needs to be heard (quite specifically so that he could earn some delegates to the Democratic National Convention and be allowed to speak and influence the party platform). To exclude dark horse candidates like Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul from debates is to say to the American people, "Here's your monologue, folks, enjoy the show."
What is NBC/GE, afraid of? All I am asking is for the opportunity to have the person who represents the thoughts and feelings of a significant portion of our citizenry be able to share his views with the nation. Is that just too inconvenient for NBC and the front runners in this election? Could it be because Kucinich is the only remaining Democratic Presidential candidate who voted against the original Iraq War authorization in 2002 AND every war-funding measure since; voted against the so-called Patriot Act; advocates a national, not-for-profit health system that covers all Americans; has called for the repeal of NAFTA and withdrawal from the WTO?
Probably, but if you please, call NBC/MSNBC at 212 664-4444 and ask for the Comment Line or email them at letters@msnbc.com to tell them you don't think it's in the interest of democracy to exclude a U.S. Congressmen who has put forth a valid effort in the presidential campaign to be excluded from national televised debates. Feel free to forward this to anyone who may be interested and by all means encourage a friend or three to contact NBC as well.
Thanks,
Tim the crazy politico
THIS JUST IN:
Judge says MSNBC debate must include Kucinich
Andrew Malcolm of the Los Angeles Times:
A judge in Nevada has just ordered MSNBC to include Rep. Dennis
Kucinich in Tuesday's Democratic Party presidential debate in
Las Vegas or he will cancel the forum.
Senior Clark County District Court Judge Charles Thompson vowed
to issue an injunction halting the nationally televised debate
if MSNBC failed to comply. Kucinich had filed a lawsuit seeking
to be included just this morning.
The judge ruled it was a matter of fairness and Nevada voters
would benefit from hearing from more than just Hillary Clinton,
John Edwards and Barack Obama. Kucinich had been invited to
participate in the 6 p.m. Pacific debate Tuesday, but that
invitation was rescinded last week ... So set up a fourth
podium.
RIGHTEOUS ! ! But I would not be surprised if corporate sponsors pressure MSNBC to let the judge cancel the debate in order to give their lawyers time to file appeals that would keep DK out.
Labels: couldn't we just TRY a hardcore lefty for four years folks?, Kucinich, media, politix, protest, terms of enragement
December 16, 2007
Impeachment: let's get exponential
.
Among many excellent topics of discussion in this evening's Constitutional Forum (see previous post), Congressman Dennis Kucinich related a most interesting story. He said a former member of the House Judiciary Committee during the Nixon/Watergate crisis told him that NOT ONE member of the Democrat-controlled committee was willing to proceed with impeachment hearings against President Nixon.
"What started the fire, then?" Kucinich asked.
"The people," was the reply.
Need a light?
.
Among many excellent topics of discussion in this evening's Constitutional Forum (see previous post), Congressman Dennis Kucinich related a most interesting story. He said a former member of the House Judiciary Committee during the Nixon/Watergate crisis told him that NOT ONE member of the Democrat-controlled committee was willing to proceed with impeachment hearings against President Nixon.
"What started the fire, then?" Kucinich asked.
"The people," was the reply.
Need a light?
.
Labels: impeachment, Kucinich, politix, terms of enragement
November 17, 2007
How about "Fatigue Outrage" instead?
.
I am grateful to Aiko Annie for turning me on to SF Gate columnist Mark Morford, and like her I now can't help but link to his masterful progressive commentary.
There's been a lot of outrage fatigue going around in the progressive neighborhoods of Blogovia through which I commute, and in my own household the calmer, smarter half has expressed concern over my anger at all things Bush. To some degree she is justified, and so it was with great relief that I came across this paragraph about outrage that Morford wrote in the above-linked column:
Maybe I wasn't as wigged out as all that, but I was definitely considering the next exit toward despair. It's going to take so long to fix this shit, but Morford has inspired me to chill and thereby take stock of my reality to determine a reasoned course for contributing to the restoration with healthy outrage.
Here's how it's done (Keith Olbermann, October 18, 2006 and worth all 8 mins):
.
I am grateful to Aiko Annie for turning me on to SF Gate columnist Mark Morford, and like her I now can't help but link to his masterful progressive commentary.
There's been a lot of outrage fatigue going around in the progressive neighborhoods of Blogovia through which I commute, and in my own household the calmer, smarter half has expressed concern over my anger at all things Bush. To some degree she is justified, and so it was with great relief that I came across this paragraph about outrage that Morford wrote in the above-linked column:
"It is, for me, all about modulation. It is about remembering that outrage does not necessarily equal misery. Outrage does not mean you must wallow in fear and fatalism and yank out your hair and wake up every morning hating the world and hating yourself and hating humanity for being so stupid/numb/blind and wondering how the hell you can escape it all."
Maybe I wasn't as wigged out as all that, but I was definitely considering the next exit toward despair. It's going to take so long to fix this shit, but Morford has inspired me to chill and thereby take stock of my reality to determine a reasoned course for contributing to the restoration with healthy outrage.
Here's how it's done (Keith Olbermann, October 18, 2006 and worth all 8 mins):
.
Labels: Bush, journalism, politix, rants, terms of enragement, words
October 14, 2007
More War is Hell
.
Regarding my last post on a reaction to Islamic culture in America, I concede up front that radical Islam is currently head and shoulders above any other violent, zealous terrorist sect of any other religion. Butwe’ve the U.S. has got this “War on Terror” all backasswards. I forthwith strike “we” from my discussions of this as I’m tired of inferring that average citizens share responsibility for this debacle. And while it’s unfortunate that sometimes all we average citizens seem to have left is Monday morning quarterbacking, still I gotta say it takes an idiot of a leader to request that the enemy “bring it on.” Seems to me you should keep your damn mouth shut and bring it to them. If we had wise leaders who didn’t play act success and revel in “shock and awe” but instead rallied the free nations to form an effective coalition of the seriously pissed off, we’d be mopping up the very last of things here in year five.
In 2005 my dropped jaw was lonely among the nodding heads in a room where a certain U.S. senator compared Iraq to the struggle of the American colonists rebelling against Britain in the late 18th century. Yet even leaving that one to wallow in its absurdity, others who have gulped the neocon’s Kool-Aid® in mass quantities have claimed the struggle is on par with our role to liberate Europe and the Pacific from Axis tyranny. Equally absurd (still, it must be mighty tasty, OH YEAH!), but since we just had the luxury of a historical fast forward of 165 years or so, let’s do the run down from there to now.
One big difference between 1941 and 2001 is that the latter came upon us a just a bit more quickly. World War II was raging hard for a couple of years before the U.S. had no choice left but to commit troops. But in watching Ken Burns’ The War I was astounded by the much closer look at the motivation and sacrifice of Americans back then. Not only did the U.S. emerge from the greatest modern economic catastrophe to defeat major industrialized enemy nations on two huge fronts (and contributed vast amounts of materiel to help the Soviets on a third), it produced the most fearful weapon of mass destruction ever imagined, and then paid handsomely to rebuild the countries that it vanquished. Franklin D. Roosevelt didn’t execute the political end of things flawlessly, but he knew the Axis powers were on a tear, and when the hour came at Pearl Harbor he knew it was go and that go was nothing less than balls to the wall. Add to that his leadership qualities that got the essentially complete cooperation and motivation of the nation behind the cause, combined with the luck of developing the A-bomb first, and it was just a matter of time (and bodies) for an Allied victory.
One fact I learned from Burns’ documentary demonstrates the radical shift the country went through in record time: in 1941 U.S. automakers manufactured well over one million cars, while in the three years following only a few hundred new cars were made. The Ford plant in Ypsilanti, Michigan took just a few months to retool for building B-24 bombers, which had more than 10 times the number of parts of a car. At its peak the plant ended up cranking each one out in just over an hour. All I can think to say of that is Fuck. Ing. A.
But within five years of that great and terrible victory America plunged into another conflict that cost it 130,000+ casualties and achieved a mere stalemate that firmed up the roots of the Cold War to drag on for decades. Before two of those decades passed there would be yet another conflict in eastern Asia with American combat casualties in excess of 360,000 and millions of civilians killed or wounded. What happened? Perhaps it was that these conflicts presented a nebulous concept of a cause to fight for, and that American capitalism, in its zeal for wartime profit bolstered by jingoist propaganda to fight communist expansion, got outfoxed by the more nuanced approach of the Soviet Union (who never committed combat troops to either Korea or Vietnam). But O’Tim, Ronald Reagan defeated communism in the end. Um, right... that’s for another post, now run along sonny.
So now we are in the midst of the vaguest war imaginable. Monty Python stalwart Terry Jones put the neo-conceit of the “War on Terror” in humorous perspective. “How is ‘terrorism’ going to surrender?” he wrote in his 2005 book Terry Jones’s War on the War on Terror. “It’s very hard for abstract nouns to do anything at all of their own volition.” On the political side, if George W. Bush had as much acumen for command as FDR had in his fingernail things would be a whole lot different. Ulterior motives have also been the order of the fight against terror, making it far from a just or even credible war and therefore subject to a great probability of failure at worst or readjustments that will take many decades at best. What with war being hell and all, the fight needs unequivocating SOBs like George Smith Patton Jr. and, if you’ll permit a brief throwback to the 1860s, William Tecumseh Sherman running the show, not ambitious executive branch lapdogs like Petraeus and Tommy Franks. Let’s pause here for a couple of juicy quotes from the aforementioned battle-hardened dudes:
Another part of the puzzle is the media and its lack of curiosity about the neoconservative thinking on how the U.S. should step up its presence in the Middle East. One of the most glaring examples is in a report that neocon think-tank Project for the New American Century (PNAC) released in 2000 called Rebuilding America’s Defenses (the complete report is at http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf). PNAC, which deems itself “a nonprofit, educational organization whose goal is to promote American global leadership,” put forth in this report some startlingly prescient analysis, stating, “While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein,” and “The process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor.”
Holy full circles, Batman! That’s some frightening shit. Jones explained how this and other salient facts get the media gloss-over. “The problem with the media is they are primarily owned by corporations, and corporations are pro-establishment. Newspapers and television start using the vocabulary of politicians, and that’s the way bias creeps in.”
PNAC fellow Director Gary Schmitt acknowledged that they were up front about regime change, but maintained that Saddam’s removal was U.S. policy predating the Bush II administration, and that the left had cherry-picked such quotes from the report since its release. “I see it all the time,” he said. What I’m pretty sure was a less common sight for Schmitt and certainly for the mainstream media was any candor about cherry-picked evidence used in the run up to Iraq part deux.
The final piece is us, and I have to strike my previous statement about striking “we” from this discourse, for in the end we are all to blame, not just Bush and his Republican cronies. We’re well aware of this administration’s shortcomings and goings, and so is Congress, who is still taking every opportunity to avoid taking any opportunity to get something done to correct our erroneous course. Can the 2008 national elections bring about any sensible results? Despite my doubts, I’ll be voting, if only to claim my right to 1,400-word rants.
So then enough of that, and on to more important things. In honor of our “War Is Hell” edition, try some XTC and “Sgt. Rock” (complete with that Top of the Pops lip-synching that would give anyone stage fright!):
.
Regarding my last post on a reaction to Islamic culture in America, I concede up front that radical Islam is currently head and shoulders above any other violent, zealous terrorist sect of any other religion. But
In 2005 my dropped jaw was lonely among the nodding heads in a room where a certain U.S. senator compared Iraq to the struggle of the American colonists rebelling against Britain in the late 18th century. Yet even leaving that one to wallow in its absurdity, others who have gulped the neocon’s Kool-Aid® in mass quantities have claimed the struggle is on par with our role to liberate Europe and the Pacific from Axis tyranny. Equally absurd (still, it must be mighty tasty, OH YEAH!), but since we just had the luxury of a historical fast forward of 165 years or so, let’s do the run down from there to now.
One big difference between 1941 and 2001 is that the latter came upon us a just a bit more quickly. World War II was raging hard for a couple of years before the U.S. had no choice left but to commit troops. But in watching Ken Burns’ The War I was astounded by the much closer look at the motivation and sacrifice of Americans back then. Not only did the U.S. emerge from the greatest modern economic catastrophe to defeat major industrialized enemy nations on two huge fronts (and contributed vast amounts of materiel to help the Soviets on a third), it produced the most fearful weapon of mass destruction ever imagined, and then paid handsomely to rebuild the countries that it vanquished. Franklin D. Roosevelt didn’t execute the political end of things flawlessly, but he knew the Axis powers were on a tear, and when the hour came at Pearl Harbor he knew it was go and that go was nothing less than balls to the wall. Add to that his leadership qualities that got the essentially complete cooperation and motivation of the nation behind the cause, combined with the luck of developing the A-bomb first, and it was just a matter of time (and bodies) for an Allied victory.
One fact I learned from Burns’ documentary demonstrates the radical shift the country went through in record time: in 1941 U.S. automakers manufactured well over one million cars, while in the three years following only a few hundred new cars were made. The Ford plant in Ypsilanti, Michigan took just a few months to retool for building B-24 bombers, which had more than 10 times the number of parts of a car. At its peak the plant ended up cranking each one out in just over an hour. All I can think to say of that is Fuck. Ing. A.
But within five years of that great and terrible victory America plunged into another conflict that cost it 130,000+ casualties and achieved a mere stalemate that firmed up the roots of the Cold War to drag on for decades. Before two of those decades passed there would be yet another conflict in eastern Asia with American combat casualties in excess of 360,000 and millions of civilians killed or wounded. What happened? Perhaps it was that these conflicts presented a nebulous concept of a cause to fight for, and that American capitalism, in its zeal for wartime profit bolstered by jingoist propaganda to fight communist expansion, got outfoxed by the more nuanced approach of the Soviet Union (who never committed combat troops to either Korea or Vietnam). But O’Tim, Ronald Reagan defeated communism in the end. Um, right... that’s for another post, now run along sonny.
So now we are in the midst of the vaguest war imaginable. Monty Python stalwart Terry Jones put the neo-conceit of the “War on Terror” in humorous perspective. “How is ‘terrorism’ going to surrender?” he wrote in his 2005 book Terry Jones’s War on the War on Terror. “It’s very hard for abstract nouns to do anything at all of their own volition.” On the political side, if George W. Bush had as much acumen for command as FDR had in his fingernail things would be a whole lot different. Ulterior motives have also been the order of the fight against terror, making it far from a just or even credible war and therefore subject to a great probability of failure at worst or readjustments that will take many decades at best. What with war being hell and all, the fight needs unequivocating SOBs like George Smith Patton Jr. and, if you’ll permit a brief throwback to the 1860s, William Tecumseh Sherman running the show, not ambitious executive branch lapdogs like Petraeus and Tommy Franks. Let’s pause here for a couple of juicy quotes from the aforementioned battle-hardened dudes:
“You cannot qualify war in harsher terms than I will. War is cruelty, and you cannot refine it; and those who brought war into our country deserve all the curses and maledictions a people can pour out...You might as well appeal against the thunderstorm as against (the) terrible hardships of war.” - Gen. Sherman, to the city fathers of Atlanta prior to evacuating the populace and burning the city down.
“If everybody is thinking alike, then somebody isn’t thinking.” - Gen. Patton, probably to some subordinate whom he smacked and made cry.
Another part of the puzzle is the media and its lack of curiosity about the neoconservative thinking on how the U.S. should step up its presence in the Middle East. One of the most glaring examples is in a report that neocon think-tank Project for the New American Century (PNAC) released in 2000 called Rebuilding America’s Defenses (the complete report is at http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf). PNAC, which deems itself “a nonprofit, educational organization whose goal is to promote American global leadership,” put forth in this report some startlingly prescient analysis, stating, “While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein,” and “The process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor.”
Holy full circles, Batman! That’s some frightening shit. Jones explained how this and other salient facts get the media gloss-over. “The problem with the media is they are primarily owned by corporations, and corporations are pro-establishment. Newspapers and television start using the vocabulary of politicians, and that’s the way bias creeps in.”
PNAC fellow Director Gary Schmitt acknowledged that they were up front about regime change, but maintained that Saddam’s removal was U.S. policy predating the Bush II administration, and that the left had cherry-picked such quotes from the report since its release. “I see it all the time,” he said. What I’m pretty sure was a less common sight for Schmitt and certainly for the mainstream media was any candor about cherry-picked evidence used in the run up to Iraq part deux.
The final piece is us, and I have to strike my previous statement about striking “we” from this discourse, for in the end we are all to blame, not just Bush and his Republican cronies. We’re well aware of this administration’s shortcomings and goings, and so is Congress, who is still taking every opportunity to avoid taking any opportunity to get something done to correct our erroneous course. Can the 2008 national elections bring about any sensible results? Despite my doubts, I’ll be voting, if only to claim my right to 1,400-word rants.
So then enough of that, and on to more important things. In honor of our “War Is Hell” edition, try some XTC and “Sgt. Rock” (complete with that Top of the Pops lip-synching that would give anyone stage fright!):
.
Labels: Bush, dead bodies, politix, rants, terms of enragement, turrists, war
September 18, 2007
Peanut v. Pumpkin
.
MoveOn.org's full-page NYT ad: $70,000
Bushco's Iraq War: $500,000,000,000 (monetary cost, that is - half a trillion is just half the story)
Kool-Aid drinkers getting upset over the "attack ad":
PRICELESS
Read more at HuffPo & MoveOn.org (backed up with more links than you can point an AK at as well as Petraeus' own 1200-word editorial Battling for Iraq in the The Washington Post, 9/26/04)
MoveOn.org's full-page NYT ad: $70,000Bushco's Iraq War: $500,000,000,000 (monetary cost, that is - half a trillion is just half the story)
Kool-Aid drinkers getting upset over the "attack ad":
PRICELESS
Read more at HuffPo & MoveOn.org (backed up with more links than you can point an AK at as well as Petraeus' own 1200-word editorial Battling for Iraq in the The Washington Post, 9/26/04)
My sincere apologies to those of you who visit Much That is Hidden for uplifting slices of life, which I realize have become more seldom in my postings of late. It's just that I fear if I don't say anything about this my head will eckspload.
Thank you for your patience and your patronage.
Thank you for your patience and your patronage.
.
Labels: gummint, politix, terms of enragement, vital statistics, war
September 16, 2007
We knew it all along, dude
.
Archer, interim lordgodking of LawyerWorldLand, has come out of the wonk closet, at least for this and that post on the cost of the Iraq war. Go read them - he has promised not to jeer and throw things.
.
Archer, interim lordgodking of LawyerWorldLand, has come out of the wonk closet, at least for this and that post on the cost of the Iraq war. Go read them - he has promised not to jeer and throw things.
.
Labels: Archer, Iraq, madness, shit sandwich, terms of enragement, war
September 11, 2007
Chutzpah on stilts
.
Lots of good remembrances on the blogs today. The theme I am relating to best is not so much remembering what we've lost but rather what we've given away. Former U.S. Senator Gary Hart wrote one of the best essays, copied here from HuffPo:
And here is my annual perspective check from that watershed time (cut me some slack on my over-the-top newscaster tone).
.
.
Lots of good remembrances on the blogs today. The theme I am relating to best is not so much remembering what we've lost but rather what we've given away. Former U.S. Senator Gary Hart wrote one of the best essays, copied here from HuffPo:
Six years ago three thousand Americans lost their lives. They need not have. Their deaths could have been prevented. Their lives could have been saved.
The Bush administration was warned months before 9/11 that terrorists were going to attack America. They did nothing. They have yet to be held accountable for the preventable loss of American lives. Yet the administration blames its critics for not understanding the terrorist threat.
The perpetrator of those American deaths is still at large and the war to eliminate those who harbored him threatens to drag on inconclusively for many years. Instead, administration operatives, with the approval of their masters, find it convenient to use him to create fear, and therefore justify their positions of power.
The United States has suffered more than 30,000 casualties in another war that had nothing to do with those attacks. This folly is producing more haters of America than it can ever possibly eliminate.
The backbone of domestic security, the National Guard, is deployed in that war and is thus not at home being trained, equipped, and deployed to protect America.
The consolidation of federal border protection and attack response in a single agency did not begin until at least 18 months after it was proposed and, six years later, it has proved to be woefully inadequate, in large part because those responsible for its administration possess a political philosophy that does not believe government can or should be effective. And they use every occasion to prove it.
The U.S. is currently pursuing a foreign policy in the Middle East and throughout the Arab world that is dementedly designed to promote a clash of civilizations. When this policy produces further attacks, our current policy makers will respond that this is what to expect from those who hate America and only tough-minded conservatives know how to deal with them.
Those who claim to understand terrorism and the use of force, meanwhile, have so exhausted our combat forces that our true national security is greatly at risk and our nation is weakened.
This administration stands indicted for incompetence and mendacity. That it still commands the loyalty of even a quarter of our fellow citizens is testament to the persistence of willful ignorance. Against all the facts assembled in this indictment, that the administration's operatives can still make claims on strength, security, and determination is chutzpah on stilts.
That the media still treat these operatives and spokespersons, and indeed the president himself, seriously is witness to their desire for "access" and "sources" rather than their commitment to the truth.
America is today under the steady gaze of billions of the world's citizens and even more under the examining lens of history. Nothing is more difficult than to admit that we made a tragic mistake in selecting our leaders. But that is the first step toward redemption. Absolute rejection of those who lay claim to ownership of security is the next.
We are too old to behave as adolescents any longer. That includes particularly our president. America must grow up. We must redeem ourselves in the name of those who lost their lives unnecessarily six years ago. We must reclaim our dignity and our honor from those who have neither.
And here is my annual perspective check from that watershed time (cut me some slack on my over-the-top newscaster tone).
.
.
Labels: death, facts, histoire, justice, life, madness, martyrdom, milestones, politix, religion, remembrance, terms of enragement, tragedy, turrists, war, weaponry, words
July 31, 2007
Out in left field (go team!)
Muley: "Who's the Shawnee Land and Cattle Company?"
Land agent: "It ain't anybody. It's a company."
-- The Grapes of Wrath
Last week I received one of the many documentary selections I’ve queued up from Netflix,* The Corporation. It’s a 2003 Canadian film which chronicles the rise of the corporate entity, chiefly in North America. There is no doubt the film is strongly to the left in its point of view, and so barring some minor shortcomings I of course found it very appealing and engaging.
Quickly, just two beefs: I concur with Roger Ebert's review that, at 145 minutes, the film overstays its welcome like "the dinner guest who tells you something fascinating, and then tells you again, and then a third time." I see now that the directors have released an enhanced version DVD with eight hours of "bonus" footage. Good news for the type of person who makes a career out of attending anti-globalization demonstrations, I guess. The other gripe I have is that the music is in that overwrought style of spooky tones so popular in modern documentaries. I'll cut it some slack as it is a social cause film and not some "voyage of the cute and fuzzy whatevers."
The central themes in The Corporation are that today's companies enjoy the same status in liberty as individuals, and that society is suffering from the privatization of elements traditionally held in common in western society since its emergence from the Dark Ages. Several anti-globalization stalwarts such as Dr. Vandana Shiva and Noam Chomsky are interviewed, along with a few unrepentant capitalists for good documentary measure, like Milton Friedman and some jerky floor trader who unabashedly pointed out how good 9-11 and the Iraq war were for the stock market.
The film posits that corporations are today's dominant institutions, replacing the likes of monarchies and other bygone regimes. One of the film’s primary themes is in assessing today’s multinational companies according to the renowned Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (or DSM - the bible of the American Psychiatric Association). The latest edition identifies 297 disorders, but the film concentrates on six areas. Dr. Robert Hare, psychology professor and FBI consultant, compares the modern, profit-driven corporation to that of a clinically diagnosed psychopath based on the following symptoms:
- Callous unconcern for the feelings of others
- Incapacity to maintain enduring relationships
- Reckless disregard for the safety of others
- Deceitfulness: repeated lying and conning of others for profit
- Incapacity to experience guilt
- Failure to conform to the social norms with respect to lawful behaviors
The analysis? We’re all going to hell, or at least those of us who can’t squeeze through the eye of a needle on our camels. Okay, lame biblical reference – it doesn’t get that gloomy, but it gives a plethora of evidence to support the notion that we are heading fast in the wrong direction. Good examples of the insidious nature of corporations abound in the film.
Economist Jeremy Rifkin tells us how in the 1980s a scientist for General Electric “invented” microorganisms that ate hazardous waste. GE went to the U.S. Patent Office claiming they had invented these bacteria and needed a patent. The patent office immediately turned down the request citing a living organism cannot be patented. GE corporate lawyers went to court to fight for their patent rights, and lo and behold the patent office was overruled. Rifkin himself appealed this decision by going to the Supreme Court. His argument was that if the verdict was upheld, the blueprints of life would be owned by corporations without Congress or the public's consent. By a ruling of 5-4 Chief Justice Warren Burger upheld the decision, and seven years later the patent office wrote into its laws one sentence that stated any life except a full birth human being can be patented. Rifkin points out that now the race is on in the corporate biotech world to cash in on the Human Genome Project so they can patent the genetic code that causes all known diseases (Ebert aptly comments that Right-to-Lifers should be aghast at the prospects, but "If there is one thing more sacred than the Right to Life, it is the corporation's Right to Patent, Market and Exploit Life"). Rifkin, who is dubbed by his critics as a scaremonger and “the intellectual guru of the neo-Luddites," finishes by stating that within ten years corporations will not only own all human life but that of every other species on Earth. That does sound a tad mongery to me, but Rifkin is a really smart dude and I think he’s perhaps not far off the mark.
One segment that is particularly poignant to me as a journalist shows how a crew at Fox News’ Tampa, Florida affiliate battled with the top brass in New York over their investigation of agricultural giant Monsanto in the late 1990s. Reporters planned on airing an investigative report on the negative effects of the bovine growth hormone Posilac used to boost milk production in dairy cows. Before the story aired corporate lawyers for Monsanto threatened to sue Fox News if the story went on. Fox Broadcasting Company owned 23 separate stations at the time and did not want a loss in advertising dollars, so they agreed to cooperate with Monsanto’s lawyers. After more than 80 rewrites to the story it still wasn’t aired and the reporters were eventually fired. They sued and won $425,000 in damages. The decision was overturned on appeal after Monsanto lawyers found a way to remove the reporters’ “whistle-blower” status on the grounds that falsifying news is not technically against the law. Today, some of the U.S. milk supply still comes from cows that have been modified with Posilac to produce more milk.
The most moving portion of the film for me was seeing the personal testimony of Raymond L. Anderson, chairman of one of the world’s largest carpet manufacturers. The guy looks like a salty old corporate big wig, and for decades he played the part to a “T,” which makes more poignant his description of an epiphany he had about his company and its contributions to/detractions from the planet. He says that in 1994 he read The Ecology of Commerce by Paul Hawken and realized that his company was creating product at an unsustainable rate and thus harmful to the environment. Hawken’s book, voted in 1998 as the #1 college text on business and the environment by professors in 67 business schools, introduced the principle of “comprehensive outcome,” which accounts the entire result of an event or process to all parties, not just the immediate participants. Considerations for natural resource depletion, pollution and the side effects of the production, distribution and consumption processes are key to the calculations. Hawken contrasts this to a merely “culminative outcome” which is simply the obvious result visible to the buyer at the moment and point of purchase, and the profit made therein by the supplier.
So since 1995 Anderson has reduced his company’s waste by a third, and plans to make the company on a completely sustainable platform by 2020. During the first three years of the company's drive toward sustainability it saved $50 million in reduced materials costs, reduced energy costs, and reduced waste. That’s $50 million for their bottom line (and thus more for shareholders) instead of for the atmosphere and the landfill. I firmly believe like my very good friend Al Gore that the key to environmental change is to prove that it pays to go green.
There is a scene where Anderson is speaking to a chamber of commerce group, and he points a finger at the audience and flatly proclaims that not one of their companies operates sustainably, and that the corporate world ignores this at our planet’s peril. The audience was stunned, perhaps not knowing what to think of a speaker who would come to their chamber and not give the standard “cheerleader for growth” speech. Having been an observer to not a few of these meetings myself, I admit to having gotten choked up a bit. Right on, salty old corporate dude!
The Corporation – Three Thumbs UP.
SOURCES:
Fast Company magazine
Speech by Raymond L. Anderson
Wikipedia
OFFICIAL FILM WEBSITE: www.thecorporation.com
* I’ve got to hand it to Netflix. Their selection is incredible and their queue system politely suggests/links other titles which may be of interest to the subscriber. It was thus I perused their numerous documentaries and came across today’s subject film.
.
Labels: film, journalism, terms of enragement
November 29, 2006
Stupid people are breeding
.
As an expectant father I am trying to be more attuned toward parenting and to learn from what I see. The south is not the greatest place for accomplishing this.
The office is in a former hardware store directly across the street from the county courthouse, so we all get the fishbowl view of the various participants going to and fro the halls of justice. This week is one of the Superior Court's two or three felony calendar calls for the year, and as they are way backed up there is a plethora of the county's hard-luckers flickin' butts out front each day and taking all our parking spaces.
One particularly intense looking mouthbreather couple strolled by this afternoon. The woman, who had a child of about 1-2 years in her left arm, pulled out a cigarette and proceeded to tilt her head toward the child to serve as a windbreak for lighting the smoke. They were facing a mild fall breeze, and so her first exhale of smoke went directly into the kid's face.
I think all of us pro-choicers should document video footage of things like this. We could call our film "God Bless Margaret Sanger".
.
As an expectant father I am trying to be more attuned toward parenting and to learn from what I see. The south is not the greatest place for accomplishing this.
The office is in a former hardware store directly across the street from the county courthouse, so we all get the fishbowl view of the various participants going to and fro the halls of justice. This week is one of the Superior Court's two or three felony calendar calls for the year, and as they are way backed up there is a plethora of the county's hard-luckers flickin' butts out front each day and taking all our parking spaces.
One particularly intense looking mouthbreather couple strolled by this afternoon. The woman, who had a child of about 1-2 years in her left arm, pulled out a cigarette and proceeded to tilt her head toward the child to serve as a windbreak for lighting the smoke. They were facing a mild fall breeze, and so her first exhale of smoke went directly into the kid's face.
I think all of us pro-choicers should document video footage of things like this. We could call our film "God Bless Margaret Sanger".
.
Labels: terms of enragement
